FabSwingers.com > Forums > Fabswingers.com site feedback > Age verification law change
Age verification law change
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oooo what law is that???? I mean what's the age limit " Age limit is 18. But the new law will require website to properly verify it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab?" No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oooo what law is that???? I mean what's the age limit Age limit is 18. But the new law will require website to properly verify it" I think that new law should start yesterday x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab? No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. " Is it not just a picture of you with drivers licence or passport, to be sent over to the site? Easy done. And I think there are some minors on here, so this would prevent anyone getting in trouble (not that I'd go for that young, but others might) x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab? No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. Is it not just a picture of you with drivers licence or passport, to be sent over to the site? Easy done. And I think there are some minors on here, so this would prevent anyone getting in trouble (not that I'd go for that young, but others might) x" I suspect it will be credit card based proof probably. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab? No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. Is it not just a picture of you with drivers licence or passport, to be sent over to the site? Easy done. And I think there are some minors on here, so this would prevent anyone getting in trouble (not that I'd go for that young, but others might) x" No I believe the form it will take is through a 3rd party age verification website (run by the owners of pornhub/xhamster). Where you will submit personal details that are then checked against some database to determine your age, you are then given a unique token of some kind which you use to get into whichever sites you use that require it. And this is paid for by the owners of the website you visit. In this case it would be fab. Cost depending on the number of website hits they get a month. That's what I'm hearing about the theory. I'm just wondering if Fab will fall under this umbrella as it displays adult content and is blocked under certain ISP's and mobile providers until age is confirmed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab? No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. Is it not just a picture of you with drivers licence or passport, to be sent over to the site? Easy done. And I think there are some minors on here, so this would prevent anyone getting in trouble (not that I'd go for that young, but others might) x No I believe the form it will take is through a 3rd party age verification website (run by the owners of pornhub/xhamster). Where you will submit personal details that are then checked against some database to determine your age, you are then given a unique token of some kind which you use to get into whichever sites you use that require it. And this is paid for by the owners of the website you visit. In this case it would be fab. Cost depending on the number of website hits they get a month. That's what I'm hearing about the theory. I'm just wondering if Fab will fall under this umbrella as it displays adult content and is blocked under certain ISP's and mobile providers until age is confirmed. " Ah right... Not too keen on that tbh. Fab's not linked to these sites at all, is it? Maybe that only counts for adult sites that are partnered up with pornhub and xhamster. Either way, we'll find out soon enough. Maybe one of the mods will pick this up and find out what's happening x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s an interesting topic and I’m sure that fab will have to comply as I guess the platform provides a level of pornography through photograph and wording. Whilst it’s free to access, the membership offers a commercial aspect to the site. I believe there has to be a method of proof of age, so whether credit card, driving license or passport? The wording I’ve seen... The new age-check requirement applies to any website or other online platform that provides pornography "on a commercial basis" to people in the UK, and businesses that refuse to comply can be fined up to £250,000 and regulators can ask third-party payment services to withdraw their support. I’d be interested to see where it lies with GDPR also coming into force at the beginning of April." The wording I read said that any site with material designed to cause sexual arousal. So anything with explicit sexual images basically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what if I get a note from Tesco that I look over 25 "Don't think that would count. A note from mum or dad might.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what if I get a note from Tesco that I look over 25
Don't think that would count. A note from mum or dad might...."Dear Fabswingers, I hereby declare that my son / daughter is allowed on the site and is of legal age | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can only be a positive, as it will make the time wasters think twice about joining FAB. People deleting and coming straight back on under different profile and also admin will probably be able to keep a track of keyboard warriors and remove them quickly. We can only live in hope " How will the new age verification laws be able to stop keyboard warriors and have them removed from the site  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say a lot a genuine users might also reconsider membership. It's funny how people naively think it'll get rid of fakes. It may get rid of some but I'd hazard a guess that if it's done by a third party as is already done by some sites already the fakes have already got 'pins' as they're not just being fakes on fab. There will be a lot genuine fabber who would leave if credit card details had to be uses. ... One such group would be singles who are on here without partners knowledge...And that's a lot of ladies (and guys). Now think if the ratios atm... 50:1 men women. I know it's more complicated than this but let's use that ratio to give an idea of the effect. Let's say 100 genuine guys are effected that translates to 5000 genuine women. See the potential knock on effect? I for one though single would never use my credit card to sign up for anything like that. That information in the wrong hands could be catastrophic imo."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can only be a positive, as it will make the time wasters think twice about joining FAB. People deleting and coming straight back on under different profile and also admin will probably be able to keep a track of keyboard warriors and remove them quickly. We can only live in hope How will the new age verification laws be able to stop keyboard warriors and have them removed from the site "The word I used was probably not definitely. Once someone is banned maybe, that's a maybe, admin might be able to to keep track when they try to make a new profile, that's maybe. Hope that clears up my view for you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say a lot a genuine users might also reconsider membership. It's funny how people naively think it'll get rid of fakes. It may get rid of some but I'd hazard a guess that if it's done by a third party as is already done by some sites already the fakes have already got 'pins' as they're not just being fakes on fab. There will be a lot genuine fabber who would leave if credit card details had to be uses. ... One such group would be singles who are on here without partners knowledge...And that's a lot of ladies (and guys). Now think if the ratios atm... 50:1 men women. I know it's more complicated than this but let's use that ratio to give an idea of the effect. Let's say 100 genuine guys are effected that translates to 5000 genuine women. See the potential knock on effect? I for one though single would never use my credit card to sign up for anything like that. That information in the wrong hands could be catastrophic imo." WOW all the cheaters could be affected, never gave that a thought. Well I never. That will leave the honest people then..