How stupid and selfish can you get?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4699725.stm

She was trying to raising money for a holiday because her husband is about to lose his job. So they spend all their money, go on holiday and when they get back they will be putting their hand out and expect the state to support them?

God I hate these kinds of people!

Well... to be fair it doesn't say if she works or not so maybe she was raising the money beacuse without her husband's income they couldn't afford it?

That said, to post pictures of children on ebay and not realise the kind of people who may buy it. Now THAT is stupid and makes me sick.

she is correct in that children model for pictures with more showing.
Why is no one accusing pampers of being sick for making it possible to buy packets with pictures of children in nappies on them?

and you misrepresent why she wanted to go there. it wasn't just for a jolly, she wanted to visit her oldest daughter (aged 7).

Unbelieveable! Gratification at any cost - I find this woman's attitude and evident lack of common sense appalling.

Exploitation of her children pure and simple.
there must be other ways she could raise money to see her other child.
who would want to buy pictures of other peoples kids anyway?

Originally posted by 40summat
Exploitation of her children pure and simple.
there must be other ways she could raise money to see her other child.
who would want to buy pictures of other peoples kids anyway?

lol, so how do you feel about babies and young children in adverts on the tele, or modelling, or in films? Are they poor exploited children, should we contact social services?

I see your point, but yes i suppose using kids to advertise things is in a way exploitation.
there are many forms of exploitation as you point out.
unfortunately there is a darker side and i for one think she is wrong. I doubt there are many parents as naive as she.
I didn't mention Social Services.

Originally posted by 40summat
I see your point, but yes i suppose using kids to advertise things is in a way exploitation.
there are many forms of exploitation as you point out.
unfortunately there is a darker side and i for one think she is wrong. I doubt there are many parents as naive as she.
I didn't mention Social Services.

but surely exploited children need protection.

An interesting subject I was discussing the other day...

at what age does nudity become indecent?

Children are used on all manner of adverts and can be seen running around beaches with nothing on and that is all well and good because it is seen as purely innocent.

At what age should those children be covered up and nudity becomes something sordid?

In regards to this woman, why did she think people would be interested in her photos of her kids anyway? And interested enough to fund a holiday/visit? :rolleyes:

haven't there actually been cases of parents investigated by the police and social services for taking photos to be developed in boots where they are in the bath with their child?

Some people need to get a sense of perspective.

Originally posted by Cyclone
haven't there actually been cases of parents investigated by the police and social services for taking photos to be developed in boots where they are in the bath with their child?

Yeah, this was part of my coursework regarding the law and pornography in relation to children.

It was the BBC presenter, Julia Sommerville who was reported by the photo developers for taking pictures of her kids in the bath.

Originally posted by Cyclone
but surely exploited children need protection.
They certainly do, and i think children in advertising are protected by guidelines within the industry,
Although what you or i see in an advert will differ to what a pervert will see, nobody can do much about that.
The children of the woman selling the pictures, do they need protection? I could'nt answer that, it would depend on if the mother was found to be Knowingly exposing them to danger.

Originally posted by 40summat
The children of the woman selling the pictures, do they need protection? I could'nt answer that, it would depend on if the mother was found to be Knowingly exposing them to danger.

Under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 it is an offence to...

“take… any indecent photograph… to distribute or show such indecent photographs or to have in his possession such indecent photographs with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others;"

However, as these pictures (of children in a bath) are probably not intended to be indecent, the woman is not guilty of any crime under this law.

Immoral yes, illegal no.

Originally posted by Norton
Under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 it is an offence to...

“take… any indecent photograph… to distribute or show such indecent photographs or to have in his possession such indecent photographs with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others;"

However, as these pictures (of children in a bath) are probably not intended to be indecent, the woman is not guilty of any crime under this law.

Immoral yes, illegal no.

Cheers for making that clear Norton

Originally posted by Norton
Under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 it is an offence to...

“take… any indecent photograph… to distribute or show such indecent photographs or to have in his possession such indecent photographs with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others;"

However, as these pictures (of children in a bath) are probably not intended to be indecent, the woman is not guilty of any crime under this law.

Immoral yes, illegal no.

Why does it say "have in his possession" and "shown by himself"

Where are you quoting this from Norton?

Originally posted by serapis
Why does it say "have in his possession" and "shown by himself"

Where are you quoting this from Norton?

I think the Equal Opportunities Act came later ;)

Originally posted by serapis
Why does it say "have in his possession" and "shown by himself"

Where are you quoting this from Norton?

