Letter to my MP
Graham Marsden, 15 Oct 2005 22:04:10
Since others are doing the same, here's the letter that I wrote to my MP:
* * * * *
Dear Sir,
It seems that, once again, our Thought Police and Nanny State are
colluding in order to criminalise consenting adults who engage in
behaviour that they (or the Right Wing tabloid press) don?t like.
The recent proposals, which threaten to imprison people who choose
to view so-called ?extreme pornography?, even when the participants are
consenting actors, are another example of this government?s desire to
infringe personal freedoms and control what we can or cannot see or do.
To make it worse, their "consultation" appears to be wholly rigged
to obtain the responses they want, for example with questions like "In
the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative
effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is
so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?"
So they admit that there is no evidence, yet they then load the
question in a way that practically forces respondents to say "well, yes,
I suppose there is", thus justifying the Home Office's position!
I should, at this point, remark that I do have somewhat of a vested
interest since I run a business making adult leather goods which,
naturally, I sell to consenting adults, however the government?s
proposals are so broad and ill-defined that were I to show a picture of
someone using any of my products both I and anyone viewing it could
conceivably be arrested and jailed!
The reasoning (or should that be ?justification?) behind these
proposals was the tragic murder of Jane Longhurst and the claims by
Graham Coutts that it was the images he'd viewed that made him do it,
but this sounds more like someone attempting to find a scape-goat for
exculpation than a real reason.
There have been many claims over the years that extreme TV or video
games etc "make" people commit crimes, but there has never been anything
approaching conclusive proof of these claims (something which the Home
Office admits, as mentioned above and, indeed, independent research
tends to show entirely the opposite) also, of course, people search out
images that interest them, it's not as if anyone has been "converted" to
paeophilia by seeing images of child porn!
I note that the Home Office Minister Paul Goggins has said that "We
do feel it necessary to provide some form of protection for the public,
particularly for young children increasingly accessing the internet",
but why should liberties be restricted because he or others are not
responsible enough, or unable, to control what their children see or do?
I should also remark that even if such a law was introduced it would be
virtually unenforceable unless the government wishes to go around
inspecting the contents of everyone's computers!
I strongly urge you and your party to resist these proposals since
they are another example of personal freedoms and basic rights being
whittled away by a government whose aim seems to be to exercise more and
more control over what people can do, instead of allowing sensible and
consenting adults to make up their own minds.
Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden
* * * * *
Cheers,
Graham.
Amelie, 16 Oct 2005 11:19:38
nice one, Graham, but it still leaves the way open for law to require
filters fitted to computers at point of sale - and criminalise unfiltered
computers - admittedly it gets more and more unbelievable, but this is what
is proposed in the five-point plan - which would please internet security
and filter companies who are providing much of the impetus and are behind
the JLT. - which is where we all came in......
----- Original Message -----
"graham" , 16 Oct 2005 11:19:38
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 10:05 PM
Since others are doing the same, here's the letter that I wrote to my MP:
* * * * *
Dear Sir,
It seems that, once again, our Thought Police and Nanny State are
colluding in order to criminalise consenting adults who engage in
behaviour that they (or the Right Wing tabloid press) don\x{2019}t like.
The recent proposals, which threaten to imprison people who choose
to view so-called \x{201C}extreme pornography\x{201D}, even when the participants are
consenting actors, are another example of this government\x{2019}s desire to
infringe personal freedoms and control what we can or cannot see or do.
To make it worse, their "consultation" appears to be wholly rigged
to obtain the responses they want, for example with questions like "In
the absence of conclusive research results as to its possible negative
effects, do you think that there is some pornographic material which is
so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be tolerated?"
So they admit that there is no evidence, yet they then load the
question in a way that practically forces respondents to say "well, yes,
I suppose there is", thus justifying the Home Office's position!
I should, at this point, remark that I do have somewhat of a vested
interest since I run a business making adult leather goods which,
naturally, I sell to consenting adults, however the government\x{2019}s
proposals are so broad and ill-defined that were I to show a picture of
someone using any of my products both I and anyone viewing it could
conceivably be arrested and jailed!
