"Blue Lagoon made me a kid porn perv"
NewsHound
Brooke Shields, or it would be "Pretty Baby made me a kid porn perv"
Does the mention of a fine mean that he will escape a prison sentence?
News article:
====================================
BLUE LAGOON MADE ME A KID PORN PERV
Tourist boss blames film for sick snaps hoard
By Bob Dow
Glasgow Daily Record, UK: 8 November 2005
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16344011&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=blue-lagoon-made-me-a-kid-porn-perv--name_page.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/cqbox ]
A SHAMED tourist boss yesterday blamed a Brooke Shields movie for
turning him into a pervert.
George Gration claimed he only built up a huge child porn collection
after watching the then 16-year-old star frolic naked in the 1980
film,The Blue Lagoon.
Shields played a 13-year-old shipwreck survivor who fell in love with
her cousin on a tropical island.
Gration, 54, started his extensive porn collection with five stills of
the naked star from the film.
Yesterday a court heard that, since then, Gration had built up a
collection of 1200 images of naked children, aged between three and
14.
The chairman of a £1.5million seaside attraction started collecting
photos of children playing semi-naked on beaches near his home in
Buckie, Moray.
He boosted his collection by secretly snapping other youngsters at
beaches across the UK.
And back in his home studio in Buckie, he took pictures of naked
youngsters in suggestive poses.
Gration also downloaded child pornography from the internet, paying
with his credit card.
Until recently, he was chairman of the Buckie Drifter, a tourist
attraction charting the history of the fishing industry on the Moray
Firth that attracted scores of school parties and families.
Geoff Main, prosecuting, told Elgin Sheriff Court that some of
Gration's pictures were taken without the knowledge of the children or
their parents.
Other, more graphic, images were posed for the camera.
He said: "Many showed images of naked and semi-naked girls and boys
posing for the camera.
"Some showed boys engaged in indecent homosexual and heterosexual acts
involving adults." Mr Main added: "There were also pictures of the
actress Brooke Shields at the age of 13, related to a film she had
made."
Gration pleaded guilty on indictment to taking indecent pictures
between1986and 2003.
He also admitted using his home as a studio to create indecent photos
during the same period.
Acting on a tip-off, police recovered computer equipment, CD-roms and
zip files full of graphic child porn when they raided his house in
January.
When quizzed by police, Gration told officers he did not consider his
collection to be obscene.
Sheriff Ian Cameron adjourned sentencing until Friday to allow Gration
to secure a minimum of £5000 towards a fine.
He was also placed on the sex offenders' register.
The sheriff told him: "These are very serious offences and, given the
volume of images, I need to know that a substantial sum of money is
available to the court."
In the Blue Lagoon, Brooke Shields starred alongside Christopher
Atkins as the young shipwrecked cousins who have a baby son together.
Dr Zoidberg
> Well if he was a real 'perv' he would be blaming Elva Josephson not
> Brooke Shields, or it would be "Pretty Baby made me a kid porn perv"
>
> Does the mention of a fine mean that he will escape a prison sentence?
>
> News article:
> ====================================
> after watching the then 16-year-old star frolic naked in the 1980
> film,The Blue Lagoon.
>
the appropriate points in the film I'd be guilty of making indecent images
of a child under the age of 18...........
--
Alex
Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk
Cynic
<AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>Hmm , so if I play the dvd on my pc and take a couple of screen captures at
>the appropriate points in the film I'd be guilty of making indecent images
>of a child under the age of 18...........
You will never know whether *any* image of a child under 18 is legal
or not until a court has made its pronouncement as to whether the
images are indecent or not.
If a court *has* decided that some still images taken from the film
"Blue Lagoon" are indecent, then I cannot see how the complete film,
which obviously contains those self-same images could possibly be
legal to possess.
So taking screen captures is not necessary. Possession of the film in
any format may well be a serious criminal offence. Given that far
less borderline images were also found in this case, I would hope that
the court was not asked to decide on those particular images,
otherwise it creates an absurd situation (although IMO it would be a
good thing if it does, as it may result in some sensible changes to
the law).
Perhaps people will begin to see how stupidly the law has been formed.
You may also recall that not too long ago a man was convicted of
possessing images that were available in a book that you could buy
from the UK branch of amazon. Amazon immediately withdrew the book -
but maybe the next book you buy legally in the UK from a reputable
retailer could land you with a charge of possessing child pornography.
