Weird woman - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Weird woman

cherishu2 Avatar
6y, 11m agoPosted 6 years, 11 months ago

All Comments

(3) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#2
on the face of the statement yes, it is a bit strange.

I presume shes intending to remove coverage of parents etc who, like millions of parents have loving pictures of their kids which under this law would probably be classed as an offence.

I suspect her intentions are good but she, like many politician statements, are hopeless at articulating their good intentions clearly to the public and almost always get interpreted in the worst possible way.

Of course, if she has no damn well good explanation for her statement then we should send her to China.

:)
banned#3
StevenA2000_uk

I presume shes intending to remove coverage of parents etc who, like millions of parents have loving pictures of their kids which under this law would probably be classed as an offence.


This is pretty much it. But if you read what they actually want to do, they are putting the burden on the courts to prove that defendent is guilty rather than the defendent having to prove he/she is innocent (this is a fundemental basis of law in this country)

When you read exactly what they want to clarify:

“We suggest that the term 'indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.”

It actually makes sense.

They are not saying that someone who has sex with an 8 year old and films it isn't going to get into trouble, they are. That's not going to change.

As you say, what it will clarify is when a parent takes a harmless photo of their 5 year old in the bath or playing in a paddling pool, they aren't going to be held guilty simply because there are sickos out there that find those kind of photos sexually arousing.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!