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say a lot a genuine users might also reconsider membership. It's funny how people naively think it'll get rid of fakes. It may get rid of some but I'd hazard a guess that if it's done by a third party as is already done by some sites already the fakes have already got 'pins' as they're not just being fakes on fab. There will be a lot genuine fabber who would leave if credit card details had to be uses. ... One such group would be singles who are on here without partners knowledge...And that's a lot of ladies (and guys). Now think if the ratios atm... 50:1 men women. I know it's more complicated than this but let's use that ratio to give an idea of the effect. Let's say 100 genuine guys are effected that translates to 5000 genuine women. See the potential knock on effect? I for one though single would never use my credit card to sign up for anything like that. That information in the wrong hands could be catastrophic imo. WOW all the cheaters could be affected, never gave that a thought. Well I never. That will leave the honest people then..... " I think the outing of thousands of married people on a site designed to facilitate extra marital affairs proves that is unlikely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say a lot a genuine users might also reconsider membership. It's funny how people naively think it'll get rid of fakes. It may get rid of some but I'd hazard a guess that if it's done by a third party as is already done by some sites already the fakes have already got 'pins' as they're not just being fakes on fab. There will be a lot genuine fabber who would leave if credit card details had to be uses. ... One such group would be singles who are on here without partners knowledge...And that's a lot of ladies (and guys). Now think if the ratios atm... 50:1 men women. I know it's more complicated than this but let's use that ratio to give an idea of the effect. Let's say 100 genuine guys are effected that translates to 5000 genuine women. See the potential knock on effect? I for one though single would never use my credit card to sign up for anything like that. That information in the wrong hands could be catastrophic imo. WOW all the cheaters could be affected, never gave that a thought. Well I never. That will leave the honest people then..... " Finally found someone who has never lied or cheated...Or was that a lie? Seriously, you think your cheating of tax (cash in hand), lies to tax man, cheating ur employer by knocking off early or sitting on ur phone on fab while he's paying you for working for him, not to mention any lies to your partner about other things means ur better than those who are hiding that they're mating others? The only difference between any lies and cheating is the consequences. But ultimately they boil down to the same thing...distrust and dishonesty and I'm afraid to say it but no one is able to point the finger without 3 pointing straight back at themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd say a lot a genuine users might also reconsider membership. It's funny how people naively think it'll get rid of fakes. It may get rid of some but I'd hazard a guess that if it's done by a third party as is already done by some sites already the fakes have already got 'pins' as they're not just being fakes on fab. There will be a lot genuine fabber who would leave if credit card details had to be uses. ... One such group would be singles who are on here without partners knowledge...And that's a lot of ladies (and guys). Now think if the ratios atm... 50:1 men women. I know it's more complicated than this but let's use that ratio to give an idea of the effect. Let's say 100 genuine guys are effected that translates to 5000 genuine women. See the potential knock on effect? I for one though single would never use my credit card to sign up for anything like that. That information in the wrong hands could be catastrophic imo. WOW all the cheaters could be affected, never gave that a thought. Well I never. That will leave the honest people then..... Finally found someone who has never lied or cheated...Or was that a lie? Seriously, you think your cheating of tax (cash in hand), lies to tax man, cheating ur employer by knocking off early or sitting on ur phone on fab while he's paying you for working for him, not to mention any lies to your partner about other things means ur better than those who are hiding that they're mating others? The only difference between any lies and cheating is the consequences. But ultimately they boil down to the same thing...distrust and dishonesty and I'm afraid to say it but no one is able to point the finger without 3 pointing straight back at themselves." Wow... Thought we were on about Fab profiles and cheating on partners. Over thinking things I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can only be a positive, as it will make the time wasters think twice about joining FAB. People deleting and coming straight back on under different profile and also admin will probably be able to keep a track of keyboard warriors and remove them quickly. We can only live in hope " No I don't think it will have much effect. As once you've signed up to the verification you will get a token (pin number or code) that you uses as many times as you like. The people it will effect are those who dont want the governement knowing their porn viewing habits. Who don't want the worlds largest porn conglomerate knowing their porn viewing habits. Who like the anonymity of sites like fab and worry about a hacker outing them. Mind you, if that was going to happen it would have by now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered" Nope. That won't cut it anymore. Jeez, people really don't know about this new law do they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered" Unfortunately not as will be down to site owners to prove that their users are old enough to be on their. The only other solution I guess would be to remove pictures of sexual activity's and only accept fully clothed pictures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered Nope. That won't cut it anymore. Jeez, people really don't know about this new law do they?" There's always a way around something You'll see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered Unfortunately not as will be down to site owners to prove that their users are old enough to be on their. The only other solution I guess would be to remove pictures of sexual activity's and only accept fully clothed pictures. " Bit like when the tax man says you gotta pay tax they find a legal way to avoid it . There will be an easy way around it You'll see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered Unfortunately not as will be down to site owners to prove that their users are old enough to be on their. The only other solution I guess would be to remove pictures of sexual activity's and only accept fully clothed pictures. Bit like when the tax man says you gotta pay tax they find a legal way to avoid it . There will be an easy way around it You'll see" I can't see an easy way round it. Maybe move site abroad? This comes in April and we still have no details. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From what I can tell it won't matter where the site is hosted as it will be down to UK internet service providers to block access to sites that don't follow the law regardless of where the sites originate. " Well that won'the work everyone will just use a vpn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well that won'the work everyone will just use a vpn." No they wont. I daresay VPN use will grow. But not for your average user on their mobile device. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well that won'the work everyone will just use a vpn. No they wont. I daresay VPN use will grow. But not for your average user on their mobile device. " According to thegovernment one in 6 adults use a vpn. I suspect the real figure is much higher. A lot of people have to use them to watch football. If this comes in it will be pretty much 100%. Vpn are not complicated there are even browsers that have it built in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what if I get a note from Tesco that I look over 25
