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

[generic]

my son is 12.

Cool. Are you going to answer my other questions?

 

[Mr_Jingles]

I would ask mr jingles to actually provide evidence to back up his points. I certainly have. I have got the definition of pornography, which clearly covers these advertisements,

No, it doesn't. There is NO pornography in the ads, by any legal definition used in this country. The ads are FOR pornography, but do not CONTAIN any. There is no nudity, no swearing, no explicit sexual content of any kind. Perhaps in 1934 where you live, women in bikinis are pornographic, but I'm afraid the rest of us have moved on and the law has come with us.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Call the police and tell them someone's selling pornography to children. They take that sort of thing pretty seriously. Let us know how you get on.

 

[Mr_Jingles]

please go to there web site and look up there demographic and please look at there sales reports witch to be honest aint that good. and employee's arnt good sources of info .....

It's getting harder and harder to make sense of your gibberish. But once again, I challenge you to come up with a published figure that says 30% of the people who buy any of the magazines in question are under 15. Take as long as you want.

 

[mayhem]

Cool. Are you going to answer my other questions?

Now this disk was inside a sealed bag covering the magazine. The disk in small print on the back says "This Not suitable for any one under the age of 16". yet the front doest say this. all so this is not a official BBFC certification.

You've just opened up a whole can of worms there i think and maybe some thing else to look into. The DVD "its not a games disk" will there for fall under normal rules for advertising games via this type of media. I need to view the dvd and see what the age ratings of the games are. if there over 15 then they are probably braking the law as the have no real classification on the DVD or there magazine.

and if im correct mafia 2 is a 18 certifacte game.

well after a quick look though this :-

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/Guidelines/BBFC Classification Guidelines 2009.pdf

things are starting to look even worse for image publishing.

 

[generic]

Now this disk was inside a sealed bag covering the magazine. The disk in small print on the back says "This Not suitable for any one under the age of 16". yet the front doest say this. all so this is not a official BBFC certification.

You've just opened up a whole bag of worms there i think and maybe some thing else to look into. The DVD "its not a games disk" will there for fall under normal rules for advertising games via this type of media. I need to view the dvd and see what the age ratings of the games are. if there over 15 then they are probably braking the law as the have no real classification on the DVD or there magazine.

and if im correct mafia 2 is a 18 certifacte game.

That's odd, I thought the BBFC had to rate all video content released in the UK.

So you didn't check the disc before allowing your son to view it? I hope you don't allow him to view it in the future, and indeed ban him from viewing any more game discs (perhaps banning all games magazines, as this thread seems to have established they're not suitable for people under 15?), seeing as it does state it's not suitable for anyone under 16.

Mafia 2 is due in 2010 and hasn't yet been rated by PEGI (or the BBFC, though I don't know what the legal status of that is, seeing as PEGI is the new standard).

 

[mayhem]

i dont ban my son as such how ever hes not allowed violent video games. Such as GTA. All i am after is certification on the mags to help parents make a informed decision on weather the matter for sale is suitable for our children. This is what i have said from the start.

This is not censoring, it is giving us as parents the ability to make up our own minds of what is rite or wrong. (all though the younger members may have a different point of view)

All so no i didn't check my sons dvd - please read the article again .... As you said i thought my self the BBFC has to rate all DVD's weather this is the law or not is another matter but a interesting one to say the least.

 

[generic]

Again, odd there's no BBFC rating, but I can clearly see the 16 rating on the disc itself.

Likewise, on the disc it states "Halo 3: ODST, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, Modern Warfare 2 and Just Cause 2". These games would all be at least 16 rated (I'll use PEGI, seeing as the BBFC is kinda defunct for games rating), so why did you allow your son to view it? (at no point in the original story did you express displeasure with the content of the disc) Indeed, why didn't you check the age rating of the disc before allowing him to view it?

 

[generic]

i dont ban my son as such how ever hes not allowed violent video games. Such as GTA. All i am after is certification on the mags to help parents make a informed decision on weather the matter for sale is suitable for our children.

This is not censoring, it is giving us as parents the ability to make up our own minds of what is rite or wrong.

So he's not allowed to buy or play violent video games, but he's allowed to watch the videos?

If you say you don't ban things from him, I hope you continue to allow him to buy the "pornographic" X360 magazine.

I think having a picture of an assassin on the cover of a magazine, along with a lot of crimson, and a disc that's labelled 16+ should be enough indication of what age the magazine is aimed at.

The very least of your worries should be some tame sex line adverts in the back, I'd be more worried about the amount of violence your son is being exposed to.

 

[generic]

(I've to keep posting as Mayhem has a habit of editing posts, rather than creating a new one, so I've to keep creating new ones to keep up)

All so no i didn't check my sons dvd - please read the article again

I read the article once. Just because you didn't mention something in it doesn't mean it didn't occur, I was making sure.

 

[mayhem]

1) The mags were sealed and no rating there so 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

I edit my post due to the fact that im dyslexic and need to recheck over them a few times this is normal for me and i think any regular member and reader of my posts knows this.

 

[generic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...