Thread

a mission statement needed

demolitionred, 28 Sep 2005 08:22:37

>What is happening at the next meeting? I've found a speaker from FAC. Who=
else will be speaking? Is there any kind of agenda worked out yet?

I think one thing we must do is do work out a statement of our position. Some form of words that is broad enough for us all to be happy with. We can get away with having no official or constitutional existence, no officers, no membership. We can't any longer get away with having no point of view - or rather, the point of view of the last person who considers themselves a part of us and gets quoted on something. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of speaking for the group without authority. But we will be expected to have a position on things and anyone who says anything will be quoted and that will be taken as the 'official view'.

So we need to have one, but it should be broad enough to include us all. It's fine that the organisation includes different opinions if we have a central core about which we're agreed.

Discussing it will be can of worms though. I think it should be a (strictly guillotined) part of the meeting but it will continue online until we can agree a couple of paragraphs that state our case. I think it was John Lovatt or Kellan who first said we need this at the meeting.

Adrian

demolitionred, 28 Sep 2005 08:23:25

I'm afraid the bit about 'a can of worms' made me laugh because what I'm really afraid may happen is we'll spend a lot of time arguing our various positions and no final decision will be made.

Anyway, this is my position. I think the whole document should be scrapped. I would think this whether or not I thought bestiality, necrophilia or even bdsm were bad and evil things. This is because the document is not proposing any changes in the law as far as these activities themselves are concerned or about stopping people from making images of them, (at least not directly). It is concerned with trying to stop people from looking at things that it has decided might be bad for them and may cause crimes but without any proof to back it up. I think it's a badly worded, badly thought out pile of poo. Do we really want any of it becoming law?

Ginny

demolitionred, 28 Sep 2005 08:24:30

Message #5 of 6: Date Posted: 27 Sep 2005 23:05:43 by kinkiminx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly – There is no way of making a public statement fit everyone's ideas. I don’t think it’s a good idea to say “my kink is ok but yours isn’t" to anyone, and looking at pictures does most people no harm. People will do what they want or decide to do whether they see any pictures or not, and there are plenty more ways to get pictures than online anyway. I have to agree - I don’t like the idea of necrophilia, but no one is forcing me to look at them and I certainly don’t think that anyone has the right to say they can’t be there.

That could be stretched to encompass many other things too, even things which are completely unrealistic and obviously would have to have been faked, for example, vampire scenes in films with a sexual theme could be involved as they include both death and violence, as well as those that faked but with more realistic situations. In theory it might stop them showing parts of many films on websites to avoid thousands of people breaking the law.. (But that’s going back to images of BDSM in mainstream media.)

If there’s one thing we can’t afford to do with our time it’s argue between ourselves since no one’s kinks are exactly the same and we’d never agree; the general idea needs to include everyone, and I don’t think we are all ever going to be in agreement, but it is about protecting the rights of the community as a whole and not expressing our individual kinks!

One point of how ridiculous the whole thing is; they shouldn’t be wasting their resources on stopping people viewing images when they could be out *catching* the murderers and paedophiles etc who actually commit the crimes.

So its possible to say the whole thing is ridiculous ineffective and a waste of time and money without anyone needing to agree or associate them self with *any* of the activities involved, and we don’t need to say we even condone any of them -we can even state we certainly don't- to say that images need not, and shouldn’t be censored so ridiculously.

Kinkiminx

demolitionred, 28 Sep 2005 08:25:42

do you want to write a draft up?

I think you will find some people disagree on very major grounds... the main bone of contention is that some people within our group believe that some censorship is legitimate, that images of rape provoke rape but think BDSM should be treated differntly, while others beleieve that no images should be banned and others believe the law already gives protection against the real criminals.

as we are -- among other things -- an umbrella group whose member groups all have separate views I think any statement has to reflect that diversity....

this is in my view important because Hester said groups carry more weight in their submissions.

we need to keep to keep the various groups, with their differnt views separate.

Therefore I think we need something along the lines of backlash is an organisation set up to bring together a number of diverse groups -- including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London and South East (we have to check about sex workers, SM Pride and some of the other groups), the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.

These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet porn.

our groups oppose the plans on the following grounds.....

adrian, 28 Sep 2005 13:10:59

At 08:23 28/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm afraid the bit about 'a can of worms' made me laugh because what I'm
really afraid may happen is we'll spend a lot of time arguing our various
positions and no final decision will be made.
>
That's what I fear. I was thinking of things that we could say that keep
many of these things vague. That's not inconsistent with a workable main aim.

>Anyway, this is my position. I think the whole document should be
scrapped. I would think this whether or not I thought bestiality,
necrophilia or even bdsm were bad and evil things. This is because the
document is not proposing any changes in the law as far as these activities
themselves are concerned or about stopping people from making images of
them, (at least not directly). It is concerned with trying to stop people
from looking at things that it has decided might be bad for them and may
cause crimes but without any proof to back it up. I think it's a badly
worded, badly thought out pile of poo. Do we really want any of it becoming
law?

I agree with Kinkiminx that we shouldn't say “my kink is ok but yours
isn’t". EXCEPT that we must require informed consent of all involved in
its creation. How we define that is an area we should leave to the
individual.

We shouldn't have a view on which actual acts should be legal or illegal.
Probably most of us think the law is wrong in making many widespread BDSM
acts an offence. But that's a different battle.

