On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:34:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

In article ,
(Alexander Mann) wrote:

Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
removed automatically.

And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet the
photo could still be of a teen.

Well a group entitled alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by definition
contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you can describe
16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.

Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
of standard deviations into the mix.


Sam Fox first appeared in the Sun on her 16th Birthday. This means that
the photographs must have been taken when she was underage...

That is utter rubbish. Thirty seconds googling tells you that she first
appeared on 22/2/1983, and two more clicks tells you that her date of
birth is 15/4/1966. That means that she was 16 years and 10 months
old when she first appeared in the Sun.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article ,
ard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject
is 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet
the photo could still be of a teen.

Well a group entitled
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by
definition contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you
can describe 16 as being early teans

Lets see now...

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

16+ gives 4 years of teenage after 16th birthday, but only 3 years
before. IF we consider the early/late split to be 16 years and 6 months,
then there could legally be 'early' teans (sic) in the groups you cite.
If they existed. They do not.

CLUE: computers are precise machines that will not find things that are
misspelled by a single character.


Furthermore, how do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content
of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

and anything before that is illegal.

In the UK, yes. Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.


Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
of standard deviations into the mix.

Why would a picture of cats growing hair be illegal? And what do kittens
have to do with teenage girls? Last time I looked bestiality was illegal
but erotic pictures of animals were not. Whatever turns you on, I say.

I can assure you I am no apologist for paedophilia, but a 15 yr old girl
posing for 'dirty' pics taken by her 15 yr old boyfriend is not
something that the law is likely to concern itself with. Now if you can
tell me that these groups contain very young teens being abused, then I
will agree with your concerns. But at that point, you will be contacting
the police, and stop pontificating here.

So, to close, the relevant questions a

1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most closely
resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content of the
groups? Consider your answer carefully...

2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal pictures in
the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I wonder, under the circumstances, whether I should consider a PACE
caution at this stage...?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

In article , Jonathan Buzzard
wrote:
And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet the
photo could still be of a teen.

Well a group entitled alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by definition
contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you can describe
16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.

Newsgroups do not "by definition" contain anything at all. They are public
noticeboards, available to the entire planet, wherein anybody can post
pretty much anything without anybody else stopping them. There are no
guarantees whatsoever as to the provenance of anything in a newsgroup, or
the accuracy of any description given thereof, and as the "content" is only
transitory, even if you could be sure of something on one particular day,
it could be gone the next. You cannot therefore assume anything from the
title of a newsgroup, and it would be impossible to block any particular
type of material simply by blocking access to selected newsgroups by name.
Suggesting that this would be possible is the sort of naive argument that
we sometimes hear from polititians that have no concept of how the internet
works, but I would expect people here to be better informed.

Rod.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:12:28 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:21:07 -0000, in article
, "Amigo Entertainments"
wrote:


If this is so then please take a look through some of the erotica.teen
groups you are offering and tell me if you think the content therein is
legal.

Better still - don't bother, as one of your customers Ive already taken the
time to report you with examples from your news server with headers.


I wouldn't be so quick to publicly admit that you've been accessing
child porn newsgroups!
It is not the accessing that is illegal its the downloading of images
that is illegal you can even download headers providing content isn't
downloaded
BTW I don't think erotica.teen (note the word TEEN) qualifies as child
porn. If they're over 16, it's perfectly legal, buddy!
Correct but honestly there are some bloody prats about most news
servers situated outside of the UK carry these groups I subscribe to
one that carries them not for that reason but because the F2S server
carries pitiful content .
TALK ABOUT BEING NARROW MINDED .
Grant .

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:16:42 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
True, but the actual images would have to have been downloaded by the
OP for them to KNOW that it is child porn. The headers alone aren't
going to prove much.
That was the point I was trying to make.
I think that guy is right in one respect because I think it is now
illegal for UK ISP's to even carry these groups so Plus could be in
deep trouble. Unfortunately I do not have any time at all for grassers
and all this aggravation regarding child abuse on the net is very
discriminating against the internet and its subscribers . My point
being last night " Friday" I watched a program called " the way we
where"in the program ITV showed four young boys climbing into a bed
naked from the waste down I actually recorded the program because I
record all programs that I like to watch which are transmitted byITN C
4 and C5 so I can zip through the blasted adds so am I guilty of
unintentionally having images of naked children in my possession
!!!!!!!! ???. If this can be shown in TV programs and in the adds why
is it so wrong for images like this to be available on the net for
gods sake ? how many adds have you seen showing naked and semi naked
children in them ?in fact you sometimes see them in newspapers and on
billboards .
Its time the police stopped all this "operation ore" nonsense and
concentrated on catching real criminals .
Grant .

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:00:48 +0000, Jock wrote:

In what way does moisture increase the impedance of a telephone
line?

accelerated corrosion of a corroded joint, perhaps ?

Phil

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:55:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

In article ,
ard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject
is 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet
the photo could still be of a teen.

Well a group entitled
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by
definition contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you
can describe 16 as being early teans

Lets see now...

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

16+ gives 4 years of teenage after 16th birthday, but only 3 years
before. IF we consider the early/late split to be 16 years and 6 months,
then there could legally be 'early' teans (sic) in the groups you cite.
If they existed. They do not.

Which conveniently ignores the mid teens. Someone who is 16 cannot
reasonably be described as being in their early teens.


Furthermore, how do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content
of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

No I have not examined the contents of the said groups for obvious
reasons.

and anything before that is illegal.

In the UK, yes. Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.

I am not certain, but the names of the groups are highly suggestive
that they are carrying illegal material.


Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
of standard deviations into the mix.

Why would a picture of cats growing hair be illegal? And what do kittens
have to do with teenage girls? Last time I looked bestiality was illegal
but erotic pictures of animals were not. Whatever turns you on, I say.

I can assure you I am no apologist for paedophilia, but a 15 yr old girl
posing for 'dirty' pics taken by her 15 yr old boyfriend is not
something that the law is likely to concern itself with.

The law however does concern itself with it.

Now if you can
tell me that these groups contain very young teens being abused, then I
will agree with your concerns. But at that point, you will be contacting
the police, and stop pontificating here.

There is no requirement for abuse for the material to be illegal.

So, to close, the relevant questions a

1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most closely
resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content of the
groups? Consider your answer carefully...

I don't.

2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal pictures in
the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I don't.

I wonder, under the circumstances, whether I should consider a PACE
caution at this stage...?

No need, I have not looked at the groups in question

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

In article ,
ard (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the
content of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

I don't.

2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
pictures in the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I don't.

Then stop whining about it. If you don't know an offence has been
committed, you are libelling the usenet provider by suggesting they are
and they do.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:11 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

In article ,
(Jock) wrote:

Lightning can hammer an underground line as badly as an
overhead one. (

While this is true, in the event of a ligtning strike frying the line,
BT will repair it.

Wouldn't they do that for an overhead line?

--
Jock.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:12:43 +0000, Phil Thompson
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:00:48 +0000, Jock wrote:

In what way does moisture increase the impedance of a telephone
line?

accelerated corrosion of a corroded joint, perhaps ?

Ah! Increases the resistance, then.

--
Jock.