It will be cold comfort to know that the book was subsequently
withdrawn from sale.
Potential child-porn is everywhere. National Geographic. The Sunday
supplements. TV news reports. Advertisements. Anything that
contains images of people under the age of 18.
All it takes is a decision by a court to make you a paedophile.
--
Cynic
Dr Zoidberg
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:49:10 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
> <AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hmm , so if I play the dvd on my pc and take a couple of screen
>> captures at the appropriate points in the film I'd be guilty of
>> making indecent images of a child under the age of 18...........
>
> You will never know whether *any* image of a child under 18 is legal
> or not until a court has made its pronouncement as to whether the
> images are indecent or not.
If the jury didn't recognise the pictures as having come from that film I'd
be pretty sure they would be seen as indecent.
> If a court *has* decided that some still images taken from the film
> "Blue Lagoon" are indecent, then I cannot see how the complete film,
> which obviously contains those self-same images could possibly be
> legal to possess.
Ah , but if you make some screenshots then you will find yourself in the
papers having *made* indecent images of a child , and to a lot of the
general public that means you were there personally taking pictures of a
naked 10 year old.
> So taking screen captures is not necessary. Possession of the film in
> any format may well be a serious criminal offence. Given that far
> less borderline images were also found in this case, I would hope that
> the court was not asked to decide on those particular images,
> otherwise it creates an absurd situation (although IMO it would be a
> good thing if it does, as it may result in some sensible changes to
> the law).
>
> Perhaps people will begin to see how stupidly the law has been formed.
> You may also recall that not too long ago a man was convicted of
> possessing images that were available in a book that you could buy
> from the UK branch of amazon. Amazon immediately withdrew the book -
> but maybe the next book you buy legally in the UK from a reputable
> retailer could land you with a charge of possessing child pornography.
> It will be cold comfort to know that the book was subsequently
> withdrawn from sale.
>
> Potential child-porn is everywhere. National Geographic. The Sunday
> supplements. TV news reports. Advertisements. Anything that
> contains images of people under the age of 18.
>
> All it takes is a decision by a court to make you a paedophile.
Indeed
des
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:49:10 -0000, "Dr Zoidberg"
><AlexNOOOOO!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Perhaps people will begin to see how stupidly the law has been formed.
>You may also recall that not too long ago a man was convicted of
>possessing images that were available in a book that you could buy
>from the UK branch of amazon. Amazon immediately withdrew the book -
>but maybe the next book you buy legally in the UK from a reputable
>retailer could land you with a charge of possessing child pornography.
>It will be cold comfort to know that the book was subsequently
>withdrawn from sale.
They didn't withdraw the book.
The book is not illegal, different juries could come to a different
decision in adjacent court rooms.
Of course, the police wouldn't dare raid Amazon, just like they
wouldn't raid the offices of tabloid newspapers that print pictures of
topless 17 year olds or illegal voyeuristic images that fill their
pages on a daily basis.
ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk
I must admit when I saw the title of this thread I thought of an
entirely different Blue Lagoon which was one involving Blue Curacao.
But that is just my thought processes... perhaps I indulged in too
many during my first year at university and the name still sticks
out.
Axel
Alan Hope
>Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Careful. Mention of Blue Lagoon and "sticks out" could see you on the
SOR in today's Britain.
As it happens, none of the images from that film involve a child under
18, since Brooke Shields famously used a body-double. But I think I'm
right in saying that if *you* thought the picture was a minor, even if
the rest of the world knows otherwise, you can still be done.
Didn't there used to be a defence of impossibility at common law? So
if you drilled into the cellar of the baker's shop thinking it was the
bank, you couldn't be done for attempted theft? Or am I dreaming that?
Anyway, if there ever was such a defence it's gone out the window now.
You can be locked up for arranging to have sex with a middle-aged
copper, just because he was posing as a 12-year-old girl in a
chatroom. A case where it is literally impossible for any offence to
take place, yet you'll still be charged. Likewise, for the pictures of
Brooke Shields. You can't download nuddie pix of BS in Blue Lagoon
because no such thing exists. But if you *think* such pictures exist,
you can have your collar felt.
It's a world turned upside down. As of now, mens rea is enough, with
no need for actus reus at all. You can be jailed for what you think,
regardless of what you actually do.