We should reject the assumption that 'if it's sexy it's bad'. That a
portrayal which is specifically designed to be erotic be illegal to see but
not if you can claim added 'entertainment value' or artistic worth. We may
suspect that this arises from unconscious prejudice against sex and not
from any moral sense.

As DR says, we have potential splits. Maybe having three 'sample points of
view' would make it clear that we cover a range of views. But the mission
statement is just as important, we need it to get properly represented in
the press.

rosalee, 28 Sep 2005 14:17:05

While I agree with you about the issue of consensuality, I think it's actually quite irrelevant as far as this document is concerned. As I said before, it's not about the creation of the images but the viewing of them. Some people get off on images of real violence such as might be found in the news or in a human rights campaign. That is no reason to ban those images or make it illegal to view them. Someone wanking over these pictures in private will make no difference whatsoever to the victims of the violence.

However, I think as a public relations exercise, the issue of consent should be emphasised, especially as the people who drafted the document seem to have no real understanding of it.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: Adrian, 28 Sep 2005 14:17:05

Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: a mission statement needed

I agree with Kinkiminx that we shouldn't say "my kink is ok but yours
isn't". EXCEPT that we must require informed consent of all involved in
its creation. How we define that is an area we should leave to the
individual.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D603

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

SnowdropExplodes, 28 Sep 2005 15:30:01

--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Therefore I think we need something along the lines
> of

> "Backlash" is an organisation set up to bring
> together a number of diverse groups -- including
> Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch,
> SM Dykes London and South East (we have to check
> about sex workers, SM Pride and some of the other
> groups), the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to
> censorship and the criminalisation of consensual
> acts.
>
> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of
> British people decided to work together to share
> knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the
> proposals included in the Home Office consulation
> paper on internet porn.
>
> our groups oppose the plans on the following
> grounds.....

I like this opening. I would humbly like to propose
the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:

"We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
Longhurst"] because, as has been recognised by the
consultation paper, there is no evidence linking the
type of material under discussion with criminal
activity, despite decades spent trying to prove such a
link. We believe that the law would in effect be
legislation based purely on the grounds of taste, with
the notion of protection as a fig-leaf to allow the
criminalisation of certain sexual fantasies. It does
not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.
We believe that what consenting adults do or look at
in their own home should not be any concern of the
law, and that the new law would infringe the liberties
of law-abiding people who happen to have tastes that
differ from the norm in society.

"We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any
criminal or non-consensual acts in the production of
any material [and would hope that the law enforcement
agencies around the world can work together to prevent
such crimes. However, we do not believe that the
contention by the consultation paper that banning the
possession of such images would have an appreciable
effect on the cycle of supply and demand is valid, and
believe that there are better ways to protect those
who need protection, without infringing on civil
liberties.]"

I have enclosed in square brackets segments where I am
unsure of the best wording, or unsure whether the text
should be included or not. No doubt the whole lot
will be debated anyway! However, I hope I have
covered all the points that are common to all the
viewpoints, without stepping on anyone's toes?

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Graham Marsden, 28 Sep 2005 19:21:52

-OJT- wrote:

> I like this opening. I would humbly like to propose
> the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:

"Humbly"? ;-)

> "We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
> prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
> Longhurst"] because, as has been recognised by the
> consultation paper, there is no evidence linking the
> type of material under discussion with criminal
> activity, despite decades spent trying to prove such a
> link.

I think "tragedies such as..." gets the point across.

> We believe that the law would in effect be
> legislation based purely on the grounds of taste, with
> the notion of protection as a fig-leaf to allow the
> criminalisation of certain sexual fantasies.

I'm a little chary of "sexual fantasies", because, whilst it's accurate,
IMO it rather limits the scope of our objection and makes it appear that
sexual fantasies are our our primary concern.

How about something like: "We believe that the law is merely an attempt
to bring in internet censorship by the back door allowing the Nanny
State to impose a Thought Police who are charged with determining what
mature, consenting adults may or may not think about or view, let alone
take photographs of."

As the Home Office Consultation Document itself says "The underlying
premise of this document is that this material should have no place in
our society", however we believe that it is not the job of the state to
decide for its citizens what is suitable for them to see or possess
[especially when all the participants are consenting adults].

That way lies repression.

(I'm not sure about the bit in square brackets, on the one hand we need
to emphasise the "consenting adults" bit, but if it were left out it
states a more general principle, however that leaves us open to claims
that we could be condoning child porn!)

> We believe that what consenting adults do or look at
> in their own home should not be any concern of the
> law, and that the new law would infringe the liberties
> of law-abiding people who happen to have tastes that
> differ from the norm in society.

I like the majority of this but I'm not sure about the "who happen to
have tastes..." section.

I think it might be better as just "law-abiding adults".

> "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any
> criminal or non-consensual acts in the production of
> any material [and would hope that the law enforcement
> agencies around the world can work together to prevent
> such crimes.]

I think the section in brackets can be omitted.

> However, we do not believe that the contention by the
> consultation paper that banning the possession of such
> images would have an appreciable effect on the cycle of
> supply and demand is valid, and believe that there are
> better *and already existing* ways to protect those who
> need protection, without infringing on civil liberties."

With the addition of the bit between the asterisks, I would leave this
section in.

Cheers,
Graham.