Don't think that would count. A note from mum or dad might...."Or from your doctor? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"what if I get a note from Tesco that I look over 25
Don't think that would count. A note from mum or dad might...."mrs be ok her mum still alive, i am fecked though both me mum n dad are dead lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is fab going to fall under the new age verification laws coming into force in May? " Can admin shed any light on this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is fab going to fall under the new age verification laws coming into force in May? Can admin shed any light on this?" Well the thread has been up two weeks with no response, so either they don't know or don't check the feedback forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You won't be giving any detail you'll be ticking a box to say bla bla bla " No you won't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The point I'm trying to make is that it's not up to the web site owner, the law is the law. People can vote with their feet, but you will ultimately have few other choices. I also think OP has a point in as much as no official statement or response has been made on this subject... So it will be interesting how things unfold in the forthcoming months" To be fair to the admins, even one of the most vocal campaigners on this, Pandora Blake, hasn't been able to get much detail about what government plans to do. If they can't get to the details, you have to feels sorry for the admins of a site like this. Pandora/Blake blogged the other day about the potential for slightly less shit AV systems to come forward, and they're working with people on them, but for the rest of us, the system is what it's always been - VPN Separate email accounts for work, home and play and probably a separate debit card from one of the pre-pay providers to provide mitigation against hacking - and all with different passwords / password rules... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't there something about 21 being the age for pics on fab? No this is no what I meant. From May, users of any website with explicit material on it will have to go through intrusive age verification to gain access. So potentially fab users. Is it not just a picture of you with drivers licence or passport, to be sent over to the site? Easy done. And I think there are some minors on here, so this would prevent anyone getting in trouble (not that I'd go for that young, but others might) x" Boy if that is the case then the new load on the owners to comply with “GDPR” regulations will be massive. It currently has the financial and HR sectors of the software market firmly in its grip for a start. The joys of being in business... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This legislation is from David Cameron's government and of course we have a new government now. Theresa may is a traditional conservative so would probably back this in principle but this will course her loads of bother for no reward. So I suspect this will be watered down a lot. There is still no detail and this coming in in a few months time." Like many businesses then - doing it all in a panick this year despite it being announced a while ago. It’s in fact Europe-wide law, designed to protect our online identities and safeguard the data company hold on individuals. Whether it does so or not... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you'd root out a whole bunch of fakes, if people would have to get properly verified like that!!! The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if any of the site owners have any answer on this? Even an answer of "we don't know but are finding out" would be good. Do I have to call someone a rude name to get a response? " You'd not get a response, just a ban | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if any of the site owners have any answer on this? Even an answer of "we don't know but are finding out" would be good. Do I have to call someone a rude name to get a response? You'd not get a response, just a ban "Yeah but at least I'd know that someone had looked at the bloody question! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This legislation is from David Cameron's government and of course we have a new government now. Theresa may is a traditional conservative so would probably back this in principle but this will course her loads of bother for no reward. So I suspect this will be watered down a lot. There is still no detail and this coming in in a few months time. Like many businesses then - doing it all in a panick this year despite it being announced a while ago. It’s in fact Europe-wide law, designed to protect our online identities and safeguard the data company hold on individuals. Whether it does so or not..." It is from the digital economy act which is UK only act nothing to do with eu or Europe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if any of the site owners have any answer on this? Even an answer of "we don't know but are finding out" would be good. Do I have to call someone a rude name to get a response? " You could do, but then I would have to put you on the naughty step | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is fab going to fall under the new age verification laws coming into force in May? " Well this is what we do know: VERIFICATION All pornography sites must use age-verification software of some kind to block under 18s from accessing their content. REGULATIONS The British Board of Film and Classification (BBFC), will oversee the implementation of the regulations. BLOCKS Internet service providers will be forced to block any websites that do not comply and fines of £250,000, or five per cent of financial turnover, could be implemented. Does FAB have any update on how this will effect the users? Particularly those who have bought site supporter past April. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. It sounds like a no brainier to me and a great way to limit porn available to kids. Talk to anyone under the age of 25 and you will hear stories of how porn has affected them. Where as I saw a couple of nude pictures when under age and some page 3, that’s much more healthy than what kids see now. " Surely the photo modorators on here should be preventing pictures of children being on this site anyway. Age verification of the site users should be a separate issue completely? