Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Check your bookshelves for Hamiltons, Sturges and Sally Manns...
100 views
Skip to first unread message
Cub Reporter
Sep 19, 2011, 7:02:46 PM9/19/11
to
Michele is on the warpath.
Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
News article:
=========================================
Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
porn'
By Stephen Hull
Daily Mail, UK: 18 September 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038797/Britains-biggest-book-stores-threaten-paedophile-cases-sell-child-porn-books.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/6747b3l ]
Winning criminal cases against alleged paedophiles is being put at
risk because Britain's biggest book suppliers sell products which are
classed as child porn, it has been claimed.
Online stores such as Waterstone's and Amazon advertise and sell books
- including David Hamilton's 'The Age of Innocence' - which contain
images of children that are classed as illegal.
Despite a previous tough line in the courts, now it seems at least one
case has collapsed against a man accused of being interested in child
sex.
Now a leading child charity has hit out by claiming the big suppliers
should be stopped.
Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: 'If you get to the
publishers and the people who are retailing it then you stop it going
out to thousands and we send a clear message.'
In February this year a judge questioned why a man was prosecuted for
possessing the 'indecent' images of children when they were available
in mainstream bookshops.
Lord Justice Richards said it was 'very unfair' that Stephen Neal, 59,
was taken to court. He overturned the conviction and cleared Mr Neal's
name.
Mr Neal of Walthamstow, east London had been convicted of five counts
of possessing indecent images of children at Snaresbrook Crown Court
in November, receiving a community sentence.
Lord Justice Richards said the books found at Mr Neal's home were
'widely available from a number of reputable outlets'.
The Crown Prosecution Service's application for a retrial was refused
after the judge concluded that re-prosecuting Mr Neal was 'not in the
public interest'.
Amazon describes its product as a 'collection of Hamilton's erotic
photographic portraits of young girls' which is 'accompanied by
lyrical poetry.'
People who have viewed the book on Amazon then go on to buy Sally
Mann's 'At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women and 'The Mammoth Book of
New Erotic' edited by Maxim Jakubowski.
One customer who reviewed Hamilton's book said: 'Well produced and
excellent quality is surpassed only by the beauty, sensuality and
innocence of these teenage lovelies.
'Women or children - you be the judge. Be they 12 or 17, they all have
an erotic character whilst retaining youthful innocence and naivety.
This book takes pride of place in my library and was the best
investment I have ever made.'
Another anonymous review says: 'This wasn't what I expected. Pages of
miserable looking teen girls with their ***s out. Most just looked
miserable. None looked artistic. Erotic? Not at all. I sent mine back
for a refund. Dirty old men might get a kick I guess. But I didn't.'
Two other books, At Twelve by Sally Mann and Notes by Jock Sturges,
fall into the same category as Hamilton's book.
Issues started in 2005 with the case of Stanley Loam, then a
49-year-old auditor from Walton on Thames, Surrey.
He was charged with being in possession of 19,000 indecent images of
children, including The Age of Innocence, following raids as part of
Operation Ore
Loam said he had a genuine interest in artistic material, and that the
images - which were of the lowest indecency rating category 1 - were
freely available in books then sold by websites run by WHSmith, Tesco,
Waterstones and Amazon.
Loam was prosecuted after lawyers said the images were 'plainly
indecent. The content cannot be described as artistic and is plainly
of a sexual nature.'
The CPS told The Sunday Times that it is not their role to advise
retailers or publishers about what they should sell of publish.'
Both Waterstone's and Amazon were today unavailable for comment.
Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
News article:
=========================================
Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
porn'
By Stephen Hull
Daily Mail, UK: 18 September 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038797/Britains-biggest-book-stores-threaten-paedophile-cases-sell-child-porn-books.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/6747b3l ]
Winning criminal cases against alleged paedophiles is being put at
risk because Britain's biggest book suppliers sell products which are
classed as child porn, it has been claimed.
Online stores such as Waterstone's and Amazon advertise and sell books
- including David Hamilton's 'The Age of Innocence' - which contain
images of children that are classed as illegal.
Despite a previous tough line in the courts, now it seems at least one
case has collapsed against a man accused of being interested in child
sex.
Now a leading child charity has hit out by claiming the big suppliers
should be stopped.
Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: 'If you get to the
publishers and the people who are retailing it then you stop it going
out to thousands and we send a clear message.'
In February this year a judge questioned why a man was prosecuted for
possessing the 'indecent' images of children when they were available
in mainstream bookshops.
Lord Justice Richards said it was 'very unfair' that Stephen Neal, 59,
was taken to court. He overturned the conviction and cleared Mr Neal's
name.
Mr Neal of Walthamstow, east London had been convicted of five counts
of possessing indecent images of children at Snaresbrook Crown Court
in November, receiving a community sentence.
Lord Justice Richards said the books found at Mr Neal's home were
'widely available from a number of reputable outlets'.
The Crown Prosecution Service's application for a retrial was refused
after the judge concluded that re-prosecuting Mr Neal was 'not in the
public interest'.
Amazon describes its product as a 'collection of Hamilton's erotic
photographic portraits of young girls' which is 'accompanied by
lyrical poetry.'
People who have viewed the book on Amazon then go on to buy Sally
Mann's 'At Twelve: Portraits of Young Women and 'The Mammoth Book of
New Erotic' edited by Maxim Jakubowski.