Amelie, 28 Sep 2005 19:47:45

seems fine Red
----- Original Message -----

"-OJT-" , 28 Sep 2005 19:47:45

To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:29 PM

> --- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Therefore I think we need something along the lines
>> of
>
>
>
>> "Backlash" is an organisation set up to bring
>> together a number of diverse groups -- including
>> Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch,
>> SM Dykes London and South East (we have to check
>> about sex workers, SM Pride and some of the other
>> groups), the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to
>> censorship and the criminalisation of consensual
>> acts.
>>
>> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of
>> British people decided to work together to share
>> knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the
>> proposals included in the Home Office consulation
>> paper on internet porn.
>>
>> our groups oppose the plans on the following
>> grounds.....
>
> I like this opening. I would humbly like to propose
> the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:
>
> "We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
> prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
> Longhurst"] because, as has been recognised by the
> consultation paper, there is no evidence linking the
> type of material under discussion with criminal
> activity, despite decades spent trying to prove such a
> link. We believe that the law would in effect be
> legislation based purely on the grounds of taste, with
> the notion of protection as a fig-leaf to allow the
> criminalisation of certain sexual fantasies. It does
> not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
> to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.
> We believe that what consenting adults do or look at
> in their own home should not be any concern of the
> law, and that the new law would infringe the liberties
> of law-abiding people who happen to have tastes that
> differ from the norm in society.
>
> "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any
> criminal or non-consensual acts in the production of
> any material [and would hope that the law enforcement
> agencies around the world can work together to prevent
> such crimes. However, we do not believe that the
> contention by the consultation paper that banning the
> possession of such images would have an appreciable
> effect on the cycle of supply and demand is valid, and
> believe that there are better ways to protect those
> who need protection, without infringing on civil
> liberties.]"
>
> I have enclosed in square brackets segments where I am
> unsure of the best wording, or unsure whether the text
> should be included or not. No doubt the whole lot
> will be debated anyway! However, I hope I have
> covered all the points that are common to all the
> viewpoints, without stepping on anyone's toes?
>
> Ta,
>
> SnowdropExplodes
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D605
>
>

demolitionred, 29 Sep 2005 14:21:07

Author wrote:
> --- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Therefore I think we need something along the lines
> > of
> >
I would humbly like to propose
> the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:
> "We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
> prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
> Longhurst"] because,

I don't think Jane Longhurt should be mentioned. its emotive and the government says its not about her.

I have strengthened the first line and taken out bits I think were damaging or superflous...

"Backlash" was set up to bring together a number of diverse groups -- including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London and South East, the Spanner Trust and the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.

These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet porn.

As the government admits there is no evidence linking the
type of material under discussion with criminal activity, we believe the law intends only to criminalise certain sexual fantasies and thereby bring in internet censorship by the back door.

It does not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.

We believe that what consenting adults do or look at in their own home should not be any concern of the law, and that the new law would infringe the liberties of law-abiding people.

"We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any criminal or non-consensual acts in the production of any material but believe the law enforcement agencies around the world can work together to prevent such crimes through existing laws.

Contrary to the consulatation document, we do not believe that banning the possession of such images would have an appreciable
effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe that there are better ways to protect those who need protection, without infringing civil liberties."

*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 29 Sep 2005 14:25:05 ***

SnowdropExplodes, 29 Sep 2005 14:53:43

--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> I have strengthened the first line and taken out
> bits I think were damaging or superflous...
>

Thanks for a superb editorial job on my piece! I've
compared this with what I wrote earlier and I think
the effect is much better. It's more concise and
more easily quotable: "punchier", in other words.

It gets my vote.

>
> "Backlash" was set up to bring together a number of
> diverse groups -- including Feminists against
> Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London and
> South East, the Spanner Trust and the Libertarian
> Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the
> criminalisation of consensual acts.
>
> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of
> British people decided to work together to share
> knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the
> proposals included in the Home Office consulation
> paper on internet porn.
>
> As the government admits there is no evidence
> linking the
> type of material under discussion with criminal
> activity, we believe the law intends only to
> criminalise certain sexual fantasies.
>
> It does not seek to legislate against the acts
> themselves, but
> to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.
>
> We believe that what consenting adults do or look at
> in their own home should not be any concern of the
> law, and that the new law would infringe the
> liberties of law-abiding people.
>
> "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of
> any criminal or non-consensual acts in the
> production of any material but believe the law
> enforcement agencies around the world can work
> together to prevent such crimes through existing
> laws.
>
> Contrary to the consultation document, we do not
> believe that banning the possession of such images
> would have an appreciable
> effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe
> that there are better ways to protect those who need
> protection, without infringing civil liberties."

I think the words "is valid" can be removed from the
last sentence, I don't think that in this formulation
of the sentence, that those words are needed.

Once again, thank you for doing a brilliant job with
my humble offering, Red!

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

rosalee, 29 Sep 2005 15:31:15

I agree that we shouldn't mention Jane Longhurst for the reasons you mention. I think the government would maybe like the general public to think it's about her, which is another good reason not to mention her.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----

: demolitionred@yahoo.com, 29 Sep 2005 15:31:15

Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: a mission statement needed

Author wrote:
> --- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Therefore I think we need something along the lines
> > of
> >
I would humbly like to propose
> the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:
> "We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
> prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
> Longhurst"] because,

I don't think Jane Longhurt should be mentioned. its emotive and the government says its not about her.

