Paul C. Dickie, 19 Oct 2005 15:46:07
Paul C. Dickie, 19 Oct 2005 15:52:26
wrote:
>Although it would be interesting to know *how* they determined that the
>person who viewed all of this material was such a paragon of moral
>virtue that *they* would not be adversely affected and then be inspired
>to go out and commit violent sex crimes...!!
... especially if that person was the largely decorative Dr Rowan
Williams... o-)
If the "logic" of the would-be censors holds up -- which it doesn't --
there would seem to be a serious issue of Health & Safety at Work that
would need to be resolved: if the material is so utterly corrupting, how
could the alleged researcher(s) be guarded from having been corrupted?
Did they have to wear sunglasses or was a welder's mask supplied?
--
< Paul >
clare, 19 Oct 2005 16:13:26
And what exactly does this achieve?
The vagueness of the definition is one of the strengths of our opposition. The emails with the Scottish Exec that Paul has posted already demonstrate that they do not know where the line would be drawn and that that is a matter for judges. Since it follows from that, that citizens cannot know what is legal or illegal until after conviction, this is already a very strong point against the proposals.
Would you like to help the Home Office clarify the definition so that we lose this point? For that is what you are trying to do.
Anyway, even if the material viewed gave you some idea where the relevant civil servant might wish to draw the line, it gives you no additional information whatsover about how the offence would be defined. That information is in the consultation document.
This is a pointless idea and will only alert the Home Office to the notion that Backlash is not an organization to be taken seriously.
Author wrote:
> Very good idea....
> Might I suggest someone goes here....
> http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=1041&expmovie=1
> ....and starts the necessary measures.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I note from the govt response to emails so far a lack of willingness to discuss where the line would be drawn under their current proposals re what material is acceptable
> > As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > If successful this might force their hand somewhat in at least releasing the information re their internal correspondence, recommendations and research (including specific sites they refer to as existing in the "hundreds")?
> > Any thoughts?
AV8R, 19 Oct 2005 16:58:59
Author wrote:
> And what exactly does this achieve?
> The vagueness of the definition is one of the strengths of our opposition. The emails with the Scottish Exec that Paul has posted already demonstrate that they do not know where the line would be drawn and that that is a matter for judges. Since it follows from that, that citizens cannot know what is legal or illegal until after conviction, this is already a very strong point against the proposals.
Perhaps, but one that the Home Office could overcome in about 5 minutes simply by drawing up a list. I seriously doubt that will slow them down at all.
I can not see how it is in the best interests of the BDSM community to have a vague law where nobody knows what is legal and what is not.
> Would you like to help the Home Office clarify the definition so that we lose this point? For that is what you are trying to do.
No, what we are trying to do is ascertain what BDSM material if any this law applies to, which is clearly impossible from the current document, so we can:
a) formulate a reasoned and objective opinion and response.
b) inform other members of the BDSM community what the proposals actually include, instead of engaging in useless speculation that may or may not be correct.
> Anyway, even if the material viewed gave you some idea where the relevant civil servant might wish to draw the line, it gives you no additional information whatsover about how the offence would be defined. That information is in the consultation document.
Yes, but so vague as to be useless. The Police and CPS are only going to pursue what the politicians tell them to. Knowing the background and clear intent of what the law is actually supposed to do is very important. If the community do not know what images are specifically included or excluded, then they have no way of protecting themselves.
> This is a pointless idea and will only alert the Home Office to the notion that Backlash is not an organization to be taken seriously.
The request is not going in from backlash.
adrian, 19 Oct 2005 16:59:22
>As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
AV8R, 19 Oct 2005 17:20:01
Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
AV8R, 19 Oct 2005 17:26:47
oops, double post
*** This message has been edited by AV8R on 19 Oct 2005 17:30:22 ***
Manniq, 19 Oct 2005 17:36:14
I understand you rmotivation - but suspect you will not get the clarity you desire. Not least because that is not how UK law tends to work. For a variety of motives, some good, some bad, many aspects of the law are left to considerations of 'reasonableness' and 'tendency to corrupt'.
For me, this is at the heart of what I find objectionable about the proposals. I can't imagine myself ever falling foul of the law as proposed, because I am not an especially pictorial person and have never especially used the net for such purposes.
But I can well imagine some idiot police force deciding that as a prominent campaigner I ought to be investigated- and finding my pc and all my equipment subsequently impounded, my business wrecked - and no charges ever forthcoming.
This is the risk: that armed with such a law, the police can cut a swathe through the ranks of professional bdsm'ers by bullying of this sort.
And hence, also, why I think we need to pull together a legal response team.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
> I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
> If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
> Av8r
> Author wrote:
> > >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
AV8R, 19 Oct 2005 18:11:19
I agree a legal response team and possibly also a legal defence fund, would be a good idea.
Author wrote:
> I understand you rmotivation - but suspect you will not get the clarity you desire. Not least because that is not how UK law tends to work. For a variety of motives, some good, some bad, many aspects of the law are left to considerations of 'reasonableness' and 'tendency to corrupt'.
> For me, this is at the heart of what I find objectionable about the proposals. I can't imagine myself ever falling foul of the law as proposed, because I am not an especially pictorial person and have never especially used the net for such purposes.
> But I can well imagine some idiot police force deciding that as a prominent campaigner I ought to be investigated- and finding my pc and all my equipment subsequently impounded, my business wrecked - and no charges ever forthcoming.
> This is the risk: that armed with such a law, the police can cut a swathe through the ranks of professional bdsm'ers by bullying of this sort.
> And hence, also, why I think we need to pull together a legal response team.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
> > I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
> > If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
> > Av8r
> > Author wrote:
> > > >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
clare, 19 Oct 2005 18:35:23
Adrian wrote: > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one
Manniq wrote:For a variety of motives, some good, some bad, many aspects of the law are left to considerations of 'reasonableness' and 'tendency to corrupt'.
> For me, this is at the heart of what I find objectionable about the proposals.
The "tendency to corrupt" test is under the Obscene Publications Act. Although one of the proposals is to create the possesion offence by extending the OPA, the consultation recognises that a possession offence is inconsistent with the OPA. You can't corrupt yourself. I don't beleive that Parliament or the Lords would allow the possession offence to take effect through an extension of the OPA, because it is legally absurd. I believe the options of exending the OPA are included in the consultation paper to give the impression that this is merely "filling a loophole".
The government's preferred option is a freestanding offence. The proposed freestanding offence will not include the tendency to corrupt test, but has its own problems of definition; what amounts to serious sexual violence etc.
