another photographers rights poser

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t

    (excerpt)
    "Fairy photo man ends up in court on child porn charges
    By Lucy Thornton 7/08/2008

    Snapper in court over 'naive' pics of children

    A man who ran a business turning photos of children into innocent
    images of fairies ended up in court on child porn charges.

    "Naive" Dr Marcus Phillips was prosecuted even though the parents of
    two girls aged 10 and 12 asked for the photos to be taken, were
    present most of the time and had no complaints.

    And the judge agreed he acted "perfectly properly" and there was "no
    sexual motive".

    But staff at Bonusprint, where he had the shots developed, reported
    him to the NSPCC when they saw the pictures, some showing the girls
    topless.

    And prosecutors decided they were level one child porn - the least
    serious of five - and charged him with making and possessing indecent
    images.

    Father of three Phillips, 38, a tutor at Sheffield University, ran a
    spare time business turning photos into the "ethereal" fairy images by
    superimposing pictures on each other. He used professional models and
    took commissions."



    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Heslop

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Paul Heslop" <> wrote

    > I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t

    Damn, I'm glad I got out of the UK 35 years ago!

    That link is to the Daily Mirror. People who read the Daily Mirror don't
    *have* minds, and probably can't read anyway - they buy it for the big tits
    on page three.

    But this is just plain crazy, and the nut jobs that insisted on prosecution
    should be slapped with contempt of court proceedings for wasting time.

    Dr Marcus Phillip's web site is down, but the Google cache shows the wording
    at least:
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach.../ "Marcus Phillips"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=au

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, Aug 8, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Paul Bartram wrote:
    >
    > "Paul Heslop" <> wrote
    >
    > > I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t
    >
    > Damn, I'm glad I got out of the UK 35 years ago!
    >
    > That link is to the Daily Mirror. People who read the Daily Mirror don't
    > *have* minds, and probably can't read anyway - they buy it for the big tits
    > on page three.
    >
    > But this is just plain crazy, and the nut jobs that insisted on prosecution
    > should be slapped with contempt of court proceedings for wasting time.
    >
    > Dr Marcus Phillip's web site is down, but the Google cache shows the wording
    > at least:
    > http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach.../ "Marcus Phillips"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=au
    >
    > Paul


    Yeah, sorry about the Mirror link Paul. I had read it in one of the
    free dailies and just put his name up in google to find a link to the
    story. The Mirror was first.

    I am sure in the original item it said that he concentrates on adults
    and that the parents made the approach, whereas the Mirror makes it
    sound like he works with kids.

    Surely if he was classed as guilty they should have charged the
    parents too?


    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2008
    #3
  4. Paul Heslop

    dj_nme Guest

    Paul Heslop wrote:
    <snip>
    > Surely if he was classed as guilty they should have charged the
    > parents too?


    Ha!
    You're expecting the legal system to actually make (common) sense?

    Would you like to buy a slightly used cable suspension bridge located in
    New York City? ;-)
    dj_nme, Aug 8, 2008
    #4
  5. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    dj_nme wrote:
    >
    > Paul Heslop wrote:
    > <snip>
    > > Surely if he was classed as guilty they should have charged the
    > > parents too?

    >
    > Ha!
    > You're expecting the legal system to actually make (common) sense?
    >
    > Would you like to buy a slightly used cable suspension bridge located in
    > New York City? ;-)


    :O) No fanks, I fink we have some

    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Paul Heslop

    Bill Guest

    On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:41:55 +1000, "Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR
    NEAR mysoul.com.au> wrote:

    >
    >"Paul Heslop" <> wrote
    >
    >> I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    >http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t
    >
    >Damn, I'm glad I got out of the UK 35 years ago!
    >


    "The Crown Prosecution Service said: "The police passed us a file, we
    looked at it and decided there was sufficient evidence ... and it was
    in the public interest."

    Yeah, it was in the public interest for public officials with mean
    little minds to turn an upstanding citizen into a criminal. That's
    one less citizen with rights to challenge the PTB. Us left ponders
    aren't far behind. Welcome to the age of over-reaction.

    The only thing that Orwell had wrong was the year.

    Bill
    Bill, Aug 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Paul Heslop

    Poldie Guest

    Paul Bartram wrote:
    > "Paul Heslop" <> wrote
    >
    >> I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    > http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t
    >
    > Damn, I'm glad I got out of the UK 35 years ago!
    >
    > That link is to the Daily Mirror. People who read the Daily Mirror don't
    > *have* minds, and probably can't read anyway - they buy it for the big tits
    > on page three.


    That's The Sun. Not that there's a massive difference, but I don't
    believe the Mirror has daily soft porn on page three.
    Poldie, Aug 8, 2008
    #7
  8. Paul Heslop

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Allen" <> wrote

    > Give Orwell a break. He was only two years late with his date--though way
    > too many people can't realize that.


    And I'm one of them. I often quote Orwell on the subject of government
    control, and I usually express the belief he was 20 years early in his
    reckoning. So what happened in 1982 that you feel vindicated his view of the
    future?