I have strengthened the first line and taken out bits I think were damaging or superflous...

"Backlash" was set up to bring together a number of diverse groups -- including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London and South East, the Spanner Trust and the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.

These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet porn.

As the government admits there is no evidence linking the
type of material under discussion with criminal activity, we believe the law intends only to criminalise certain sexual fantasies.

It does not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.

We believe that what consenting adults do or look at in their own home should not be any concern of the law, and that the new law would infringe the liberties of law-abiding people.

"We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any criminal or non-consensual acts in the production of any material but believe the law enforcement agencies around the world can work together to prevent such crimes through existing laws.

Contrary to the consulatation document, we do not believe that banning the possession of such images would have an appreciable
effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe that there are better ways to protect those who need protection, without infringing civil liberties."

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D623

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

samantha, 29 Sep 2005 17:01:38

Basically the same... using Jane Longhurt would spark more of an emotional
involvement from people

jenis x

"rosalee" , 29 Sep 2005 17:01:38

>To:
>Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: a mission statement needed
>
>I agree that we shouldn't mention Jane Longhurst for the reasons you
>mention. I think the government would maybe like the general public to
>think it's about her, which is another good reason not to mention her.
>
>Ginny
>
> ----- Original Message -----

om: demolitionred@yahoo.com, Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:26:43 +0100

> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: a mission statement needed
>
>
>
>
> Author wrote:
> > --- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Therefore I think we need something along the lines
> > > of
> > >
> I would humbly like to propose
> > the following as a statement of beliefs/objectives:
> > "We believe that the proposed law will do nothing to
> > prevent [crimes/tragedies/"such as the murder of Jane
> > Longhurst"] because,
>
>
> I don't think Jane Longhurt should be mentioned. its emotive and the
>government says its not about her.
>
> I have strengthened the first line and taken out bits I think were
>damaging or superflous...
>
>
> "Backlash" was set up to bring together a number of diverse groups --
>including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes
>London and South East, the Spanner Trust and the Libertarian Alliance --
>opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.
>
> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided
>to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose
>the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet
>porn.
>
> As the government admits there is no evidence linking the
> type of material under discussion with criminal activity, we believe the
>law intends only to criminalise certain sexual fantasies.
>
> It does not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
> to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.
>
> We believe that what consenting adults do or look at in their own home
>should not be any concern of the law, and that the new law would infringe
>the liberties of law-abiding people.
>
> "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any criminal or
>non-consensual acts in the production of any material but believe the law
>enforcement agencies around the world can work together to prevent such
>crimes through existing laws.
>
> Contrary to the consulatation document, we do not believe that banning
>the possession of such images would have an appreciable
> effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe that there are better
>ways to protect those who need protection, without infringing civil
>liberties."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D623

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk

Polgara, 29 Sep 2005 23:26:19

*puts on grammar pedant hat*

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> "Backlash" was set up to bring together a number of diverse groups --
>including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes
>London and South East, the Spanner Trust and the Libertarian Alliance --
>opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.

*nods* - this looks good.

> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided
>to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose
>the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet porn.

These groups, which represent tens of thousands of British people, have
decided to work together to share their knowledge and networks in order
to provide a more effective opposition to the proposals contained in the
Home Office consultation paper on 'extreme pornography'.

Have just grammar pedanted this:

10s should be written out as 'tens'
'networks' feels like it needs a pronoun before it. Someone else can
pedant my pendantry if they like,
'to more effectively' - is a split infinitive.
'internet porn' - I think we should stick to the terms the consultation
paper itself uses.

> As the government admits there is no evidence linking the
> type of material under discussion with criminal activity,
>we believe the law intends only to criminalise certain sexual fantasies.

Comma after 'admits'. Change the comma after activity to a semi colon.
Insert 'proposed' before law. I personally disagree with saying that the
intention is to criminalise 'fantasies' - that's not the case and is
over egging it. Fantasies = thoughts. We don't have thought crime and by
saying 'arrgh fantasies = illegal' we're saying 'the govt is trying to
create a thought crime' when as bad as this stuff is, that *isn't* what
they're doing. Maybe 'criminalise the possession of images of consensual
sexual acts'. Not as simple, but more accurate.

> It does not seek to legislate against the acts themselves, but
> to deny the right of people to fantasise about them.

This needs some explaining. If you skim read the Home Office paper it
looks like they just want to catch images of rape/necrophilia ie. images
of things that are illegal (and which many people would want to be
illegal).

> We believe that what consenting adults do or look at in their own
> home should not be any concern of the law, and that the new law
>would infringe the liberties of law-abiding people.

s/home/homes to match the plural 'their'.

> "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of any criminal or
>non-consensual acts in the production of any material but believe
>the law enforcement agencies around the world can work together
>to prevent such crimes through existing laws.

This sounds (and I know it's not supposed to) like fluffy, woolly minded
thinking - with a blind belief that everything will be OK. I think it
needs to sound more considered/reserved. I've not got time to do the
research, but maybe we could point to some of the powers that already
exist - legislation can be found http://www.hmso.gov.uk

> Contrary to the consulatation document, we do not believe that
>banning the possession of such images would have an appreciable
> effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe that there
>are better ways to protect those who need protection, without infringing civil liberties."

This is muddling a couple of issues:

1, banning possession doesn't affect supply & demand
2, banning possession doesn't protect the vulnerable
3, banning possession when there's no evidence whatsoever that
possession leads to these acts being committed is a disproportionate
response to the 'problem'.