--
AH
John Thow
> no need for actus reus at all. You can be jailed for what you think,
> regardless of what you actually do.
>
>
of what you actually do (or actually think)."
JT
--
Cynic
>They didn't withdraw the book.
I recall looking it up on Amazon after reading about the case and
seeing that the book was marked as unavailable or similar. I perhaps
jumped to the wrong conclusion, and maybe it was simply out of stock
at the time.
>The book is not illegal, different juries could come to a different
>decision in adjacent court rooms.
Irrelevant. A person who is found guilty of a crime is a criminal and
remains so, even though another jury in another court may have found
him not guilty on the same facts. Similarly, an image that a court
has found to be indecent remains illegal regardless of whether a
different court may have come to a different decision.
It is case law that the illegality is with the image itself, and does
not depend at all on the context. A ruling that is consistently
ignored by courts when deciding on the legality of images.
>Of course, the police wouldn't dare raid Amazon, just like they
>wouldn't raid the offices of tabloid newspapers that print pictures of
>topless 17 year olds or illegal voyeuristic images that fill their
>pages on a daily basis.
Which shows that the law is not being applied correctly. Which is
unsurprising, because the law itself is both unclear and illogical,
and so it *cannnot* be applied correctly.
--
Cynic
Dissenter
wrote:
>ax...@white-eagle.invalid.uk goes:
>
>>Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I must admit when I saw the title of this thread I thought of an
>>entirely different Blue Lagoon which was one involving Blue Curacao.
>
>>But that is just my thought processes... perhaps I indulged in too
>>many during my first year at university and the name still sticks
>>out.
>
>Careful. Mention of Blue Lagoon and "sticks out" could see you on the
>SOR in today's Britain.
>
>As it happens, none of the images from that film involve a child under
>18, since Brooke Shields famously used a body-double. But I think I'm
>right in saying that if *you* thought the picture was a minor, even if
>the rest of the world knows otherwise, you can still be done.
You must have been 30 minutes late to the cinema. You missed Glen
Kohan (8) and Elva Josephson (10) nude on the beach and swimming
underwater as the younger couple.
--
Dissenter
Cynic
wrote:
>As it happens, none of the images from that film involve a child under
>18, since Brooke Shields famously used a body-double.
If it is the same film I am thinking of, ISTR a part near the
beginning of the film when the couple were shipwrecked as young
children (obviously pre-pubescent). I'm pretty sure there were scenes
where those children were naked, but I do not recall how revealing
those scenes were. It was only later in the film when things became
sexual, but by that time it involved much older actors, and unless the
version I saw had been censored, the sex was not explicit and did not
show genetalia.
I also recall the original black-and-white British-made film of "Lord
of the Flies" showed naked children (it was shown in an English lesson
when I was at school, and caused a few ribald comments), and I would
imagine that these days films like that would be considered indecent
if found in the home of a suspected paedophile.
--
Cynic
Alan Hope
I'm obliged to Your Lordship.
--
AH
gonzo
>The chairman of a £1.5million seaside attraction started collecting
>photos of children playing semi-naked on beaches near his home in
>Buckie, Moray.
time he was operating. nice of the investigating authorities to track us all
down. fuckers. guess i have to call them up tomorrow and see if they have
anything on me. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
cheers
james
marc_CH
> >The chairman of a £1.5million seaside attraction started collecting
> >photos of children playing semi-naked on beaches near his home in
> >Buckie, Moray.
>
> i grew up very near there and played semi naked on those beaches during the
> time he was operating. nice of the investigating authorities to track us all
> down. fuckers.
Are you being serious?
How and why should they 'track you all down'?
marc
Mike Ross
>Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I must admit when I saw the title of this thread I thought of an
>entirely different Blue Lagoon which was one involving Blue Curacao.
And my first thought was of the chain of Glasgow fish & chip shops
that go by the same name! Wondered what they put in their oil...
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
gonzo
"marc_CH" <marc...@crumhorn.org> wrote in message
news:44078....@crumhorn.org...
was in his "collection".
cheers
james
marc_CH
> > How and why should they 'track you all down'?
> >
> yes i am! i lived there until i was 17. should be interesting to see if i
> was in his "collection".
So the police should make some huge and involved enquiry just to satisfy
your curiosity? I repeat my earlier observation about not believing you
to be serious.
marc