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
Cazza72 said:
View attachment 3110982 qView attachment 3110983 qView attachment 3110984 q

Right Krusties, I've been looking at THAT picture...for the purposes of research obviously, and I'm going for late 2017 and taken at the mucky mansion. Check out the headboard and carpet compared to the headboard and carpet in the reveal of her bedroom in Oct 2017. Fucksake I need to get a life, but it's been a little distraction from laying some slabs...actual slabs not a euphemism for shitting on someone 🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with this.
 
Helena-botham-farter said:
That still might not apply in a porn website type scenario which is why I think it possibly not relevant. There are websites that specialise in 'leaked' stuff, so someone surfing on there would know that and would probably know it was something not intended to be shared.

I suppose we'll see if someone gets charged or not....or possibly investigated for months and months.
Click to expand...
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

It’s an adequate defence when the complainant is known to offer photos of a similar nature online and openly promotes herself in these areas.

Now, if her complaint is that she did not consent because she was losing coin, then she has used the wrong area of law.
 
I've just watched Race Across The 🌎 🗺 with the gorgeous, top glamour model of The 90s Kelly Brook 🔥

Remember when Pricey called Kelly a Heffer and accused her of comfort eating.

Kelly fired back that at least she's natural. Wonder what The Pricey thinks of her now? 🤔
d56877_2821a40d6b80404a993fbbcab3cd714c~mv2.jpg
GUTkYqTWwAA8b0p.jpg


Anyways here's some pics of a loved up and naturally pretty Kelly Brook in love with her gorgeous husband.
 
HistrionicSites said:
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

It’s an adequate defence when the complainant is known to offer photos of a similar nature online and openly promotes herself in these areas.

Now, if her complaint is that she did not consent because she was losing coin, then she has used the wrong area of law.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly but I would imagine it depends on the exact circumstances of the photo. If she regularly gets dumped on for her OF subscribers I can see how that would apply. If she did this for one customer and did a photograph intended only for that one person ( away from any porn platform) surely that's private between them....I don't see it as a cut-and-dried defence for that reason.

You may well be right of course.
 
Helena-botham-farter said:
Yes, but she was in a voluntarily intimate state, that's the bit I was getting at, as it says it's an exemption, so I don't quite understand it.

'(c)B was, or A reasonably believes that B was, in the intimate state voluntarily.''
Click to expand...
All three need to apply;
1)A person (A) who shares a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (B) in an intimate state does not commit an offence under section 66B(1), (2) or (3) if—

(a)the photograph or film was taken in a place to which the public or a section of the public had or were permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise),

(b)B had no reasonable expectation of privacy from the photograph or film being taken, and

(c)B was, or A reasonably believes that B was, in the intimate state voluntarily

So, for this defence to apply (in the SB case) it would need to be taken in public (etc), there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and the victim/complainant was in intimate state voluntarily. In the SB case the video was taken in a private setting and the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy so this defence does not apply.
---
Ecosse said:
It doesn't make sense to me that a Sun photographer was (presumably) tipped off on Sunday morning to take photos of the police arriving at the rental.
Click to expand...
Unless the scum came to do an exclusive deal with her when they first saw the poo pic?
 
Helena-botham-farter said:
Quite possibly but I would imagine it depends on the exact circumstances of the photo. If she regularly gets dumped on for her OF subscribers I can see how that would apply. If she did this for one customer and did a photograph intended only for that one person ( away from any porn platform) surely that's private between them....I don't see it as a cut-and-dried defence for that reason.

You may well be right of course.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s certainly a bit of a brain twister.
 
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