Zara McDermott #4 Liar liar fake tits on fire, promoting ED’s to those who admire

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
linzilou said:
he absolutely did break the law under the protection of children act- distributing or possessing an indecent photograph of someone under the age of 16.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn’t against the law when it happened 10 years ago. Zara broke the law, the kid who shared the picture didn’t. The police visited Zara, because she broke the law, the kid who shared them didn’t. A law came into force in approx 2015 so if it happened today it would be a different outcome.

Aemee00 said:
ME ME ME ME ME I I I I I I ME ME ME
Click to expand...
And therein lies the root of all her problems .......... me me me me me LOOK AT ME!!!!
 
santas_little_helper said:
No, it wasn’t against the law when it happened 10 years ago. Zara broke the law, the kid who shared the picture didn’t. The police visited Zara, because she broke the law, the kid who shared them didn’t. A law came into force in approx 2015 so if it happened today it would be a different outcome.


And therein lies the root of all her problems .......... me me me me me LOOK AT ME!!!!
Click to expand...

its been against the law since 1978 haha

the opening sentence of the act from 1978 literally says
" An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs"
 
santas_little_helper said:
No, it wasn’t against the law when it happened 10 years ago. Zara broke the law, the kid who shared the picture didn’t. The police visited Zara, because she broke the law, the kid who shared them didn’t. A law came into force in approx 2015 so if it happened today it would be a different outcome.


And therein lies the root of all her problems .......... me me me me me LOOK AT ME!!!!
Click to expand...

sorry but it absolutely was against the law 10 years ago to distribute child pornography, think you’re thinking of revenge porn which has only recently been criminalised. I can promise you it has been illegal since 1978 to share indecent photos of children 😅
 
linzilou said:
its been against the law since 1978 haha

the opening sentence of the act from 1978 literally says
" An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs"
Click to expand...
Zara made the indecent image of herself. Different entirely.

Had an adult made the images of her, yes, this act is applicable.
 
Here is is:
 

Attachments

  • B406F166-115B-4BC7-A839-68AACA8FF0E6.jpeg
    B406F166-115B-4BC7-A839-68AACA8FF0E6.jpeg
    84.2 KB · Views: 270
Some of these responses are shocking... maybe take a moment to stop thinking about what's legal and what's illegal and just think about what's right and what isn't. As a 14 year old girl taking a nude photo isn't a wise move but when a girl wants a boy to like her or wants to fit in it does happen. It's naive but it isn't morally wrong. A boy on the other hand who chooses to share that around is just fucked up. Zara irritates the hell out of me but I think anyone that blames her for this has some serious issues and I hope y'all never have children that go through something similar x
 
sunisshining said:
I’m not sure what the debate is about! YES she created the image, but she was young/impressionable and made mistakes, as we all do. So yes, she was in the wrong to take the pictures. But what she didn’t deserve was for that picture to be distributed further for revenge.
Click to expand...
Agree. Which is why the revenge porn law was introduced in 2015. This happened to Zara in 2011, before the law was introduced, which is why the boy she sent the photos to didn’t get into any trouble. The police did however bollock Zara for taking and distributing the photos in the first place. She’s blaming the school but they couldn’t punish the boy because he didn’t break any laws, she did.

sunisshining said:
I’m not sure what the debate is about! YES she created the image, but she was young/impressionable and made mistakes, as we all do. So yes, she was in the wrong to take the pictures. But what she didn’t deserve was for that picture to be distributed further for revenge.
Click to expand...
Agree. That’s why the law was introduced in 2015. If it happened to Zara in 2021, it would be a very different outcome, and rightly so.

linzilou said:
i dont think you have a very firm grasp of the law.
making the image is illegal
sharing the image is illegal
everyone who shared that image or passed it around broke the law.
Click to expand...
Not in 2011.
 
santas_little_helper said:
Agree. Which is why the revenge porn law was introduced in 2015. This happened to Zara in 2011, before the law was introduced, which is why the boy she sent the photos to didn’t get into any trouble. The police did however bollock Zara for taking and distributing the photos in the first place. She’s blaming the school but they couldn’t punish the boy because he didn’t break any laws, she did.


Agree. That’s why the law was introduced in 2015. If it happened to Zara in 2021, it would be a very different outcome, and rightly so.


Not in 2011.
Click to expand...

omg are you actually this incapable of logical thought or are you putting this act on to annoy me?

revenge porn is irrelavant in zaras case,
revenge porn doesnt cover children
because
it
has
always
been
illegal
to
share
naked
photos
of children

omg

if it happened to a 14 year old child now, the boy would be prosecuted under protection of children laws, not revenge porn.
 
speach7991 said:
Some of these responses are shocking... maybe take a moment to stop thinking about what's legal and what's illegal and just think about what's right and what isn't. As a 14 year old girl taking a nude photo isn't a wise move but when a girl wants a boy to like her or wants to fit in it does happen. It's naive but it isn't morally wrong. A boy on the other hand who chooses to share that around is just fucked up. Zara irritates the hell out of me but I think anyone that blames her for this has some serious issues and I hope y'all never have children that go through something similar x
Click to expand...
A law was introduced in 2015 to protect people from revenge porn. It didn’t exist in 2011. That’s why her school acted the way they did.
 

Attachments

  • 6CB25840-1247-48A3-A7AE-164001D22503.jpeg
    6CB25840-1247-48A3-A7AE-164001D22503.jpeg
    84.2 KB · Views: 55
santas_little_helper said:
Agree. Which is why the revenge porn law was introduced in 2015. This happened to Zara in 2011, before the law was introduced, which is why the boy she sent the photos to didn’t get into any trouble. The police did however bollock Zara for taking and distributing the photos in the first place. She’s blaming the school but they couldn’t punish the boy because he didn’t break any laws, she did.
Click to expand...

Seriously what planet are you on? She was FOURTEEN!!!!! That by definition is an indecent image of a child, and sharing that has been illegal since the 70s as you’ve been told. The law you are referencing is in regards to photos/videos of ADULTS shared without their consent (still absolutely vile and it’s upsetting that the law was only introduced in 2015).
 
Hollyjenkins1234 said:
Seriously what planet are you on? She was FOURTEEN!!!!! That by definition is an indecent image of a child, and sharing that has been illegal since the 70s as you’ve been told. The law you are referencing is in regards to photos/videos of ADULTS shared without their consent (still absolutely vile and it’s upsetting that the law was only introduced in 2015).
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
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