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. It sounds like a no brainier to me and a great way to limit porn available to kids. Talk to anyone under the age of 25 and you will hear stories of how porn has affected them. Where as I saw a couple of nude pictures when under age and some page 3, that’s much more healthy than what kids see now. Surely the photo modorators on here should be preventing pictures of children being on this site anyway. Age verification of the site users should be a separate issue completely?" This is new legislation thay is coming in and nothing to do with fab. It will affect all sex sites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. " There are no pics of children on here,if a mistake was made it would be rectified as soon as reported/seen.... you are missing the point of the thread altogether | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. There are no pics of children on here,if a mistake was made it would be rectified as soon as reported/seen.... you are missing the point of the thread altogether" I suspect the couple from Edinburgh meant "I hate the idea of children looking at pictures on here", rather than what they wrote. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered Unfortunately not as will be down to site owners to prove that their users are old enough to be on their. The only other solution I guess would be to remove pictures of sexual activity's and only accept fully clothed pictures. " I was thinking this - then it would be up to members if they wanted to share explicit pictures with people who contacted them (away from the site). Difficult one... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. There are no pics of children on here,if a mistake was made it would be rectified as soon as reported/seen.... you are missing the point of the thread altogether I suspect the couple from Edinburgh meant "I hate the idea of children looking at pictures on here", rather than what they wrote. " Then wouldn't they have checked what they put to make sure it read that way before hitting post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the Act and the Regulations are presently drafted, they will not apply to this site, so there is no problem. " Well either way we are still awaiting a response from admin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you'd root out a whole bunch of fakes, if people would have to get properly verified like that!!! The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned "Ditto! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the legislation is based on sound principles. I haven't really given it much thought until now but feel strongly that those under-aged should be prevented from entering the site seeing explicit content on some of the explicit here so am all for having an age verification check. The current simple self certified confirmation of age isn't really effective. Will be interested in seeing how it will be implemented" Of course underage people should not be on here, but as I see it having a huge data base of porn users, owned and controlled by porn hub, worries me. Imagine what damage hackers could do with that info. Maybe time to go back to good old fashioned contact magazines. Only took a few months to arrange meets | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the Act and the Regulations are presently drafted, they will not apply to this site, so there is no problem. Well either way we are still awaiting a response from admin." You do not need a response from Admin. It will not apply to this site. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As the Act and the Regulations are presently drafted, they will not apply to this site, so there is no problem. Well either way we are still awaiting a response from admin. You do not need a response from Admin. It will not apply to this site." Why do we not need a reply from admin? This is a sex site which has sexually explicit pictures and content on. It is a genuine question which a few people have asked. This is the correct forum for site questions so an answer would be appreciated. Unless you this is an official response from admin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How are admin going to know? The law is not yet in force at present, and the regulations have not yet been finalised. However, as the present proposals stand, then this site will not be affected by the 2017 Act or the Regulations." They are a legitimate business that needs to operate within the law, as do all businesses. I don't think ignorance of fact is actually a defense that will stand up. As someone has said other sites have plans in place. No doubt we will find out. I will wait for their response. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you'd root out a whole bunch of fakes, if people would have to get properly verified like that!!! The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned "Totally agree. We don't mind verifying ourselves or paying to be members. These things can only help in the war against fakes and chancers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How are admin going to know? The law is not yet in force at present, and the regulations have not yet been finalised. However, as the present proposals stand, then this site will not be affected by the 2017 Act or the Regulations. They are a legitimate business that needs to operate within the law, as do all businesses. I don't think ignorance of fact is actually a defense that will stand up. As someone has said other sites have plans in place. No doubt we will find out. I will wait for their response. " I think that you should read the 2017 Act. Why will this site not be operating within the law, if they carry on doing what they do now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How are admin going to know? The law is not yet in force at present, and the regulations have not yet been finalised. However, as the present proposals stand, then this site will not be affected by the 2017 Act or the Regulations." You sound desperate to try and stop inevitable law change by denying it or my using bloke-down-the-pub-says logic to argue it doesn't apply. Here's the facts... The new Digital Economy Act will force all websites containing adult content to prove their users are over 18 years old before they grant access, which means all affected websites must enable age verification tools by April 2018. Companies not complying with the new regulations will face fines of up to £250,000 or being blocked by ISP’s. Websites may well adapt similar systems to those used by online gambling companies, by asking users to provide credit card details (which can only be issued to people over the age of 18). This tactic has been used successfully by online betting sites since the Gambling Bill of 2004. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How are admin going to know? The law is not yet in force at present, and the regulations have not yet been finalised. However, as the present proposals stand, then this site will not be affected by the 2017 Act or the Regulations. They are a legitimate business that needs to operate within the law, as do all businesses. I don't think ignorance of fact is actually a defense that will stand up. As someone has said other sites have plans in place. No doubt we will find out. I will wait for their response. I think that you should read the 2017 Act. Why will this site not be operating within the law, if they carry on doing what they do now?" I dont know I am not admin, nor am I a solicitor or from the BBFC. That is the purpose of the thread, of which I am not the OP, to ask for clarification. That is a reasonable request. