Well thanks for clearing that up, we can all go and 'grow up'......?Here are your pertinent facts that I have not 'carefully' avoided:
1999 Glitter arrested with 4000 pics of child pornography (with definition, as it looks like you need to have it spelt out for you.)
Again: In late 2005, Gary Glitter was arrested and charged with molesting two under-aged girls, aged 10 and 11.
Sounds to me like you are the one living in a fantasy world.
edit: more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter
(1999 Glitter arrested with 4000 pics of child pornography (with definition, as it looks like you need to have it spelt out for you.)
Again: In late 2005, Gary Glitter was arrested and charged with molesting two under-aged girls, aged 10 and 11.
Sounds to me like you are the one living in a fantasy world.
edit: more info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Glitter
PointlessCamel Last one on drugs is a queer.,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:24,
archived)
oh good grief.arrested, charged and not prosecuted = innocent, not guilty. got it?
and a wikipedia definition has no meaning under the law of any country - the laws vary, too, from place to place and over time. what is legal where you are may be illegal here, and vice versa. to add hilarity to this, the very first sentence of the wiki article begins "Child pornography refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress..." which only supports my question - what is the nature of the pics he had? Were they just naked pics or drawings or silly-ass photoshops, or were they actually porn pics featuring underage kids?
we don't know! further, in my mind (and in the minds of many people, some of whom are posting here and some of whom are on the forefront of this legal issue), possessing pictures of illicit acts should not necessarily be a crime.
please don't try people by their wikipedia articles. it's just not... sane.
(and a wikipedia definition has no meaning under the law of any country - the laws vary, too, from place to place and over time. what is legal where you are may be illegal here, and vice versa. to add hilarity to this, the very first sentence of the wiki article begins "Child pornography refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress..." which only supports my question - what is the nature of the pics he had? Were they just naked pics or drawings or silly-ass photoshops, or were they actually porn pics featuring underage kids?
we don't know! further, in my mind (and in the minds of many people, some of whom are posting here and some of whom are on the forefront of this legal issue), possessing pictures of illicit acts should not necessarily be a crime.
please don't try people by their wikipedia articles. it's just not... sane.
postbear has metal knees,
Tue 2 Sep 2008, 4:34,
archived)