Introducing:Rosie Jones 17Yo Topless model 3xLQ

Ok she is not a celeb yet, but is sure to cause a stir...

let the moral debate begin! She is ld enough to be Miley's mum.

 

huge tits surely but shouldnt this be in model section

 

That is a debate had before as you will be aware. Glamour models from britain tend to go in here. It seems just to be the way it is.

Keeley, Rhiana, Petr, pinder and so on

 

I'm from England so I'm well versed in those mentioned previously, and to me, they are all famous models, not celebrities as such.

So, my vote would be for all of them to go in the model forum.

Oh, and that girl looks about 25.

 

How can you seperate being famous and a celeb? Fancy defining that?


The model section is full of hardcore. Pissing, shopped facials and so on. The models mentioned wouldn't stand a chance in there! A sub forum maybe but the "models section" is not the place.

P

 

According to page3.com, where these pictures came from, she's 18, and the Sun almost always say their girls are younger than they really are. I'm sure they wouldn't be so stupid as to put an "underage" girl on page 3 in these times.

She's nice though, isn't she?

 

17 ain't underage. 16 is the legal age

 

They have changed the law, anything under 18, even page 3 is illegal now.

 

The law wasn't changed. They can pose from 16 with parental consent. According to the paper she is 17.

The website read 17 and was then changed to 18. But in the paper itself she is listed as 17.

 

Section 45: Indecent photographs of persons aged 16 or 17

72. This clause redefines a "child" for the purposes of the Protection of Children Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") as a person under 18 years, rather than under 16 years, of age. This change means the offences under that Act of taking, making, permitting to take, distributing, showing, possessing with intent to distribute, and advertising indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children will now also be applicable where the photographs concerned are of children of 16 or 17 years of age.


I saw a documentary recently about a girl who wanted to be a model and they said it was illegal to show it now if they are under 18. They took some photos though so it probably is legal to take them, perhaps.

Pretty complex.

 

Not withstanding your efforts and the legislation quoted. But surely it is how you define indecent ? I don't think anyone right minded would find the above indecent

 

Looks fine to me.

 

that's not plain fair. why can't every girl in the world look like that. It's not fair I tell you.

 

they didn't make them like that when i was 17, i can tell yuo that! :-(

 

Very hot and firm

 

I just did a google on this girl and found nothing. But she is very pretty and hardly 17.

 

My god , those are some fantastic cans right there , could care less how old (they) are !!

 

Heh, it's true. They list Nikkala Stott's age as 24 even though she's been on page3 for about nine years now. You do the math.

 

Everything within legislation is determined by the way in which a judge will perceive it, the semantics of the words if you will. In this case the keyword is "indecent". On the one hand, to be "indecent" could in fact mean to be naked; knocking on one's bedroom door and asking "are you decent?" for example.

On another, there is the generally defined term of "Indecent". Princeton University defines Indecent as 'not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society'. This opens up even more paths of what perception a judge could take on the term.

For this reason alone, you'd have a tough time explaining how these pictures are either illegal, nor legal!

Oh also, I believe the Sun posted pictures of a Topless 16 Year old about 5 years ago...

 

shes a hottie with a great body