Not much left to the Imagine'ation - Magazine publisher serves up porno to minors

[generic]

Originally Posted by name='mayhem'

1) The mags were sealed and no rating there for no one knows what inside the mags. The mags that are not sealed do not contain films , games, dvds ect ect ect.

2) he bought it with out me knowing you haven't read the article. Hence the article was written.

3) i haven't said a thing about films so your now amusing what he has or has not seen.

4) you speculating not working on facts

1) My comments (crimson etc) were directed at the front of the magazine, not the content (though you can make fairly accurate guesses about the content from the cover). I don't really know what you're trying to say here - is it that all game magazines should be unsealed so people know what they're buying?

2) I did read the article, I wasn't implying that you bought the magazine when I referenced the cover, I was simply pointing out that the content (and target audience) should be obvious from it (I assume this is the point you're making).

3) I never mentioned films either, I was talking about the game videos (Modern Warfare 2, Alan Wake, Just Cause 2) contained on the disc, which are violent. I assumed, seeing as he left with the disc while you read the magazine, that he watched them without your supervision.

4) I don't think I've been speculating (or, if I have, they've been accurate assumptions based on the evidence) at any point, simply asking questions.

If you could only edit for spelling and grammar, and not keep adding content, that'd make it easier to reply.

[mayhem]

Right getting back on track and doing a little more reading and having some one sitting next to me who is going for there degree in law has come up with some thing interesting

1) Pornography the word by definition had no legal meaning. All though obscenity has.

2) The definition of obscenity under UK law is ->

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament to amend the law in England and Wales relating to the publication of obscene matter, provide the protection of literature and strengthen the law concerning pornography. The law defined obscenity and separated it from serious works of art.

The definition reads:

"[A]n article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."

-=-=-=-

So they are producing obscene material that a child has access to. which under definition of law could be considered illegal. So by the statics that we have seen (only surmised statistics) Image Publishing are knowingly producing obscene material that can lead to the corruption of a minor. So what they are doing could be considered illegal in the representation of UK law . this has only representative meaning.

Small note

No legal advise was given ....

[generic]

Originally Posted by name='mayhem'

So they are producing obscene material that a child has access to. which under definition of law could be considered illegal. So by the statics that we have seen Image Publishing are knowingly producing obscene material that can lead to the corruption of a minor.

So is The Sun (News International) and Metro.

[Mr_Jingles]

Originally Posted by name='mayhem'

So they are producing obscene material that a child has access to. which under definition of law could be considered illegal. So by the statics that we have seen (only surmised statistics) Image Publishing are knowingly producing obscene material that can lead to the corruption of a minor.

Then why are you poncing around with a forum and the Chipping Bumhole Advertiser instead of calling the police? Is it, perhaps, that you know they'd laugh in your face and send you off with a flea in your ear for wasting their time?

[FarFarAway]

Originally Posted by name='Mr_Jingles'

Then why are you poncing around with a forum and the Chipping Bumhole Advertiser instead of calling the police? Is it, perhaps, that you know they'd laugh in your face and send you off with a flea in your ear for wasting their time?

I would suggest you stop abusing one of our members.

You have their own opinions which is fine, However, posting abusive and aggressive posts is well OTT. If you don't like the opinions in the article that much then I'd suggest not bothering to continue the dialogue.

[Mr_Jingles]

Originally Posted by name='Kempez'

I would suggest you stop abusing one of our members.

Do grow up. "Poncing around" is not even remotely abusive or aggressive, any more than a woman in a bikini is pornography. How on Earth do you survive in the world if that's how little it takes to upset you? And since when was silence the only permitted course of action when you disagreed with something idiotic?

Oh, and I'm serious. If these people honestly believe children are being sold pornography, the correct place to go is to the police. But they know it isn't pornography, and that therefore the police would laugh at them, so instead they make themselves feel important by kicking up a fuss on the internet and in the local rag. It's incredibly telling that when I've challenged two people to take this matter to the law (because selling obscene material to minors is a serious offence), they've both suddenly shut up.

(And it's not because Mayhem isn't around. At the very moment I'm typing this, he's in the chatbox saying "pokeing thermoniter up my arese and testing there temps out". Frankly I'm shocked at such obscenity and demand that the OC3D forums come with an age warning.)

[FarFarAway]

Originally Posted by name='Mr_Jingles'

Do grow up. "Poncing around" is not even remotely abusive or aggressive, any more than a woman in a bikini is pornography. How on Earth do you survive in the world if that's how little it takes to upset you? And since when was silence the only permitted course of action when you disagreed with something idiotic?

Since when has ripping the mickey out of someone become the correct recourse for disagreeing with their argument? I think you need to grow up and start using language and arguments that look intelligent rather than idiotic.

I'm not asking you to be quiet, I was stating that personal attacks on members, highlighted again in your post above, are not the way to win an argument.

Assuming someone needs to 'grow up' when you're asked not to to attack people on a forum is a sign that you yourself need to do just that.

The argument put forward in the article is a valid argument and frankly your responses have been anything but.

I'm sure you'll respond with another petty answer, but then I won't expect anything else.

[llwyd]

Originally Posted by name='Mr_Jingles'

instead they make themselves feel important by kicking up a fuss on the internet

Yea that is pretty pathetic. I mean, imagine if he had signed up to the forum just to kick up a fuss

[Mr_Jingles]

Originally Posted by name='Kempez'

Since when has ripping the mickey out of someone become the correct recourse for disagreeing with their argument? I think you need to grow up and start using language and arguments that look intelligent rather than idiotic.

I'm not asking you to be quiet, I was stating that personal attacks on members, highlighted again in your post above, are not the way to win an argument.

Assuming someone needs to 'grow up' when you're asked not to to attack people on a forum

Except that I didn't attack anyone, of course, or "rip the mickey". I suggested a grown-up course of action in response to what we're being asked to accept is a serious crime. Evidently Mayhem is too busy "pokeing thermoniter up his arese".*

And asking me to be quiet is EXACTLY what you did.

If you don't like the opinions in the article that much then I'd suggest not bothering to continue the dialogue.

*NB That's not an attack on his dyslexia, but if I corrected his spelling the forum's Mary Whitehouse "swearing" filter would blank it out.

[Mr_Jingles]

Originally Posted by name='llwyd'

Yea that is pretty pathetic. I mean, imagine if he had signed up to the forum just to kick up a fuss

So disagreeing with someone is "kicking up a fuss" now? Wow, someone else who wants all dissent silenced...