Adrian asks how we are to handle this one. We don't have to. It is for the Home Office to come up with something workable. All we have to do is attack the existing proposal on the basis that the definitions are too wide, unworkable, citizens will not be able to regulate their behaviour to avoid criminality.
Av8R says he wants to know what will be included so that people can protect themselves. I agree that this will be a real problem when and if the proposals become law. At that stage guidance will have to be issued by the Home Office. In the meantime, the vagueness of the proposed law is one of its greatest weaknesses, and a basis for wholesale attack.
This comes back to the point that Av8R often raises, that he wants to ensure the bdsm comoonity is not affected by these proposals. The consultation paper claims that it is not intended to affect people being tied up etc but only the really extreme stuff. That means that you can argue that, as drafted, it criminalises the people it does not intend to criminalise because it is too hard to draw a legislative distinction between a bit naughty, very naughty and downright vile. But instead of responding by saying "Please make it clear that a bit naughty is ok", you simply say "it's wider than intended, criminalises innocuous stuff, is therefore bad law." leave it to them to find a way to draw those impossible distinctions.
Next time they try, the same point will be made again.
This is only a consultation paper, not a draft act where amendments are debated. The best approach at this stage is to attack the paper AS IT IS. Rather than to jump the gun and wonder what amendments or guidance you might like to see if it went ahead. That is not only defeatist, but undermines some of the better arguments that can be made at this stage.
> Author wrote:
> > Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
> > I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
> > If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
> > Av8r
> > Author wrote:
> > > >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
clare, 19 Oct 2005 18:36:02
IT IS NOT LAW YET!
Author wrote:
> I agree a legal response team and possibly also a legal defence fund, would be a good idea.
> Author wrote:
> > I understand you rmotivation - but suspect you will not get the clarity you desire. Not least because that is not how UK law tends to work. For a variety of motives, some good, some bad, many aspects of the law are left to considerations of 'reasonableness' and 'tendency to corrupt'.
> > For me, this is at the heart of what I find objectionable about the proposals. I can't imagine myself ever falling foul of the law as proposed, because I am not an especially pictorial person and have never especially used the net for such purposes.
> > But I can well imagine some idiot police force deciding that as a prominent campaigner I ought to be investigated- and finding my pc and all my equipment subsequently impounded, my business wrecked - and no charges ever forthcoming.
> > This is the risk: that armed with such a law, the police can cut a swathe through the ranks of professional bdsm'ers by bullying of this sort.
> > And hence, also, why I think we need to pull together a legal response team.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
> > > I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
> > > If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
> > > Av8r
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > > > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
Paul Tavener, 19 Oct 2005 18:40:37
Author wrote:
> Very good idea....
> Might I suggest someone goes here....
> http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=1041&expmovie=1
> ....and starts the necessary measures.
> Regards,
If anyone is going to put in a freedom of information act request there are a number of points that you need to know before doing so.
First you must approach the Home Office with the FOI request first. If they refuse you must then appeal to them and only if they refuse the appeal can you expect to get a hearing from the Information commissioner.
Second the process is extremely long winded the Home Office well say that they need an extension to consider the matter further so don't be surprised if you don't hear anything definite from them on the original request until December.
Third if it does go to the Information commissioner it takes even longer. I started using the FOI on the 1st January and have a FOI request that has been with the Information commissioner since June and I have heard nothing other than an acknowledgement and a warning that I might have to wait sometime.
Fourthly because of the extensive delays that are likely it is important to get the questions you want answered very clear before you start otherwise you might die of old age before you find anything out.
If anyone is interested in going down this route (and it does have some merit despite my sarcasm) then you might be interested in some of the responses I have had – check www.ofwatch.org.uk guides / foi or you can contact me at admin@ofwatch.org.uk if you want to discuss it first.
Manniq, 19 Oct 2005 19:14:33
True - and I think av8r misunderstands what I am posting about. I think that one thing that MIGHT just emerge from this whole process is the creation of a rather more experienced, motivated bdsm community than there was before.
One thing that the police love is the ability to put on pressure with little come back on themselves. This is legal bullying - esp. their ability to impound pc's and other material that also happens to be tools of trade for some businesses, and then never bring charges.
My proposal is not so much specific to this current debate (though it has bearing on it) so much as suggesting that ONE of a number of avenues going forward would be for the bdsm community to pursue a multi-track approach.
One of those approaches would be to find ways to start making the sort of legal bullying described above no longer such an easy cost-free option for police.
Two routes: the direct action, victim one would involve people whose lives are tattered by police action going very public and picketing, hunger striking, etc. Around the simple principle: I am innocent. Charge me or clear my name. How dare you ruin my life whilst never bringing charges. That sort of thing.
The legal track means getting very good at the law in question and starting to sue Police Chiefs personally any time it looks like the police have over-stepped a mark. Yes, clare: I know that I won't have the detail right her. But I DO know that one can make life very uncomfortable for the police simply by not giving in at the first sign of pressure.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> IT IS NOT LAW YET!
> Author wrote:
> > I agree a legal response team and possibly also a legal defence fund, would be a good idea.
> > Author wrote:
> > > I understand you rmotivation - but suspect you will not get the clarity you desire. Not least because that is not how UK law tends to work. For a variety of motives, some good, some bad, many aspects of the law are left to considerations of 'reasonableness' and 'tendency to corrupt'.
> > > For me, this is at the heart of what I find objectionable about the proposals. I can't imagine myself ever falling foul of the law as proposed, because I am not an especially pictorial person and have never especially used the net for such purposes.
> > > But I can well imagine some idiot police force deciding that as a prominent campaigner I ought to be investigated- and finding my pc and all my equipment subsequently impounded, my business wrecked - and no charges ever forthcoming.
> > > This is the risk: that armed with such a law, the police can cut a swathe through the ranks of professional bdsm'ers by bullying of this sort.
> > > And hence, also, why I think we need to pull together a legal response team.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc etc.
> > > > I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what they are up against, and what is safe and what is not.
> > > > If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to the consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised and what isnt.
> > > > Av8r
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > >As it is clear from the consultation document that someone there has in fact put great time and research into viewing such material, and so clearly have some idea on some level internally where they want it to be, would a Freedom Of Information Act request be viable?
> > > > > The thing is, the one thing that I can see is reasonable in some ways is their justification for not so doing, i.e., so future juries can interpret it in line with the moral climate of the time. However it leaves us open to the interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle this one.
