Gloria De Piero & Some Topless Pics

jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
Forum Member
✭✭
Following on from the so called Sam Cam risque photos it appears some far more interesting ones are out there of glamorous Labour candidate Gloria De Piero. Oh dear Harman will be fuming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7532898/Labour-candidate-posed-topless-as-a-teenager.html
«1

Comments

  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    Labour Party officials deny that she has been chosen for her looks.

    "Gloria has been a committed Labour supporter for many years," one said.

    "The idea that she needed help to become a candidate is nonsense. She is highly intelligent and commands great respect from colleagues in journalism as well as politics.

    "What she did as a teenager is irrelevant. So what if she posed for a few risqué photos?"

    Well under laws brought in by Labour she was involved in the production of child pornography, and if she still has them at home somewhere is guilty of possession of child porn.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,741
    Forum Member
    invisipost
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    Well under laws brought in by Labour she was involved in the production of child pornography, and if she still has them at home somewhere is guilty of possession of child porn.
    Are you saying that laws against the production of child pornography are wrong? Anyway the article says she was around the age of 16, so it's quite possible she was not a minor so the pictures didn't show her as a child. I find it hard to believe someone would be convicted for possessing topless pictures of themselves. Most family photo albums would be pornographic material by that definition.

    This is nothing. The Lib-Dems have a porn video producer as one of their candidates. A few harmless glamour pictures are mild by comparison.
  • WokStationWokStation Posts: 23,112
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allafix wrote: »
    Are you saying that laws against the production of child pornography are wrong? Anyway the article says she was around the age of 16, so it's quite possible she was not a minor so the pictures didn't show her as a child.

    The age of consent for pornography is 18. They would be indecent images of a minor, so yes, if they are in her possession she is technically guilty of production and possession of indecent images of a minor.

    Such cases are already hitting the courts in the US, where teens who have taken naked pics of themselves and texted them to friends have found themselves and the friends they texted the images to placed on the sex offender's register.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    Following on from the so called Sam Cam risque photos it appears some far more interesting ones are out there of glamorous Labour candidate Gloria De Piero. Oh dear Harman will be fuming.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7532898/Labour-candidate-posed-topless-as-a-teenager.html

    Why not give us a link to some of the pornography work by that Lib Dem PPC as well?
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    Are you saying that laws against the production of child pornography are wrong? Anyway the article says she was around the age of 16, so it's quite possible she was not a minor so the pictures didn't show her as a child. I find it hard to believe someone would be convicted for possessing topless pictures of themselves. Most family photo albums would be pornographic material by that definition.

    This is nothing. The Lib-Dems have a porn video producer as one of their candidates. A few harmless glamour pictures are mild by comparison.

    She was 15, as reported in other articles.

    A sexualised picture of a topless 15 year old girl is classified as child porn in the UK.

    On that basis I am not sure I do agree with child porn laws, or at least am not satisfied with how they are framed.
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WokStation wrote: »
    The age of consent for pornography is 18. They would be indecent images of a minor, so yes, if they are in her possession she is technically guilty of production and possession of indecent images of a minor.

    Such cases are already hitting the courts in the US, where teens who have taken naked pics of themselves and texted them to friends have found themselves and the friends they texted the images to placed on the sex offender's register.
    Is glamour modelling considered pornography? Anyway, when the photos were taken I'm pretty sure 16 year olds could give such consent, I vaguely recall 16 year olds appearing on Page 3 at one time. Is the current law retrospective? As I said it would make all existing "babies in the bath" photographs illegal, not to mention archived copies of The Sun.

    The Daily Mail is claiming she was a Page 3 model, yet she only had "Page 3 style" photographs taken. Note it to refers to 16 as being the age in question.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    Is glamour modelling considered pornography? Anyway, when the photos were taken I'm pretty sure 16 year olds could give such consent, I vaguely recall 16 year olds appearing on Page 3 at one time. Is the current law retrospective? As I said it would make all existing "babies in the bath" photographs illegal, not to mention archived copies of The Sun.

    She was 15, and if people in the UK are found to have pictures of nude 15 year olds they are likely to be charged with child porn offences.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    She was 15, and if people in the UK are found to have pictures of nude 15 year olds they are likely to be charged with child porn offences.

    I doubt very much that she would be charged for having topless photos of herself from 20 years ago.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    I doubt very much that she would be charged for having topless photos of herself from 20 years ago.

    Are you saying its not an offence?
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    She was 15, and if people in the UK are found to have pictures of nude 15 year olds they are likely to be charged with child porn offences.
    Burn the evil witch then.

    If, for example such photos were of family members on holiday, then I very much doubt anyone would bother to prosecute. We've all probably seen young children naked or partially naked on the beach. Does that make us all paedophiles?
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    Are you saying its not an offence?

    On a technical level it could be investigated if there was evidence to do so, but why would it here? There certainly wouldn't be charges.

    I suspect every parent has nude, or semi nude photos of their children. Are you suggesting they would be charged?
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    Burn the evil witch then.

    If, for example such photos were of family members on holiday, then I very much doubt anyone would bother to prosecute. We've all probably seen young children naked or partially naked on the beach. Does that make us all paedophiles?