    Paul

    ** Bart: Well, I'd hate to tell the number one cop in town how to do his
    job...
    Chief Wiggum: No no, please. It's the only way I'll learn.**

    ~The Simpsons
    Paul Bartram, Aug 9, 2008
    #8
  9. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Poldie wrote:
    >
    > Paul Bartram wrote:
    > > "Paul Heslop" <> wrote
    > >
    > >> I'll let you make your own minds up on this one

    > > http://preview.tinyurl.com/574g9t
    > >
    > > Damn, I'm glad I got out of the UK 35 years ago!
    > >
    > > That link is to the Daily Mirror. People who read the Daily Mirror don't
    > > *have* minds, and probably can't read anyway - they buy it for the big tits
    > > on page three.

    >
    > That's The Sun. Not that there's a massive difference, but I don't
    > believe the Mirror has daily soft porn on page three.


    Not so sure nowadays, they seem to be all much of a muchness.

    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 9, 2008
    #9
  10. Paul Heslop

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:01:34 -0500, Allen <>
    wrote:

    >Paul Bartram wrote:
    >> "Allen" <> wrote
    >>
    >>> Give Orwell a break. He was only two years late with his date--though way
    >>> too many people can't realize that.

    >>
    >> And I'm one of them. I often quote Orwell on the subject of government
    >> control, and I usually express the belief he was 20 years early in his
    >> reckoning. So what happened in 1982 that you feel vindicated his view of the
    >> future?
    >>
    >> Paul
    >>
    >> ** Bart: Well, I'd hate to tell the number one cop in town how to do his
    >> job...
    >> Chief Wiggum: No no, please. It's the only way I'll learn.**
    >>
    >> ~The Simpsons
    >>
    >>

    >Actually, the date is January 1983, but set in motion in November 1982.
    >Check out those times and see if you can figure it out.
    >Allen


    Probably something to do with the Independent Council Act and the
    Ethics in Government Acts Amendments. That was set in motion long
    before 1982, though.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Paul Heslop

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Allen" <> wrote in message

    > Actually, the date is January 1983, but set in motion in November 1982.
    > Check out those times and see if you can figure it out.


    Got me beat. I'm doing a Google search now for November 1982, and all it's
    giving me is an Irish general election, something about a European
    Convention on Human Rights, and Arsenal vs. Watford (who won 4-2, bad news
    for The Hammers.)

    Sorry, you'll have to narrow it down a bit, history isn't my 'thing'...

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, Aug 10, 2008
    #11
  12. Paul Heslop

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Paul Heslop" <> wrote >> Paul Bartram wrote:

    >> That's The Sun. Not that there's a massive difference, but I don't
    >> believe the Mirror has daily soft porn on page three.


    > Not so sure nowadays, they seem to be all much of a muchness.


    If they're owned by Rupert Murdock, they're the same, no matter what country
    they're published in, or in what language.

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, Aug 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Paul Heslop

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Paul Bartram wrote:
    >
    > "Paul Heslop" <> wrote >> Paul Bartram wrote:
    >
    > >> That's The Sun. Not that there's a massive difference, but I don't
    > >> believe the Mirror has daily soft porn on page three.

    >
    > > Not so sure nowadays, they seem to be all much of a muchness.

    >
    > If they're owned by Rupert Murdock, they're the same, no matter what country
    > they're published in, or in what language.
    >
    > Paul


    this is true.
    --
    Paul (We won't die of devotion)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Aug 10, 2008
    #13
  14. Paul Heslop

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:14:56 -0500, Allen <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:01:34 -0500, Allen <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Paul Bartram wrote:
    >>>> "Allen" <> wrote
    >>>>
    >>>>> Give Orwell a break. He was only two years late with his date--though way
    >>>>> too many people can't realize that.
    >>>> And I'm one of them. I often quote Orwell on the subject of government
    >>>> control, and I usually express the belief he was 20 years early in his
    >>>> reckoning. So what happened in 1982 that you feel vindicated his view of the
    >>>> future?
    >>>>
    >>>> Paul
    >>>>
    >>>> ** Bart: Well, I'd hate to tell the number one cop in town how to do his
    >>>> job...
    >>>> Chief Wiggum: No no, please. It's the only way I'll learn.**
    >>>>
    >>>> ~The Simpsons
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Actually, the date is January 1983, but set in motion in November 1982.
    >>> Check out those times and see if you can figure it out.
    >>> Allen

    >>
    >> Probably something to do with the Independent Council Act and the
    >> Ethics in Government Acts Amendments. That was set in motion long
    >> before 1982, though.
    >>
    >>

    >Whoops! I was misthinking. I meant Nov 1980 and Jan 1981., so he was
    >four, not two, years late.
    >Allen


    Then it would be the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Elected in
    November, 1980 and sworn in on January 20, 1981. Actually, it was set
    in motion in July, 1980 when Reagan was nominated.





    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 11, 2008
    #14
  15. Paul Heslop

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Allen" <> wrote

    > Whoops! I was misthinking. I meant Nov 1980 and Jan 1981., so he was four,
    > not two, years late.


    Whew, thank goodness for that. So I'm not as dumb as I thought I was...

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, Aug 11, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Carl Miller

    Photographers Rights

    Carl Miller, Mar 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    286
  2. tony cooper

    Re: grim news for photographers tourism and rights

    tony cooper, May 15, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    214
    Views:
    3,152
    J. Clarke
    Jun 15, 2009
  3. Justin C

    Re: grim news for photographers tourism and rights

    Justin C, May 16, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    275
    Bob Larter
    Jun 1, 2009
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    274
    james
    May 19, 2009
  5. Mike

    ACLU: Know Your Rights: Photographers

    Mike, Sep 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    288
    PeterN
    Sep 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page