DS Forums

 
 

Best Boobs on TV? (Part 3)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14-12-2015, 10:44
jazzydrury3
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,799
On Ariel Winter she has been fairly open about her breasts, if she didnt feel comfortable she wouldnt mention them.
jazzydrury3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 14-12-2015, 11:11
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 24,017
Wonkypedia



You can argue whether a picture that has already been published somewhere is included but that is your decision.
hang on - how old was Sam Fox when she started doing page 3 ? wasn't she 16 ?


.
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 11:19
willrelf92
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pontypool, Wales
Posts: 4,337
I only use the unwritten rule of half my age plus seven when I post.

Phwor!
Going slightly off topic here - that rule is spoken about a lot but it's flawed in my opinion. Take a 14 year old for example - under that rule they would be unable to date anyone unless they are 14 as well. To be honest I think as long as two people love one another, age is just a number.

It does not matter what you think, several of us were just pointing out what the law is in the UK (and most other Western countries).
I was only stating my opinion as well and the law is if someone is 16 or over they are legal.
willrelf92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 11:21
Frankie Boyle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 195
Rochelle Humes was packing a decent pair on the Xtra Factor last night.

One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?
Frankie Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 11:24
willrelf92
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pontypool, Wales
Posts: 4,337
One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?
It's not wrong at all, she does have fantastic legs indeed. What a package she is.
willrelf92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 13:22
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?
Yes, it is wrong and yes, she does.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 17:10
Bob Paisley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,875
Rochelle Humes was packing a decent pair on the Xtra Factor last night.

One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?
I believe there is a thread for best legs elsewhere. Let's stick to boobs here people...
Bob Paisley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 17:35
Ben_Thwaites
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 145
Louisa Johnson looked beautiful as always on X Factor. Well deserved winner, the full package. Hopefully we see a lot more of her body next year!
She is also 17 years old ! I am getting a bit worried as people are keeping suggestions teenagers who are not yet officially adult. I am not going to say any more I said my piece.
Ben_Thwaites is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 17:44
Moleskin
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,040
hang on - how old was Sam Fox when she started doing page 3 ? wasn't she 16 ?
Yes but that's now illegal and so are those images.
Moleskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 18:01
willrelf92
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Pontypool, Wales
Posts: 4,337
She is also 17 years old ! I am getting a bit worried as people are keeping suggestions teenagers who are not yet officially adult. I am not going to say any more I said my piece.
She's of legal age, it's fine.
willrelf92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 18:12
Hogeyz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 476
Ariel Winter has turned into a gorgeous woman and even post reduction her breasts are still massive as you can see here-

http://i.imgur.com/oiaE5Nm.jpg

She really is stunning
Hogeyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 19:59
Sam_Geee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1
Ah Ariel, she is spectacular.
She seems as confident as ever, post surgery.
Sam_Geee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 22:26
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
Carly Baker seems to be a regular in the Coral ads now
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carly+baker&tbm=isch
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2015, 22:28
stv viewer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9,624
Carly Baker seems to be a regular in the Coral ads now
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carly+baker&tbm=isch
She is a little beauty
stv viewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 09:27
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
Yes but that's now illegal and so are those images.
Somehow I can't imagine the police planning to raid someone's house on the off-chance they may have a kept a photo of Sam Fox on her Page 3 debut...
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 09:33
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,434
Somehow I can't imagine the police planning to raid someone's house on the off-chance they may have a kept a photo of Sam Fox on her Page 3 debut...
I wouldn't be too sure about that bearing in mind recent court cases - police raided Sir Cliff's house in relation to an alleged offence committed 200 miles away when he wasn't even living in it at that time.
ftv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 09:41
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
I wouldn't be too sure about that bearing in mind recent court cases - police raided Sir Cliff's house in relation to an alleged offence committed 200 miles away when he wasn't even living in it at that time.
However that raid wasn't in relation to a widely available, didn't The Sun sell in the region of 4m a day back then, photo of a 16 year old female posing topless in a newspaper when at the time it was perfectly legal to do so.

