Christ.
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 2:01, Reply)
Headline:
Child porn charges for 15-year-old who snapped self
for an article which later states:
The student has since been told there is a chance that the charges against her will be dismissed, but only if she adheres to a set of conditions governing mobile phone and internet usage.
Yes, it is preposterous, but there's an 18 or over rule for a reason, what she did *is* illegal, and if you look at the passage above it's more a case of "girl told 'don't do it again' after sending photos of her nude self to others."
Every day I arrive somewhat more at my conclusion that news organisations are just sneaky devious cunts.
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 2:09, Reply)
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 2:43, Reply)
i'm no paedophile, but the impossible nonsense resonating about intergenerational sex/the sexuality of people under (pick the age here) is absurd.
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 3:51, Reply)
Some people know what they're doing at that age, some don't. Laws need to protect as many people as possible (for the right reasons).
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 13:56, Reply)
That's a lot of licking...
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 2:12, Reply)
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 3:49, Reply)
we saw you first.
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 5:25, Reply)
...treat the media with a healthy dose of scepticism. The Sun/Guardian/Telegraph/Any of the fuckers/etc all have been inaccurate to varying degrees & love nothing better than a mental 'story' to splash on the front pages.
Lazy bastard journalist scum.
EDIT: + lying cunts.
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 5:27, Reply)
genius.
oh dear does this mean self-masturbation under the age of 16 is child abuse?
(, Sun 28 Dec 2008, 10:15, Reply)