The reasoning (or should that be \x{201C}justification\x{201D}) behind these
proposals was the tragic murder of Jane Longhurst and the claims by
Graham Coutts that it was the images he'd viewed that made him do it,
but this sounds more like someone attempting to find a scape-goat for
exculpation than a real reason.
There have been many claims over the years that extreme TV or video
games etc "make" people commit crimes, but there has never been anything
approaching conclusive proof of these claims (something which the Home
Office admits, as mentioned above and, indeed, independent research
tends to show entirely the opposite) also, of course, people search out
images that interest them, it's not as if anyone has been "converted" to
paeophilia by seeing images of child porn!
I note that the Home Office Minister Paul Goggins has said that "We
do feel it necessary to provide some form of protection for the public,
particularly for young children increasingly accessing the internet",
but why should liberties be restricted because he or others are not
responsible enough, or unable, to control what their children see or do?
I should also remark that even if such a law was introduced it would be
virtually unenforceable unless the government wishes to go around
inspecting the contents of everyone's computers!
I strongly urge you and your party to resist these proposals since
they are another example of personal freedoms and basic rights being
whittled away by a government whose aim seems to be to exercise more and
more control over what people can do, instead of allowing sensible and
consenting adults to make up their own minds.
Yours Faithfully,
Graham Marsden
* * * * *
Cheers,
Graham.
--
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%3D1495
Graham Marsden, 16 Oct 2005 12:58:33
Amelie wrote:
> nice one, Graham, but it still leaves the way open for law to require
> filters fitted to computers at point of sale - and criminalise
> unfiltered computers
I was unaware of that nonsense when I wrote the letter! Had I known
about it I would have most certainly included it!!
Cheers,
Graham.
«No Name Set», 17 Oct 2005 00:59:36
Could any other people who post letters to MPs please say what
party the MP is, and a line about what is known about them? -
eg. tory, elderly, very right wing; Labour, very Blairite, etc.
As regards filtering software - if it becomes compulsory, in
particularly if W follows Blair's lead on this - Microsoft will
soon start supplying filtering software as an integral part of
windows. Then no-one need worry about it any more.
Cynic? Moi?
Actually....... that's a good thought. has anyone checked out
MicroDosh's web site, or any connections they may have, to see
if they have any intentions in this direction? If they're not
already working on it, they may once more go the route of buying
out one of the specialist companies.
--
Rosemary
Lothario, 17 Oct 2005 15:29:32
If you need to find out about an MP, try:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Regarding filtering software, while some MPs and others have called
for this to be mandatory on all new PCs and while it's very likely
that Microsoft will move into this area soon, the real danger is
filtering at the network/ISP level. Thanks to our friends in the
Internet Watch Foundation, this is already happening.
Circumventing mandatory filtering at the PC end will always be
possible (if not necessarily legal) by using open-source software such
as Linux. It'll be quite irrelevant, though, if your ISP has already
decided for you (on the government/police's behalf, or on their own
intiative) which websites and newsgroups they're going to let you
access.
May I stress once again, this isn't my paranoid fantasy. It's already
happening, and the current proposal is one more piece of the content
control jigsaw that will make it more widespread.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
Paul Tavener, 17 Oct 2005 20:25:32
Author wrote:
> If you need to find out about an MP, try:
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
> Regarding filtering software, while some MPs and others have called
> for this to be mandatory on all new PCs and while it's very likely
> that Microsoft will move into this area soon, the real danger is
> filtering at the network/ISP level. Thanks to our friends in the
> Internet Watch Foundation, this is already happening.
> Circumventing mandatory filtering at the PC end will always be
> possible (if not necessarily legal) by using open-source software such
> as Linux. It'll be quite irrelevant, though, if your ISP has already
> decided for you (on the government/police's behalf, or on their own
> intiative) which websites and newsgroups they're going to let you
> access.
> May I stress once again, this isn't my paranoid fantasy. It's already
> happening, and the current proposal is one more piece of the content
> control jigsaw that will make it more widespread.
> --
> Lothario.
> "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
> to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
How do / can ISP's block access to sites accessed via proxy servers?