Shadow Minister in child porn shocker

Gloria de Piero, Labour’s new spokesperson for women, says she “understands” why girls strip off for the camera after doing a topless photo shoot when she just 15.

And actually producing child pornography as well.

And yes, this is true, a piccie of a topless 15 year old is indeed child porn. Doesn’t matter that it was all voluntary nor that it was legal at the time.

So don’t go searching for “De Piero baps” or anything because merely downloading such into your browser would leave you liable to a jail term.

I wonder if anyone will ever ask her whether she agrees that people should be jailed for looking at the result of her activities?

35 comments on “Shadow Minister in child porn shocker

  1. I don’t think it was ever legal at 15 (or at least not since age of consent was set at 16 a long time ago). The law change was about raising the age from 16 to 18, which is why pictures of Samantha Fox that graced the breakfast tables of millions of people is now classed as child pornography.

  2. I wonder if anyone will ever ask her whether she agrees that people should be jailed for looking at the result of her activities?

    That would make an entertaining parliamentary question.

  3. Actually, given the Yewtree precedent, shouldn’t she be under arrest by now? Historical sexual offences, very serious tut tut.

  4. This area of the law is a shambles anyway.. A pair of 16 year olds can happily and legally bonk their way into oblivion, but should they decide to take a few snaps to commemorate the occasion they’d be liable to prosecution.

  5. Stig-

    I admit to not being quite sure about this, IANAL and all that, but so far as I know prior to the SOA 2003, there wasn’t a specific “age of photographic consent”, rather there was a general understanding that any photo of titillatory potential of an under 16 would fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act. But it was a matter of context, in that an “art nude” wouldn’t, generally, and so on.

    It was the SOA that adopted the crazy American fanaticism that all nudity is porn alongside the American idea that the magic age is 18.

    The lesson we could learn from this “revelation” is that a 15 year old showed her baps, she got some much needed cash, and the amount of harm done to both herself and society was precisely zero, while she and society both gained, but nobody will dare draw that lesson of course.

    It never stops amazing me that here I am in the supposedly modern 21st century living under a government and among fellow citizens who, in the main, are happy to persecute and punish people who have harmed nobody, in the name of faith based beliefs. This is why I long ago drew the conclusion that, in fact, modernity is a myth; it never really happened, there was no great change at the Englightenment, and historians of the future will consider us to still be living in a “middle age” of history before genuine enlightenment occurred. The Age Of Reason was an aspiration, not an actuality.

  6. ” the amount of harm done to both herself and society was precisely zero”

    Thanks, Ian, for demonstrating for us the difference between precision and accuracy.

  7. A pair of 16 year olds can happily and legally bonk their way into oblivion, but should they decide to take a few snaps to commemorate the occasion they’d be liable to prosecution.

    Indeed, for just as ‘hard cases make bad law’ so do rigid rules make silly situations. Anyone whose ever observed, in depth, what the House of Lords gets up to will have seen that occasionally – when discussing the amendment to some law or other – one of them will conjur up a seemingly absurd situation (“this appears to offer equality, but what if…an apostate bishop who had converted to Zoroastrianism after having gender reassignement surgery, but now self-defined as homosexual…” &c) which may seem silly but is all about avoiding this sort of thing.

    this is one of the unwelcome consequences of the ideology of equality, which claims (ludicrously*) that since all people are equal, so must their opinions be, therefore we can’t possibly have experts making decisions according to discrimination** but must have one law for all, rigidly applied, even when it fucks everything up.

    *ludicrous because no one actually believes this shit. If they did they wouldn’t see a doctor when they were ill, they’d ask the first person on the street for their opinion.

    **in the good sense; from discrimen and sharing the same root as “discernment”. It is the mark of the triumph of the wankers that ‘discrimination’ is held to be a bad thing. Even some leftists agree, C. Hitchens was particularly vocal on this point.

