Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warn young children about pornography
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Phi
May 20, 2013, 5:56:20 AM5/20/13
to
Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as they
have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start" when
children started going online.
But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start" when
children started going online.
But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
Nigel Oldfield
May 20, 2013, 6:20:32 AM5/20/13
to
--
WM
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://soaptoo.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk
Truth:Humanity:Justice
richardm...@googlemail.com
May 20, 2013, 8:00:05 AM5/20/13
to
Films have an age certification, i noticed
recently games too have adopted a similar
system.
Perhaps adults should be supervising their
children.
Cynic
May 20, 2013, 10:03:51 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:56:20 +0100, "Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote:
>Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as they
>have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
I would also like to hear about the type of dangers the "leading head
>Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as they
>have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
teachers" (whoever they are) had in mind. The main danger of looking
at online porn AFAICS is that so many porn sites are used as a conduit
to infect the PC with a virus or trojan.
>The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start" when
>children started going online.
>But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
ISTM that the main danger of looking for online porn can be prevented
by supplying a list of URLs to safe, free porn sites.
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 20, 2013, 10:38:35 AM5/20/13
to
cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
do so would require the parent to be in sight of their child almost
all the time.
You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
them watching films or playing games that their friends have available
(often on portable devices).
--
Cynic
Phi
May 20, 2013, 11:21:34 AM5/20/13
to
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:519a2b47...@127.0.0.1...
mutilations and beheadings.
Cynic
May 20, 2013, 11:42:40 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:21:34 +0100, "Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote:
>I believe what would be more damaging than porn, is the child seeing
>mutilations and beheadings.
Yes - and that is something that younger children are *far* more
>I believe what would be more damaging than porn, is the child seeing
>mutilations and beheadings.
interested in than pornography.
--
Cynic
MM
May 20, 2013, 2:05:57 PM5/20/13
to
procedure so that they cannot possibly catch a glimpse of their mum's
privates. Otherwise they're sure to be scarred for life.
MM
MM
May 20, 2013, 2:08:12 PM5/20/13
to
can watch as many beheadings as they like. Not sexual, innit!
MM
Alex Heney
May 20, 2013, 4:26:14 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:35 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:00:05 -0700 (PDT),
>richardm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>>Films have an age certification, i noticed
>>recently games too have adopted a similar
>>system.
>
>>Perhaps adults should be supervising their
>>children.
>
>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>do so would require the pa
And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:00:05 -0700 (PDT),
>richardm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>>Films have an age certification, i noticed
>>recently games too have adopted a similar
>>system.
>
>>Perhaps adults should be supervising their
>>children.
>
>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>do so would require the pa
internet.
It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
of the internet.
>
>You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
>them watching films or playing games that their friends have available
>(often on portable devices).
would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without me.
(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
are).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Big Les Wade
May 20, 2013, 4:31:45 PM5/20/13
to
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
exist without actually describing them?
--
Les
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:38:35 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:00:05 -0700 (PDT),
>>richardm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Films have an age certification, i noticed
>>>recently games too have adopted a similar
>>>system.
>>
>>>Perhaps adults should be supervising their
>>>children.
>>
>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>do so would require the pa
>
>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>internet.
>
>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>of the internet.
What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>
>>On Mon, 20 May 2013 05:00:05 -0700 (PDT),
>>richardm...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Films have an age certification, i noticed
>>>recently games too have adopted a similar
>>>system.
>>
>>>Perhaps adults should be supervising their
>>>children.
>>
>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>do so would require the pa
>
>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>internet.
>
>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>of the internet.
exist without actually describing them?
--
Les
Phi
May 21, 2013, 1:12:31 AM5/21/13
to
AlanG
May 21, 2013, 2:02:04 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:31:45 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Saturday night BBC dance shows where the camera always goes for the
gusset shot
wrote:
gusset shot
Cynic
May 21, 2013, 10:13:02 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:26:14 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>do so would require the pa
>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>internet.
>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>of the internet.
Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
teachers' knowlege.
>>You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
>>them watching films or playing games that their friends have available
>>(often on portable devices).
>True, but if I found out their friends had unsupervised access, I
>would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without me.
>(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
>are).
Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. I'm not thinking
of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
Instead of acting like Canute and trying to stop the tide, you would
do far better to teach your child how to swim - in this case by
teaching your child about the dangers to be found on the Internet, how
to use things such as social network sites responsibly, and what to do
if bullied over the Internet etc.
Sex is one of the least things to be worried about, despite how it is
hyped up in the media. All the youngsters I know that have problems
due to their Internet activity have been caused harm by people their
own age on social networking sites, or they have hurt themselves by
posting foolish comments.
Only the other month a youngster was sacked from her first job before
she even started it, and was publically humilliated in the national
media because some malicious individual dug up a silly post she had
made several years earlier when she was a far less mature 14 year old.
I doubt that watching any amount of pornography would have harmed her
nearly as much.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>do so would require the pa
>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>internet.
>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>of the internet.
Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
teachers' knowlege.
>>You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
>>them watching films or playing games that their friends have available
>>(often on portable devices).
>True, but if I found out their friends had unsupervised access, I
>would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without me.
>(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
>are).
tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. I'm not thinking
of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
Instead of acting like Canute and trying to stop the tide, you would
do far better to teach your child how to swim - in this case by
teaching your child about the dangers to be found on the Internet, how
to use things such as social network sites responsibly, and what to do
if bullied over the Internet etc.
Sex is one of the least things to be worried about, despite how it is
hyped up in the media. All the youngsters I know that have problems
due to their Internet activity have been caused harm by people their
own age on social networking sites, or they have hurt themselves by
posting foolish comments.
Only the other month a youngster was sacked from her first job before
she even started it, and was publically humilliated in the national
media because some malicious individual dug up a silly post she had
made several years earlier when she was a far less mature 14 year old.
I doubt that watching any amount of pornography would have harmed her
nearly as much.
--
Cynic
totallyconfused
May 21, 2013, 10:49:40 AM5/21/13
to
I have a classic though (but remember this is not a competition!) In
year 7 of school (so I was 12) we read 'Romeo and Juliet'. Then we
were shown the film. (Zefferilli's version) The next day in class, the
teacher asked for 'observations'. My friend Rose put her hand up;
'Mrs L you never told us that Romeo and Juliet actually had sex.'
Response: 'We thought that at your age, you would have worked it
out.' Well, guess what...none of us had worked it out....and this was
a 'gifted and talented/'advanced placement' class!!*
I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie; after
all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she was
only 14/15 at the time of filming. Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
TC
* Laugh at the Big Bang Theory for reasons that most people don't get;
I lived in Pittsburgh with my Boyfriend in a Frat House. It was the
most nerdy geeky Frat around. Amazingly, my right wing ultra
conservative parents were completely cool with it! (By the way, me and
the perfect man spilt up because he got ill and decided he didn't want
children; that was the 'deal breaker' for me ...) But I understand he
has never married, lives with his cat and is a Professor of
Engineering and Artificial Intelligence at MIT. So alot of my
laughing at the Big Bang Theory tv show is because I have actually
lived with them! (And to make it worse, my kids call me Sheldon.)
