A Serbian Film

[marshalla]

shakotan said:

Indecent images of a mannequin of a baby being pretend shagged by an actor does not appear in that document.

cps said:

The interpretation section refines this basic approach with respect to 'pseudo-photographs': 'if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (PCA 1978 section 7(8)). (Archbold: 31- 114)

[shakotan]

marshalla said:

shakotan said:

Indecent images of a mannequin of a baby being pretend shagged by an actor does not appear in that document.

cps said:

The interpretation section refines this basic approach with respect to 'pseudo-photographs': 'if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (PCA 1978 section 7(8)). (Archbold: 31- 114)

That's in regard to 'legal age' actors representing underage children, not a fking plastic doll, you 'tard.

[prand]

shakotan said:

marshalla said:

shakotan said:

Indecent images of a mannequin of a baby being pretend shagged by an actor does not appear in that document.

cps said:

The interpretation section refines this basic approach with respect to 'pseudo-photographs': 'if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (PCA 1978 section 7(8)). (Archbold: 31- 114)

That's in regard to 'legal age' actors representing underage children, not a fking plastic doll, you 'tard.

I would just love to see you say that in court when you are trying to explain why you have these scenes on your computer hard drive.

I would be extremely careful of even "borderline" imagery of this sort of subject matter, simulated or not, as public hysteria will send you down no matter how many people you call a 'tard.

[Pesty]

watched it thought it was funny. Gave it to my mates they thought it was funny as well.

So obviously wrong that it was unbelievable.

Come on tell me you didnt laugh when he killed that guy with his cock

His Face

Just me?

[Stevenj214]

shakotan said:

marshalla said:

shakotan said:

Indecent images of a mannequin of a baby being pretend shagged by an actor does not appear in that document.

cps said:

The interpretation section refines this basic approach with respect to 'pseudo-photographs': 'if the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult (PCA 1978 section 7(8)). (Archbold: 31- 114)

That's in regard to 'legal age' actors representing underage children, not a fking plastic doll, you 'tard.

Not necessarily, as least not in Australia - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7770781.stm

[Acehood]

Pesty said:

watched it thought it was funny. Gave it to my mates they thought it was funny as well.

So obviously wrong that it was unbelievable.

Come on tell me you didnt laugh when he killed that guy with his cock

His Face

Just me?

I agree with this guy.

Most amusing movie. People need to lighten up a bit and try not to get offended by fictional things.