Some interesting comments

Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 01:02:07

I passed on details of the consultation to various people on discussion
forums I'm a member of, here's some rather useful comments from one of
them...

* * * * *

Let me get this straight, from my partial reading of the proposal

1) It's legal to do it to someone if they consent

2) It's legal to consent to it being done to you, mostly

3) It's legal to write about it

4) It's illegal to photograph it (even if it didn't happen)

5) It's illegal to own a photograph of it (even if it didn't happen)

6) It's very illegal to sell a photograph of it (even if it didn't happen)?

7) It's legal to make a film where people get blown to bits, as long as
it isn't 'sexual violence'

8) It's legal to cluster-bomb civilians without a UN mandate?

Sounds good to me. So now we have

1) Acts that are illegal to perform and illegal to photograph (say,
child abuse)

2) Acts that are legal to perform but illegal to photograph (like
consensual S&M)

3) Acts that are illegal to perform, but legal to photograph (say, the
9/11 attacks)

4) Acts that carry a higher penalty for planning than for carrying out
(like throwing flour at the PM)

5) A government who thinks that banning things reduces demand. *cough*
Prohibition *cough* War on Drugs *cough*

6) It's illegal *already* (duplicate laws again?)

7) It's proposed in response to one murder case where there's no
confirmed link but lots of tabloid column-inches. I hear dangerous dogs
barking.

8) One argument is that demand fuels supply, but supply (as in actually
performing and recording the act) isn't necessarily illegal, so why
should creating demand for that supply be illegal? Non-sequitur here
(it's expressly not the same as child porn, where demand can lead to
actual offences being committed. That blows a huge hole in it, actually,
as if you take out all references to child porn as being essentially
irrelevant to the argument, it falls over).

That's as clear as mud then. I think I may have to rephrase it in
shorter words for the MP though.

Is it still true that you can't be prosecuted for screwing ducks because
it's an impossible act? Being photographed screwing a duck, however,
will get you three years jail.

P.S. You can't have stuff showing someone screwing an animal or a human
corpse, but what about an animal corpse? Loophole there, I think. Damn,
I should have been a lawyer.

* * * * *

I think we can use a few of these! :-)

Cheers,
Graham.


zak, 23 Oct 2005 10:44:10

Original Message:
-----------------
graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 10:44:10



P.S. You can't have stuff showing someone screwing an animal or a human
corpse, but what about an animal corpse? Loophole there, I think. Damn,
I should have been a lawyer.

* * * * *

I think sacrewing dead animals is OK because they have stopped being
animals and become
food. so if PCD (didn't he mention this) wants to stick his dick in a
FROZEN chicken, or
amuse himself with a sausage, that's kind of between him and his dinner
companions...

z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .


Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 10:53:38

Oh, I remember this one. A couple of years back, some woman came home and found her husband screwing the sunday lunch (it was chicken and, I believe, frozen).

This was cited as one of a number of grounds for divorce.

A comment she made suggested she was less bothered by his infidelity with the frigid bird - than by the fact that he was proposing to add extra calories to her diet without warning her in advance.

Regards,

M

Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 10:53:38
> Subject: [backlash] Some interesting comments
> P.S. You can't have stuff showing someone screwing an animal or a human
> corpse, but what about an animal corpse? Loophole there, I think. Damn,
> I should have been a lawyer.
> * * * * *
> I think sacrewing dead animals is OK because they have stopped being
> animals and become
> food. so if PCD (didn't he mention this) wants to stick his dick in a
> FROZEN chicken, or
> amuse himself with a sausage, that's kind of between him and his dinner
> companions...
> z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .


Morgarth, 23 Oct 2005 12:40:31

Author wrote:
> P.S. You can't have stuff showing someone screwing an animal or a human
> corpse, but what about an animal corpse? Loophole there, I think. Damn,
> I should have been a lawyer.
> * * * * *
> I think we can use a few of these! :-)
> Cheers,
> Graham.