From the Protection of Children Act, as stated.

You'll find that "he" is used in all legal statutes.

From the Interpretation Act 1978 section 6...

"In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,
(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

(c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular."

Not an indication that all Sex Offenders are male, just that by convention, most Acts are written in the masculine.

So they spend all their money, go on holiday and when they get back they will be putting their hand out and expect the state to support them?


This is only a theory.





And as for those adverts with the babies, i think some of them are a bit sick.
I know they are innocently done to sell nappies but i think that the babies are made to be nothing less than performing seals.
how long would it have taken to get the filming right and putting the babies through all this just to make a killing on nappy sales to me is stripping them of all their dignity.
especially the one where a supposed mother strokes the baby's bottom to show people how dry and soft the nappies have kept the babies skin.
Is this the babies mother , if not then i think it borders on being indecent. if not a touch hypocrytical, especially with the child laws that are around today. Why arent these adverts banned.

Thanks for clearing that up Norton :clap:

Originally posted by tara
So they spend all their money, go on holiday and when they get back they will be putting their hand out and expect the state to support them?

This is only a theory.


It’s the most likely turn of events isn't it? I know the last thing I would be putting at the top of my list if I knew I was about to loose my job and thus be on benefits, would be organising a holiday to **** away the last of my money!

Originally posted by tara
And as for those adverts with the babies, i think some of them are a bit sick.
I know they are innocently done to sell nappies but i think that the babies are made to be nothing less than performing seals.
how long would it have taken to get the filming right and putting the babies through all this just to make a killing on nappy sales to me is stripping them of all their dignity.
especially the one where a supposed mother strokes the baby's bottom to show people how dry and soft the nappies have kept the babies skin.
Is this the babies mother , if not then i think it borders on being indecent. if not a touch hypocrytical, especially with the child laws that are around today. Why arent these adverts banned. [/B]

There is nothing to say it is not the mother’s hand? Bums are on TV all the time, and we even had a brief flirtation with nipples once! So I see no problem in depicting this in an advert.

so rather than spending your money you'd save it so that you could be told that due to your savings your benefits will be cut by x %.

Given that choice in advance, i'd spend it too.

Originally posted by Cyclone
so rather than spending your money you'd save it so that you could be told that due to your savings your benefits will be cut by x %.

Given that choice in advance, i'd spend it too.

You and I, no doubt take responsibility for supporting ourselves. We work in order to maintain our lifestyles. Shouldn't these people also take this same responsibility and prepare to support themselves?

The state should be the last port of call for financial support, not the first. If knew I was going to be made redundant in 6 months. Should I just live it up and spend every spare penny and once I am without a job and therefore without an income, just trundle down to the local Job Centre Plus and hold my hand out?

The state is not a giant piggy bank you can dip into when ever you feel like it? It is there as a last resort to support people who have no other means. Not to cover the short fall when your flights of fancy have dwindled your cash reserves!

Originally posted by tara
And as for those adverts with the babies, i think some of them are a bit sick.... the one where a supposed mother strokes the baby's bottom ... think it borders on being indecent...Why arent these adverts banned.

Because stroking a baby's bottom is not automatically paedophilia.

I have patted lots of babies on the bottom, most of them not mine.

I totaly agree Tara

If they can advertise condoms, sanitary wear, loo roll etc without being too graphic why not the same with regard to children.

Most people think babies are cute and obviously that's why they are used in advertising, but in todays climate i think some of the images are inappropriate.

The idea of using babies at all in advertising is one i personaly dissagree with for the same reasons you mention and more.

It seems while the controlling bodies have made sure advertising is politicaly correct in some areas they have overlooked this issue.

Originally posted by 40summat
I totaly agree Tara

If they can advertise condoms, sanitary wear, loo roll etc without being too graphic why not the same with regard to children.

Most people think babies are cute and obviously that's why they are used in advertising, but in todays climate i think some of the images are inappropriate.

The idea of using babies at all in advertising is one i personaly dissagree with for the same reasons you mention and more.

It seems while the controlling bodies have made sure advertising is politicaly correct in some areas they have overlooked this issue.

what climate.

You mean the hysteria about paedophilia drummed up by the media. Surely you're pandering to that hysteria by suggesting that naked babies bottoms on tv is somehow wrong.

Serapis - I do, and I pay my nat insurance and tax. Should I ever be out of work I expect to be able to claim until I can find a new job. I don't want to find that because i've saved hard i'm penalised to the point of receiving no aid because i have savings.
So i would indeed be tempted to spend them in some way (most likely an investment rather than a holiday though).

