• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Jimmy Savile 'household name' sweep

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    What is "making indecent images of children"

    Serious question - I don't know what "making" implies?
    It implies that it covers not just the taking of photos but also the use of other software to produce/manipulate an image AFAIK


    From a CPS site
    Section 1 PCA1978 covers a wide range of offences concerning indecent photographs of children. Furthermore, it extends to the making of 'pseudo-photographs', defined as 'an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph'. Throughout the Act pseudo-photographs are put on the same footing as actual photographs. It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (section 7(8) PCA 1978). Archbold 31 - 114.
    Last edited by Pondlife; 29 August 2013, 11:42.

    Comment


      Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
      Ta. Odd term for it - making implies a more constructive role than that of consumer.
      Unless you visited something like 4chan and clicked on the wrong link
      Doing the needful since 1827

      Comment


        Originally posted by Pondlife View Post
        It implies that it covers not just the taking of photos but also the use of other software to produce/manipulate an image AFAIK


        From a CPS site
        Section 1 PCA1978 covers a wide range of offences concerning indecent photographs of children. Furthermore, it extends to the making of 'pseudo-photographs', defined as 'an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise, which appears to be a photograph'. Throughout the Act pseudo-photographs are put on the same footing as actual photographs. It is possible to convict a person of making a pseudo-photograph where the dominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child, notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (section 7(8) PCA 1978). Archbold 31 - 114.

        That makes more sense.

        Comment


          Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
          Ta. Odd term for it - making implies a more constructive role than that of consumer.
          That's what I thought. I didn't think that was the term the police normally used when someone had been accused of downloading stuff like that.
          Practically perfect in every way....there's a time and (more importantly) a place for malarkey.
          +5 Xeno Cool Points

          Comment


            Originally posted by MaryPoppins View Post
            That's what I thought. I didn't think that was the term the police normally used when someone had been accused of downloading stuff like that.
            Yep, that would be possession of...

            Pondy's description makes more sense. Didn't want to google it in the office!

            Comment


              Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
              What is "making indecent images of children"

              Serious question - I don't know what "making" implies?
              In his line of work, painting... we need to scour old TV for him painting pictures of naked children. "Can you giss what it is yit?"

              And then there's "two little boys"... pretty damning evidence right there.
              Originally posted by MaryPoppins
              I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
              Originally posted by vetran
              Urine is quite nourishing

              Comment


                Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                And then there's "two little boys"... pretty damning evidence right there.
                I'll never be able to enjoy that song in quite the same way again.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  Has anyone done a mucky parody yet, it's been a few hours...
                  Originally posted by MaryPoppins
                  I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
                  Originally posted by vetran
                  Urine is quite nourishing

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
                    Has anyone done a mucky parody yet, it's been a few hours...
                    That was doing the rounds at the time of the original hit - iirc you just missed words out of each line and let innuendo fill in the gaps

                    Two little boys had two little xxxx
                    Each had a wooden xxxx


                    troll aged 8 3/4
                    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think

                    Comment


                      So sad, I was rather hoping Rolf was innocent.

                      Surprised a lot of this didn't come out when they were investigated for their awards from the monarchy.

                      Again I suspect there is a whole ring behind this and hopefully the beeb, showbusiness agencies etc will be slowly emptied of people that enabled it.
                      Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X