Manniq, 19 Oct 2005 19:15:10
That said, there is no problem with going very public (i.e. putting out a press release) every time you put in a FOI request. And if the delay is long, putting out monthly press releases about your disgust, etc. at the length of time being taken.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Author wrote:
> > Very good idea....
> > Might I suggest someone goes here....
> > http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=1041&expmovie=1
> > ....and starts the necessary measures.
> > Regards,
> If anyone is going to put in a freedom of information act request there are a number of points that you need to know before doing so.
> First you must approach the Home Office with the FOI request first. If they refuse you must then appeal to them and only if they refuse the appeal can you expect to get a hearing from the Information commissioner.
> Second the process is extremely long winded the Home Office well say that they need an extension to consider the matter further so don't be surprised if you don't hear anything definite from them on the original request until December.
> Third if it does go to the Information commissioner it takes even longer. I started using the FOI on the 1st January and have a FOI request that has been with the Information commissioner since June and I have heard nothing other than an acknowledgement and a warning that I might have to wait sometime.
> Fourthly because of the extensive delays that are likely it is important to get the questions you want answered very clear before you start otherwise you might die of old age before you find anything out.
> If anyone is interested in going down this route (and it does have some merit despite my sarcasm) then you might be interested in some of the responses I have had – check www.ofwatch.org.uk guides / foi or you can contact me at admin@ofwatch.org.uk if you want to discuss it first.
>
>
Graham Marsden, 19 Oct 2005 23:45:51
Keith wrote:
> > person who viewed all of this material was such a paragon of moral
> virtue that *they* would not be adversely affected and then be inspired
> to go out and commit violent sex crimes...!!>
>
> Because they are not viewing the material with the intention of sexual
> arousal. The proposals are very clear that possession for "legitimate"
> reasons (reseach, scientific study, artistic expression, law enforcement
> etc) would be acceptable. It's just us wankers that they're after :)
Ah, but were they monitored in case they inadvertantly found themselves
being sexually aroused by it?!
Cheers,
Graham.
guy, 20 Oct 2005 00:29:26
However it leaves us open to the
> interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle
> this one.
>
It is far, far worse than that. Wise up:
The decision to launch the case will I guess be taken by a policeman, probably
under heavy political pressure,who will interprete the legislation according to
his judgement and taking only the words of 'The Act' into account, (not having
access or caring a fig about the debate that led to it), and taking due note of
the political climate in which he is operating; which may well be far more
repressive than today.
[Most policemen nowadays will sensibly take the view 'why do we bother with
this s**t when there is crack in the playgrounds' - a verbatim quote from a
policeman on one raid I heard about. There is no guarantee that the next
generation will take a similar view.]
(S)He will (hopefully) seek a search warrant from a magistrate who again has to
make such a subjective judgement, operating in a different climate, but
magistrates are recommended by local politicians with ties to political parties.
The policeman can choose which magistrate to go to; if he really does not want
to do it (s)he will choose a liberal one; if he wants to win (s)he will choose
a 'hanger & shooter'. (They will know from the magistrate's court which are
which!)
Then the police will raid, mob-handed, taking every book, video, DVD, photo,
drawing, other media, computer system unit, and anything else they may use in
evidence.
They may well lock up the accused for a day, or indeed anything up to 14 days,
(or maybe 3 months if current proposals go ahead) whilst doing so.
The poor sap who has been raided will face several years of hell, during most
of which time they will be told nothing of substance, but in which they will
have to prepare a defence, knowing that when it comes to trial they may only
have a few days to complete their defence, so they have to cover every possible
twist.
That period is quite likely to see him or her bankrupted, their marriage
broken, their business and personal life wholly disrupted and changed forever
for the worse.
(If it could ever be determined I would wager a lot of money that most of the
suicides resulting from operation ORE [often presumed guilty] were actually
innocent, driven to take their life by their total disillusionment with the
system and the reaction of their loved ones).
Then finally, several years later a forensic analyst, (probably a lowly
sub-contractor who can barely stumble around Windows, let alone the latest
whiz-bang operating system you may use), will finally look at the computer,
using incredibly powerful and disruptive to normal operation tools that they
barely begin to understand. [Just think about the opportunities there for
planting evidence or just misunderstanding the results the software produces!]
If they find anything to pin a case on, the CPS barrister will rule whether the
are likely to win or lose.
If the charges are withdrawn the victim is left traumatised, the charges
withdrawn, but probably broke and single. They will still face a legal fight to
get their property back; but much of it may well have been lost, pilfered or
vandalised, or if they are in business wholly beyond its sell-by date. The
computers will be obsolete and probably buggered beyond use by the tortures
inflicted in trying to find evidence that was never there anyway.
If the trial goes ahead the issue becomes, "can we get a conviction", not 'is
the guy or gal really a menace to society'.
The guilty guys will have been making enough money to employ the sharp talent
to ensure that even if it gets this far, charges will be dropped because they
are too slippery.
People doing it for fun, or making a marginal living, as most of us on the
scene, will have failed to cover their tracks completely and will get
clobbered.
Somewhere there will be a photo of a heavy session they forgot to security
erase, or that their mate sent in an email attachment that they only deleted,
but did not security erase.
Or maybe just something the prosecuting barrister maliciously or innocently
misrepresents - in the "Secret" magazine trial the prosecutor alleged a photo
was of a girl pissing. OK, she was in a suitable pose to do so, but there was
nothing else I could see to suggest she was (even under a microscope) - but it
apparently it swayed the jury.
The jury will make its own judgement, which will vary hugely with the location,
the performance of the defending and prosecution solicitor and barrister.
The jury are explicitly barred from giving their reasons or justifying their
decision, so it gives no clue to somebody trying to avoid a similar fate.
A quotation from the prosecution Counsel in the House Of Gord obscenity trial,
mid 1990s: "We brought the case in Chester, because we thoought we had a chance
out in the provinces, but would not have bothered in Southwark (S London)"
If they are judged innocent there will still be plenty of people saying,
"there's no smoke without fire ..."
If the Obscene Publications Act is anything to go by, and the authorities want
to persecute the victim, they can raid again and the second, third or
subsequent jury possibly cannot be told that the guy (or gal) has been proven
innocent already ... I have heard of people being raided four times, for much
the same offence or publication.
If convicted they go to jail, get fined, have to pay huge costs and almost all
their seized books and videos, etc. [however innocent] will (nominally anyway,
policemen tell me different) be burned.
All for what may well be an accidental oversight or an engineered trap, but
they will forever labelled as "sex criminal", and unless they are very lucky
indeed their life will be ruined.