As a naturist I always find it a strange paradox that whilst it is perfectly legal for an adult to spend a day with a naked 16-year old female within a non-sexual naturist environment, a beach for example, but to take a single photo of her topless is illegal.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 10:16
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
However that raid wasn't in relation to a widely available, didn't The Sun sell in the region of 4m a day back then, photo of a 16 year old female posing topless in a newspaper when at the time it was perfectly legal to do so.

As a naturist I always find it a strange paradox that whilst it is perfectly legal for an adult to spend a day with a naked 16-year old female within a non-sexual naturist environment, a beach for example, but to take a single photo of her topless is illegal.
I think it is more complex than that and depending on context but can lead to problems even if a family member - you still reports of people reported to police because they have taken a picture of their baby in the bath. You often see people claiming that is illegal to even take a picture of a child in a normal setting when they just happen to be in the background.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 11:00
Resonance
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,208
Somehow I can't imagine the police planning to raid someone's house on the off-chance they may have a kept a photo of Sam Fox on her Page 3 debut...
I wouldn't be too sure about that bearing in mind recent court cases - police raided Sir Cliff's house in relation to an alleged offence committed 200 miles away when he wasn't even living in it at that time.
Is the law even retrospective (most aren't)? I would think that images legally published before the change wouldn't have become illegal, although I could be wrong?
Resonance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 11:29
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
I think it is more complex than that and depending on context but can lead to problems even if a family member - you still reports of people reported to police because they have taken a picture of their baby in the bath. You often see people claiming that is illegal to even take a picture of a child in a normal setting when they just happen to be in the background.
The problem is there is a huge amount of ignorance of what is, or isn't illegal both with the general public and, sadly, the police.

Take the example I used above. Taking a topless photo of a 16-year old is illegal depending on the context in which the photo was taken. If the photo is taken within the context of a naturist environment, e.g. a designated naturist beach, is perfectly legal, and it would be for someone younger as well, and has been shown as such in court.

The reality, of course, is no one is going to take such a risk, just in case.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 11:30
Glawster2002
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Nailsworth, Gloucestershire
Posts: 10,402
Is the law even retrospective (most aren't)? I would think that images legally published before the change wouldn't have become illegal, although I could be wrong?
I think that is the case as well in such instances.
Glawster2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 13:23
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
Is the law even retrospective (most aren't)? I would think that images legally published before the change wouldn't have become illegal, although I could be wrong?
I think that is the case as well in such instances.
By its nature an image effectively can last for ever so if the law was not retrospective then any people so inclined would acquire pictures taken before the chance and claim they were legal. Of course this open up a whole can of worms regarding 'art'.

Someone commented on ignorance of the law on photography. Last week I had a security man from a large security company trying to tell me that it was illegal to take a picture of a building without permission (even though it was not even on their site). I just told him he was talking rubbish and walked off.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 13:48
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,434
The rule of thumb is that if you are on a public highway you can take a picture of any building you can see. Taking pictures of people is a different matter, particularly if they object. Newspapers used to replace topless pictures in the Irish editions and in Malta customs would tear them out of the papers brought in for British holidaymakers.
ftv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 15:04
Pizzatheaction
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 17,541
...and in Malta customs would tear them out of the papers brought in for British holidaymakers.
Couldn't they just photocopy them?
Pizzatheaction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-12-2015, 16:24
lundavra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 25,462
The rule of thumb is that if you are on a public highway you can take a picture of any building you can see. Taking pictures of people is a different matter, particularly if they object. Newspapers used to replace topless pictures in the Irish editions and in Malta customs would tear them out of the papers brought in for British holidaymakers.
Change that to a 'public place' rather than 'public highway' (which is where I was when I had the argument with the security muppet).

Taking pictures of people is more of a grey area, it has to go beyond a simple picture before it becomes potential illegal. Some think that if they just happen to be in a scene that you photograph then you have broken the law which is not correct. There can be problems if you then use the image for commercial purposes but I think they have to be main subject of the image rather just in the scene before they can object and it will be a civil matter not criminal.
lundavra is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04.