Katie Price #418 Who is the owner of the secret 💩? Will it be revealed before she does bird?

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
With revenge porn or intimate image abuse, there must be intent to cause embarrassment or distress to the subject. Now if these footie blokes who posted this pic found this pic on the internet somewhere, like in a porn site, surely they would have a good argument to say they had no such intent, that KFP had been getting all her kit off, sticking phones, vodka bottles and whatnot up her foo foo and generally behaving in a debaucherous way in public for years - with photos to prove it. How can she say that she’s embarrassed or distressed?

Don’t get me wrong, I think revenge porn is hideous, but unless the police can actually prove intent it’s going to be difficult. For a start I think the sharer would have to be either he/she who actually took the photo or is at least known to KFP before you’d have a hope of proving the requisite motive.
 
Mamfe71 said:
I don't think she actually gives a toss its out there but it gives her the media pity press she needs prior to the bh on the 27th and also an excuse not to interact with trustees judge ordered information...excuse of the stress of these private moments been released not good for her mh.
Maybe dimlin put the idea in to fruition 🤔
Click to expand...
Something always comes up when things are getting serious with cuntface,it’s pissing me off big time.
 
Yonderblue said:
With revenge porn or intimate image abuse, there must be intent to cause embarrassment or distress to the subject. Now if these footie blokes who posted this pic found this pic on the internet somewhere, like in a porn site, surely they would have a good argument to say they had no such intent, that KFP had been getting all her kit off, sticking phones, vodka bottles and whatnot up her foo foo and generally behaving in a debaucherous way in public for years - with photos to prove it. How can she say that she’s embarrassed or distressed?

Don’t get me wrong, I think revenge porn is hideous, but unless the police can actually prove intent it’s going to be difficult, unless the sharer is either he/she who actually took the photo or is at least known to KFP with a motive to share.
Click to expand...
Agree. And she’s dished it out so much, difficult to see what her problem is. Apart from getting back at the ‘phantom pooer’
 
Mellow Yellow said:
Yes it is. I do think that PA encourages J & P to have some contact with KP. He is very family-orientated and both J & P went to Australia to see his mum because she was unwell and he couldn't travel with Emily just having had the new baby. It is who he is, and I am sure he wants both of them to have a proper relatiionship with the maternal grandparents.
Click to expand...
It looks like Petes on holiday...
 
Yonderblue said:
With revenge porn or intimate image abuse, there must be intent to cause embarrassment or distress to the subject. Now if these footie blokes who posted this pic found this pic on the internet somewhere, like in a porn site, surely they would have a good argument to say they had no such intent, that KFP had been getting all her kit off, sticking phones, vodka bottles and whatnot up her foo foo and generally behaving in a debaucherous way in public for years - with photos to prove it. How can she say that she’s embarrassed or distressed?

Don’t get me wrong, I think revenge porn is hideous, but unless the police can actually prove intent it’s going to be difficult. For a start I think the sharer would have to be either he/she who actually took the photo or is at least known to KFP before you’d have a hope of proving the requisite motive.
Click to expand...
If they found it on a porn site, then they have a defence.

‘the defendant reasonably believed that the material was previously disclosed for reward and had no reason to believe that the previous disclosure for reward was made without the consent of the individual’.
 
I agree with whoever it was who said earlier on that J and P have been brought up well by Peter and he will have instilled in them a strong sense of family. So, I think it’s commendable that they’re spending time with KP right now but also telling that they have (presumably) not allowed her to post identifiable pictures of them.
 
Yonderblue said:
With revenge porn or intimate image abuse, there must be intent to cause embarrassment or distress to the subject. Now if these footie blokes who posted this pic found this pic on the internet somewhere, like in a porn site, surely they would have a good argument to say they had no such intent, that KFP had been getting all her kit off, sticking phones, vodka bottles and whatnot up her foo foo and generally behaving in a debaucherous way in public for years - with photos to prove it. How can she say that she’s embarrassed or distressed?

Don’t get me wrong, I think revenge porn is hideous, but unless the police can actually prove intent it’s going to be difficult. For a start I think the sharer would have to be either he/she who actually took the photo or is at least known to KFP before you’d have a hope of proving the requisite motive.
Click to expand...

I think the intent to cause distress will be a grey area....but I imagine taking something from a porn site and then sharing it far and wide to random members of the public might be hard to argue for as not intending distress, as the image was on a porn site and not intended for 'normal' SM...people sharing it on twitter should realise it could go viral to millions, who would then ridicule the subject, and maybe that's exactly what they intended. It could be hard to prove though as you say, I do hope it's not one rule for KP and another rule for men such as Alex Reid!
 
hayleybaby said:
Oh yeah I get that totally. You can tell when someone from KP’s camp is trying to divert the topic when tit goes down with her. But I have also seen people come in with tea and get jumped on as they are new to thread. Last one I can remember was when JJ first got with KP. The poster brought tea on their whereabouts ect which I knew to be true as I live in the local area. They then posted about a holiday being booked which turned out to be in correct and we’re jumped on quite harshly for that. I recognise the posters username talking about PA today and really don’t think they were here as a FM to divert as I see them post on other threads.

I just don’t want people to be put off from posting snippets of tea on her. Poogate is all over the FYP on TT and trending on twitter. It’s bound to get more traffic here. It’s good to get new people in threads. When I said open minded I didn’t mean to our opinions being changed on KP, I meant open minded to new people coming in with fresh tea or information without fear of being poo’pooed (sorry I couldn’t help myself) as they are not the usual trusted informants.
Click to expand...
Sorry, what's fyp?
 
Just as a matter of interest, how do the press find out about a situation like this? If the person isn’t being named and the police aren’t calling the press, who is? A source close to the celebrity is quoted, so they clearly tipped the media off then didn’t they? If you don’t want it getting out and you are distressed, why draw more attention to it?
 
Helena-botham-farter said:
I think the intent to cause distress will be a grey area....but I imagine taking something from a porn site and then sharing it far and wide to random members of the public might be hard to argue for as not intending distress, as the image was on a porn site and not intended for 'normal' SM...people sharing it on twitter should realise it could go viral to millions, who would then ridicule the subject, and maybe that's exactly what they intended. It could be hard to prove though as you say, I do hope it's not one rule for KP and another rule for men such as Alex Reid!
Click to expand...
You need to look at the exemptions too.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top