In short, if this proposal becomes law, anyone with any commonsense will
rapidly get out of anything that could possibly compromise them.
On balance I will probably be one of them.
I think I am brave, but I hope I am not completely stupid.
All the above is informed, in detail, by experiences of close friends and
acquaintances, over the past 15 years: not empty rant. I may be wrong in some
details, I guess there are people on the list who may be able to correct me,
but I doubt anyone can fault the gist of it.
Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100
zak, 20 Oct 2005 01:12:03
Original Message:
-----------------
av8r0344@hotmail.com, 20 Oct 2005 01:12:03
Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to
abuse by
overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child custody, etc
etc.
I would much rather the law is clearly defined now so everyone knows what
they are up
against, and what is safe and what is not.
If people are to protect themselves, or even to be able to fully respond to
the
consultation, they must know what material is proposed to be criminalised
and what isnt.
Av8r
No, this won't do. You (I am using the second person plural/singular in a
general way,
over-sensitive readers...) might *think* that you're special, and that your
particular
sexual preferences are fine but those of other people are not, but that
won't save you
when you give up before the fight has begun and just accept that "they" -
any old ignorant
bigot or paper-shuffling civil servant - get to judge what you can and
can't look at when
no crime has been committed in the making of the images you choose to view
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 20 Oct 2005 01:12:44
Original Message:
-----------------
av8r0344@hotmail.com, 20 Oct 2005 01:12:44
Author wrote:
> And what exactly does this achieve?
> The vagueness of the definition is one of the strengths of our
opposition. The emails
with the Scottish Exec that Paul has posted already demonstrate that they
do not know
where the line would be drawn and that that is a matter for judges. Since
it follows from
that, that citizens cannot know what is legal or illegal until after
conviction, this is
already a very strong point against the proposals.
Perhaps, but one that the Home Office could overcome in about 5 minutes
simply by drawing
up a list. I seriously doubt that will slow them down at all.
I can not see how it is in the best interests of the BDSM community to have
a vague law
where nobody knows what is legal and what is not.
> Would you like to help the Home Office clarify the definition so that we
lose this
point? For that is what you are trying to do.
No, what we are trying to do is ascertain what BDSM material if any this
law applies to,
which is clearly impossible from the current document, so we can:
a) formulate a reasoned and objective opinion and response.
b) inform other members of the BDSM community what the proposals actually
include, instead
of engaging in useless speculation that may or may not be correct.
> Anyway, even if the material viewed gave you some idea where the relevant
civil servant
might wish to draw the line, it gives you no additional information
whatsover about how
the offence would be defined. That information is in the consultation
document.
Surely our point is that *no* image is unacceptable in itself and that
prosecutions should
only be brought when there is sufficient, proper evidence that an
unconsenting person was
harmed in the creation of the image. Otherwise it all comes down to a
matter of whose
pissy little prejudice is backed by the most money a
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
clare, 20 Oct 2005 01:13:18
Sounds about right! Which is why at this consultation phase the width of the definition is in our favour. The few MP's or Lords who may be concerned about this proposal will be particularly concerned that all the consequences that Guy has set out could be visited on people who could not regulate their behaviour to avoid it and who may have been looking at pretty mild stuff.
It might be worth commenting that the European Court found that the broadly drafted Obscene Publications Act did not fall foul of the principle that you have to know what the boundaries of the rule are so that you regulate your behaviour to avoid it... because publishers can take legal advice before they publish.
That obviously doesn't apply to home surfers clicking on a thumbnail.
Author wrote:
> However it leaves us open to the
> > interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle
> > this one.
> >
> It is far, far worse than that. Wise up:
> The decision to launch the case will I guess be taken by a policeman, probably
> under heavy political pressure,who will interprete the legislation according to
> his judgement and taking only the words of 'The Act' into account, (not having
> access or caring a fig about the debate that led to it), and taking due note of
> the political climate in which he is operating; which may well be far more
> repressive than today.
> [Most policemen nowadays will sensibly take the view 'why do we bother with
> this s**t when there is crack in the playgrounds' - a verbatim quote from a
> policeman on one raid I heard about. There is no guarantee that the next
> generation will take a similar view.]
> (S)He will (hopefully) seek a search warrant from a magistrate who again has to
> make such a subjective judgement, operating in a different climate, but
> magistrates are recommended by local politicians with ties to political parties.
> The policeman can choose which magistrate to go to; if he really does not want
> to do it (s)he will choose a liberal one; if he wants to win (s)he will choose
> a 'hanger & shooter'. (They will know from the magistrate's court which are
> which!)
> Then the police will raid, mob-handed, taking every book, video, DVD, photo,
> drawing, other media, computer system unit, and anything else they may use in
> evidence.
> They may well lock up the accused for a day, or indeed anything up to 14 days,
> (or maybe 3 months if current proposals go ahead) whilst doing so.
> The poor sap who has been raided will face several years of hell, during most
> of which time they will be told nothing of substance, but in which they will
> have to prepare a defence, knowing that when it comes to trial they may only
> have a few days to complete their defence, so they have to cover every possible
> twist.
> That period is quite likely to see him or her bankrupted, their marriage
> broken, their business and personal life wholly disrupted and changed forever
> for the worse.
> (If it could ever be determined I would wager a lot of money that most of the
> suicides resulting from operation ORE [often presumed guilty] were actually
> innocent, driven to take their life by their total disillusionment with the
> system and the reaction of their loved ones).
> Then finally, several years later a forensic analyst, (probably a lowly
> sub-contractor who can barely stumble around Windows, let alone the latest
> whiz-bang operating system you may use), will finally look at the computer,
> using incredibly powerful and disruptive to normal operation tools that they
> barely begin to understand. [Just think about the opportunities there for
> planting evidence or just misunderstanding the results the software produces!]
> If they find anything to pin a case on, the CPS barrister will rule whether the
> are likely to win or lose.
> If the charges are withdrawn the victim is left traumatised, the charges
> withdrawn, but probably broke and single. They will still face a legal fight to
> get their property back; but much of it may well have been lost, pilfered or
> vandalised, or if they are in business wholly beyond its sell-by date. The
> computers will be obsolete and probably buggered beyond use by the tortures
> inflicted in trying to find evidence that was never there anyway.
> If the trial goes ahead the issue becomes, "can we get a conviction", not 'is
> the guy or gal really a menace to society'.
> The guilty guys will have been making enough money to employ the sharp talent
> to ensure that even if it gets this far, charges will be dropped because they
> are too slippery.
