Thread

A New Vote Has Been Posted - What should the position be on co...

deno, 06 Oct 2005 17:46:42

Hi All

As a newbie looking through all the emails I agree with pearle_maude that
the situation is confusing.

It seems obvious that the proposed legislation will pass and our protests
will only make the do gooders and puritans even more determined.

To me it seems that the critical path is how we react if the proposal,
anything depicted which
constitutes GBH, passes into law. What is the definition of GBH?

How far can we go with filming and which practices will be safest closeted?

Yours
deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Chris, 06 Oct 2005 22:31:30

I don't think it's obvious at all. If there is sufficient opposition (for
example, if it appeared that the Government might lose a vote on the
legislation, so it got de-prioritised) it is conceivable that any one of a
number of fudges could happen; it's quietly dropped (unlikely, I agree, with
the Longhurst machine in full flow), or an amendment to the OPA, or even
that it gets delayed to after the next election due to lack of parliamentary
time, or that they find it's contrary to the human rights legislation, to EU
legislation. Any of a whole raft of possiblities could happen.

This is only the consultation phase. We ought not to have to concede any
ground at this point - lobbying ought to focus on throwing the whole thing
out. Later on, if the legislation goes to drafting, we can concentrate on a
negotiation of specifics - I don't see any advantage in doing so at this
point.

If we push for "no change", we can always concede some ground. If our
opening bid is to give way on this, that and the other, then legislation is
drafted that is essentially the whole nine yards per the consultation
(because of a limited opposition at consultation), we're in a position of
weakness that could end up significantly worse than the minimum any of us
would wish to accept.

----Original Message Follows----

CORODENCO@aol.com, 06 Oct 2005 22:31:30

deno, 08 Oct 2005 14:17:28

Hi

I take your point that there is always a chance of bills not passing but in
this case would not care to bet.

Am wondering if everyone is aware of the sites which are claimed to have
motivated the deranged killer?

Was informed by that rightwing rag Mail on Sunday that the sites were
_www.hangingbitches.com_ (http://www.hangingbitches.com) the owner of which has now
taken fright due to media intrusion and that address now goes through to
_www.severegames.com_ (http://www.severegames.com)

These sites deal with not GBH but DEATH.

Have a look at the hanging bodies, simulated but very realistic, and see if
you are now inclined to agree with me, that the proposals in some form, will
pass.

Of course we could try and get amendments that only images which might
result in copy cat action leading to death should be banned.

Hope this information helps.

Yours
deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

deno, 08 Oct 2005 14:17:28

zak, 09 Oct 2005 20:23:37

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 09 Oct 2005 20:23:37

deno, 09 Oct 2005 22:24:07

Re: Hanging Bodies

Crap you say but I have been around a long time and it seems there is
something especially macabre about hanging.

Recall the case of a youth who watched a film showing a girl lynched in Wild
West times.
Next day he was found hanged dressed in female clothes.

Other youngsters have suffered a similar fate and I understand for that
reason a full hanging scene is now rarely, if ever, shown on TV.

Copycat action is well known in the annals of crime. Those blockheads who
tried to explode bombs after 7/7 probably belong in that category.

But my main point is that the momentum behind the present proposed new law
is the Longhurst's conviction that the psycho who strangled their daughter was
motivated, turned on, obsessed, etc., through watching the sites I mentioned.

Seems we have to restrict our freedom because of those sites put up by a
sordid money grubber hiding abroad.

Maybe we can conceed that films depicting "thrill kill" should be banned
and that deadly activity is nothing to do with our usual consensual BDSM.

Surely it is worth making the distinction and not just go for total
opposition which will most likely fail.

Yours
deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 09 Oct 2005 22:43:40

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 09 Oct 2005 22:43:40

Paul Tavener, 09 Oct 2005 23:03:13

Author wrote:
Maybe we can conceed that films depicting "thrill kill" should be banned and that deadly activity is nothing to do with our usual consensual BDSM.

Hmmm, maybe we can concede that films depicting "violent stuff" should be banned and that violent activity is nothing to do with our usual non violent R18 content?

Seriously, once the principle has been abandoned it's just a matter of opinion where the line should be drawn. There will be plenty of time for concessions later on if necessary. In fact a firm stance now might provide concessions from the other side, whereas immediate concessions might be seen as a weakness and lead to the proposals becoming law.

deno, 09 Oct 2005 23:31:57

Yes. I am engaged with your basic concept, obvious things do not escape me
and as a masochist, I have experience...... and have so far survived.

However the Longhursts are not engaged, the M.P's neither, or the public.

This why I think blanket or all out opposition is futile and will be
counterproductive.

Please engage with the obvious basic premise that the Establishment will not
listen to considered pathetic pervs if they are trying to advocate that
thrill kill and other depraved films for commercial gain should continue.