I'd concentrate on (2) here.

In contrast to the consultation document, we do not believe that banning
the possession of images of consensual adult sexual activity will
contribute anything towards protecting children and vulnerable adults
from sexual violence. We believe there are better ways to protect the
vulnerable; methods that do not infringe the rights of adults who wish
to have sexual relationships.

*removes grammar pedant hat*

Rip apart/think about it/do what you will. Hope some of it is helpful in
some way.

SnowdropExplodes, 30 Sep 2005 01:22:36

--- Polgara wrote:

> *puts on grammar pedant hat*
>
> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > These groups which represent 10s of thousands of
> British people decided
> >to work together to share knowledge and networks to
> more effectvely oppose
> >the proposals included in the Home Office
> consulation paper on internet porn.
>
> These groups, which represent tens of thousands of
> British people, have
> decided to work together to share their knowledge
> and networks in order
> to provide a more effective opposition to the
> proposals contained in the
> Home Office consultation paper on 'extreme
> pornography'.
>
> Have just grammar pedanted this:
>
> 10s should be written out as 'tens'
> 'networks' feels like it needs a pronoun before it.
> Someone else can
> pedant my pendantry if they like,
> 'to more effectively' - is a split infinitive.
> 'internet porn' - I think we should stick to the
> terms the consultation
> paper itself uses.

I disagree - this isn't about tallking to the
consultation now, it's about talking to the media, and
using terms the media understand.

> Comma after 'admits'. Change the comma after
> activity to a semi colon.
> Insert 'proposed' before law. I personally disagree
> with saying that the
> intention is to criminalise 'fantasies' - that's not
> the case and is
> over egging it. Fantasies = thoughts. We don't have
> thought crime and by
> saying 'arrgh fantasies = illegal' we're saying 'the
> govt is trying to
> create a thought crime' when as bad as this stuff
> is, that *isn't* what
> they're doing. Maybe 'criminalise the possession of
> images of consensual
> sexual acts'. Not as simple, but more accurate.

No, again, this is something that has been discussed:
one of our contentions is that criminalising the
images is tantamount to criminalising the fantasies.

Also, because this is a PR thing, accusing the
government in a way we can argue coherently, of
creating thought crime, is a positive thing.

>
> > It does not seek to legislate against the acts
> themselves, but
> > to deny the right of people to fantasise about
> them.
>
> This needs some explaining. If you skim read the
> Home Office paper it
> looks like they just want to catch images of
> rape/necrophilia ie. images
> of things that are illegal (and which many people
> would want to be
> illegal).

Yes, the acts depicted are themselves are illegal, but
people fantasise about murder every day and never do
it. Likewise, many people fantasise about raping or
being raped, but don't go out and do it. As long as
no crime was committed in the creation of the
images/footage, then the material itself should not be
banned.

The four types of images are : necrophilia,
bestiality, serious sexual violence, serious violence
in a sexual context. That clearly includes
consensual BDSM. It also clearly includes things
that people fantasise about but never do.

> > "We absolutely condemn the actual perpetration of
> any criminal or
> >non-consensual acts in the production of any
> material but believe
> >the law enforcement agencies around the world can
> work together
> >to prevent such crimes through existing laws.
>
> This sounds (and I know it's not supposed to) like
> fluffy, woolly minded
> thinking - with a blind belief that everything will
> be OK. I think it
> needs to sound more considered/reserved. I've not
> got time to do the
> research, but maybe we could point to some of the
> powers that already
> exist - legislation can be found
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk

We cannot do that in the short space that we have
available for a simple statement of objectives and
position. All the points included can be expanded
upon in lengthier letters/articles/interviews. We
are able to back up our claims strongly and that is
enough.

>
> > Contrary to the consulatation document, we do not
> believe that
> >banning the possession of such images would have an
> appreciable
> > effect on supply and demand is valid, and believe
> that there
> >are better ways to protect those who need
> protection, without infringing civil liberties."
>
> This is muddling a couple of issues:
>
> 1, banning possession doesn't affect supply & demand
> 2, banning possession doesn't protect the vulnerable
> 3, banning possession when there's no evidence
> whatsoever that
> possession leads to these acts being committed is a
> disproportionate
> response to the 'problem'.
>
> I'd concentrate on (2) here.

Actually, it is not muddling them. They are directly
linked in the text of the consultation paper. And
the last paragraph makes no mention of your point 3
above. This paragraph is targetted precisely at the
consultation paper's logic which is that they intend
to protect the participants and they intend to protect
innocent people who might be confronted by the
material (especially children).

The consultation paper states explicitly that the way
in which they propose to provide such protection is by
cutting off the demand so that the supply will dry up.

So we need to state explicitly that we believe they
are wrong about their expected effects, and therefore
there are better ways of providing the protection that
they claim to provide.

Furthermore, your rewrite makes it sound as if we are
defending child pornography as well, which is not the
case.

I think your rewrite of this paragraph is unnecessary.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

AV8R, 30 Sep 2005 02:48:49

I generally agree with the mission statement sentiments expressed here, although it needs to be much shorter and punchier.

I disagree however with the "Thought Police" and "Criminalising Fantasies" perspective. As a point of order that is NOT what the government is doing. They are criminalising the physical posession of a picture or computer file.

