Gary Lineker, Rylan Clark and Jeremy Vine rule themselves out of being the latest BBC pervert

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent.

It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

---

It does not make it right but the 18 limit was introduced in 2003. For the first 25 years of the act under 16 was an offense which is how the sun was able to post pictures of a 16 year old child called Sam Fox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent.

It is also a criminal offence to ask a child under 18 to send a sexual image of themselves - and causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

---

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

---

And some hard line Libertarians wouldn't have any censorship. Instead, they'd allow the people to regulate. Keep the old State interference to a minimum. The Free thinker in this thread is also posting BBC links, as well as The Sun. Aren't they mainstream? Are we not told by the gifted that we shouldn't believe these outlets, or is it only when something is written that they agree with? And i thought that i was a mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

---

I don't think there is a law against getting your tits out in public, but I could be wrong about that. Giving your privates a fingering is a different story though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Oh the irony of the rag which used to publish topless photos of a sixteen year old now getting all high and mighty about the emotional trauma being endured by a seventeen year old.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I don't think there is a law against getting your tits out in public, but I could be wrong about that. Giving your privates a fingering is a different story though.

---

You mean you don't think the Sun publishing topless photos of a sixteen year old qualifies as

"Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent."

then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

The Free thinker in this thread is also posting BBC links, as well as The Sun. Aren't they mainstream? Are we not told by the gifted that we shouldn't believe these outlets, or is it only when something is written that they agree with? And i thought that i was a mess.

---

You seem to be a bit confused, the whole controversy involves the BBC and The Sun, so why should I post anything from another publication that is not involved?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You mean you don't think the Sun publishing topless photos of a sixteen year old qualifies as

"Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent."

then?

---

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You seem to be a bit confused, the whole controversy involves the BBC and The Sun, so why should I post anything from another publication that is not involved?

---

This isn't how this 'Free Thinking' shit works though, is it?

Salacious gossip sells, always has always will. Whether that be politicians, film stars, footballers, soap stars, or BBC "stars"

Always a bit better for the papers when they can sight illegality or moral hypocrisy but it doesn't matter

If Prince Harry and his rich connected mates have their way they can carry on with impunity.

The gutter press has always been there to prick the establishment, left or right they do a job.

Public interest or interesting to the public, it pretty much dictates if you are likely to be part of the second group.

I have no idea what anyone does with the wild west of social media, that genie is well out of the bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

This isn't how this 'Free Thinking' shit works though, is it?

---

Depends if you want to convey facts or opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

---

Jeez, we're talking about a sixteen year old :facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

You'd have to define indecent, cos people of all ages sunbathe topless.

---

This is better from you. You quote a section from an act (State led-But it enforces your view, so it'll do) And now you challenge it, because you're starting to **** yourself up again. This free thinking malarkey is hard work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Jeez, we're talking about a sixteen year old :facepalm:

---

Well pull up the relevant indecency laws. I already said I could be wrong, so speculating about it doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Depends if you want to convey facts or opinion.

---

Code for-Whatever suits my argument at any given moment in time. :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

This is better from you. You quote a section from an act (State led-But it enforces your view, so it'll do) And now you challenge it, because you're starting to **** yourself up again. This free thinking malarkey is hard work.

---

It's not illegal to be naked in public, but performing a sex act is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

It's not illegal to be naked in public, but performing a sex act is.

---

Is a Private news publication 'In Public' It might be 'For Sale' to the public. You tell me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Is a Private news publication 'In Public' It might be 'For Sale' to the public. You tell me.

---

Instead of speculating, go and find the specific laws relating to uncovered breasts. I've already quoted the law relevant to Person X at the BBC, which is what this thread is about. Everything else is whataboutery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Instead of speculating, go and find the specific laws relating to uncovered breasts. I've already quoted the law relevant to Person X at the BBC, which is what this thread is about. Everything else is whataboutery.

---

I'm not speculating, you are. I'm asking questions. I would have thought that you would have been proud of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

I'm not speculating, you are. I'm asking questions. I would have thought that you would have been proud of me.

---

Having started this thread and posted how we are, in effect, paying for this kind of alleged behaviour through our TV licences, he’s now got himself into a position where he seems to be saying that if the unknown celebrity paid the seventeen year old to allow him to take topless photos of her, it’s okay after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Having started this thread and posted how we are, in effect, paying for this kind of alleged behaviour through our TV licences, he’s now got himself into a position where he seems to be saying that if the unknown celebrity paid the seventeen year old to allow him to take topless photos of her, it’s okay after all.

---

Yup. Cut some slack though. Having to think in the way he does takes a special kind of person. The likes of you and i don't really understand or see what is actually unravelling in front of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Having started this thread and posted how we are, in effect, paying for this kind of alleged behaviour through our TV licences, he’s now got himself into a position where he seems to be saying that if the unknown celebrity paid the seventeen year old to allow him to take topless photos of her, it’s okay after all.

---

So, more whataboutery and insinuation. Well done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Yup. Cut some slack though. Having to think in the way he does takes a special kind of person. The likes of you and i don't really understand or see what is actually unravelling in front of us.

---

If you want to go off-piste, just cite the relevant case law and show a sample prosecution that solidifies the points you are trying to make. I have an open mind and I am easily convinced if you show me the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

So, more whataboutery and insinuation. Well done.

---

Don’t be so modest (never thought I’d type that about you!), it’s all your own work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

So you've just proved the Sun was breaking the law when it published topless photos of Samantha Fox in 1983 a few months short of her seventeenth birthday.

---

I don't want to defend the sun as I despise them but the under 18 limit was introduced in 2003. The people who drafted and voted the 1978 Bill through parliament thought 16 year olds were fair game and the sun exploited that to post pictures of a 16 year old child.