IanAl
May 21, 2013, 11:44:51 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thought only my school made us watch 'Canute of the North'!!!
>
>I have a classic though (but remember this is not a competition!) In
>year 7 of school (so I was 12) we read 'Romeo and Juliet'. Then we
>were shown the film. (Zefferilli's version) The next day in class, the
>teacher asked for 'observations'. My friend Rose put her hand up;
>'Mrs L you never told us that Romeo and Juliet actually had sex.'
>Response: 'We thought that at your age, you would have worked it
>out.' Well, guess what...none of us had worked it out....and this was
>a 'gifted and talented/'advanced placement' class!!*
You didn't realise that married people had sex? Where did you think
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thought only my school made us watch 'Canute of the North'!!!
>
>I have a classic though (but remember this is not a competition!) In
>year 7 of school (so I was 12) we read 'Romeo and Juliet'. Then we
>were shown the film. (Zefferilli's version) The next day in class, the
>teacher asked for 'observations'. My friend Rose put her hand up;
>'Mrs L you never told us that Romeo and Juliet actually had sex.'
>Response: 'We thought that at your age, you would have worked it
>out.' Well, guess what...none of us had worked it out....and this was
>a 'gifted and talented/'advanced placement' class!!*
that babies came from?
Cynic
May 21, 2013, 12:57:29 PM5/21/13
to
--
Cynic
MM
May 21, 2013, 1:03:10 PM5/21/13
to
> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
selling child pron now?
MM
Paul Cummins
May 21, 2013, 2:02:00 PM5/21/13
to
In article
<4527bab5-992b-4530...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
nudity where there is artistic merit.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
<4527bab5-992b-4530...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
lisab...@hotmail.com (totallyconfused) wrote:
> I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie;
> after all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she
was
> only 14/15 at the time of filming.
You believe wrong. There is a let-out for commercial portrayals of teen
> I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie;
> after all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she
was
> only 14/15 at the time of filming.
nudity where there is artistic merit.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
Big Les Wade
May 21, 2013, 2:39:40 PM5/21/13
to
Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> posted
--
Les
>In article
><4527bab5-992b-4530...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>lisab...@hotmail.com (totallyconfused) wrote:
>
>> I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie;
>> after all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she
>was
>> only 14/15 at the time of filming.
>
>You believe wrong. There is a let-out for commercial portrayals of teen
>nudity where there is artistic merit.
>
Where is this let-out codified in law?
><4527bab5-992b-4530...@q8g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>lisab...@hotmail.com (totallyconfused) wrote:
>
>> I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie;
>> after all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she
>was
>> only 14/15 at the time of filming.
>
>You believe wrong. There is a let-out for commercial portrayals of teen
>nudity where there is artistic merit.
>
--
Les
Nigel Oldfield
May 21, 2013, 2:54:17 PM5/21/13
to
Paul Cummins
May 21, 2013, 2:56:00 PM5/21/13
to
In article <CO9Vi$os97m...@invalid.com>, L...@nowhere.com (Big Les Wade)
wrote:
> Where is this let-out codified in law?
Section 1(4)(a) of the act, together with the CPS guidance.
wrote:
> Where is this let-out codified in law?
Nigel Oldfield
May 21, 2013, 3:04:39 PM5/21/13
to
On 21/05/2013 19:56, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <CO9Vi$os97m...@invalid.com>, L...@nowhere.com (Big Les Wade)
> wrote:
>
>> Where is this let-out codified in law?
>
> Section 1(4)(a) of the act, together with the CPS guidance.
>
You mean this? ...
> In article <CO9Vi$os97m...@invalid.com>, L...@nowhere.com (Big Les Wade)
> wrote:
>
>> Where is this let-out codified in law?
>
> Section 1(4)(a) of the act, together with the CPS guidance.
>
(1)
(4)Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or
(c), it shall be a defence for him to prove�
(a)that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the
photographs [F5or pseudo-photographs]or (as the case may be) having them
in his possession; or
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37
CPS same?
If so, you are bang out (not)buddy :(
IanAl
May 21, 2013, 3:19:12 PM5/21/13
to
Cynic
May 21, 2013, 3:31:23 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 19:02 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>You believe wrong. There is a let-out for commercial portrayals of teen
>nudity where there is artistic merit.
Not in law there isn't. IIRC the only defence is that of research or
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>You believe wrong. There is a let-out for commercial portrayals of teen
>nudity where there is artistic merit.
for the purpose of law enforcement.
The legitimacy hinges on the probability that something that is
considered to be an artistic work is far less likely to be judged as
being indecent - but it certainly *could* be.
However the thought of having to arrest every member of a film's
production crew and every person who was responsible for distributing
that film, as well as everyone who had bought the DVD would be an
appalling vista ....
So in practice it will never get to court in order for a determination
about its status to be made.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
May 21, 2013, 4:28:36 PM5/21/13
to
pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Time flies like the wind--fruit flies like bananas!
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 21, 2013, 4:30:36 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:02 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:26:14 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>>do so would require the pa
>
>>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>>internet.
>
>>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>>of the internet.
>
>Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
>Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>teachers' knowlege.
>
We are talking about 5-6 year olds here.
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:26:14 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game. To
>>>do so would require the pa
>
>>And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>>internet.
>
>>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>>of the internet.
>
>Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
>Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>teachers' knowlege.
>
>>>You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
>>>them watching films or playing games that their friends have available
>>>(often on portable devices).
>
>>True, but if I found out their friends had unsupervised access, I
>>would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without me.
>>(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
>>are).
>
>Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
>tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. I'm not thinking
>of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
>
By that age, you are not going to be able to effectively control their
access.
>Instead of acting like Canute and trying to stop the tide, you would
>do far better to teach your child how to swim - in this case by
>teaching your child about the dangers to be found on the Internet, how
>to use things such as social network sites responsibly, and what to do
>if bullied over the Internet etc.
>
>Sex is one of the least things to be worried about, despite how it is
>hyped up in the media.
I wasn't particularly talking about sex.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 21, 2013, 4:34:16 PM5/21/13
to
certificates.
The Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet is even a PG. Pretty Baby an 18.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
AndyW
May 22, 2013, 3:41:45 AM5/22/13
to
It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
This means that pretty baby etc *can* be classed as level 1 images (and
I think it has) in specific cases but not all possession is a level 1
image. It is a mess of unintended consequences.
Possessing one DVD may not be an issue but having several may raise a
flag. I have Pretty baby, the Hole and Taxi Driver.. possibly Walkabout
(regardless of how old she actually was she plays a schoolgirl) in a
fairly large DVD collection (4 Ikea 'Billy' bookcases with a few extra
shelves two deep with DVDs - certainly mid-hundreds). You could argue
that I have 4 or 5 such DVDs out of 600 or you could argue that I have 4
or 5 level 1 child porn videos. It's a bit like Russian roulette.
There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
someone here can.
The problem with the knee-jerk law railroaded through by politicians to
quell the media hysteria is that it is a mess of legislation with
loopholes and unintended consequences. The best consequence IMO was
that, since the purpose of page 3 is titillation/low grade arousal, the
archives of many red-tops contain images of 16 and 17 year olds and is
now technically low level child porn.