Besides, from a PR perspective, IMO any defence of even the fantasy of necrophilia, bestiality, etc, is completely unwinnable, and will only play into the govts hands.

The BDSM community will have a hard enough time winning concessions as is, and to have any chance of being successful may well have to distance ourselves from Necro, bestiality, etc.

backdooruk, 30 Sep 2005 09:51:22

AV8R wrote:
> I disagree however with the "Thought Police" and "Criminalising Fantasies" perspective. As a point of order that is
> NOT what the government is doing. They are criminalising the physical posession of a picture or computer file.

In practice though this is exactly what the government has been doing, as evidenced by the implementation of similar legislation targeted at pictures of children which it is their stated intent to base this legislation on. For instance, a file containing a picture have had to been downloaded, it only needs to be found in a cache without any excuse that can be used as a defense. The government themselves make the connection between what we view and fantasies making it clear that they want to encourage certain ones. I think it’s one of our strongest arguments and we’d be foolish to disregard it.

AV8R wrote:
> Besides, from a PR perspective, IMO any defence of even the fantasy of necrophilia, bestiality, etc, is completely unwinnable, and will only play into the govts hands.

We don’t need to defend fantasies of necrophilia, bestiality – they were clearly tacked on precisely to discourage the thought police defense. What we can defend is the legitimate fantasies of thousands of people that this proposals probably will make illegal such as knife play, breath play and fantasies of being taken by force etc. Notice we don’t have to defend the activity *just the right to have these fantasies*.

If we are successful in luring the government side into a protracted argument about fantasies we will had scored a major victory IMO, because whatever the details of that argument it will seem to the public that the government’s motivation is thought control, and that idea alone is enough to bury the legislation!

- Chris

Derek, 30 Sep 2005 11:15:33

The consultation document specifically recognises that images may end up in
a cache through unrequested banner ads and pop-ups (section 7 of the
Introduction section) and this has been used as a defence in child porn
cases...

-----Original Message-----

backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk [mailto:backdooruk@yahoo.co.uk], 30 Sep 2005 11:15:33

Sent: Friday 30 September 2005 09:51

AV8R wrote:
> I disagree however with the "Thought Police" and "Criminalising Fantasies"
perspective. As a point of order that is
> NOT what the government is doing. They are criminalising the physical
posession of a picture or computer file.

In practice though this is exactly what the government has been doing, as
evidenced by the implementation of similar legislation targeted at pictures
of children which it is their stated intent to base this legislation on. For
instance, a file containing a picture have had to been downloaded, it only
needs to be found in a cache without any excuse that can be used as a
defense. The government themselves make the connection between what we view
and fantasies making it clear that they want to encourage certain ones. I
think it's one of our strongest arguments and we'd be foolish to disregard
it.

AV8R wrote:
> Besides, from a PR perspective, IMO any defence of even the fantasy of
necrophilia, bestiality, etc, is completely unwinnable, and will only play
into the govts hands.

We don't need to defend fantasies of necrophilia, bestiality - they were
clearly tacked on precisely to discourage the thought police defense. What
we can defend is the legitimate fantasies of thousands of people that this
proposals probably will make illegal such as knife play, breath play and
fantasies of being taken by force etc. Notice we don't have to defend the
activity *just the right to have these fantasies*.

If we are successful in luring the government side into a protracted
argument about fantasies we will had scored a major victory IMO, because
whatever the details of that argument it will seem to the public that the
government's motivation is thought control, and that idea alone is enough to
bury the legislation!

- Chris

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote visit
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D635

adrian, 30 Sep 2005 12:29:40

backdooruk wrote:
>We don’t need to defend fantasies of necrophilia, bestiality
Why not? Our fantasies are better then theirs are they?

It may be harder, it may not be. We should defend the right to fantasy.
Greater good is a potential valid argument against, possibly the only one.
But there is not a shred of evidence in support of that.

So are you against the stuff you don't happen to like because its existence
personally offends you? Or simple political expediency?

Frankly I think you need a better justification. Either of these motives
seriously weakens our case, certainly doesn't help it.

I hesitate to start this one rolling. Sorry to have put it in more
personal terms than I'd have liked, just intended to address the issues.

But I think we MUST keep nearly everyone on board and this could send many
of us away.

Chris, 30 Sep 2005 22:33:24

I think the "thought crime" angle is an important one, but has to be clearly
identified.

The consultation document clearly refers (para 37) to material "primarily
produced for the purpose of sexual arousal. It is not the intention to
capture... artistic [material]".

By use of the concept of the intent of the producer of the material, they
are focusing on thought. So, if somebody determines that Robert
Mapplethorpe's purpose in photographing an arm inserted in a man's rectum
was to induce sexual arousal, then the output of one of the more important
and controversial photographers of the 20th century is captured. Either
that, or it allows any person to put the title "artist" on their business
card, and they are home free. And what are the chances of that?

Just a thought.

----Original Message Follows----

av8r0344@hotmail.com, 30 Sep 2005 22:33:24

I generally agree with the mission statement sentiments expressed here,
although it needs to be much shorter and punchier.

I disagree however with the "Thought Police" and "Criminalising Fantasies"
perspective. As a point of order that is NOT what the government is doing.
They are criminalising the physical posession of a picture or computer
file.

Besides, from a PR perspective, IMO any defence of even the fantasy of
necrophilia, bestiality, etc, is completely unwinnable, and will only play
into the govts hands.