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So on what basis are you worried about the new law, if you have not read it?" Clearly you haven't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So on what basis are you worried about the new law, if you have not read it? Clearly you haven't" I have read it. I think that I am the only one that has, and that is why I don't see a problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So on what basis are you worried about the new law, if you have not read it?" Are you a solicitor? Would you like to point out which sections of the new act don't apply to this site and why? I haven't read it but I am assuming from your confidence that it won't affect here that you have. Could save admin a ton in legal fees and of course give the answer to the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So on what basis are you worried about the new law, if you have not read it? Are you a solicitor? Would you like to point out which sections of the new act don't apply to this site and why? I haven't read it but I am assuming from your confidence that it won't affect here that you have. Could save admin a ton in legal fees and of course give the answer to the OP." Ha ha! Good one. He revealed his lack of knowledge with the comment 'how are admin going to know'? You're arguing against bloke-down-the-pub-said 'logic'. Don't waste your time. He'll have to face reality in April. By the way, if you want a REAL understanding go to legislation.gov.uk and look up Digital Economies Act 2017. There are also plenty of plain English summaries online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"2. In these Regulations— “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" Grabbing random clauses. Love it! Ha ha! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So on what basis are you worried about the new law, if you have not read it? Are you a solicitor? Would you like to point out which sections of the new act don't apply to this site and why? I haven't read it but I am assuming from your confidence that it won't affect here that you have. Could save admin a ton in legal fees and of course give the answer to the OP. Ha ha! Good one. He revealed his lack of knowledge with the comment 'how are admin going to know'? You're arguing against bloke-down-the-pub-said 'logic'. Don't waste your time. He'll have to face reality in April. By the way, if you want a REAL understanding go to legislation.gov.uk and look up Digital Economies Act 2017. There are also plenty of plain English summaries online." Thank you. I will have a look at that. Prefer plain English summaries and will work it out for myself. Cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person is not to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3: (a) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of persons who visit or use the means of accessing the internet on or via which the material is made available do not view content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet; or (b) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of the overall content accessed on or via that means of accessing the internet is not content of a pornographic nature. (2) However, regardless of paragraph (1), a person is to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3 (a) if they are a person falling within regulation 3; and (b) if it is reasonable to assume from the way in which the means of accessing the internet (on or via which the pornographic material is made available) is marketed that the intention is to make available content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet. " Yeh thanks but I will work it out for myself. All that tells me is that the OP had a legitimate question. You have failed to apply the legislation to the actial running of the site. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now read what it actually says, instead of insulting me." Who is insulting you? Would you like to point out which bits dont relate to fab and sex sites in general then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person is not to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3: (a) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of persons who visit or use the means of accessing the internet on or via which the material is made available do not view content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet; or (b) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of the overall content accessed on or via that means of accessing the internet is not content of a pornographic nature. (2) However, regardless of paragraph (1), a person is to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3 (a) if they are a person falling within regulation 3; and (b) if it is reasonable to assume from the way in which the means of accessing the internet (on or via which the pornographic material is made available) is marketed that the intention is to make available content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet. Yeh thanks but I will work it out for myself. All that tells me is that the OP had a legitimate question. You have failed to apply the legislation to the actial running of the site. " You apply it. You can read, just like I can. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be an easy one to get around By ticking this bock you are agreeing to entering an adult site and are confirming you are 18 years of age Boom ......there covered Nope. That won't cut it anymore. Jeez, people really don't know about this new law do they?" Is it a law or an act? The later me thinks! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person is not to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3: (a) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of persons who visit or use the means of accessing the internet on or via which the material is made available do not view content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet; or (b) if it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of the overall content accessed on or via that means of accessing the internet is not content of a pornographic nature. (2) However, regardless of paragraph (1), a person is to be considered to be making available pornographic material on the internet on a commercial basis for the purposes of Part 3 (a) if they are a person falling within regulation 3; and (b) if it is reasonable to assume from the way in which the means of accessing the internet (on or via which the pornographic material is made available) is marketed that the intention is to make available content of a pornographic nature on or via that means of accessing the internet. Yeh thanks but I will work it out for myself. All that tells me is that the OP had a legitimate question. You have failed to apply the legislation to the actial running of the site. You apply it. You can read, just like I can." Yes I can read and that is why I am asking you to apply it. I fail to see the logical connection. I am obviously missing something that you are seeing, so please point it out to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All laws have to be applied to situations. What I am saying is, I have set out the relevant law, and I am asking you to read it and tell me which parts affect this site and why." No I asked you to tell me which parts dont apply to the site. You were very confident that it does not apply. So how? I failed A level law so dont remember how laws are made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Right, let's break it down and then we can discuss it." Off you go. Apply it to the site. Point by point. As I said I failed law (tho I do have other degrees) so will of course look critically at each point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made." It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is porn? What is a commercial basis?" So deny that this has porn images on? Is this a commercial venture (companies house seems to think so) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law." It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is porn? What is a commercial basis? So deny that this has porn images on? Is this a commercial venture (companies house seems to think so)" Look at the definition of porn and commercial basis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"S.14 - You cannot make porn available to under 18s in the UK on a commercial basis." Yes the whole point if this post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government!" Which requires consent!