• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Dodgy Picture? [continued from ULM]

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> posted on ULM
>In message <WFpPY9ry4B8KFwhb@obviously.invalid>, at 12:20:09 on Tue, 3
>Nov 2009, Big Les Wade <Les@nowhere.com> remarked:
>>>The public's opinion was expressed over several years when there was
>>>a long drawn out consultation on what became the Sexual Offences
Bill.
>>
>>Where does the SOA define indecency?
>
>In general terms: its descriptions of various prohibited activities,
>which can them be used as a benchmark for whether photos of those
>activities are also beyond the pail.

My reply to Roland on ULM has just been modded out on the untrue basis
that it adds nothing, so here it is again:

"Nonsense. That doesn't follow at all. Not in the slightest."

I really object to this sort of moderation. The matter has *not* been
raised. Roland has been allowed to make a completely false statement
about statute law - that SOA defines indecency - and nobody is allowed
to contradict him on ULM because the thread is now blocked. Sheer
censorship.

--
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

Antworten