Andy
AndyW
May 22, 2013, 4:08:37 AM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 08:41, AndyW wrote:
> There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
> photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
> recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
> someone here can.
Found it. Pure coincidence that one of today's "Did you know" on
> There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
> photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
> recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
> someone here can.
Wikipedia lead to Sally Mann's page (who is mentioned in this
article)and then to this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8342873/Judge-criticises-CPS-for-prosecuting-man-for-pictures-available-in-bookshops.html
A top judge has queried why a man was prosecuted for possessing
"indecent" images of children - when the photos were available for sale
in a string of respectable mainstream bookshops.
Lord Justice Richards said it was "very unfair" that Stephen Neal, 59,
was pursued by the law for having four artistic photo books - which
prosecutors claimed contained "level one" child porn - when the books'
publishers and retailers who sold them were left alone.
The judge, sitting at London's Appeal Court, said the issue of the
pictures' alleged indecency was a legitimate question for a "properly
directed jury".
But overturning Mr Neal's convictions and clearing his name, the judge
added: "It is, however, very unfair for a person in the position of Mr
Neal to be prosecuted for possession of the photographs in these books
in these circumstances.
"If the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to test whether the pictures in
the books are indecent, the right way to deal with the matter is by way
of prosecuting the publisher or retailer - not the individual
purchaser," he told the court.
Following a police search of his home, Mr Neal, of Stockfield Road,
Walthamstow, east London, was convicted of five counts of possessing
indecent images of children at Snaresbrook Crown Court in November and
received a community sentence.
One of the books was "Still Time" - containing a varied collection of
images by the lauded American photographer, Sally Mann, whose work
includes photos of animals, the landscape and her own children. Another
title seized was "The Age of Innocence" by David Hamilton.
Mr Neal had also been charged with possessing an "extreme" pornographic
DVD, but was cleared of that allegation on the trial judge's direction.
Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Eady and Sir Christopher
Holland, said all the books discovered at Mr Neal's home were "widely
available from a number of reputable outlets".
Sally Mann's "Still Time" was also on sale at a London art gallery last
summer, he added, but no action had been taken against the gallery by
the CPS.
"Against this background, it is a matter of surprise that charges were
brought against this individual in respect of the pictures," said the
judge.
"It is legitimate to wonder if such charges would have been brought
against him but for his prosecution in relation to the DVD".
Quashing Mr Neal's convictions, he said the trial judge had failed to
adequately direct the jury on the correct "objective standards" to be
applied when assessing whether the photos were indecent.
The Crown Prosecution Service's application for a retrial was refused
after Lord Justice Richards concluded that re-prosecuting Mr Neal was
"not in the public interest".
Big Les Wade
May 22, 2013, 4:40:56 AM5/22/13
to
Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> posted
counts as a legitimate reason under s1(4)(a) ?
--
Les
>In article <CO9Vi$os97m...@invalid.com>, L...@nowhere.com (Big Les Wade)
>wrote:
>
>> Where is this let-out codified in law?
>
>Section 1(4)(a) of the act, together with the CPS guidance.
Can you point us to the CPS guidance stating that "artistic merit"
>wrote:
>
>> Where is this let-out codified in law?
>
>Section 1(4)(a) of the act, together with the CPS guidance.
counts as a legitimate reason under s1(4)(a) ?
--
Les
Big Les Wade
May 22, 2013, 4:44:49 AM5/22/13
to
AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> posted
statute does not mention any purpose test for indecency, and the
associated CPS guidance explicitly states that the circumstances and
motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency.
<http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a03
>
--
Les
>It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under the
>age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
Although I agree with most of your post, this is not correct. The
>age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
statute does not mention any purpose test for indecency, and the
associated CPS guidance explicitly states that the circumstances and
motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency.
<http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a03
>
--
Les
AndyW
May 22, 2013, 6:08:40 AM5/22/13
to
images of naked people under the age of 18 (it used to be 16) if plod
and CPS reckon that they can railroad through a conviction?"
On a more serious note, I understood that the test was the purpose to
which it was put that made it indecent thus a naked child as a photo is
just a photo, that someone owns it and uses it a masturbatory fuels
makes it indecent in that instance.(Case law - from memory, I cannot
recall the instance, also I live under the Scottish legal system which
is can differ greatly from the English system).
Andy
The Todal
May 22, 2013, 6:25:29 AM5/22/13
to
On 22/5/13 11:08, AndyW wrote:
> On 22/05/2013 09:44, Big Les Wade wrote:
>> AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> posted
>>> It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under the
>>> age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>>
>> Although I agree with most of your post, this is not correct. The
>> statute does not mention any purpose test for indecency, and the
>> associated CPS guidance explicitly states that the circumstances and
>> motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a03
>
> OK would it help if I change it to "It is technically illegal to possess
> images of naked people under the age of 18 (it used to be 16) if plod
> and CPS reckon that they can railroad through a conviction?"
They will prosecute if they think a jury will consider the photographs
> On 22/05/2013 09:44, Big Les Wade wrote:
>> AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> posted
>>> It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under the
>>> age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>>
>> Although I agree with most of your post, this is not correct. The
>> statute does not mention any purpose test for indecency, and the
>> associated CPS guidance explicitly states that the circumstances and
>> motive of the defendant are not relevant to the question of indecency.
>>
>>
>> <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/indecent_photographs_of_children/#a03
>
> OK would it help if I change it to "It is technically illegal to possess
> images of naked people under the age of 18 (it used to be 16) if plod
> and CPS reckon that they can railroad through a conviction?"
to be "indecent". And juries generally do, because nobody really knows
what "indecent" means. I certainly don't.
>
> On a more serious note, I understood that the test was the purpose to
> which it was put that made it indecent thus a naked child as a photo is
> just a photo, that someone owns it and uses it a masturbatory fuels
> makes it indecent in that instance.(Case law - from memory, I cannot
> recall the instance, also I live under the Scottish legal system which
> is can differ greatly from the English system).
The prosecution cannot possibly establish whether or not a photograph
has been used for masturbatory purposes. And the Graham-Kerr case makes
it clear that the intention of the photographer is irrelevant.
R. v Graham-Kerr (John)
A photographer's motive was irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a
photograph of a child was an indecent photograph. D was a swimming pool
attendant. H took two photographs of a seven year old boy in private at
the pool. The boy was present at a naturist's swimming session. One
photograph was a frontal view of the naked boy and the other a rear
view. On being questioned by the police, D admitted that he found the
boy attractive and that he obtained sexual gratification by taking or
looking at the photographs. The trial judge refused D's application to
exclude those admissions from the evidence to be put before the jury.
There was no dispute but that D had taken the photographs intentionally
to represent what they showed. The trial judge directed the jury that if
they thought the photographs were capable of being indecent, D's
indecent motive was a relevant circumstance to consider whether the
photographs were indecent, but if they thought the photographs were not
capable of being indecent, D's motives were irrelevant. D was convicted.
