...from.. um.. physical descriptions, it's easy to tell that the image is a potentially illegal (COPINE ⚠️ ↗ Level 1) child abuse image. Can you tell me that it does not offend the recognised standard of propriety?
GirlChat #456643
The IWF are factually correct...
Posted by Llort on 2008-December-09 11:19:11 EST, Tuesday
In reply to Re: Wikipedia Article Censored in UK posted by kissbyalice on 2008-December-09 02:23:10 EST, Tuesday
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- Kind of a hard argument to make... - lgsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 21:15:51 EST, Tuesday - (1 / 0 / 5)
- You're not from the UK, are you? - Llort on 2008-December-09 22:52:09 EST, Tuesday - (1 / 0 / 4)
- on wikipedia?? - LGsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 23:17:07 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: on wikipedia?? - Llort on 2008-December-10 12:28:31 EST, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- Llort is correct that image is illegal in the UK - shellban on 2008-December-11 03:19:15 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- No one knows for sure what is illegal in the UK... - Llort on 2008-December-12 00:23:48 EST, Friday - (1 / 0 / 0)
- Llort is correct that image is illegal in the UK - shellban on 2008-December-11 03:19:15 EST, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: on wikipedia?? - Llort on 2008-December-10 12:28:31 EST, Wednesday - (1 / 0 / 2)
- on wikipedia?? - LGsinmyheart on 2008-December-09 23:17:07 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- You're not from the UK, are you? - Llort on 2008-December-09 22:52:09 EST, Tuesday - (1 / 0 / 4)
- 'Child abuse image' - BLueRibbon on 2008-December-09 13:34:11 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 2)
- discuss! - Eeyore on 2008-December-09 13:45:01 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: discuss! - Llort on 2008-December-09 22:55:52 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- discuss! - Eeyore on 2008-December-09 13:45:01 EST, Tuesday - (0 / 0 / 1)