Groups

    Weird woman

    3 Comments

    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

    StevenA2000_uk;7364585

    I presume shes intending to remove coverage of parents etc who, like … 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
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. What to do?????56
      2. Tradesmen battery power tools.11
      3. Now tv entertainment passes22
      4. Any free Now TV sports passes?33

      See more discussions