> People doing it for fun, or making a marginal living, as most of us on the
> scene, will have failed to cover their tracks completely and will get
> clobbered.
> Somewhere there will be a photo of a heavy session they forgot to security
> erase, or that their mate sent in an email attachment that they only deleted,
> but did not security erase.
> Or maybe just something the prosecuting barrister maliciously or innocently
> misrepresents - in the "Secret" magazine trial the prosecutor alleged a photo
> was of a girl pissing. OK, she was in a suitable pose to do so, but there was
> nothing else I could see to suggest she was (even under a microscope) - but it
> apparently it swayed the jury.
> The jury will make its own judgement, which will vary hugely with the location,
> the performance of the defending and prosecution solicitor and barrister.
> The jury are explicitly barred from giving their reasons or justifying their
> decision, so it gives no clue to somebody trying to avoid a similar fate.
> A quotation from the prosecution Counsel in the House Of Gord obscenity trial,
> mid 1990s: "We brought the case in Chester, because we thoought we had a chance
> out in the provinces, but would not have bothered in Southwark (S London)"
> If they are judged innocent there will still be plenty of people saying,
> "there's no smoke without fire ..."
> If the Obscene Publications Act is anything to go by, and the authorities want
> to persecute the victim, they can raid again and the second, third or
> subsequent jury possibly cannot be told that the guy (or gal) has been proven
> innocent already ... I have heard of people being raided four times, for much
> the same offence or publication.
> If convicted they go to jail, get fined, have to pay huge costs and almost all
> their seized books and videos, etc. [however innocent] will (nominally anyway,
> policemen tell me different) be burned.
> All for what may well be an accidental oversight or an engineered trap, but
> they will forever labelled as "sex criminal", and unless they are very lucky
> indeed their life will be ruined.
> In short, if this proposal becomes law, anyone with any commonsense will
> rapidly get out of anything that could possibly compromise them.
> On balance I will probably be one of them.
> I think I am brave, but I hope I am not completely stupid.
> All the above is informed, in detail, by experiences of close friends and
> acquaintances, over the past 15 years: not empty rant. I may be wrong in some
> details, I guess there are people on the list who may be able to correct me,
> but I doubt anyone can fault the gist of it.
> Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
> Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
> The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
> fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
> www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
> PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100
clare, 20 Oct 2005 01:20:06
Zak wrote: "I can not see how it is in the best interests of the BDSM community to have a vague law where nobody knows what is legal and what is not."
It obviously is not in anybody's interests to have a law like that. That is why a vague law is more likely to attact opposition from the Lords and any MP's who have an inkling of concern for civil liberties.
That is one of the reasons there has been substantial opposition to the Relegious Hatred Bill.
The time for seeking clarification is if and when the proposal goes to a bill. At this stage, one wants the whole idea booted out, not clarified. It is more likely to be booted out if it appears to criminalize too wide a class of people and they can't think of a definition that will narrow the class.
At the moment, they can't think of a better definition.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: av8r0344@hotmail.com, 20 Oct 2005 01:20:06
> Subject: [backlash] RE: Freedom of Information Act
> Author wrote:
> > And what exactly does this achieve?
> > The vagueness of the definition is one of the strengths of our
> opposition. The emails
> with the Scottish Exec that Paul has posted already demonstrate that they
> do not know
> where the line would be drawn and that that is a matter for judges. Since
> it follows from
> that, that citizens cannot know what is legal or illegal until after
> conviction, this is
> already a very strong point against the proposals.
> Perhaps, but one that the Home Office could overcome in about 5 minutes
> simply by drawing
> up a list. I seriously doubt that will slow them down at all.
> I can not see how it is in the best interests of the BDSM community to have
> a vague law
> where nobody knows what is legal and what is not.
> > Would you like to help the Home Office clarify the definition so that we
> lose this
> point? For that is what you are trying to do.
> No, what we are trying to do is ascertain what BDSM material if any this
> law applies to,
> which is clearly impossible from the current document, so we can:
> a) formulate a reasoned and objective opinion and response.
> b) inform other members of the BDSM community what the proposals actually
> include, instead
> of engaging in useless speculation that may or may not be correct.
> > Anyway, even if the material viewed gave you some idea where the relevant
> civil servant
> might wish to draw the line, it gives you no additional information
> whatsover about how
> the offence would be defined. That information is in the consultation
> document.
> Surely our point is that *no* image is unacceptable in itself and that
> prosecutions should
> only be brought when there is sufficient, proper evidence that an
> unconsenting person was
> harmed in the creation of the image. Otherwise it all comes down to a
> matter of whose
> pissy little prejudice is backed by the most money a
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
*** This message has been edited by clare on 20 Oct 2005 01:24:45 ***
adrian, 20 Oct 2005 06:44:45
At 17:06 19/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to
abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child
custody, etc etc.
It's a much bigger question, this one, and surely one that must have come
up in many other situations. In fact any in which a 'tendency to' do
nearly anything is held to be incited. There must be arguments on record
about it from both sides.
Although I see their point I think there is a strong argument for an
appropriate level of detail to be given. It seems to be a restriction of
our rights for the document to be squeamish about giving any description of
what they object to, as they do.
Manniq, 20 Oct 2005 08:58:44
Adrian,
If you ask for detail, they will just go for a classic 'switch and bait' approach. They will tell us and the public that this law is necessary on account of images A, B and C - cue for government to provide graphic detail of some of the nastiest images imaginable.
However, they will NOT wholly give up the vagueness in any proposed bill because,, as they will not unreasonably point out, it would make nonsense of their intention if they were too prescriptive and something much nastier was not brought within the remit of this law because of that prescription (which the pervs had asked for in the first place).
So there will be greater public buy-in, and not much change to the legislation.
I am wholly with clare on this. We don't need them to clarify at this stage. And they won't. But if we push the issue, they will trot out a list of outwardly horrific images.
Let me write the speech.
Charles Clarke/Paul Goggins to camera/press conference. "I have been asked to clarify the sort of image we are planning to ban. This, in itself, seems to me to show just how morally bankrupt the opposition to our proposal are: that they have to have spelt out to them the true horrors that we are dealing with. It is therefore with a sense of great outrage that I have called this conference and provided - in the folder which will be distributed at the end of the meeting - some examples of the sort of thing that opponents of this Bill wish to see widely available.
"The first photograph is of Natalia - a 19-year-old from Moldova. We know the acts depicted in the photo actually happened, because shortly after they happened, the police raided a studio in her home town and arrested the makers of these films.