One customer who reviewed Hamilton's book said: 'Well produced and
excellent quality is surpassed only by the beauty, sensuality and
innocence of these teenage lovelies.
'Women or children - you be the judge. Be they 12 or 17, they all have
an erotic character whilst retaining youthful innocence and naivety.
This book takes pride of place in my library and was the best
investment I have ever made.'
Another anonymous review says: 'This wasn't what I expected. Pages of
miserable looking teen girls with their ***s out. Most just looked
miserable. None looked artistic. Erotic? Not at all. I sent mine back
for a refund. Dirty old men might get a kick I guess. But I didn't.'
Two other books, At Twelve by Sally Mann and Notes by Jock Sturges,
fall into the same category as Hamilton's book.
Issues started in 2005 with the case of Stanley Loam, then a
49-year-old auditor from Walton on Thames, Surrey.
He was charged with being in possession of 19,000 indecent images of
children, including The Age of Innocence, following raids as part of
Operation Ore
Loam said he had a genuine interest in artistic material, and that the
images - which were of the lowest indecency rating category 1 - were
freely available in books then sold by websites run by WHSmith, Tesco,
Waterstones and Amazon.
Loam was prosecuted after lawyers said the images were 'plainly
indecent. The content cannot be described as artistic and is plainly
of a sexual nature.'
The CPS told The Sunday Times that it is not their role to advise
retailers or publishers about what they should sell of publish.'
Both Waterstone's and Amazon were today unavailable for comment.
totallyconfused
Sep 19, 2011, 7:24:10 PM9/19/11
to
On Sep 20, 12:02 am, Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Michele is on the warpath.
>
> Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
> specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
> News article:
> =========================================
> Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
> porn'
>
> By Stephen Hull
>
> Daily Mail, UK: 18 September 2011http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038797/Britains-biggest-book...
> Michele is on the warpath.
>
> Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
> specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
> News article:
> =========================================
> Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
> porn'
>
> By Stephen Hull
>
> [http://tinyurl.com/6747b3l]
FOUNDING FATHER of AMERICA!!!! And then to make it worse, it turns
out...He was Black!!!!....
Oh wait, you said David Hamilton....never mind.....
Next news flash...Jefferson had a black wife...with alot of
kids.......
TC
Robbie
Sep 19, 2011, 10:55:39 PM9/19/11
to
amazon - it'll bring on a coronary!
I wonder what Michele Elliott would make of that? She'll be apoplectic...
--
Robbie
Message has been deleted
totallyconfused
Sep 20, 2011, 3:52:31 AM9/20/11
to
On Sep 20, 3:55 am, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Cub Reporter wrote:
> > Michele is on the warpath.
>
> > Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
> > specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
> > News article:
> > =========================================
> > Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
> > porn'
>
> > By Stephen Hull
>
> > Daily Mail, UK: 18 September 2011
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038797/Britains-biggest-book...> Cub Reporter wrote:
> > Michele is on the warpath.
>
> > Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
> > specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
> > News article:
> > =========================================
> > Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
> > porn'
>
> > By Stephen Hull
>
> > Daily Mail, UK: 18 September 2011
> > [http://tinyurl.com/6747b3l]
>
> - Show quoted text -
It does bring into question what is a 'level one image'.
But remember, this is all in the name of child protection.
I personally don't wish to look at these 'works' but it is not my
place to tell others what they should or not read or look at.
This is why I question Operation Ore so much
quote:
i allways thought child porn was pics or films showing children being
sexually assaulted a picture of a naked child just standing there how
is that thought of as porn it follows that if you took family snaps
say of your kids fooling about in the bath you could be charged with
possesing child porn and that my friends is ridiculas(sic)
unquote
People did get prosecuted for just that.
TC
Alex Heney
Sep 20, 2011, 5:06:39 PM9/20/11
to
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:02:46 +0100, Cub Reporter <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>Michele is on the warpath.
>
>Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
>specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
>News article:
>=========================================
>Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
>porn'
>
<snip>
The images in this case *were* considered illegal by a court case.
And it can't be "only for that one appearance".
I must admit, I have seen some of Hamilton's stuff, and wondered how
it could be legal to sell it.
And in this case, I agree with Ms Elliot - it should be the publishers
and distributors who are prosecuted, whenever possible.
The whole point behind bringing in laws making possession illegal was
that often the distributors and publishers are beyond the reach of UK
law.
This is a dubious argument even when they are.
Where they aren't, they should the ones prosecuted.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Always remember you're unique - just like everyone else.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
wrote:
>Michele is on the warpath.
>
>Since when have images been "classed as illegal" other than in a
>specific court case, and then only for that one appearance?
>
>News article:
>=========================================
>Waterstones and Amazon are 'selling books which contain illegal child
>porn'
>
The images in this case *were* considered illegal by a court case.
And it can't be "only for that one appearance".
I must admit, I have seen some of Hamilton's stuff, and wondered how
it could be legal to sell it.
And in this case, I agree with Ms Elliot - it should be the publishers
and distributors who are prosecuted, whenever possible.
The whole point behind bringing in laws making possession illegal was
that often the distributors and publishers are beyond the reach of UK
law.
This is a dubious argument even when they are.
Where they aren't, they should the ones prosecuted.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Always remember you're unique - just like everyone else.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
totallyconfused
Sep 20, 2011, 6:42:09 PM9/20/11
to
that men in dark mack's are murdering children daily and Dr. Who isn't
around to stop it.
TC
0 new messages