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What is porn? What is a commercial basis? So deny that this has porn images on? Is this a commercial venture (companies house seems to think so) Look at the definition of porn and commercial basis." Yes failing to see how they are not applicable here. Help me out! How are they not applicable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!!" You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol" No, but I keep myself informed!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!!" Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!! Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" " The consent of those that are governed! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The regulations say: “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" So in this case of this site, you mean photographs that members of this site upload, so that other members of the site can see them. Are they produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, or are they produced so that you take in interest in their profile and may wish to contact them, to talk to those people? " Seriously?! Is that your reasoning? So pictures of a gangbang, genitalia etc would not be considered porn? Oh Im out! I'll wait for the fab response or April. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!! Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" The consent of those that are governed!" No it doesn't. Otherwise Parliament would not be able to operate! How many times were you asked last year if you consented to all the Acts of Parliament that were passed and brought into force? Not once! You elect MPs to vote on Acts of Parliament, and once they are passed, then a commencement date is generally set, and they are brought into force, by the relevant government deparment, usually by way of a statutory instrument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The regulations say: “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" So in this case of this site, you mean photographs that members of this site upload, so that other members of the site can see them. Are they produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, or are they produced so that you take in interest in their profile and may wish to contact them, to talk to those people? Seriously?! Is that your reasoning? So pictures of a gangbang, genitalia etc would not be considered porn? Oh Im out! I'll wait for the fab response or April. " Read it again please! These are the important words: "produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" That is the only reason why such images appear on a porn site, but is it the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason, why people, who are members of this site put them on here, or is it because they want people to contact them to discuss the possibility of meeting? Isn't the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason of putting them on here because they want people to contact them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!! Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" The consent of those that are governed! No it doesn't. Otherwise Parliament would not be able to operate! How many times were you asked last year if you consented to all the Acts of Parliament that were passed and brought into force? Not once! You elect MPs to vote on Acts of Parliament, and once they are passed, then a commencement date is generally set, and they are brought into force, by the relevant government deparment, usually by way of a statutory instrument." Against a corporation not a human being. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!! Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" The consent of those that are governed! No it doesn't. Otherwise Parliament would not be able to operate! How many times were you asked last year if you consented to all the Acts of Parliament that were passed and brought into force? Not once! You elect MPs to vote on Acts of Parliament, and once they are passed, then a commencement date is generally set, and they are brought into force, by the relevant government deparment, usually by way of a statutory instrument. Against a corporation not a human being." Against everyone! Be sensible. Many Acts were passed last year and every year that affect people, how many were you asked to vote on. That's why you elect an MP. Your MP does that, not you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"An Act (of Parliament) is law! It's one of the ways that laws are made. It only becomes law when you consent to it, so it's an act not a law. It becomes law, when the Act of Parliament is brought into force by the Government! Which requires consent!! You passed you A level law didnt you pretty lady?? lol No, but I keep myself informed!! Consent of the Government minister, not the public!" The consent of those that are governed! No it doesn't. Otherwise Parliament would not be able to operate! How many times were you asked last year if you consented to all the Acts of Parliament that were passed and brought into force? Not once! You elect MPs to vote on Acts of Parliament, and once they are passed, then a commencement date is generally set, and they are brought into force, by the relevant government deparment, usually by way of a statutory instrument. Against a corporation not a human being. Against everyone! Be sensible. Many Acts were passed last year and every year that affect people, how many were you asked to vote on. That's why you elect an MP. Your MP does that, not you! " A person in law is a corporation. Acts and statutes are Maritime law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This act was in the conservative party manifesto the general election before this one. We as a country voted them in on that manifesto so we all had a say on it really." That's what they make you think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The regulations say: “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" So in this case of this site, you mean photographs that members of this site upload, so that other members of the site can see them. Are they produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, or are they produced so that you take in interest in their profile and may wish to contact them, to talk to those people? Seriously?! Is that your reasoning? So pictures of a gangbang, genitalia etc would not be considered porn? Oh Im out! I'll wait for the fab response or April. Read it again please! These are the important words: "produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" That is the only reason why such images appear on a porn site, but is it the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason, why people, who are members of this site put them on here, or is it because they want people to contact them to discuss the possibility of meeting? Isn't the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason of putting them on here because they want people to contact them? " Actually there are people on here who swingers and escorts. They load pics on here to raise their profile so that they gain popularity and can charge for services. It's totally against fab rules but it happens all the time. Do a search on 'A Nother' escorting site and you will see LOADS of pics on there that are also on Fab. It's naive to think there are not people on here who are not getting any financial recompense. Plus, there are clubs who have naked/erotic photos on their profiles with the club or event name on them for the SOLE PURPOSE of attracting people to their event for financial gain. So there are aspects of this site as it stands that will fall into this legislation. I think admin are quiet as the business is still working through the solution as it's a minefield and the last thing they want to do is release inaccurate info or action something which becomes unnecessary. So I would treat their silence as an attempt to get