The BDSM community will have a hard enough time winning concessions as is,
and to have any chance of being successful may well have to distance
ourselves from Necro, bestiality, etc.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D633

Chris, 30 Sep 2005 22:33:24

av8r0344@hotmail.com, 30 Sep 2005 22:33:24

I generally agree with the mission statement sentiments expressed here,
although it needs to be much shorter and punchier.

I disagree however with the "Thought Police" and "Criminalising Fantasies"
perspective. As a point of order that is NOT what the government is doing.
They are criminalising the physical posession of a picture or computer
file.

Besides, from a PR perspective, IMO any defence of even the fantasy of
necrophilia, bestiality, etc, is completely unwinnable, and will only play
into the govts hands.

The BDSM community will have a hard enough time winning concessions as is,
and to have any chance of being successful may well have to distance
ourselves from Necro, bestiality, etc.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D633

Amelie, 01 Oct 2005 12:23:06

I think there is a weak link in the law that describes material as "likely
to deprave or corrupt " as this is such a woolly concept. Who decides it is
likely? On what basis? What is depravity or corruption? What research has
been done to demonstrate this effect? By extending one nonsense they make
it increasingly difficult to defend.
----- Original Message -----

"chris m" , 01 Oct 2005 12:23:06

To:
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:35 PM

>I agree. We have to defend it all, or give up on any. A clear expectation
> of the consultation process is to play on it only being about the truly
> extreme - but who decides what that is? If we start trying to define what
> we do and don't defend, we split the whole argument and polarise the
> opposition (which plays into the Government's hands).
>
> ----Original Message Follows----

: Adrian , 01 Oct 2005 12:23:06

> Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: a mission statement needed
>
> backdooruk wrote:
> >We don\x{2019}t need to defend fantasies of necrophilia, bestiality
> Why not? Our fantasies are better then theirs are they?
>
> It may be harder, it may not be. We should defend the right to fantasy.
> Greater good is a potential valid argument against, possibly the only one.
> But there is not a shred of evidence in support of that.
>
> So are you against the stuff you don't happen to like because its
> existence
> personally offends you? Or simple political expediency?
>
> Frankly I think you need a better justification. Either of these motives
> seriously weakens our case, certainly doesn't help it.
>
> I hesitate to start this one rolling. Sorry to have put it in more
> personal terms than I'd have liked, just intended to address the issues.
>
> But I think we MUST keep nearly everyone on board and this could send many
> of us away.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D642
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D663
>
>

Amelie, 01 Oct 2005 12:26:40

so we do not attempt to answer the questions, we just show how ridiculous
the assumptions are and how unjust and invasive the possibilities for
policing. Then leave the great British public to pick out the bones and the
lawmakers to realise what a pig's ear they are making from a response to an
emotional lobby.

-.---- Original Message -----

"chris m" , 01 Oct 2005 12:26:40

: Adrian , 01 Oct 2005 12:26:40

demolitionred, 03 Oct 2005 07:55:42

Can I take it then that my mission statement is ok -- after proff reading and can we use it to design some leaflets?

I'd like these designed for our approval by Monday's meeting...can anyone do that?

adrian, 03 Oct 2005 10:19:50

At 07:55 03/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Can I take it then that my mission statement is ok -- after proff reading
and can we use it to design some leaflets?
>
>I'd like these designed for our approval by Monday's meeting...can anyone
do that?
>
Sorry not to have got back to you. My working hours currently make you
look like the late shift.

I had one or two possible changes. I'd like to draft a few statements
which the meeting and the online group could vote on, which could help form
a final mission statement.

But I'm happy for the leaflet to go out in its present form if it needs to
before the meeting.

backdooruk, 04 Oct 2005 09:45:57

adrian wrote:
> Why not? Our fantasies are better then theirs are they?
> It may be harder, it may not be. We should defend the right to fantasy.

You’ve taken my point out of context (possibly because you missed it) and changed the whole nature of what I was saying: Of course we have to defend the right to *any* fantasy, that was the whole thrust of my complete post. The point about necrophilia and bestiality was a reply to the previous poster, who had quite rightly pointed out the danger of being cornered by a straw man argument. The easiest (and correct) way to deflect a straw man position is to widen the position out so we are not *just* defending necrophilia and bestiality but are defending a whole range of fantasies, one of which at least many people reading our position will identify with.

- Chris

adrian, 04 Oct 2005 11:09:50

At 09:45 04/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>adrian wrote:
>> Why not? Our fantasies are better then theirs are they?
>> It may be harder, it may not be. We should defend the right to fantasy.
>
>You’ve taken my point out of context (possibly because you missed it) and
changed the whole nature of what I was saying: Of course we have to defend
the right to *any* fantasy
>
OK, it wasn't clear to me that was what you meant. The previous poster
didn't seem to agree with your last sentence, and you said the we didn't
need to defend them. If we're asked point-blank, we do need to defend them
- they are 'any fantasy'. But it may be as well not to extract individual
examples too often.

Manniq, 06 Oct 2005 22:57:08

Dem,

If this point has been made elsewhere, my apologies. Hpowever, I would ask all on here to recalibrate their language just a little. It is very easy to fall into the shorthand - after all, the press do it all the time - of talking about images being censored or banned.

This is NOT what the law is about.