Held, allowing D's appeal, that where the only question for the jury to
consider was whether the photographs themselves were indecent, D's
motives were irrelevant. D's state of mind was only relevant if there
was a dispute about whether the photographs represented what D intended
to photograph. In the present case there was no such dispute. The only
material that ought to have been put before the jury were the
photographs. The correct formulation of the test for the jury to
consider was (1) did D take the photograph of the subject as disclosed
by the photograph deliberately and intentionally? (2) was that
photograph indecent? In answering (2) the jury were to apply the test of
the recognised standards of propriety. The circumstances in which the
photograph was taken and the photographer's motives were irrelevant to
question (2)
Court: (CA (Crim Div)) Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Judge: Stocker, L.J.; Tudor Evans, J.; Potts, J.
Judgment date: June 28, 1988
MM
May 22, 2013, 6:33:45 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:45 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>On 21/05/2013 18:03, MM wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>
>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>> selling child pron now?
>
>She is not talking rubbish.
Yes, she is, and having read you response, so are you.
>On 21/05/2013 18:03, MM wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>
>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>> selling child pron now?
>
>She is not talking rubbish.
>It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
>laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
>the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
purchase a movie for its entertainment value. Some people find a
bicycle suitable "for the purposes of arousal".
>This means that pretty baby etc *can* be classed as level 1 images (and
>I think it has) in specific cases but not all possession is a level 1
>image. It is a mess of unintended consequences.
retained in albums* by parents and grandparents ~could~ be classed as
level 1 images, I suppose, but only in conjunction with the dogma of
paedo hysteria. This is a mad Anglo-Saxon disease that is now
affecting Britain, America and Australasia, whereas most other
jurisdictions just think we're all crazy.
>Possessing one DVD may not be an issue but having several may raise a
>flag. I have Pretty baby, the Hole and Taxi Driver.. possibly Walkabout
>(regardless of how old she actually was she plays a schoolgirl) in a
>fairly large DVD collection (4 Ikea 'Billy' bookcases with a few extra
>shelves two deep with DVDs - certainly mid-hundreds). You could argue
>that I have 4 or 5 such DVDs out of 600 or you could argue that I have 4
>or 5 level 1 child porn videos. It's a bit like Russian roulette.
And if you're so concerned, which you apparently are, why not throw
them away?
>There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
>photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
>recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
>someone here can.
little guy are par for the course under British "justice".
>The problem with the knee-jerk law railroaded through by politicians to
>quell the media hysteria is that it is a mess of legislation with
>loopholes and unintended consequences. The best consequence IMO was
>that, since the purpose of page 3 is titillation/low grade arousal, the
>archives of many red-tops contain images of 16 and 17 year olds and is
>now technically low level child porn.
mind, either they do or don't.
MM
MM
May 22, 2013, 6:37:35 AM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:08:37 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
>A top judge has queried why a man was prosecuted for possessing
>"indecent" images of children - when the photos were available for sale
>in a string of respectable mainstream bookshops.
.
>A top judge has queried why a man was prosecuted for possessing
>"indecent" images of children - when the photos were available for sale
>in a string of respectable mainstream bookshops.
.
.
>But overturning Mr Neal's convictions and clearing his name, the judge
>added: "It is, however, very unfair for a person in the position of Mr
>Neal to be prosecuted for possession of the photographs in these books
>in these circumstances.
See? The judge was talking absolute sense and the prosecution brought
>But overturning Mr Neal's convictions and clearing his name, the judge
>added: "It is, however, very unfair for a person in the position of Mr
>Neal to be prosecuted for possession of the photographs in these books
>in these circumstances.
by the CPS was utterly ridiculous, on a par with trying to make
ducking witches seem reasonable.
Thank goodness there is at least ONE sensible person performing the
role of judge in Britain's completely stupid "justice" system.
MM
MM
May 22, 2013, 6:39:08 AM5/22/13
to
independence.
MM
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Big Les Wade
May 22, 2013, 8:47:12 AM5/22/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> posted
>
>Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
>and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
>film.
It may not be a defence to tell the jury that, but I'm not so sure that
you're not actually allowed to tell them.
--
Les
>
>Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
>and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
>film.
It may not be a defence to tell the jury that, but I'm not so sure that
you're not actually allowed to tell them.
--
Les
Message has been deleted
Cynic
May 22, 2013, 9:59:04 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>exist without actually describing them?
>I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
images, but that is not the point in question.
What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
images?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>exist without actually describing them?
>I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
images, but that is not the point in question.
What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
images?
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 22, 2013, 9:59:57 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:19:12 +0100, IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>You didn't realise that married people had sex? Where did you think
>>>that babies came from?
>>Romeo & Juliet were married and had babies?
>They were married by the friar.
They were married in a chippie?
>>>You didn't realise that married people had sex? Where did you think
>>>that babies came from?
>>Romeo & Juliet were married and had babies?
>They were married by the friar.
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 22, 2013, 10:13:02 AM5/22/13
to
>On a more serious note, I understood that the test was the purpose to
>which it was put that made it indecent thus a naked child as a photo is
>just a photo, that someone owns it and uses it a masturbatory fuels
>makes it indecent in that instance.(Case law - from memory, I cannot
>recall the instance, also I live under the Scottish legal system which
>is can differ greatly from the English system).
No - case law is in fact the very opposite of what you have stated.
>which it was put that made it indecent thus a naked child as a photo is
>just a photo, that someone owns it and uses it a masturbatory fuels
>makes it indecent in that instance.(Case law - from memory, I cannot
>recall the instance, also I live under the Scottish legal system which
>is can differ greatly from the English system).
The test must be applied to the image in isolation, and the purpose it
was taken or the purpose it was possessed are irrevelevant to the
question of whether the image is or is not indecent (but may be
relevant to the question of intent to make/possess the image).
IMO cases involving indecent images should be conducted thus:
The jury is handed a collection of 100 or so images, amongst which are
the images being prosecuted but also images of a range of levels that
have nothing to do with the case. After being instructed by the judge
on the legal standard to be applied, the jury is asked to sort the
images into two piles, "legal" and "illegal" before hearing anything
about the case at all. Only images that at least 10 jury members
decide are illegal must go into that pile.
If none of the images found in possession of the defendent are in the
"illegal" pile, he is aquitted immediately.
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 22, 2013, 10:25:43 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:30:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>>>of the internet.
>>Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>>Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
>>Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>>frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>>teachers' knowlege.
>We are talking about 5-6 year olds here.
Are we? I was unaware that the thread was restricted to that age
group.
>>Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
>>tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. I'm not thinking
>>of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
>Which is a whole different ball game.
It was a ball game that I was unaware was excluded.
Yes, I quite agree that 5 & 6 year olds can be supervised 24/7. Not
that children of that age are likely to deliberately access areas of
the Internet that would be risky unless an adult or older child has
taught them to access such an area.
It is probably safe enough to make a desktop for the child containing
only shortcuts to various trusted sites and applications that are of
interest to the child, and only teach the child how to use those
shortcuts. Unless someone shows the child another way to access the
Internet, they are unlikely to work out on their own how to visit any
other sites even if they were motivated to do so.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>>>of the internet.
>>Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>>Internet these days. They will have classmates who access the
>>Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>>frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>>teachers' knowlege.
>We are talking about 5-6 year olds here.
group.
>>Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
>>tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. I'm not thinking
>>of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
>Which is a whole different ball game.