their next move and legalities sorted before saying anything, so as not to worry people xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The regulations say: “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" So in this case of this site, you mean photographs that members of this site upload, so that other members of the site can see them. Are they produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, or are they produced so that you take in interest in their profile and may wish to contact them, to talk to those people? Seriously?! Is that your reasoning? So pictures of a gangbang, genitalia etc would not be considered porn? Oh Im out! I'll wait for the fab response or April. Read it again please! These are the important words: "produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" That is the only reason why such images appear on a porn site, but is it the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason, why people, who are members of this site put them on here, or is it because they want people to contact them to discuss the possibility of meeting? Isn't the SOLE or the PRINCIPAL reason of putting them on here because they want people to contact them? Actually there are people on here who swingers and escorts. They load pics on here to raise their profile so that they gain popularity and can charge for services. It's totally against fab rules but it happens all the time. Do a search on 'A Nother' escorting site and you will see LOADS of pics on there that are also on Fab. It's naive to think there are not people on here who are not getting any financial recompense. Plus, there are clubs who have naked/erotic photos on their profiles with the club or event name on them for the SOLE PURPOSE of attracting people to their event for financial gain. So there are aspects of this site as it stands that will fall into this legislation. I think admin are quiet as the business is still working through the solution as it's a minefield and the last thing they want to do is release inaccurate info or action something which becomes unnecessary. So I would treat their silence as an attempt to get their next move and legalities sorted before saying anything, so as not to worry people xx" There! You have proved my point! The porn is not on here for the sole purpose of sexual arousal, as you say, so there is no offence. And we have not even had to look at all the other defences that apply, because the offence is not committed, as we both say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have some bizarre ideas, which are all wrong! How can a person be a corporation? You are a person. I am a person. British Airways is a corporation. Acts of Parliament do not just apply to maritime matters!" Acts and statutes ARE maritime law, look into it!! The legal definition of a person is a corporation, again look into it!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The regulations say: “content that is of a pornographic nature” means content whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal" So in this case of this site, you mean photographs that members of this site upload, so that other members of the site can see them. Are they produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, or are they produced so that you take in interest in their profile and may wish to contact them, to talk to those people? Seriously?! Is that your reasoning? So pictures of a gangbang, genitalia etc would not be considered porn? Oh Im out! I'll wait for the fab response or April. I think what he is saying is, the site wasn't started as a porn site. I think he means porn sites will be hit" It's not that it wasn't started as a porn site, it's more that it isn't a porn site. Specifically, the sole or main purpose of the photos on here that might be classed as porn otherwise is not for sexual arousal. I am saying that the sole or principal purpose of the photos that peo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's what I meant sorry, it isn't a porn site , it has always been a Swinging site" The question to ask is - Why do people post pictures of themselves naked on here, or engaging in sex acts? It is the answer to that question that is very important. I say that it is to attract other members to chat to them, with a view to seeing if all parties would like to meet, for the purpose of engaging in swinging. That is why the site exists. The sole or principal purpose is not for sexual arousal - as a porn site is - a porn site is for nothing else. Here the main purpose is to chat to, or meet with other people, and preferably both, so the offence is simply not committed. Hence why there is no problem And even if I am wrong on this point, then there are other defences, that we have not even got to yet! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's what I meant sorry, it isn't a porn site , it has always been a Swinging site" Still think it might be a good idea for fab to have people properly verified, like send a picture of them with their driving licence or passport or something. Get rid of the fakes x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's what I meant sorry, it isn't a porn site , it has always been a Swinging site Still think it might be a good idea for fab to have people properly verified, like send a picture of them with their driving licence or passport or something. Get rid of the fakes x" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And watch the membership numbers go through the floor. The whole attraction of this site for many is it's anonymity. Once you hand over those details, and they are processed/stored by the site, then you risk an Ashley Madison etc. " This wouldn't harm anyone's anonymity towards other members. And when people realise the fakes are being dealt with I recon membership will go up. One of the top reasons for people leaving the site must be the fake profiles. Saves the genuine people on here a lot of frustration and wasting our time x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have some bizarre ideas, which are all wrong! How can a person be a corporation? You are a person. I am a person. British Airways is a corporation. Acts of Parliament do not just apply to maritime matters! Acts and statutes ARE maritime law, look into it!! The legal definition of a person is a corporation, again look into it!!" How are any of the Housing Acts maritime law? They apply to houses, and not ships. How is the Children Act maritime law? It applies to children, not boats. How is a person a corporation? A person is a person. A corporation is a company, like Tesco. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have some bizarre ideas, which are all wrong! How can a person be a corporation? You are a person. I am a person. British Airways is a corporation. Acts of Parliament do not just apply to maritime matters! Acts and statutes ARE maritime law, look into it!! The legal definition of a person is a corporation, again look into it!! How are any of the Housing Acts maritime law? They apply to houses, and not ships. How is the Children Act maritime law? It applies to children, not boats. How is a person a corporation? A person is a person. A corporation is a company, like Tesco." Take a look at Blacks law dictionary. It has all the answers to all your questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law."The legal definition of a person is not a corporation. The whole point of a corporation is that it has its own separate legal identity. It is not a person, hence why you can contract with the company and sue the company, and the company can go bust, and not its directors. Statues are the same as Acts. Just another name for them, and unless they relate to the navy and martime matters, they are not admiralty matters. How can the Children Act be an admiralty matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law.