  8. It is worth by the way bearing in mind that the general desire of the Feminists is to get the legal age for bonking pushed up to 18, and get that rigorously enforced, thus creating even more male victims for their sausage machine. Having achieved that, the next step will be pushing up the porn age to 21, then when it’s fixed in the mind of the average Daily Mail Fuckwit that fancying a 20 year old is “paedophilia”…

    …and on and on. These people are evil. Not misguided, or well meaning, but evil. Never forget that.

  9. @Ian

    Umm…are you sure? Only it wasn’t all that long ago that they were the other way round – all in favour of really quite free love and all that ballocks, and I seem to recall something about Harman being attached to the NCCL back when they were campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to 14.

    I don’t dispute that for most of the feminist brigade the very idea of men finding women sexually attractive is an anathema (not least because it suggests that men have the power to decide whether or not a woman is sexually attractive…)

  10. There’s topless and there’s topless. Often see topless models on cover of soft mens mags – FHM etc. Not showing even as much as in a bikini. There’s topless of not wearing a top and topless of having everything on display.

  11. sam,

    It really shouldn’t be underestimated just how much women’s age, and the decline of their sexual power affects their outlook on sexuality. If you want to stop rivals, you play on your strengths and try to undermine theirs. Late 20s singers and actresses would rather like early 20s singers and actresses to wear burqas.

  12. Sam-

    “Umm…are you sure? Only it wasn’t all that long ago that they were the other way round – all in favour of really quite free love and all that ballocks, and I seem to recall something about Harman being attached to the NCCL back when they were campaigning for the age of consent to be lowered to 14.”

    No, the Feminist movement has never been in favour of any of that. Reviving in the midst of a liberal reaction against its First Wave, it had to ride the coat tails of that liberalism while it set about destroying it.

    There is no liberal feminism. There have been some liberal women who, during the liberal interregnum, described themselves in a general sense as Feminist, using the term in its broadest form to mean anyone vaguely woman-focussed. But the movement itself is an evangelical, fiercely puritan anti-sex movement, always has been and always will be.

    The Harman thing is grossly overblown and misunderstood, primarily by conservatives who, being another puritan manifestation, are determined to believe that anyone “left wing” is really promoting loose immorality despite 40 years of output from the Feminist movement as contrary evidence. When Harman was at the NCCL, the second wave fems had not yet “bit” properly and the bourgeoisie were still enjoying and promoting the liberal values of the 60s- which were themselves as mentioned the natural reaction against the previous Feminist tyranny. There is no conspiracy to be found in her few statements about lowering the age of consent, they were part of the zeitgeist.

    It wasn’t until the 80s that the Feminists really started getting traction on sex again, by developing the Paedohysteria in collusion with their natural bedfellows on America’s extreme Christian Right.

    The period between the first and second waves of feminism- when liberalism returned for a while- is best seen as an era without Feminism; the women in that era who adopted the label having in fact nothing in common with the two true Feminist waves. As I said above, they were using it in a general sense to mean anything vaguely womens-interest related. Which, conveniently, provided cover for the evil bigots of the real movement to reinvent themselves and eventually impose the new tyranny we are now experiencing.

  13. What makes you say that, Paul?

    And, when the time comes-when they decide to shift the partial 18 (implemented for arbitrary “power relationships” already, plus modelling, porn, etc) to a total 18, and when their thousand voices in the press are running the campaign with a torrent of “is it time to protect 16 and 17 year old children from predators?” articles, will you oppose it, or not?

  14. We could well see the odd situation where the age of consent and the school leaving age are 18, whilst the franchise is granted to 16 year olds. All three for reasons of sectional political interest.

  15. PaulB is quite right.
    The general desire of Feminists varies from Feminist to Feminist (and their definition of what constitutes a “Feminist” varies greatly) but the lowest common denominator is that women should get treatment that is fair/equal to that of men. A lot of them want to keep all their gender privileges while abolishing all male gender privileges but that sort of inconsistency in the definition of “fair” or “equal” can be seen among almost all subsections of society. I have never heard one argue for changing the legal age for bonking.