Yes, I quite agree that 5 & 6 year olds can be supervised 24/7. Not
that children of that age are likely to deliberately access areas of
the Internet that would be risky unless an adult or older child has
taught them to access such an area.
It is probably safe enough to make a desktop for the child containing
only shortcuts to various trusted sites and applications that are of
interest to the child, and only teach the child how to use those
shortcuts. Unless someone shows the child another way to access the
Internet, they are unlikely to work out on their own how to visit any
other sites even if they were motivated to do so.
--
Cynic
Message has been deleted
Big Les Wade
May 22, 2013, 5:03:06 PM5/22/13
to
Alex Heney
May 22, 2013, 5:14:15 PM5/22/13
to
one example.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 22, 2013, 5:17:21 PM5/22/13
to
>On 21/05/2013 18:03, MM wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>
>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>> selling child pron now?
>
>She is not talking rubbish.
>It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
>laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
>the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>
Utter rubbish.
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>
>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>> selling child pron now?
>
>She is not talking rubbish.
>It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
>laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
>the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>
"For the purposes of arousal" does not enter into the law AT ALL
(although it does enter into the minds of juries when it shouldn't).
And it is not whether the images are of "naked people" that matters,
but rather whether the images are "indecent".
>There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
>photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
>recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
>someone here can.
>
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
*Four hours* to bury a cat? Yes - it wouldn't keep still
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nigel Oldfield
May 22, 2013, 5:36:38 PM5/22/13
to
On 22/05/2013 22:14, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:59:04 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>>> exist without actually describing them?
>>
>>> I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>>> pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>>> want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>>> videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>>
>>> It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>
>> I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>> images, but that is not the point in question.
>>
>> What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>> images?
>
> The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
> one example.
How does that work?
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:59:04 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>>> exist without actually describing them?
>>
>>> I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>>> pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>>> want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>>> videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>>
>>> It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>
>> I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>> images, but that is not the point in question.
>>
>> What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>> images?
>
> The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
> one example.
How does learning 'traumatise'?
--
WM
http://criticalestoppel.blogspot.co.uk
http://soaptoo.blogspot.co.uk
http://therealosc.blogspot.co.uk
Truth:Humanity:Justice
AndyW
May 23, 2013, 2:52:01 AM5/23/13
to
On 22/05/2013 22:17, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:45 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> Utter rubbish.
>
> "For the purposes of arousal" does not enter into the law AT ALL
> (although it does enter into the minds of juries when it shouldn't).
>
> And it is not whether the images are of "naked people" that matters,
> but rather whether the images are "indecent".
Accepted and withdrawn.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:45 +0100, AndyW <An...@nojunqmail.com> wrote:
> Utter rubbish.
>
> "For the purposes of arousal" does not enter into the law AT ALL
> (although it does enter into the minds of juries when it shouldn't).
>
> And it is not whether the images are of "naked people" that matters,
> but rather whether the images are "indecent".
My point (very badly put I will admit to) was more along the lines that
she was correct in saying that some legally available material that was
on sale (in this cane in WH Smith and on Amazon) before during and after
the case in which the man was prosecuted and convicted of possessing
child porn.
He won on appeal with a scathing comment by the judge on the initial
conviction.
We then had the ridiculous situation of someone being arrested and
convicted of possessing material that is still openly on sale after the
court case. If the image is indecent then it is indecent and should be
removed from sale.
"Lord Justice Richards said it was "very unfair" that Stephen Neal, 59,
was pursued by the law for having four artistic photo books - which
prosecutors claimed contained "level one" child porn - when the books'
publishers and retailers who sold them were left alone.
The judge, sitting at London's Appeal Court, said the issue of the
pictures' alleged indecency was a legitimate question for a "properly
But overturning Mr Neal's convictions and clearing his name, the judge
added: "It is, however, very unfair for a person in the position of Mr
Neal to be prosecuted for possession of the photographs in these books
in these circumstances.
"If the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to test whether the pictures in
the books are indecent, the right way to deal with the matter is by way
of prosecuting the publisher or retailer - not the individual
purchaser," he told the court. "
IANAL etc
the books are indecent, the right way to deal with the matter is by way
of prosecuting the publisher or retailer - not the individual
purchaser," he told the court. "
Andy
MM
May 23, 2013, 2:56:36 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:23:27 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
>Er, no. That was an *appeal* judge. The poor sod still had to get
>convicted first.
"Er, no" what? As I said, this was ONE sensible person performing...
etc etc. Whether (s)he was a normal judge, an appeal judge or a judge
in the Star Chamber, makes no odds. Your implication is that judges
like this are as rare as hen's teeth, and I would agree with that.
Most just parrot what the Establishment demands of them.
MM
wrote:
>convicted first.
"Er, no" what? As I said, this was ONE sensible person performing...
etc etc. Whether (s)he was a normal judge, an appeal judge or a judge
in the Star Chamber, makes no odds. Your implication is that judges
like this are as rare as hen's teeth, and I would agree with that.
Most just parrot what the Establishment demands of them.
MM
MM
May 23, 2013, 3:00:14 AM5/23/13
to
believing that ALL images of children must, in the wrong hands, be
construed as illegal. It's the paedo hysteria whipping up opinion,
pretty much like McCarthy did for reds under the bed.
MM
MM
May 23, 2013, 3:01:59 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:22:29 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:45 +0100, AndyW wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/2013 18:03, MM wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>>
>>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>>> selling child pron now?
>>
>> She is not talking rubbish.
>> It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
>> laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
>> the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>>
MM
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:41:45 +0100, AndyW wrote:
>
>> On 21/05/2013 18:03, MM wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby'
>>>> with Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>>
>>> You're talking rubbish. Amazon.co.uk has 3 copies of the Region 2
>>> format right now for �5.90 a pop! Rated 18. You still reckon Amazon is
>>> selling child pron now?
>>
>> She is not talking rubbish.
>> It is one of the unintended consequences of the change in child-porn
>> laws. It is technically illegal to possess images of naked people under
>> the age of 18 (it used to be 16) for the purposes of arousal.
>>
>> This means that pretty baby etc *can* be classed as level 1 images (and
>> I think it has) in specific cases but not all possession is a level 1
>> image. It is a mess of unintended consequences.
>> I think it has) in specific cases but not all possession is a level 1
>> image. It is a mess of unintended consequences.
>> Possessing one DVD may not be an issue but having several may raise a
>> flag. I have Pretty baby, the Hole and Taxi Driver.. possibly Walkabout
>> (regardless of how old she actually was she plays a schoolgirl) in a
>> fairly large DVD collection (4 Ikea 'Billy' bookcases with a few extra
>> shelves two deep with DVDs - certainly mid-hundreds). You could argue
>> that I have 4 or 5 such DVDs out of 600 or you could argue that I have 4
>> or 5 level 1 child porn videos. It's a bit like Russian roulette.
>>
>> flag. I have Pretty baby, the Hole and Taxi Driver.. possibly Walkabout
>> (regardless of how old she actually was she plays a schoolgirl) in a
>> fairly large DVD collection (4 Ikea 'Billy' bookcases with a few extra
>> shelves two deep with DVDs - certainly mid-hundreds). You could argue
>> that I have 4 or 5 such DVDs out of 600 or you could argue that I have 4
>> or 5 level 1 child porn videos. It's a bit like Russian roulette.
