Eagle

iTrader: (2)

REFERENCE THE FHM PICTURE CIRCULATING ON PASSIONFORD.

any user found circulating the picture or asking for it will be removed from Passionford.

The willing and knowing distribution of underage pornographic images is AGAINST THE LAW.

The worst that could happen is users/admin are prosecuted and Passionford closed down.

now we do not want any of that to happen.

JjCoDeX75

Wells said mate.

JJ

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Daft question, but even if the picture is of a 14 year old, is it even illegal if its just topless and not specifally pornographic?

The sun have birds of 16 in there on page 3 (thats how old sam fox was when she started) so its obvioulsy NOT classed the same as "porn" which is 18+ I believe.

Lee_R21Turbo

iTrader: (1)

Surely its got sweet fuck all to do with PassionFord unless you can prove that PF was used to distribute the pics - i.e. PMs etc!!

Rab

I have no idea what you're all on about, and by the sounds of things, I don't want to. I agree with Eagle. Ban the lot of them.

Eagle

iTrader: (2)

thank you for your concerns.

yes you are technically correct but users actually asking for pictures to be distributed are breaking the law as they know what the picture contains.

Martyn

The fact that people were openly asking for it to be PM'ed to them could potentially be damaging enough to PF as a whole.
That can give the impression that the sharing of such pics is openly allowed on here, which of course it is not.

Redkop

Agreed, but you can't go banning those people who already have.... only the ones that do since you've posted this Sticky.

markyd4

So all the porn links in the Mens room are of girls above the age of 16 are they!!?


and you can guarantee that?

xr2i-carl

didnt realise it was a porno pic

why did the girl send it to fhm?

DanCossie

iTrader: (1)

she didnt..............some lad sent it in under readers girls or something and then the girls parents saw it?

philram

iTrader: (3)

I think you need parental consent to appear on page3 if your between 16 and 18..

Eagle

iTrader: (2)

both posts were warned of the possible concequences of doing such actions...

now as you say there is no excuses..

~nomad~

iTrader: (4)

It sounds more like one mod has become a little obsessed with this tbh. If such a fuss had not been kicked up then noone would even be talking about it anymore. Its been mentioned on several forums I use, all at about the same time. On all the others the thread is dead now, and several pages back, same as it would be on here if people hadn't started getting banned left right and centre.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its just a topless picture, and NO action has been taken against FHM legally for selling 10s of thousands of copies of a mag with it in as far as im aware, so to think PF will get shut down over a PM or three is a massive over reaction.

Personally I think its unsuitable content for the site, and the mods have the right to ask people not to post it on here, but the implication that PF could be prosecuted over someone asking for the pics is just ridiculous, thats never going to happen.

Redkop

So I assume only those posting AFTER your warning are banned.... 27 bannings seems very OTT IMHO

Chip

iTrader: (3)

27 bannings?


Christ, do we all start to call yesterday "black thursday" from now on

WTF?!

Hello, Stavros here.

WHY pray tell, have i been banned?

Am I right in saying you will be banned for ASKING or DISTRIBUTING that pic?

So where have I done that then?

Fookin tons of people have, but I HAVENT.

Ive seen the pics, like meeelions of FHM readers etc have, but never seen it on the internet once, and not asked for it here once.

So can certain mods get their facts right and un-ban me please.

And aplogise if, as it seems, ive done FOOK ALL wrong.

And yeah, ive broke a rule by now having 2 usernames, but if nobody explains WHY im banned, have no email address to contact them away from here, and unable to even READ the board when your banned, what you expect. Cant ban someone when they shouldnt have been banned in the 1st place...

Daviet

thing is chip fhm didnt know the girl in question is only 14.were as you lots of sick cunts actually want to se a picture of a 14y/o?? wtf is going on in your heads

Rippers

Personally I think its very over the top and the banning has liturally pigeon holed the bannee's as pedo's

I think a warning should have given and the thread deleted

Eagle

iTrader: (2)

not at all ..
i have done what i should have and thats it..
just reply to the emails sent out .. simple really as others already have....

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Dont lump me in with the sick lot, you'll notice im NOT banned as I didnt ask for it on here as I think its inappropriate content for on here as much as you do!
(joke, i dont think they are sick, just curious)

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

Well that was a long time sorting but got there in the end! thanks go to eagle for listening to what i had to say!

exactly mate!


I didnt even have the bastard pic and got banned for saying i "might"!

Martyn

EXACTLY.
If it had just said there was topless pic of a bird on FHM hardly anyone would of been interested, certainly not to the point of asking for it to be sent to them etc

Redkop

The thread has been deleted.

Daviet

well i apoligise then but just the way you were coming across was that you thought nothing was wrong with it??

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont believe that people wanted to see the pic for pornographic reasons, just purely from a "was it so obvious she was underage that FHM should have realised" kind of way.

Anyone connected to the internet can find whatever porn they want without needing to be PMing people on PF for mag scans IMHO so the people who are labelling these people as pedo's etc are talking nonsense.

Dan

I agree Paul, as I said on an e-mail to Pete I felt I this would have been sufficient.

However, I am now back, thank you Pete

Daviet

fury muff then
i just think if i had a 14y/o sister and someone was asking to see pics of her topless wether for "educational" or whatever you want to call it id still class them as a sicko tbh.thing is most of the folk asking for it are probably double her age.does it matter if it looked obvous or not if you know its wrong

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, likewise, I can understand why people dont want it here, I just dont see the need for the mods to make it sound like we will lose the site over it, we wont, just will lose a bit of respect from many users (like yourself) and that should be reason enough without needing to exagerate legal implications.

Daviet

as you said doubt we would lose the site over it.but still think the police wouldnt take to kindly to folk exchanging pics of 14y/o's lol wether it was in a magazine or not.just like im sure something would have been done to fhm if they knew she was that age.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Without meaning to dismiss it as "nothing" im sure the police have better things to worry about than some very soft image on a ford website.

I think the parents are fucking stupid to have made a fuss out of it, and make everyone intrigued to see the picture, when most people would have barely glanced at it beforehand! Unless their intention is to save other familes from seeing their daughter (who likes to get her tits out for camera phones) in the mag

BM08

Ok it was a sticky 10mins ago and now its not