  16. PaulB – “No it isn’t.”

    Go look at what people have been saying about J. D. Salinger. It turns out that the author of one of the most boring and over rated American novels of the 20th century – and that is no mean feat in itself – had an entirely consentual sexual relation with a 19 year old.

    The general consensus seems to be that he is a sex criminal

  17. Ian B – “The lesson we could learn from this “revelation” is that a 15 year old showed her baps, she got some much needed cash, and the amount of harm done to both herself and society was precisely zero, while she and society both gained, but nobody will dare draw that lesson of course.”

    I am not sure that is a lesson that is possible to be gained. You assume that the harm done to her and society is zero. I am inclined to doubt that. No doubt any damage to her was done long before she got her tits out, but damage there was. Or she would not have done it. And damage to society? Frankly I do not want to live in a country where low life creeps can go about grooming 15 year olds for sexual purposes. I think that does harm society.

    “This is why I long ago drew the conclusion that, in fact, modernity is a myth; it never really happened, there was no great change at the Englightenment, and historians of the future will consider us to still be living in a “middle age” of history before genuine enlightenment occurred. The Age Of Reason was an aspiration, not an actuality.”

    There is no chance of an enlightenment occurring. We are irrational faith-based organisms who cannot stand too much examination or logic. All the Enlightenment did was destroy older, mainly harmless, forms of irrationality and replace them with dumber, more violent and less tolerant forms of irrationality. Future generations will look back at the English speaking world’s greatest years with horror at the levels of irresponsible freedom we have allowed ourselves before returning to the embrace of the State.

    I am not sure they are entirely wrong either.

  18. SMFS-

    No doubt any damage to her was done long before she got her tits out, but damage there was. Or she would not have done it.

    And this damage you’re so clear about was what, exactly?

  19. In passing, as grist for Ian’s mill, a female member of Sweden’s Left Youth has called for porn to be banned. But not all porn. Just porn intended for White heterosexual males.

    Apparently lesbian porn, or Gay porn or porn for Lebanese squirrels is just fine with her.

    I have a link somewhere.

  20. Ian B – “And this damage you’re so clear about was what, exactly?”

    I would think that being a Labour MP and student politician was evidence of damage enough. Not to mention marrying a Guardian journalist.

    But in the more specific sense, early and inappropriate sexualisation is likely to lead to an inability to form stable and long lasting emotional relationships with other people. Look how well Sam Fox turned out.

  21. SMFS

    So, er, trying to put this together. The damage she had already suffered prior to and causative of her solitary modelling assignment was “early and inappropriate sexualisation likely to lead to an inability to form stable and long lasting relationships”? Yes?

    Is this making any sense to you? Because it isn’t making any sense to me. You seem to have the cause after the effect, so far as I can tell.

  22. Ian B – “Is this making any sense to you? Because it isn’t making any sense to me. You seem to have the cause after the effect, so far as I can tell.”

    But that is because you’re not trying. It is perfectly clear to any generally competent reader.

    Here is the Swedish girl who wants to ban porn for White men:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=es&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friatider.se%2Fung-vanster-vill-forbjuda-porr-men-bara-for-vita-man&sandbox=to

  23. What makes you say that, Paul?

    It’s the deafening silence. I even searched for people wanting to raise the uk age of consent. I can tell you that Mandy Smith is in favour (yes, that Mandy Smith). But that’s because she’s now a devout Roman Catholic.

    And, when the time comes-when they decide to shift the partial 18 (implemented for arbitrary “power relationships” already, plus modelling, porn, etc) to a total 18, and when their thousand voices in the press are running the campaign with a torrent of “is it time to protect 16 and 17 year old children from predators?” articles, will you oppose it, or not?

    It would be absurd to make it illegal for 17-year-olds to have sex with each other. It’s thoroughly sensible to make it illegal for a teacher to have sex with his 17-year-old pupil.
    I’d consider any further proposals on their merits. Not that parliament is likely to consult me.