The legal definition of a person is not a corporation.
The whole point of a corporation is that it has its own separate legal identity. It is not a person, hence why you can contract with the company and sue the company, and the company can go bust, and not its directors.
Statues are the same as Acts. Just another name for them, and unless they relate to the navy and martime matters, they are not admiralty matters.
How can the Children Act be an admiralty matter?
"Do you know what Legalese is? It is the language of Law!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Legalese is a slang term. Nothing more. And you are just plain wrong in what you say, as I have pointed out. Go and tell a family lawyer that the Children Act is all about maritime matters and admiralty. Watch them laugh at you." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That sounds like a great idea. I hate the idea of looking at pictures of children on here. There are no pics of children on here,if a mistake was made it would be rectified as soon as reported/seen.... you are missing the point of the thread altogether I suspect the couple from Edinburgh meant "I hate the idea of children looking at pictures on here", rather than what they wrote. Then wouldn't they have checked what they put to make sure it read that way before hitting post " I meant what I said. As we as users are also contributing to the site we have to be confident our fellow contributors are not children posting pictures of themselves. Same way as when we go to a swingers club id has been taken at the door and everyone is over 18. So for this site I’m not quite so bothered about who views it as who contributes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law."Lmao I'm pretty sure acts and statutes are not what you stated but come under either common or civil laws | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Admiralty and Maritime Law deal with nautical matters, otherwise known as the sea, Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Not Porn Laws.
A corporation is not a person, it can be a group of people who act as one. A corporation is a company or group of people authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And you'd root out a whole bunch of fakes, if people would have to get properly verified like that!!! The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned "I completely agree - sooner the better - least it will stop people joining just to troll thru others profiles and cause any undue distress just for having some fun - after all your personal life and private life are too completely different things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law.
Lmao I'm pretty sure acts and statutes are not what you stated but come under either common or civil laws"Acts and Statutes are the same thing. They are not common law. They are the opposite of common law. Common law is law made by Courts through points of law made in previously decided cases that set a precedent and bind future Courts. Civil law is made by Statutes and Courts. Civil law can therefore be Statute made or Common law made. Civil law is all law which is not Criminal Law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok this is now getting as clear as mud
Admiralty and Maritime Law deal with nautical matters, otherwise known as the sea, Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Not Porn Laws.
A corporation is not a person, it can be a group of people who act as one. A corporation is a company or group of people authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law. "Correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law.
Lmao I'm pretty sure acts and statutes are not what you stated but come under either common or civil laws"Common law is completely different from acts and statutes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok this is now getting as clear as mud
Admiralty and Maritime Law deal with nautical matters, otherwise known as the sea, Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Not Porn Laws.
A corporation is not a person, it can be a group of people who act as one. A corporation is a company or group of people authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Correct."Wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok this is now getting as clear as mud
Admiralty and Maritime Law deal with nautical matters, otherwise known as the sea, Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Not Porn Laws.
A corporation is not a person, it can be a group of people who act as one. A corporation is a company or group of people authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Correct.
Wrong."Why is that statement wrong? It is correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
I said the "legal definition" of a person is a corporation.
I am fully aware what a person is!!
Acts and statutes ARE admiral law which makes them maritime law.
Lmao I'm pretty sure acts and statutes are not what you stated but come under either common or civil laws
Acts and Statutes are the same thing. They are not common law. They are the opposite of common law. Common law is law made by Courts through points of law made in previously decided cases that set a precedent and bind future Courts.
Civil law is made by Statutes and Courts. Civil law can therefore be Statute made or Common law made.
Civil law is all law which is not Criminal Law."I was trying to see if I could remember which it fell under without getting my law books out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ok this is now getting as clear as mud
Admiralty and Maritime Law deal with nautical matters, otherwise known as the sea, Matters dealt by admiralty law include marine commerce, marine navigation, salvage, maritime pollution, seafarers’ rights, and the carriage by sea of both passengers and goods. Admiralty law also covers land-based commercial activities that are maritime in character, such as marine insurance. Not Porn Laws.
A corporation is not a person, it can be a group of people who act as one. A corporation is a company or group of people authorised to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
Correct.
Wrong.
Why is that statement wrong? It is correct."He doesn't get it M S I'd leave him to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
