Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Gloria De Piero & Some Topless Pics


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-03-2010, 15:15
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 37,666

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/news...-teenager.html
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-03-2010, 15:33
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 15:34
PDJames
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Body here spirit and mind not
Posts: 6,508
invisipost
PDJames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:24
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:27
WokStation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 21,604
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.
WokStation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:37
Dan48
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,021
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/news...-teenager.html
Why not give us a link to some of the pornography work by that Lib Dem PPC as well?
Dan48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:41
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:43
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:44
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:49
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,168
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.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:51
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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?
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:51
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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?
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:55
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 43,168
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?
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:55
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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/200...en-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/200...#ixzz0ja7XJi3M
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:59
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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/200...en-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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 16:59
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:01
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:03
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:05
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:07
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:09
Vellum
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,663
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.
Vellum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:13
CyrilTheWasp
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Downtown,Birmingham
Posts: 1,045
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/news...-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.
CyrilTheWasp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:15
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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?
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:18
allafix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 16,708
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.
allafix is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-03-2010, 17:23
gummy mummy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,996
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.
gummy mummy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:00.