  24. Paul B-

    Well let’s leave it at that until I get to say “I told you so” later on. Just as, a while ago I recall you insisting that they have no interest in banning porn, and now here we are in the midst of a draconian censorship regime and the demands for banning even mild glamour like Page 3 and Lads’ mags. In practical terms, they’re busy hauling up lower ages across Europe currently (e.g. Spain), once that project is over they’ll be addressing the “loophole” of the discrepancy between the bonking age of 16 and 18 for everything else. Now that the school age is up to 18, and thus 16 and 17 year olds are “schoolchildren” (note the portrayal of 17 year old Feminist Yas Necati as a “17 year old schoolgirl” for instance) it’ll be next. Trust me.

    Just to add-

    It would be absurd to make it illegal for 17-year-olds to have sex with each other.

    Absurd doesn’t matter. It’s absurd to call a 17 year old boy with a saucy photo of his 17 year old girlfriend a paedophile, but that is where we are already. Feminism (including its right wing counterpart, Femiservatism) are absurdity distilled and bottled.

  25. SMFS-

    So far you seem to have said that the reason she posed for a photographer was due to a likely inability to form stable and long lasting relationships.

    This really doesn’t make any sense at the most fundamental level. It is non-sequiturial.

    Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor suggest she did it because it was a rational means to earn some money? At least that is coherent.

  26. Paul B,

    “It’s thoroughly sensible to make it illegal for a teacher to have sex with his 17-year-old pupil.”

    Why is it? The age of consent is 16. That means that we have determined that someone at the age of 16 is capable of making the decision to have sex with someone.

  27. PaulB – “It would be absurd to make it illegal for 17-year-olds to have sex with each other.”

    Why? Either 17 year old girls are mature enough to enjoy sexual relationships or they are not. If they are not, it does not matter much who they are having sex with. The same as if they are.

    The fondness many Leftists have for children having sex with each other is not a little creepy.

    “It’s thoroughly sensible to make it illegal for a teacher to have sex with his 17-year-old pupil.”

    That may well be true. But that is a separate issue based on power, trust and grooming. Not the sex alone.

    Ian B – “It’s absurd to call a 17 year old boy with a saucy photo of his 17 year old girlfriend a paedophile, but that is where we are already.”

    No it isn’t. We have a definition of child porn – the sexualised photograph of a child. If we determine that a 17 year old is a child, then what a 17 year old boyfriend has of her is child porn. We need simple and clear rules. This is a simple and clear rule. The alternatives are to allow anyone to have child porn of 17 year olds, or to decide on a case by case basis whether the man involved is creepy or not. That is absurd.

    Ian B – “So far you seem to have said that the reason she posed for a photographer was due to a likely inability to form stable and long lasting relationships. This really doesn’t make any sense at the most fundamental level. It is non-sequiturial.”

    If I see an alcoholic drinking, I am inclined to say that he is damaging his health. It may not be that specific glass that has damaged his liver. It may be the next glass that does. But over all drinking wood alcohol is not good for you. In the same way, an early and overly sexualised child may not be ruined by any one photo. She is likely to have had her character warped a long time before. But it is not helping either.

    “Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor suggest she did it because it was a rational means to earn some money? At least that is coherent.”

    I am sure that is true. Who is denying it? Has she gone on to a happy and fulfilled life afterwards? Let’s ask Sam Fox how likely that is.

  28. Those who reply to any plea for freedom invariably fall into a certain trap. I have debated with numberless different people on these matters, and I confess I find it amusing to see them tumbling into it one after another. I remember discussing it before a club of very active and intelligent Suffragists, and I cast it here for convenience in the form which it there assumed. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I say that to take away a poor man’s pot of beer is to take away a poor man’s personal liberty, it is very vital to note what is the usual or almost universal reply. People hardly ever do reply, for some reason or other, by saying that a man’s liberty consists of such and such things, but that beer is an exception that cannot be classed among them, for such and such reasons. What they almost in variably do say is something like this. “After all, what is liberty? Man must live as a member of a society, and must obey those laws which, etc., etc.” In other words, they collapse into a complete confession that they are attacking all liberty and any liberty; that they do deny the very existence or the very possibility of liberty. In the very form of the answer they admit the full scope of the accusation against them. In trying to rebut the smaller accusation, they plead guilty to the larger one.