Originally posted by Cyclone
what climate.

You mean the hysteria about paedophilia drummed up by the media. Surely you're pandering to that hysteria by suggesting that naked babies bottoms on tv is somehow wrong

Yes that is the climate i refer to, it's hardly 'drummed up' by the media, by that are you suggesting the Hysteria is unfounded?
I'd rather pander to that hysteria and be aware, than be one of those poor parents who say 'i thought it happened to other people'.
Having babies bottoms on tv may exite a paedophile and that is wrong.
I,d happily go without those cute images if it meant denying a paedophile what it craves.

Originally posted by 40summat
Having babies bottoms on tv may exite a paedophile and that is wrong

Having any children at all on TV may exite a paedophile. In fact it probably will. I expect they are glued to childrens TV.....

Originally posted by 40summat
Yes that is the climate i refer to, it's hardly 'drummed up' by the media, by that are you suggesting the Hysteria is unfounded?
I'd rather pander to that hysteria and be aware, than be one of those poor parents who say 'i thought it happened to other people'.
Having babies bottoms on tv may exite a paedophile and that is wrong.
I,d happily go without those cute images if it meant denying a paedophile what it craves.

ermm, well done, yes I am.
It is fed and fueled by the media, or do you believe that there has recently been an explosion in the number of paedophiles in the country?
You thought what happened? That some sicko somewhere go a thrill out of seeing a photo of your child. Since you'll never know how would you think it happened???
What's wrong is that the site of a child would excite a paedophile, reacting by hiding our children away is in some ways pretty similar to not getting the tube because a terrorist might blow it up.

Originally posted by Cyclone
ermm, well done, yes I am.
It is fed and fueled by the media, or do you believe that there has recently been an explosion in the number of paedophiles in the country?
You thought what happened? That some sicko somewhere go a thrill out of seeing a photo of your child. Since you'll never know how would you think it happened???
What's wrong is that the site of a child would excite a paedophile, reacting by hiding our children away is in some ways pretty similar to not getting the tube because a terrorist might blow it up.

While the media report cases and may cause 'hyseria' i still think the number of paedophiles is higher than we dare emagine, recent development in tracking those paedophiles who use the internet seem to me to indicate this. although i have no figures to prove or disprove that.
Not quite sure what you mean by your question regarding my child as iv'e not mentioned my children i'll take it as a hypothetical question and ignore it as with the terrorist analogy as i think it will probably take the discussion in another direction

Originally posted by 40summat
Having babies bottoms on tv may exite a paedophile and that is wrong.

But surely children on the street could excite a paedophile? Should we keep all children inside? Stop them going on the beach with swimsuits on?

Where does it all end?

Originally posted by Norton
But surely children on the street could excite a paedophile? Should we keep all children inside? Stop them going on the beach with swimsuits on?

Where does it all end?

Having anyone under 16 on TV is wrong full stop in my opinion. The only job I was allowed legally to do under teh age of 16 was have a paper round, so why should TV be any different. A job is a job, and they shouldnt be allowed to have one be it on TV or anywhere else (apart from paper rounds)

Originally posted by spyro2000
Having anyone under 16 on TV is wrong full stop in my opinion. The only job I was allowed legally to do under teh age of 16 was have a paper round, so why should TV be any different. A job is a job, and they shouldnt be allowed to have one be it on TV or anywhere else (apart from paper rounds)

That might have kept Charlotte Church quiet then ;)

So should we not have any TV programmes with under 16s in? I think that's a bit extreme.

Maybe we shouldn't have women on TV either because rapists might like the look of them.

Shouldn't have items in shops either because kleptomaniacs might be attracted to them.

Paedophiles existed before television and internet. Taking kids off TV is not going to stop the abuse.

Originally posted by Norton
That might have kept Charlotte Church quiet then ;)

So should we not have any TV programmes with under 16s in? I think that's a bit extreme.

Maybe we shouldn't have women on TV either because rapists might like the look of them.

Shouldn't have items in shops either because kleptomaniacs might be attracted to them.

Paedophiles existed before television and internet. Taking kids off TV is not going to stop the abuse.

Yep thats right, If we want to see kids on TV they should be CGI kids. Or if kids are allowed on TV then kids should be allowed to do normal jobs too, like factory work etc. Work is work.

p.s. my opinions have nothing to do with paedophiles, I dont think that is a reason to not show kids on TV. same as your rapist point. Its stupid to stop them being shown on TV due to things like that.