The Sun and the infamous Page 3 (now)under aged girly pics.

They may have escaped penalty but the fact still remains..everyone along the line from photographer, editor, journalist, printer, newspaper owner , newsagent was producing and disseminating what is now kiddie porn.

they've spread out like tentacles..working on other tabloids..advising politicians..influencing government policy. Even Rupert deplored these pics but relented when he saw the profits.

Wake up Lord Justice Leveson!

Page 3 is not porn nor are they underage it's just tits you might as well call your local beach porn in the summer.

you must be a Fleet Street hack Andrew!

several under 18 aged girls were published topless before the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 made it illegal.

it's a technicality- The Sun and all who helped produce it must be paedos by their own reckoning..they produced what today would be called child pornography.

You can't have it both ways as those who found guilty of 'historic' abuse when standards were different have discovered.

That flame haired bint that produced this stuff wined and dined with prime minsters !

veritas wrote:

That flame haired bint that produced this stuff wined and dined with prime minsters

You continue to change the subject veritas...but andrew is absolutely correct. More (flesh) can be seen on any beach.

That was before there was a law of who can model topless it don't make paedo. I do agree with you that there is a loophole in historic porn that many perverts use Paul Reubens is a famous case or should I say Pee Wee herman ?

Veritas have you ever Picked up The Sun recently lots changed since the 90's ?

Carl wrote:
veritas wrote:

That flame haired bint that produced this stuff wined and dined with prime minsters

You continue to change the subject veritas...but andrew is absolutely correct. More (flesh) can be seen on any beach.



how odd..supporters of Our Miss Brooks are appearing.

changing the subject ? I don't think so. Mizz Brooks claimed she abhored the Page 3 girlies but like her boss put that horror aside after seeing the profit sheet.

Yes more flesh could possibly be seen in a child's changing room but turn that sight into images and it is illegal.

neither you or Andrew address the issue : by tabloid standards those who have created kiddie porn must be paedos..just as Denmark had no laws governing kiddie porn in the 60s/70s and much of the stuff that circulates now is from then (despite what authorities say) and that material is now illegal and possession of it or a topless erotic pic of Samantha Fox at age 16 ( ala Page 3) would have you on a charge.

I honestly believe only desperate hacks would claim otherwise...just as they are screaming to high heaven that the Leveson Inquiry may expose their underbelly and impose restrictions on their shenanigans.

They stand condemned as charged...paedos everywhere. I do not set the standards..Fleet Street has for 30 years now and there are no grey areas according to them. Hoisted by their own petard.

If there is a law you have to obey it or you might be prosecuted.
If something is legal then you cannot be prosecuted even if the law is subsequently changed.

This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong just a simple statement of fact, don't understand why that is so hard to understand.

andrew wrote:
That was before there was a law of who can model topless it don't make paedo. I do agree with you that there is a loophole in historic porn that many perverts use Paul Reubens is a famous case or should I say Pee Wee herman ?

Veritas have you ever Picked up The Sun recently lots changed since the 90's ?


Pee Wee pleaded guilty to a charge under plea bargaining which is a total perversion of the law which puts most of America into the unenviable position of choosing between bankruptcy and a minor charge, something British courts have at least resisted for now.

I am judging those in the tabloid media by their own standards and those standards have influenced British life now for a good 30/40 years.

It is something the Leveson Inquiry hasn't even touched upon and probably won't.

Electric Blue has a underage topless but in The Sun they are correct ages.

Blue Boy wrote:
If there is a law you have to obey it or you might be prosecuted.
If something is legal then you cannot be prosecuted even if the law is subsequently changed.

This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong just a simple statement of fact, don't understand why that is so hard to understand.

Arr, BB, but the concept of retrospective justice is established. It's not as clear cut as all that.

andrew wrote:
Electric Blue has a underage topless but in The Sun they are correct ages.

your spirited defence of The Sun is admirable

Locked Out wrote:
Blue Boy wrote:
If there is a law you have to obey it or you might be prosecuted.
If something is legal then you cannot be prosecuted even if the law is subsequently changed.

This has nothing to do with what is right or wrong just a simple statement of fact, don't understand why that is so hard to understand.

Arr, BB, but the concept of retrospective justice is established. It's not as clear cut as all that.

In this case it is clear cut and there will NEVER be a prosecution of a publication that printed photos of a model that was legal when published.

A similar situation would be smoking in a bar/restaurant. It now illegal to permit smoking in a bar or restaurant but should a landlord who allowed smoking in their pub five years ago now be prosecuted. Based on the logic of Veritas they should.

And sadly, BB, whilst I think we probably agree there shouldn't be prosecutions for "crimes" that were crimes then but aren't now - the police and CPS will always find a way if they want to (like minor memory changes... 15 not 16... sex when there was none... it just needs a couple of different words for a willing cop and you're several thousand richer... that's the law).

I hate The Sun now but if I got a opinion I like to get my point across and Veritas I think you need to read The Sun more.

Not that I'm in anyway knowledgeable,but it does seem to me from these comments that you could be arrested for having these topless pics on your comp,but those who made them could not!

Pattaya wrote:
Not that I'm in anyway knowledgeable,but it does seem to me from these comments that you could be arrested for having these topless pics on your comp,but those who made them could not!

indeed you could be arrested, charged, convicted and labelled a paedo by those who created the porn who get to profit from it all over again.

go figure

Yes can get arrested having too much porn your computer and met police can get it barred for good or just suspended for a few days if your lucky, and they confiscate it and you be banned from owning a pc. This can be women in the 30's to 80's in the pics not just the extreme cases.

Carl wrote:
veritas wrote:

That flame haired bint that produced this stuff wined and dined with prime minsters

You continue to change the subject veritas...but andrew is absolutely correct. More (flesh) can be seen on any beach.



It doesn't really matter what you or Andrew wish to define child porn as. Veritas is referring to the current legal definition. Under the sexual offences act of 2003 any image of a person who is under 18, or who appears under 18, in a 'sexual context', is classed now as child pornography. People have been sentanced for downloading pictures of teenage girls in bikinis.

The fact that you can see girls topless on the beach might show how absurd the law is, but that's irrelevant to the point Veritas is making.

If you take a photo of a 17 year old girl topless on the beach then you will face a minimum 5 years in prison for the manufacture of child pornography (under minimum sentancing guidelines set by the latest EU 'child protection' treaty).

And it doesn't matter if the girl is 17, 13, or 5, it's all 'level 1 child porn'. Middle-aged feminist lobby groups such as the NSPCC were adamant that the legal definition of child porn should not mention age. A 17 year old is as much of a helpless sexually innocent child as a 5 month old toddler is (in their twisted world).

fascinating to watch an episode of The Kardashians last night.

It was about the family getting upset as someone was trying to sell naked and raunchy pictures of one of the sisters and her boyfriend to a magazine.

The sister and her boyfriend had taken the pics themselves- when they were at school and 15 and 16 years old (10 years earlier). They were stolen from the family house.

The FBI was called in and the seller was arrested as they all talked about it the pics being illicit etc.

Yet the Kardashian sister and boyfriend were not arrested ?????

hundreds of US kids have been arrested and charged with producing kiddie porn for the very same act.

Not knowing the law- perhaps in California it wasn't illegal 10 years ago.

I'm fascinated by conundrums within the law and in this area there are so many grey parts...as I've asked my ex-copper friend who used to monitor so-called 'sex offenders' here about the concept that people looking at kiddie porn, repeat the offense all over again......so what of the judges, police etc who look at it during an investigation ??....is the offense temporarily suspended ??...he can't give an answer either