On Ariel Winter she has been fairly open about her breasts, if she didnt feel comfortable she wouldnt mention them.
Best Boobs on TV? (Part 3)
113 of 338
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“Wonkypedia
You can argue whether a picture that has already been published somewhere is included but that is your decision.”
“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 ?
.
Originally Posted by R82n8:
“I only use the unwritten rule of half my age plus seven when I post.
Phwor!”
“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.
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“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).”
“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.
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?
One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?
Originally Posted by Frankie Boyle:
“One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?”
“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.
Originally Posted by Frankie Boyle:
“One the subject and I know it's wrong, but doesn't Louisa have a cracking pair......of legs?”
“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.
Originally Posted by Frankie Boyle:
“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?”
“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...
Originally Posted by willrelf92:
“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!”
“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.
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“hang on - how old was Sam Fox when she started doing page 3 ? wasn't she 16 ?
”
“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.
Originally Posted by Ben_Thwaites:
“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 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.
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
http://i.imgur.com/oiaE5Nm.jpg
She really is stunning
Carly Baker seems to be a regular in the Coral ads now
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carly+baker&tbm=isch
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carly+baker&tbm=isch
Originally Posted by degsyhufc:
“Carly Baker seems to be a regular in the Coral ads now
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=carly+baker&tbm=isch”
“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
Originally Posted by Moleskin:
“Yes but that's now illegal and so are those images.”
“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...
Originally Posted by Glawster2002:
“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...”
“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.
Originally Posted by ftv:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Glawster2002:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Glawster2002:
“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...”
“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...”
Originally Posted by ftv:
“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.”
“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?
Originally Posted by lundavra:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Resonance:
“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?”
“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.
Originally Posted by Resonance:
“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?”
“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?”
Originally Posted by Glawster2002:
“I think that is the case as well in such instances.”
“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.
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.
Originally Posted by ftv:
“...and in Malta customs would tear them out of the papers brought in for British holidaymakers.”
“...and in Malta customs would tear them out of the papers brought in for British holidaymakers.”
Couldn't they just photocopy them?
Originally Posted by ftv:
“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.”
“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.
113 of 338