    Now you are arguing with child pornography laws, not me.

    This kind of thing is going on in the US now, and child porn offences are those Interpol are generally obsessed with pursuing.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/teen-girl-faces/
    A 15-year-old Ohio girl was arrested earlier this month for sending nude photos of herself to other minors and was facing felony criminal charges for illegally using a minor in nudity-oriented material and for possession of criminal tools. If convicted, the teen could have been forced to register as a sexual offender annually for ten years.

    Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/teen-girl-faces/#ixzz0ja7XJi3M
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    Now you are arguing with child pornography laws, not me.

    This kind of thing is going on in the US now, and child porn offences are those Interpol are generally obsessed with pursuing.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/teen-girl-faces/

    That's very different. She sent the pictures to other people, also under 16. And it's in the USA, this "offence" took place here in the UK about 12 years ago.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    On a technical level it could be investigated if there was evidence to do so, but why would it here? There certainly wouldn't be charges.

    I suspect every parent has nude, or semi nude photos of their children. Are you suggesting they would be charged?

    They are unlikely to be in suggestive glamour style poses.

    No I am suggesting the child porn laws are ill thought out.

    As for there being no police interest? If someone knew these photos existed and were in her home, or more pertinently perhaps someone elses home the Police would have to investigate would they not?

    If a 3rd party had these pictures then they could easily face prosecution.
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    They are unlikely to be in suggestive glamour style poses.

    No I am suggesting the child porn laws are ill thought out.

    As for there being no police interest? If someone knew these photos existed and were in her home, or more pertinently perhaps someone elses home the Police would have to investigate would they not?

    If a 3rd party had these pictures then they could easily face prosecution.
    The debate here isn't the current child porn laws though, it's whether this PPC is in some way a dubious person or not. She isn't a "3rd party" in this case, so possessing her own photographs is not likely to be seen as an offence.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    That's very different. She sent the pictures to other people, also under 16. And it's in the USA, this "offence" took place here in the UK about 12 years ago.

    I think you weill find child porn offences are one area of the law which increasingly has a global remit in terms of prosecution.

    There is a porn actress called Traci Lords who made porn films underage (at her own behest) 20 years ago - possession of those films is now considered possession of child porn, age of material is not likely to be a factor in child porn cases.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    The debate here isn't the current child porn laws though, it's whether this PPC is in some way a dubious person or not. She isn't a "3rd party" in this case, so possessing her own photographs is not likely to be seen as an offence.

    It IS an offence though, the only debate is whether she would be charged.
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    I think you weill find child porn offences are one area of the law which increasingly has a global remit in terms of prosecution.

    There is a porn actress called Traci Lords who made porn films underage (at her own behest) 20 years ago - possession of those films is now considered possession of child porn, age of material is not likely to be a factor in child porn cases.
    By all means start a thread about child pornography laws, but please don't try to use an extreme imterpretation of them here to imply Gloria del Piero is some way legally a sex offender.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    allafix wrote: »
    By all means start a thread about child pornography laws, but please don't try to use an extreme imterpretation of them here to imply Gloria del Piero is some way legally a sex offender.

    Its not an extreme interpretation, possession of sexualised pictures of a 15 year old girl is an offence in UK law.
  • CyrilTheWaspCyrilTheWasp Posts: 2,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    Following on from the so called Sam Cam risque photos it appears some far more interesting ones are out there of glamorous Labour candidate Gloria De Piero. Oh dear Harman will be fuming.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7532898/Labour-candidate-posed-topless-as-a-teenager.html

    A jolly fine looking woman I'd say jim :)

    We definately need more like her in Parliament.

    I went off Sam Cam when the tory/nasty party decided to change her voice because she sounded too posh.:D
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    It IS an offence though, the only debate is whether she would be charged.
    The debate is mainly in your mind, and I doubt if anyone would consider charges were appropriate. Has any newspaper seriously suggested she might be technically a sex offender?
  • allafixallafix Posts: 20,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    Its not an extreme interpretation, possession of sexualised pictures of a 15 year old girl is an offence in UK law.
    I think you'll find that these things are subject to a scale to determine how harmful the images may be. As is the definition of "sexualised". So interpretation very much comes into it, as would the circumstances of their possession in any court case.
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Vellum wrote: »
    Its not an extreme interpretation, possession of sexualised pictures of a 15 year old girl is an offence in UK law.

    Then surely the question should be " How has the Telegraph come to have either seen or to be in posession of these photo's"?

    If Gloria De Piero isn't available for comment then I doubt she has anything to do with it so who has and what's more are they guilty of breaking pornography laws for showing them to other people.
  • VellumVellum Posts: 6,825
    Forum Member
    Then surely the question should be " How has the Telegraph come to have either seen or to be in posession of these photo's"?

    If Gloria De Piero isn't available for comment then I doubt she has anything to do with it so who has and what's more are they guilty of breaking pornography laws for showing them to other people.

    If they have them and have shown them around then yes they are indeed committing possession and distribution offences.
Sign In or Register to comment.