Note the cigarette burns on her breasts and legs....."
I think we would be well and truly scuppered.
Basically, if you ask an enemy to make your case for you, do not be surprised if they rather unhelpfully refuse to do so - but do something else altogether.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> At 17:06 19/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to
> abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child
> custody, etc etc.
> It's a much bigger question, this one, and surely one that must have come
> up in many other situations. In fact any in which a 'tendency to' do
> nearly anything is held to be incited. There must be arguments on record
> about it from both sides.
> Although I see their point I think there is a strong argument for an
> appropriate level of detail to be given. It seems to be a restriction of
> our rights for the document to be squeamish about giving any description of
> what they object to, as they do.
Amelie, 20 Oct 2005 10:19:38
it also makes it easier for offenders (and for the repressors, themselves
psychologically repressed), denying (and therefore empowering) their darker
side, to claim that their own urges are fuelled by others who "make them do
it...." and not their own responsibility.
----- Original Message -----
, 20 Oct 2005 10:19:38
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:58 AM
>
> Adrian,
>
> If you ask for detail, they will just go for a classic 'switch and bait'
> approach. They will tell us and the public that this law is necessary on
> account of images A, B and C - cue for government to provide graphic
> detail of some of the nastiest images imaginable.
>
> However, they will NOT wholly give up the vagueness in any proposed bill
> because,, as they will not unreasonably point out, it would make nonsense
> of their intention if they were too prescriptive and something much
> nastier was not brought within the remit of this law because of that
> prescription (which the pervs had asked for in the first place).
>
> So there will be greater public buy-in, and not much change to the
> legislation.
>
> I am wholly with clare on this. We don't need them to clarify at this
> stage. And they won't. But if we push the issue, they will trot out a
> list of outwardly horrific images.
>
> Let me write the speech.
>
> Charles Clarke/Paul Goggins to camera/press conference. "I have been
> asked to clarify the sort of image we are planning to ban. This, in
> itself, seems to me to show just how morally bankrupt the opposition to
> our proposal are: that they have to have spelt out to them the true
> horrors that we are dealing with. It is therefore with a sense of great
> outrage that I have called this conference and provided - in the folder
> which will be distributed at the end of the meeting - some examples of the
> sort of thing that opponents of this Bill wish to see widely available.
>
> "The first photograph is of Natalia - a 19-year-old from Moldova. We know
> the acts depicted in the photo actually happened, because shortly after
> they happened, the police raided a studio in her home town and arrested
> the makers of these films.
>
> Note the cigarette burns on her breasts and legs....."
>
>
> I think we would be well and truly scuppered.
>
> Basically, if you ask an enemy to make your case for you, do not be
> surprised if they rather unhelpfully refuse to do so - but do something
> else altogether.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
> Author wrote:
>> At 17:06 19/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>> >Yes, this is very troubling though, as it leaves it completely open to
>> abuse by overzealous police, divorced partners, people seeking child
>> custody, etc etc.
>> It's a much bigger question, this one, and surely one that must have come
>> up in many other situations. In fact any in which a 'tendency to' do
>> nearly anything is held to be incited. There must be arguments on record
>> about it from both sides.
>> Although I see their point I think there is a strong argument for an
>> appropriate level of detail to be given. It seems to be a restriction of
>> our rights for the document to be squeamish about giving any description
>> of
>> what they object to, as they do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D1903
>
Amelie, 20 Oct 2005 10:30:38
thinking aloud, but this exchange has given me the bones of an article to
"Nurturing Potential" a respected Psychological journal for counsellors and
psychotherapists, which can then be sent in precis to other media. I shall
work on it over the weekend and post the result on the site. Thanks to you
all for clarifying my personal way forward on this.
zak, 20 Oct 2005 14:47:36
Original Message:
-----------------
pearl_maude1@hotmail.com, 20 Oct 2005 14:47:36
Zak wrote: "I can not see how it is in the best interests of the BDSM
community to have a
vague law where nobody knows what is legal and what is not."
SOrry to be a nit-picky old cow but av8r said that.
I said...
> Surely our point is that *no* image is unacceptable in itself and that
> prosecutions should
> only be brought when there is sufficient, proper evidence that an
> unconsenting person was
> harmed in the creation of the image. Otherwise it all comes down to a
> matter of whose
> pissy little prejudice is backed by the most money
Just so we're all clear.
zj
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
«No Name Set», 20 Oct 2005 18:04:15
Errrrm...... 'scuse me if I'm being naive here.
AIUI, the idea behind this was to extend the prohibition of
buying and selling "extreme" material through licenced sex shops
to the internet. WIth the aim that, if it were illegal to buy
it from a licenced sex shop it would be illegal to get on from
the internet.
In other words, the criteria for what would be too extreme to
download would be the same as for what would and would not get
an R18 certifiate to sell (on paper or on video) through a sex
shop.
Then they decided that it was too hard to legislate on
displaying/downloading off the web because of its international
nature, so they went for the possession offence option instead.
But the idea is still to extend the R18/sex shop rules to
material obtained otherwise.
SO the criteria for whether or not it is illegal to own
something is still: would this get an R18 (or lower) certificate
to be sold on paper/video?
Which there *are* guidelines about, I believe? - and which they
are quite correct in saying are not laid out in primary
legislation (and for good reason, as this then freezes them in
time, in the face of changing public opinion and indeed advances
in technology).
Whether courts would interpret material put before them as
Exhibits A-Z in a possession trial in the same manner as they
would be treated by the "experts" assessing candidates for an
R18 certificate is, of course, another matter.
And isn't one of the "unworkability" arguments precisely that,
since juries can be fickle and are not specialists, they may
well not, leading to conflicting precedents, and to the
inability of someone to know whether they are breaking the law
of not?
Knowing which sites in particular the consultation paper authors
were thinking of in writing their various comments on them may
be useful, perhaps. If we could get it. And particularly if
some of our number known (or were) the participants and could
confirm that all the activities were consensual, and also
explain how the effects were faked.
But I fear that if we could get anything, it would be long long
lists of masses of URLs, mainly caomparatively innocuous, and
someone would have to wade through and try to guess which were
the ones they viewed as particularly objectionable.
--
Rosemary
Manniq, 20 Oct 2005 20:14:17
Sorry, but...I rather think you are being naive.
BBFC classifications (and the OPA) both allow the classifiers to take into account the 'work as a whole'. So if a specific image taken out of context might be obscene, nonetheless, if within the artistic whole it makes sense, there is a defense.