    -GK Chesterton

  29. Would she be breaking the law by looking at, or owning, pictures of herself in that photoshoot?

    In Zeffirelli’s Romeo & Juliet, Olivia Hussey (Juliet) was barred from the premier on the grounds that it contained under-age nudity – ie, her.

  30. Anything I said on the subject was more nuanced than that. Feel free to offer a link.

    That’s right, I’m going to trawl through hundreds of past comment threads looking for it. SIgh.

    I actually at the time pointed out that the Feminist Movement has for its entire history been anti-porn, and you came out with the “none of my Feminist friends want to ban porn”, and I pointed out that that is irrelevant; I do not know your friends or how accurate your statements about them are, and what matters is what the public movement seeks to do; and I and others showed that Feminist Organisations are unified in anti-pornography campaigning (think of the Fawcett Soc spinning off fronts like Feminista and Object). Why you keep trying to pretend the Feminists aren’t what they demonstrably are seems to be down to trying to maintain the increasingly flimsy facade that they’re on the liberal, rather than puritan/conservative, side of the culture war. Whatever.

    Because a teacher has been given a degree of authority over the pupil.

    And this is one of those fallacies where you have an “A because B” but the B does not logically lead to A. Such as, “people should not eat meat because tigers are orange”.

    Authority to various degrees exists throughout our society. Using the same fallacious reasoning, you would ban lecturer/student relationships, or boss/employee relationships, or any imbalanced power relationship which would include most relationships themselves, including marriage, in one direction or the other. So there may be an argument on that score for banning sex in “power relations”.

    This has nothing to do with age. It therefore does not follow that a special age of consent should apply. The two things are not connected.

    It does however become understandable if you recognise that the Feminists want to raise the age of consent generally, and thus “protect” more girls from enjoying themselves sexually and get more men labelled as faux “paedophiles”, and so this was a means of creeping that in. In the process it also helps to cement the stereotype of men as aggressors and women as victims.

    The deplorable public immolation of Jeremy Forrest and Megan Stammers ought to be an indication of why the criminal system is so ludicrously in error over this whole matter. Two lives destroyed literally for the crime of falling in love, hammered into the paranoid conspiracy theory world of Feminist dogma.

    Which is the basic problem with the Progressivist method of using criminal law for regulatory purposes. It creates crimes without victims, and thus innocent people become victims of the law. It breaks egg after egg after egg and you never even get the damned omelette.

    And, just as an anecdote; the sister of one of my circle of friends at school ended up living with her English teacher. The relationship started when she was his pupil in the Sixth Form. In those days, it was a bit of gossip, that’s all. Nowadays, they would be destroyed by the State and he branded a “paedophile” in the Daily Fail.

    Feminism is characterised by a zealous persecutionary fervour. The first wave persecuted thousands of gays (not to mention the hated whores and pimps, pornographers and “delinquent” girls flung into institutions for correction). Nowadays it is fashionable to offer apologies to the likes of Alan Turing, even as we descend into this second persecutionary wave, apparently on the presumption that “this time we’ve got the right targets”.

    There will, I am sure, be a return to liberalism and reason. The pendulum swings. People of good sense could start that reversal now. Why wait for decades to offer posthumous pardons?

    Worth considering, y’know.

  31. Just back to the original topic:

    * indecent photos of children were criminalised in 1978, by a specific law that defined a child as someone aged under 16.
    * SOA 2003 kept the exact same wording as the 1978 act, but raised the age to under 18.

    Although the definition of “indecent” is less clear than it could be, in general it does *not* encompass Page 3-type photos. It’s basically “stuff that is porn” – in practice that means either sexual acts or simulated sexual acts.

    This is why, for example, the photographer Graham Ovenden went to jail for having sex with some of the children who modelled for him, but not for taking, publishing or owning the nude photographs he took of them. Because those aren’t indecent, and so aren’t illegal.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.