As you say the psycho is already motivated but there is a widely held
opinion that people
can be lead on, inflamed, to murder and/or suicide by viewing such films.

Personally, watching them affected me and I would very much prefer the
status quo.

However I feel to stand any chance of success against the Puritans, etc., we
should adopt a more sophisticated approach and sacrifice the more extreme
images to hopefully safeguard
the more mainstream BDSM

Yours
deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 10 Oct 2005 12:40:16

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 10 Oct 2005 12:40:16

deno, 10 Oct 2005 20:02:10

No, obviously I do not speak for other people especially the politically
illiterate.

If you say compromise is whining then I suspect you may be in that category.

The bull in the china shop approach will probably ensure that the present
proposals are amended to make BDSM totally illegal.

That was my concern and why I suggested a more low profile approach.

Try the legislators with your ideas and hear them tell you where to go! Any
developments may be the opposite of what we want.

The arguement between us pervs about whether people are motivated, egged on
to excess, by images, is largely academic.

This is because there is a widespread opinion among professionals and the
general public that this stuff is harmful, possibly fatal to the viewer and/or
his innocent victim.

Yours
deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 10 Oct 2005 21:40:49

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 10 Oct 2005 21:40:49

demolitionred, 11 Oct 2005 11:02:27

Author wrote:> Other youngsters have suffered a similar fate and I understand for that
> reason a full hanging scene is now rarely, if ever, shown on TV.

ITV showed a double hanging of two naked lesbians on meathooks on TV the weekend before the consultaion document was published...just an aside...

demolitionred, 11 Oct 2005 11:12:05

we have had a protracted debate on this on these pages already. name calling won't help.

I have said all along that backlash should suport people to make whatever submission they want to the document.

But the overwhelming feeling of people working within the group at the moment is that we should not engage in debating or offering concessions.

If you look at this as a freedom debate rather than a BDSM debate you will note that MP's, newspapers, your friends and families are appalled at the government proposals.

they agree that infringinging human rights while asserting that there is no causal link between porn and violence -- a point the government concedes in the consulatation paper -- is a step too far in the governmetn's campaign to interfere in more and more aspects of our personal lives.

We do not want to debate on the pros and cons of porn. We want to shift the debate and put the government on the back foot.

why are they intent on infringing our rights, why are they happy to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights, if they admitthemselves there is no evidence that porn causes harm?

we should be wary of trying to hide troll like from the light an letting this limit our freedom to speak up for ourselves.

we need to stand tall and proud and challenge a government that is writing consultation papers that ignore its own guidelines on writing such documents and which is happy to dismiss facts if it suits its goals....

Amelie, 11 Oct 2005 11:41:38

agreed this is a much better way of tackling the issue
----- Original Message -----

, 11 Oct 2005 11:41:38

To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:11 AM

deno, 11 Oct 2005 18:11:40

Bash on big boy. Maybe later I will have the chance to say "told you so"

Your vulgar cynicism does you no credit.

I have no time for the Daily Mail/Liar and other right-wing rags.

Please let reason penetrate egomania and realise that some people are
genuine, and however misguided, seek to protect others.

Have not felt less free under this government than the former. Remember it
was their Party
in the '60's that legalised gay sex, "between consenting adults in private"

Maybe we will fare better with them than the stern unbending Tories.

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 11 Oct 2005 20:12:38

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 11 Oct 2005 20:12:38

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 11 Oct 2005 20:38:37

deno, 12 Oct 2005 19:39:37

You may see eventually and at least I will not descend to your vulgarity.

You remarks about ID cards, interment without trial (???) etc., are
especially crass.

Our great leader said in 1940 or 41, "Upon us in this island depends the
future of civilization."

To fight that war his government, of all existing political talent, used the
methods you condemn.

Now we have a different war, on terrorism and religious fanatics. The
Government has to give the Police the extra powers they request to combat this
crisis.

Any government would do the same. The conservatives only object because
they are in opposition.

Regarding the latters attitude to us I recall John Major saying, "He must
have had an awfully sad life." in reference to the M.P found dead with an orange
in his mouth, auto eroticism?

Previously Lord Hailsham* (Quintin Hogg) in supporting the banning of "Fanny
Hill" said he was horrified to read of a "monster" who needed to be whipped
in order to gain sexual gratification. His son is an M.P and I think you
will find the attitude has not changed and to them we are completely beyond the
pale.

Anyway these exchanges are not getting us anywhere and I suggest we pack it
in.

* On a lighter note Hailsham said "I am leading the revolt of the squares"
David Frost in his satirist show retorted, "I do declare that Lord
Hailsham is the most revolting square of all!"

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)