>>
>> There was a recent case where a man was prosecuted for having a book of
>> photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
>> recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
>> someone here can.
>>
>> photographs that was freely available in shops and online, I cannot
>> recall the title and not sure what to google to find it but I am sure
>> someone here can.
>>
>> The problem with the knee-jerk law railroaded through by politicians to
>> quell the media hysteria is that it is a mess of legislation with
>> loopholes and unintended consequences. The best consequence IMO was
>> that, since the purpose of page 3 is titillation/low grade arousal, the
>> archives of many red-tops contain images of 16 and 17 year olds and is
>> now technically low level child porn.
>>
>> Andy
>> quell the media hysteria is that it is a mess of legislation with
>> loopholes and unintended consequences. The best consequence IMO was
>> that, since the purpose of page 3 is titillation/low grade arousal, the
>> archives of many red-tops contain images of 16 and 17 year olds and is
>> now technically low level child porn.
>>
>
>Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
>and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
>film.
So, yet again, stitched up by the British "justice" system.
>Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
>and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
>film.
MM
MM
May 23, 2013, 3:03:39 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:28:01 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
>There was a discussion here a while ago, and I am pretty certain that the
>defence is not allowed to point out the photos origin if they did come
>from a BBFC film. I apologise for no cite - if I get time I'll see what
>wonders the googlebox can do ;)
I fail to understand why the defence is not allowed to point out
anything it likes. Sounds like censorship to me, like, the
Establishment must always secure its pound of flesh, even through
dubious and underhand means.
MM
wrote:
>defence is not allowed to point out the photos origin if they did come
>from a BBFC film. I apologise for no cite - if I get time I'll see what
>wonders the googlebox can do ;)
I fail to understand why the defence is not allowed to point out
anything it likes. Sounds like censorship to me, like, the
Establishment must always secure its pound of flesh, even through
dubious and underhand means.
MM
MM
May 23, 2013, 3:04:40 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:17:21 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>As I recall, it was a David Hamilton book, and the charge was dropped.
So you'll concede that the police and CPS were totally stupid in
prosecuting the guy?
MM
wrote:
>As I recall, it was a David Hamilton book, and the charge was dropped.
prosecuting the guy?
MM
MM
May 23, 2013, 3:06:02 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:25:18 GMT, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:34:16 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On May 21, 3:13�pm, cynic_...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:26:14 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>>> >>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game.
>>>> >>�To do so would require the pa
>>>> >And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>>>> >internet.
>>>> >>them watching films or playing games that their friends have
>>>> >>available (often on portable devices).
>>>> >True, but if I found out their friends had unsupervised access, I
>>>> >would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without
>>>> >me.
>>>> >(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
>>>> >are).
>>>> do far better to teach your child how to swim - in this case by
>>>> teaching your child about the dangers to be found on the Internet, how
>>>> to use things such as social network sites responsibly, and what to do
>>>> if bullied over the Internet etc.
>>>>
>>>> Sex is one of the least things to be worried about, despite how it is
>>>> hyped up in the media. �All the youngsters I know that have problems
>>>> due to their Internet activity have been caused harm by people their
>>>> own age on social networking sites, or they have hurt themselves by
>>>> posting foolish comments.
>>>>
>>>> Only the other month a youngster was sacked from her first job before
>>>> she even started it, and was publically humilliated in the national
>>>> media because some malicious individual dug up a silly post she had
>>>> made several years earlier when she was a far less mature 14 year old.
>>>> I doubt that watching any amount of pornography would have harmed her
>>>> nearly as much.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cynic
>>>
>>>I thought only my school made us watch 'Canute of the North'!!!
>>>
>>>I have a classic though (but remember this is not a competition!) In
>>>year 7 of school (so I was 12) we read 'Romeo and Juliet'. Then we were
>>>shown the film. (Zefferilli's version) The next day in class, the
>>>teacher asked for 'observations'. My friend Rose put her hand up; 'Mrs
>>>L you never told us that Romeo and Juliet actually had sex.' Response:
>>>'We thought that at your age, you would have worked it out.' Well,
>>>guess what...none of us had worked it out....and this was a 'gifted and
>>>talented/'advanced placement' class!!*
>>>
>>>I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie; after
>>>all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she was only
>>>14/15 at the time of filming. Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby' with
>>
>> Neither are "deemed" any such thing, since both still have BBFC
>> certificates.
>>
>> The Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet is even a PG. Pretty Baby an 18.
>
>Possession of still images taken from BBFC certified films is no defence
>to a charge of possession of indecent photographs (or whatever the charge
>is).
What if the viewer rents the movie, then puts it on pause while he
makes a cup of tea?
MM
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:34:16 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:49:40 -0700 (PDT), totallyconfused
>> <lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 21:26:14 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>It is simply not practical for a parent to ensure that their child
>>>> >>cannot see an age-restricted film or play an age-restricted game.
>>>> >>�To do so would require the pa
>>>> >And so they should be when children of that sort of age are using the
>>>> >internet.
>>>> >It is utterly irresponsible to allow young children unsupervised use
>>>> >of the internet.
>>>>
>>>> Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>>>> Internet these days. �They will have classmates who access the
>>>> Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>>>> frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>>>> teachers' knowlege.
>>>>
>>>> >>You can restrict what your own child has, but that will not prevent
>>>> >of the internet.
>>>>
>>>> Explain how a parent could possibly supervise their child's use of the
>>>> Internet these days. �They will have classmates who access the
>>>> Internet from mobile devices at school and elsewhere - and kids
>>>> frequently get around the controls on school computers without the
>>>> teachers' knowlege.
>>>>
>>>> >>them watching films or playing games that their friends have
>>>> >>available (often on portable devices).
>>>> >True, but if I found out their friends had unsupervised access, I
>>>> >would not be allowing them to stay at those friends houses without
>>>> >me.
>>>> >(Not that I have children of that age any more, but my grandchildren
>>>> >are).
>>>>
>>>> Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
>>>> tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. �I'm not thinking
>>>> of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of acting like Canute and trying to stop the tide, you would
>>>> Once your child realised that that was your policy, they would not
>>>> tell you that their friend had unsupervised access. �I'm not thinking
>>>> of 5 and 6 year old children, but the 11-15 year old range.
>>>>
>>>> do far better to teach your child how to swim - in this case by
>>>> teaching your child about the dangers to be found on the Internet, how
>>>> to use things such as social network sites responsibly, and what to do
>>>> if bullied over the Internet etc.
>>>>
>>>> Sex is one of the least things to be worried about, despite how it is
>>>> hyped up in the media. �All the youngsters I know that have problems
>>>> due to their Internet activity have been caused harm by people their
>>>> own age on social networking sites, or they have hurt themselves by
>>>> posting foolish comments.
>>>>
>>>> Only the other month a youngster was sacked from her first job before
>>>> she even started it, and was publically humilliated in the national
>>>> media because some malicious individual dug up a silly post she had
>>>> made several years earlier when she was a far less mature 14 year old.