When you are dealing with individual images, the defence of context pretty much disappears.
With the result that even images that are taken from films passed as OK for public viewing could end up falling foul of this law if used for purposes of sexual titillation.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Errrrm...... 'scuse me if I'm being naive here.
> AIUI, the idea behind this was to extend the prohibition of
> buying and selling "extreme" material through licenced sex shops
> to the internet. WIth the aim that, if it were illegal to buy
> it from a licenced sex shop it would be illegal to get on from
> the internet.
> In other words, the criteria for what would be too extreme to
> download would be the same as for what would and would not get
> an R18 certifiate to sell (on paper or on video) through a sex
> shop.
> Then they decided that it was too hard to legislate on
> displaying/downloading off the web because of its international
> nature, so they went for the possession offence option instead.
> But the idea is still to extend the R18/sex shop rules to
> material obtained otherwise.
> SO the criteria for whether or not it is illegal to own
> something is still: would this get an R18 (or lower) certificate
> to be sold on paper/video?
> Which there *are* guidelines about, I believe? - and which they
> are quite correct in saying are not laid out in primary
> legislation (and for good reason, as this then freezes them in
> time, in the face of changing public opinion and indeed advances
> in technology).
> Whether courts would interpret material put before them as
> Exhibits A-Z in a possession trial in the same manner as they
> would be treated by the "experts" assessing candidates for an
> R18 certificate is, of course, another matter.
> And isn't one of the "unworkability" arguments precisely that,
> since juries can be fickle and are not specialists, they may
> well not, leading to conflicting precedents, and to the
> inability of someone to know whether they are breaking the law
> of not?
> Knowing which sites in particular the consultation paper authors
> were thinking of in writing their various comments on them may
> be useful, perhaps. If we could get it. And particularly if
> some of our number known (or were) the participants and could
> confirm that all the activities were consensual, and also
> explain how the effects were faked.
> But I fear that if we could get anything, it would be long long
> lists of masses of URLs, mainly caomparatively innocuous, and
> someone would have to wade through and try to guess which were
> the ones they viewed as particularly objectionable.
> --
> Rosemary
Manniq, 20 Oct 2005 21:03:00
Guy,
You may be depressingly right. But maybe not. I left this morning thoroughly depressed by your post - but cheered up as I thought it through.
What you are describing is a process of bullying - by police and state.
It relies on the fact that what they are doing right now has no-one there prepared to fight back - esp. when it comes to anything with a whiff of children about it - and therefore they take liberties (in every sense of the word) deliberately holding on to stuff. Blaming 'process' and lack of resources for delay that is destroying peoples' businesses.
So, an alternative scenario - boosted, oddly, by a rather pointless detective story I am reading right now, but which contains an episode of interest. In this - set in the US - the police arest someone for bdsm activity. A day later, a lawyer from the bdsm defense organisation turns up at the police station to complain. A day after that, the police station is picketed.
Bullying likes anonymity.
If you were accused of holding child porn, the chances are that even if innocent, you would hide. You would not fight back.
But bdsm? If you know that just going along with the police way of doing things was going to cost me my business anyway, then my first response would be down to local TV, radio, press, demanding the return of my pc. Asking why the police can't investiagte a possible crime without putting someone out of business.
I would be hopeful that someone on here would provide the legal wherewithal for me to start taking retaliatory action, legally. (Suing the Police CHief....).
And I hope that friends in the bdsm community might be prepared to demonstrate.
My response would be to go public, go nuclear, and to be as embarrassing to the police as I possibly could be.
One tactic: if they bring up pics in court, get those pics hosted on an overseas sight, and ask people to access them and tell the police they had done so.
Yes, guy: you are right when it comes to child porn. But much less so when it comes to bdsm. The police are lacking the resources already to tackle what they are meant to tackle. We could easily make tackling bdsm far, far more costly in terms of resources than anything else they have dealt with in this area to date.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> However it leaves us open to the
> > interpretations of individual police chiefs. I don't know how we can handle
> > this one.
> >
> It is far, far worse than that. Wise up:
> The decision to launch the case will I guess be taken by a policeman, probably
> under heavy political pressure,who will interprete the legislation according to
> his judgement and taking only the words of 'The Act' into account, (not having
> access or caring a fig about the debate that led to it), and taking due note of
> the political climate in which he is operating; which may well be far more
> repressive than today.
> [Most policemen nowadays will sensibly take the view 'why do we bother with
> this s**t when there is crack in the playgrounds' - a verbatim quote from a
> policeman on one raid I heard about. There is no guarantee that the next
> generation will take a similar view.]
> (S)He will (hopefully) seek a search warrant from a magistrate who again has to
> make such a subjective judgement, operating in a different climate, but
> magistrates are recommended by local politicians with ties to political parties.
> The policeman can choose which magistrate to go to; if he really does not want
> to do it (s)he will choose a liberal one; if he wants to win (s)he will choose
> a 'hanger & shooter'. (They will know from the magistrate's court which are
> which!)
> Then the police will raid, mob-handed, taking every book, video, DVD, photo,
> drawing, other media, computer system unit, and anything else they may use in
> evidence.
> They may well lock up the accused for a day, or indeed anything up to 14 days,
> (or maybe 3 months if current proposals go ahead) whilst doing so.
> The poor sap who has been raided will face several years of hell, during most
> of which time they will be told nothing of substance, but in which they will
> have to prepare a defence, knowing that when it comes to trial they may only
> have a few days to complete their defence, so they have to cover every possible
> twist.
> That period is quite likely to see him or her bankrupted, their marriage
> broken, their business and personal life wholly disrupted and changed forever
> for the worse.
> (If it could ever be determined I would wager a lot of money that most of the
> suicides resulting from operation ORE [often presumed guilty] were actually
> innocent, driven to take their life by their total disillusionment with the
> system and the reaction of their loved ones).
> Then finally, several years later a forensic analyst, (probably a lowly
> sub-contractor who can barely stumble around Windows, let alone the latest
> whiz-bang operating system you may use), will finally look at the computer,
> using incredibly powerful and disruptive to normal operation tools that they
> barely begin to understand. [Just think about the opportunities there for
> planting evidence or just misunderstanding the results the software produces!]
> If they find anything to pin a case on, the CPS barrister will rule whether the
> are likely to win or lose.