Although it is what many disgusteds from Tonbridge Wells think it is. After all, if someone can wave a magic wand and make nasty pictures go away, surely we should back them!!!

The proposal is about criminalising individuals. Think hard on that. It is about the usual suspects - your mother, father, sister, brother - being arrested, locked up and put away for looking at things.

Criminalising NOT banning or censoring.

I have been involved in an acrimonious debate on another group with someone who has problems with some images... she would like them banned. Not least because she recently discovered her teenage son had been downloading ditto on his mobile.

The debate is fractious, because she said she liked the idea of a law that would ban such images - and got very heated when I suggested that therefore, presumably, she was happy to see her son turned into a criminal (and Sex Offender, to boot).

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> do you want to write a draft up?
> I think you will find some people disagree on very major grounds... the main bone of contention is that some people within our group believe that some censorship is legitimate, that images of rape provoke rape but think BDSM should be treated differntly, while others beleieve that no images should be banned and others believe the law already gives protection against the real criminals.
> as we are -- among other things -- an umbrella group whose member groups all have separate views I think any statement has to reflect that diversity....
> this is in my view important because Hester said groups carry more weight in their submissions.
> we need to keep to keep the various groups, with their differnt views separate.
> Therefore I think we need something along the lines of backlash is an organisation set up to bring together a number of diverse groups -- including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London and South East (we have to check about sex workers, SM Pride and some of the other groups), the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the criminalisation of consensual acts.
> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet porn.
> our groups oppose the plans on the following grounds.....

Chris, 06 Oct 2005 23:09:15

Just goes to show the value of open debate to focus in on issues. This is a
serious distinction, and flaw in the government's case; it's not about
protecting children from appalling images, but about criminalising then when
they've done it. It's an aspect almost anyone ought to have difficulty
supporting.

----Original Message Follows----

manniq@hotmail.com, 06 Oct 2005 23:09:15

Dem,

If this point has been made elsewhere, my apologies. Hpowever, I would ask
all on here to recalibrate their language just a little. It is very easy to
fall into the shorthand - after all, the press do it all the time - of
talking about images being censored or banned.

This is NOT what the law is about.

Although it is what many disgusteds from Tonbridge Wells think it is. After
all, if someone can wave a magic wand and make nasty pictures go away,
surely we should back them!!!

The proposal is about criminalising individuals. Think hard on that. It is
about the usual suspects - your mother, father, sister, brother - being
arrested, locked up and put away for looking at things.

Criminalising NOT banning or censoring.

I have been involved in an acrimonious debate on another group with someone
who has problems with some images... she would like them banned. Not least
because she recently discovered her teenage son had been downloading ditto
on his mobile.

The debate is fractious, because she said she liked the idea of a law that
would ban such images - and got very heated when I suggested that therefore,
presumably, she was happy to see her son turned into a criminal (and Sex
Offender, to boot).

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> do you want to write a draft up?
> I think you will find some people disagree on very major grounds... the
main bone of contention is that some people within our group believe that
some censorship is legitimate, that images of rape provoke rape but think
BDSM should be treated differntly, while others beleieve that no images
should be banned and others believe the law already gives protection against
the real criminals.
> as we are -- among other things -- an umbrella group whose member groups
all have separate views I think any statement has to reflect that
diversity....
> this is in my view important because Hester said groups carry more weight
in their submissions.
> we need to keep to keep the various groups, with their differnt views
separate.
> Therefore I think we need something along the lines of backlash is an
organisation set up to bring together a number of diverse groups --
including Feminists against Censorship, Unfettered, Ofwatch, SM Dykes London
and South East (we have to check about sex workers, SM Pride and some of the
other groups), the Libertarian Alliance -- opposed to censorship and the
criminalisation of consensual acts.
> These groups which represent 10s of thousands of British people decided
to work together to share knowledge and networks to more effectvely oppose
the proposals included in the Home Office consulation paper on internet
porn.
> our groups oppose the plans on the following grounds.....

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D957

Manniq, 06 Oct 2005 23:54:00

Author wrote:
> The consultation document specifically recognises that images may end up in
> a cache through unrequested banner ads and pop-ups (section 7 of the
> Introduction section) and this has been used as a defence in child porn
> cases...

I think you would be very unwise to rely on this statement (by the government). What they are talking about is how if people ended up with stuff 'accidentally' on their machine, their would be no prosecution - but if people went looking for it, that was another matter.

What's the 'it' in this formulation?

Suppose you are into bdsm and decide to do a tour of US sites looking for you particular kink which is well allowed within the UK law. However, some of those sites include thumbnails and/or images that breach the guidelines.

I think you would be hard pressed to claim you weren't 'looking for it'. Because, basically, you would be in court arguing: 'you see, Your Honour, I was looking for images of women whipped just THIS MUCH....and not whipped a whisker more'.

I parody...but I trust you get my gist.

Basically, if you are in the bdsm community, I would suggest in future turning off pics on your machine before you browse anywhere.

Regards,

M

«No Name Set», 08 Oct 2005 14:36:33

It is all very well for the Govt to talk in their consultation
about not wanting to prosecute people who've rumbled over/been
spaammed with the images in question.

But can you believe it will never happen??

reember, it is not permissible to quote Hansard in court - you
have to defend yourself against the letter of the law as it has
ended up, not what the govt at the time claimed they wanted it
to mean.

Rosemary

--
Rosemary