>>>> I doubt that watching any amount of pornography would have harmed her
>>>> nearly as much.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cynic
>>>
>>>I thought only my school made us watch 'Canute of the North'!!!
>>>
>>>I have a classic though (but remember this is not a competition!) In
>>>year 7 of school (so I was 12) we read 'Romeo and Juliet'. Then we were
>>>shown the film. (Zefferilli's version) The next day in class, the
>>>teacher asked for 'observations'. My friend Rose put her hand up; 'Mrs
>>>L you never told us that Romeo and Juliet actually had sex.' Response:
>>>'We thought that at your age, you would have worked it out.' Well,
>>>guess what...none of us had worked it out....and this was a 'gifted and
>>>talented/'advanced placement' class!!*
>>>
>>>I believe that it is now deemed a 'level one' child porn movie; after
>>>all the actress playing Juliet had full frontal nudity and she was only
>>>14/15 at the time of filming. Likewise aparrently 'Pretty Baby' with
>>>Brooke Shields (I have not seen it) is deemed the same.
>>>TC
>>
>> Neither are "deemed" any such thing, since both still have BBFC
>> certificates.
>>
>> The Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet is even a PG. Pretty Baby an 18.
>
>Possession of still images taken from BBFC certified films is no defence
>to a charge of possession of indecent photographs (or whatever the charge
>is).
What if the viewer rents the movie, then puts it on pause while he
makes a cup of tea?
MM
Big Les Wade
May 23, 2013, 4:45:36 AM5/23/13
to
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
--
Les
>On Wed, 22 May 2013 13:59:04 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>>>exist without actually describing them?
>>
>>>I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>>>pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>>>want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>>>videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>>
>>>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>
>>I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>>images, but that is not the point in question.
>>
>>What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>>images?
>
>The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
>one example.
Why have you changed the subject from pornography to violence?
>
>>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:28:36 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>What are these "dangers of pornography" that the article assumes to
>>>>exist without actually describing them?
>>
>>>I don't know what dangers there are supposed to be in "general"
>>>pornography, but I do know there is stuff out there which I would NOT
>>>want young children seeing - and I am not talking about photos and
>>>videos of normal(ish) people naked or having normal(is) sex.
>>
>>>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>
>>I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>>images, but that is not the point in question.
>>
>>What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>>images?
>
>The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
>one example.
--
Les
totallyconfused
May 23, 2013, 5:00:34 AM5/23/13
to
afterwards.
Here is another example: I own a 'coffee table book' (more like a
tome) called Century. (published by Phaidom- I got it in a sale- £18
instead of the normal £99) It does contain some (in my opinion) quite
graphic and gruelsome photos but that is the reality of the human
condition. My son had to do a project for school. His teacher asked
to borrow the book. I took the book to the Headmaster with a note:
'Do not let the children view pages x, y.z etc'.
Further this book was quite promenantly in view on the TV show 'Will
and Grace'; the FCC never fined them for 'advertising it'.
Waterstone's did not have a problem selling it to me. (Should they be
'done' for distribution?)
*By the way, paranoid little me did tell my children that they were
not allowed to look through the book without supervision until they
turned 13. (So my youngest is still not allowed unsupervised
viewing.)
TC
Cynic
May 23, 2013, 10:08:07 AM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 22:14:15 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>>>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>>images, but that is not the point in question.
>>What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>>images?
>The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
>one example.
Is that really true, I wonder? Is there any objective evidence that
it is a significantly probable outcome?
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>It is the violent images which would concern me much more.
>>I can understand why a parent would not *want* a child to see such
>>images, but that is not the point in question.
>>What *danger* do you see being present if a child were to see such
>>images?
>The child could be traumatised by graphic images of violence, just for
>one example.
it is a significantly probable outcome?
--
Cynic
Cynic
May 23, 2013, 10:17:42 AM5/23/13
to
>Possession of still images taken from BBFC certified films is no defence
>to a charge of possession of indecent photographs (or whatever the charge
>is).
IIRC the reasoning for that being that an image that is not indecent
>to a charge of possession of indecent photographs (or whatever the charge
>is).
when viewed in the context of a whole work can become indecent when
viewed in isolation.
Similarly an image that has been cropped from a larger image may be
indecent even though the larger image is not. For example, an image
of several naked children playing on a beach might (if you are lucky)
be considered legal, but a cropped image that contained only the
genital area of one of the children could be considered indecent.
Which is a bit of a bastard if it is the police that carried out the
cropping!
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
May 23, 2013, 4:26:57 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:45:36 +0100, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Because I was answering why I do not think young children should have
unsupervised access.
I had already said in a previous post that it is violent images rather
than sexual ones which would concern me.
wrote:
unsupervised access.
I had already said in a previous post that it is violent images rather
than sexual ones which would concern me.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Manure Occurs.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Gefreiter Krueger
May 23, 2013, 4:28:43 PM5/23/13
to
--
What's the fastest thing in Wales?
A virgin sheep.
Alex Heney
May 23, 2013, 4:29:47 PM5/23/13
to
I'm not "conceding" anything though, since I have never suggested
otherwise.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Which way to Castle Anthrax?
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Gefreiter Krueger
May 23, 2013, 4:31:27 PM5/23/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:32 +0100, Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>
>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>
>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>> when children started going online.
>>
>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>
> Happy to volunteer :)
I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
--
Here are some actual maintenance complaints/problems, generally known as squawks, recently submitted by QANTAS Pilots to maintenance engineers. After attending to the squawks, maintenance crews are required to log the details of the action taken to solve the pilots' squawks.
Problem - Left inside main tyre almost needs replacement.
Solution - Almost replaced left inside main tyre.
Problem - Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.
Solution - Autoland not installed on this aircraft.
Problem - No. 2 propeller seeping prop fluid.
Solution - No. 2 propeller seepage normal. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 propellers lack normal seepage.
Problem - Something loose in cockpit.
Solution - Something tightened in cockpit.
Problem - Dead bugs on windshield.
Solution - Live bugs on backorder.
Problem - Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200-fpm descent.
Solution - Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Problem - Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Solution - Evidence removed.
Problem - DME volume unbelievably loud.
Solution - Volume set to more believable level.
Problem - Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Solution - That's what they are there for!
Problem - IFF inoperative.
Solution - IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
Problem - Suspected crack in windscreen.
Solution - Suspect you're right.
Problem - Number 3 engine missing.
Solution - Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Problem - Aircraft handles funny.
Solution - Aircraft warned to "Straighten up, Fly Right, and Be Serious."
Problem - Target radar hums.
Solution - Reprogrammed target radar with words.
Problem - Mouse in cockpit.
Solution - Cat installed.
Defect: Seat cushion in 13F smells rotten.
Action: Fresh seat cushion on order.
Defect: Turn & slip indicator ball stuck in center during turns.
Action: Congratulations. You just made your first coordinated turn!
Defect: Whining sound heard on engine shutdown.
Action: Pilot removed from aircraft.
Defect: Pilot's clock inoperative.
Action: Wound clock.
Defect: Autopilot tends to drop a wing when fuel imbalance reaches 500 pounds.
Action: Flight manual limits maximum fuel imbalance to 300 pounds.
Defect: #2 ADF needle runs wild.
Action: Caught and tamed #2 ADF needle.
