Believe it or not, that would fall under the required criteria for a level one indecent image of a child, which is defined as "Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity" (source: http://bit.ly/92JtOb )
I think the Mails attitude is "If she looks old enough it's ok!" Read the first line of the article about critics getting "hot under the collar".....SHE'S FOURTEEN! TWO YEARS AGO SHE WAS TWELVE!
Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.
Yet another case of simple hypocrisy...
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, that would fall under the required criteria for a level one indecent image of a child, which is defined as "Images of erotic posing, with no sexual activity" (source: http://bit.ly/92JtOb )
Typical Mail, though - lip-smacking disapproval.
ReplyDeleteNotice the other story it was running today in a finger wagging way (with expected comments)?
ReplyDeletehttp://chat.thisislondon.co.uk/london/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=18&thread=327603&message=1758827
I think the Mails attitude is "If she looks old enough it's ok!"
ReplyDeleteRead the first line of the article about critics getting "hot under the collar".....SHE'S FOURTEEN! TWO YEARS AGO SHE WAS TWELVE!