> If the charges are withdrawn the victim is left traumatised, the charges
> withdrawn, but probably broke and single. They will still face a legal fight to
> get their property back; but much of it may well have been lost, pilfered or
> vandalised, or if they are in business wholly beyond its sell-by date. The
> computers will be obsolete and probably buggered beyond use by the tortures
> inflicted in trying to find evidence that was never there anyway.
> If the trial goes ahead the issue becomes, "can we get a conviction", not 'is
> the guy or gal really a menace to society'.
> The guilty guys will have been making enough money to employ the sharp talent
> to ensure that even if it gets this far, charges will be dropped because they
> are too slippery.
> People doing it for fun, or making a marginal living, as most of us on the
> scene, will have failed to cover their tracks completely and will get
> clobbered.
> Somewhere there will be a photo of a heavy session they forgot to security
> erase, or that their mate sent in an email attachment that they only deleted,
> but did not security erase.
> Or maybe just something the prosecuting barrister maliciously or innocently
> misrepresents - in the "Secret" magazine trial the prosecutor alleged a photo
> was of a girl pissing. OK, she was in a suitable pose to do so, but there was
> nothing else I could see to suggest she was (even under a microscope) - but it
> apparently it swayed the jury.
> The jury will make its own judgement, which will vary hugely with the location,
> the performance of the defending and prosecution solicitor and barrister.
> The jury are explicitly barred from giving their reasons or justifying their
> decision, so it gives no clue to somebody trying to avoid a similar fate.
> A quotation from the prosecution Counsel in the House Of Gord obscenity trial,
> mid 1990s: "We brought the case in Chester, because we thoought we had a chance
> out in the provinces, but would not have bothered in Southwark (S London)"
> If they are judged innocent there will still be plenty of people saying,
> "there's no smoke without fire ..."
> If the Obscene Publications Act is anything to go by, and the authorities want
> to persecute the victim, they can raid again and the second, third or
> subsequent jury possibly cannot be told that the guy (or gal) has been proven
> innocent already ... I have heard of people being raided four times, for much
> the same offence or publication.
> If convicted they go to jail, get fined, have to pay huge costs and almost all
> their seized books and videos, etc. [however innocent] will (nominally anyway,
> policemen tell me different) be burned.
> All for what may well be an accidental oversight or an engineered trap, but
> they will forever labelled as "sex criminal", and unless they are very lucky
> indeed their life will be ruined.
> In short, if this proposal becomes law, anyone with any commonsense will
> rapidly get out of anything that could possibly compromise them.
> On balance I will probably be one of them.
> I think I am brave, but I hope I am not completely stupid.
> All the above is informed, in detail, by experiences of close friends and
> acquaintances, over the past 15 years: not empty rant. I may be wrong in some
> details, I guess there are people on the list who may be able to correct me,
> but I doubt anyone can fault the gist of it.
> Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
> Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
> The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
> fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
> www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
> PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100
zak, 21 Oct 2005 00:46:43
Original Message:
-----------------
manniq@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 00:46:43
Sorry, but...I rather think you are being naive.
BBFC classifications (and the OPA) both allow the classifiers to take into
account the
'work as a whole'. So if a specific image taken out of context might be
obscene,
nonetheless, if within the artistic whole it makes sense, there is a
defense.
When you are dealing with individual images, the defence of context pretty
much
disappears.
With the result that even images that are taken from films passed as OK for
public viewing
could end up falling foul of this law if used for purposes of sexual
titillation.
Yup. Bet there are plenty of people who wanked themselves silly over the
flagellation in
The Passion Of The Christ, for instance. Wouldn't it be fun to try and get
that film
busted for being pornography (as well as ridiculous antisemitic
superstitious bullshit).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
«No Name Set», 21 Oct 2005 18:08:21
Academics and artists are probably on their own. Police working
on investigations of possibly offensive material will have the
Occupational Health Dept breathing down their necks.
Rosemary
graham writes:
Keith wrote:
> Because they are not viewing the material with the intention of sexual
> arousal. The proposals are very clear that possession for "legitimate"
> reasons (reseach, scientific study, artistic expression, law enforcement
> etc) would be acceptable. It's just us wankers that they're after :)
Ah, but were they monitored in case they inadvertantly found themselves
being sexually aroused by it?!
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 21 Oct 2005 18:08:53
OK, so I'm naive...... sorry, but I can't even see this stuff we
re talking about.
Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that so are the writers
of the consultation document?? - that is, they have this "idea
behind is" as I said, but haven't thought through what would
turn out as a right dog's breakfast?
BBFC classifications (and the OPA) both allow the classifiers to take into account the 'work as a whole'. So if a specific image taken out of context might
be obscene, nonetheless, if within the artistic whole it makes sense, there is a defense.
When you are dealing with individual images, the defence of context pretty much disappears.
Yes, I do understand all that!
With the result that even images that are taken from films passed as OK for public viewing could end up falling foul of this law if used for purposes of sex
ual titillation.
WOuld that not apply now? - say a promoter made a mag of "Your
favourite kinky film stills", all from films with valid
certificates, but the stills out of context.
[Clearly, it is logically nonsense to have a possession standard
stricter than the standard of what can be bought and sold
legally. Of course, that doesn't mean the government couldn't
legislate it, or the courts have to interpret what is written in
that way.]
--
Rosemary
Graham Marsden, 21 Oct 2005 18:18:33
Rosemary wrote:
> > Because they are not viewing the material with the intention of sexual
> > arousal. The proposals are very clear that possession for "legitimate"
> > reasons (reseach, scientific study, artistic expression, law enforcement
> > etc) would be acceptable. It's just us wankers that they're after :)
>
> Ah, but were they monitored in case they inadvertantly found themselves
> being sexually aroused by it?!
> Academics and artists are probably on their own. Police working
> on investigations of possibly offensive material will have the
> Occupational Health Dept breathing down their necks.
True, there's a terrible risk of Repetetive Strain Injury... :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 01:45:37
usual edible stuff here
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Bullying likes anonymity.
If you were accused of holding child porn, the chances are
that even if innocent, you would hide. You would not fight back.
Yeah, that's the tactics that got Them so many cotaging
convictions in the old days, and made "pretty police" tactics so
attractive.
Many victims wanted it all hushed up at all costs and agreed to
suggestions of pleading guilty to get it over with. Didn't
work, of course, cos the police still gave their names and
addresses to their employers (so they got the sack) and the
local press.
Those who elected for trial by jury and fought the case on the
basis of police dirty tricks had a good chance of being
acquitted and the police getting a slap on the wrist.
How the times they ave been a-changin'.
Rosemary
--
Rosemary