Defect: Unfamiliar noise coming from #2 engine.
Action: Engine run for four hours. Noise now familiar.
Defect: Noise coming from #2 engine. Sounds like man with little hammer.
Action: Took little hammer away from man in #2 engine.
Defect: Whining noise coming from #2 engine compartment.
Action: Returned little hammer to man in #2 engine.
Defect: Flight attendant cold at altitude.
Action: Ground checks OK.
Defect: 3 roaches in cabin.
Action: 1 roach killed, 1 wounded, 1 got away.
Defect: Weather radar went ape!
Action: Opened radar, let out ape, cleaned up mess!
> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>
>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>
>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>> when children started going online.
>>
>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>
> Happy to volunteer :)
I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
--
Here are some actual maintenance complaints/problems, generally known as squawks, recently submitted by QANTAS Pilots to maintenance engineers. After attending to the squawks, maintenance crews are required to log the details of the action taken to solve the pilots' squawks.
Problem - Left inside main tyre almost needs replacement.
Solution - Almost replaced left inside main tyre.
Problem - Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.
Solution - Autoland not installed on this aircraft.
Problem - No. 2 propeller seeping prop fluid.
Solution - No. 2 propeller seepage normal. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 propellers lack normal seepage.
Problem - Something loose in cockpit.
Solution - Something tightened in cockpit.
Problem - Dead bugs on windshield.
Solution - Live bugs on backorder.
Problem - Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200-fpm descent.
Solution - Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Problem - Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Solution - Evidence removed.
Problem - DME volume unbelievably loud.
Solution - Volume set to more believable level.
Problem - Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Solution - That's what they are there for!
Problem - IFF inoperative.
Solution - IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
Problem - Suspected crack in windscreen.
Solution - Suspect you're right.
Problem - Number 3 engine missing.
Solution - Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Problem - Aircraft handles funny.
Solution - Aircraft warned to "Straighten up, Fly Right, and Be Serious."
Problem - Target radar hums.
Solution - Reprogrammed target radar with words.
Problem - Mouse in cockpit.
Solution - Cat installed.
Defect: Seat cushion in 13F smells rotten.
Action: Fresh seat cushion on order.
Defect: Turn & slip indicator ball stuck in center during turns.
Action: Congratulations. You just made your first coordinated turn!
Defect: Whining sound heard on engine shutdown.
Action: Pilot removed from aircraft.
Defect: Pilot's clock inoperative.
Action: Wound clock.
Defect: Autopilot tends to drop a wing when fuel imbalance reaches 500 pounds.
Action: Flight manual limits maximum fuel imbalance to 300 pounds.
Defect: #2 ADF needle runs wild.
Action: Caught and tamed #2 ADF needle.
Defect: Unfamiliar noise coming from #2 engine.
Action: Engine run for four hours. Noise now familiar.
Defect: Noise coming from #2 engine. Sounds like man with little hammer.
Action: Took little hammer away from man in #2 engine.
Defect: Whining noise coming from #2 engine compartment.
Action: Returned little hammer to man in #2 engine.
Defect: Flight attendant cold at altitude.
Action: Ground checks OK.
Defect: 3 roaches in cabin.
Action: 1 roach killed, 1 wounded, 1 got away.
Defect: Weather radar went ape!
Action: Opened radar, let out ape, cleaned up mess!
Nigel Oldfield
May 23, 2013, 4:34:11 PM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 21:31, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:32 +0100, Nigel Oldfield
> <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>>
>>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>>
>>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>>> when children started going online.
>>>
>>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>>
>> Happy to volunteer :)
>
> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
Teacher-led, student-centred.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:32 +0100, Nigel Oldfield
> <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>>
>>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>>
>>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>>> when children started going online.
>>>
>>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>>
>> Happy to volunteer :)
>
> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
Gefreiter Krueger
May 23, 2013, 4:39:17 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:34:11 +0100, Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 21:31, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:32 +0100, Nigel Oldfield
>> <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>>>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>>>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>>>
>>>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>>>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>>>
>>>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>>>> when children started going online.
>>>>
>>>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>>>
>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>
>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>
> Teacher-led, student-centred.
Ah, get them to play with each other. Show and tell? Touch and feel?
> On 23/05/2013 21:31, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:20:32 +0100, Nigel Oldfield
>> <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/2013 10:56, Phi wrote:
>>>> Young children should hear about the dangers of pornography as soon as
>>>> they have access to the internet, leading head teachers say.
>>>>
>>>> The ready availability of explicit material online has prompted serious
>>>> concerns from the National Association of Head Teachers.
>>>>
>>>> General secretary Russell Hobby said "the conversation should start"
>>>> when children started going online.
>>>>
>>>> But he stressed this was not about showing pornography in class.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22585414
>>>
>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>
>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>
> Teacher-led, student-centred.
--
Once upon a time, a Prince asked a beautiful Princess, Will you marry me? The Princess said; No!!! So the Prince lived happily ever after and rode Harley Davidson motorcycles and banged skinny long-legged big-titted broads and hunted and fished and raced cars and went to naked bars and dated women half his age and drank whiskey, beer and Captain Morgan and never heard bitching and never paid child support or alimony and banged cheerleaders and kept his house and guns and ate spam and potato chips and beans and blew enormous farts and never got cheated on while he was at work and all his friends and family thought he was freak'in cool as hell and he had tons of money in the bank and left the toilet seat up.
The end.
Nigel Oldfield
May 23, 2013, 4:48:09 PM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 21:39, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>>
>>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>>
>> Teacher-led, student-centred.
>
> Ah, get them to play with each other. Show and tell? Touch and feel?
Logical evolution ...
>>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>>
>>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>>
>> Teacher-led, student-centred.
>
> Ah, get them to play with each other. Show and tell? Touch and feel?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442742/Stressed-school-children-taught-massage-fellow-pupils.html
Gefreiter Krueger
May 23, 2013, 4:51:55 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:48:09 +0100, Nigel Oldfield <wmcritica...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 21:39, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>>>
>>> Teacher-led, student-centred.
>>
>> Ah, get them to play with each other. Show and tell? Touch and feel?
>
> Logical evolution ...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442742/Stressed-school-children-taught-massage-fellow-pupils.html
That teacher will probably be jailed soon for letting children touch each other. I mean.... massage! That's almost like sex!
> On 23/05/2013 21:39, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> Happy to volunteer :)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think they had a hands on experience in mind!
>>>
>>> Teacher-led, student-centred.
>>
>> Ah, get them to play with each other. Show and tell? Touch and feel?
>
> Logical evolution ...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442742/Stressed-school-children-taught-massage-fellow-pupils.html
--
Why is Bin Laden like a pair of tights?
Because he irritates bush!
Graham Murray
May 26, 2013, 2:02:05 PM5/26/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes:
> Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
> and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
> film.
And if a jury member had seen the film and recognised the image(s) as
> Also, IIRC it would be illegal to possess stills taken from these films
> and you aren't allow to tell a jury that they came from a BBFC certified
> film.
being from the film, would they be allowed to share this information
with the rest of the jury. Or would this be considered grounds for a
mis-trial in the same way as if the juror had looked it up on the
internet?
0 new messages