You are a bit late with that one. Lord Lucas spotted the loop hole and challenged the governments logic - "Why should it be less of an offence if the man has killed the sheep just beforehand? Why should it be less of an offence if the animal involved is inserted as a whole object rather than part of the animal?"

The official reply was "It is the judgment made about the sort of conduct with animals which should be criminalised. We have drawn the line where we have drawn the line."

Lord Lucas, not to be detered by such erudite reasoning, later tabled appropriate amendments to the Sexual Offences bill in the Lords. His discussion of stoats, gerbils and chickens taught me a few things I hadn't heard of before!

For the government Lord Falconer of Thoroton argued that "we have no reason to believe that other types of sexual activity with animals ... is anything other than extremely rare. ... The provisions in the Sexual Offences Bill are [therefore] not the only means of providing protection for animals in law."

The amendment was withdrawn.

However in the very next amendment Lord Lucas tried to turn this argument back on the government and get the clause on necrophilia removed because "There was no public evidence of it taking place at all, let alone of it being common."

Needless to say the government did not accept the argument when it was turned on them. That amendment was also withdrawn.

I think the debate is informative about government thinking for three reasons:

1) The Home Office is quite prepared to draw arbitrary lines in the sand and make no attempt to defend them with any sort of reasoning. Their first reponse is just a long winded "Because I say so".

2) In the second response they use the argument that some activities are [in their belief] so rare that it is not worth deleting the word "living" from the bill to make them illegal.

3) Arguments that work for the government are irrelevant if applied in support of an opposing view.

Morgarth

refs:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030519/text/30519-23.htm#30519-23_para14

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030609/text/30609-17.htm#30609-17_para7

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldhansrd/vo030609/text/30609-18.htm#30609-18_para6


Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 13:19:37

morgarth@z2bdsm.com wrote:

> You are a bit late with that one. Lord Lucas spotted the loop hole
> and challenged the governments logic

Good for Lord Lucas!

> I think the debate is informative about government thinking for
> three reasons:
>
> 1) The Home Office is quite prepared to draw arbitrary lines in
> the sand and make no attempt to defend them with any sort of
> reasoning. Their first reponse is just a long winded "Because
> I say so".

Basically what they are saying with the current proposals.

> 2) In the second response they use the argument that some
> activities are [in their belief] so rare that it is not worth
> [...] make them illegal.

You mean like people committing murder after viewing "violent porn"...?!

> 3) Arguments that work for the government are irrelevant if applied
> in support of an opposing view.

Ah, "do as we say, not as we do". There's another word for that!

Ho hum...

Cheers,
Graham.


Paul C. Dickie, 23 Oct 2005 14:05:28

In message <4710567.1130061214876.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, manniq@hotmail.com wrote:
>Oh, I remember this one. A couple of years back, some woman came home and found
>her husband screwing the sunday lunch (it was chicken and, I believe, frozen).
>
>This was cited as one of a number of grounds for divorce.
>
>A comment she made suggested she was less bothered by his infidelity with the
>frigid bird - than by the fact that he was proposing to add extra calories to
>her diet without warning her in advance.

So the divorce was granted on the grounds of 'mental cruelty'?

At least she didn't accuse him of misusing the tool she used to put the
holes in the doughnuts...

--
< Paul >


Paul C. Dickie, 23 Oct 2005 14:16:40

In message <380-22005100239444140@M2W071.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Original Message:
>-----------------
graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 14:16:40
>Subject: [backlash] Some interesting comments
>
>
>
>P.S. You can't have stuff showing someone screwing an animal or a human
>corpse, but what about an animal corpse? Loophole there, I think. Damn,
>I should have been a lawyer.
>
>* * * * *
>
>I think sacrewing dead animals is OK because they have stopped being
>animals and become food. so if PCD (didn't he mention this) wants to
>stick his dick in a FROZEN chicken, or amuse himself with a sausage,
>that's kind of between him and his dinner companions...

Actually, dear, I didn't mention anything of the sort. What I did
mention is that whereas some people might use only a feather or two,
others might use the entire chicken.

But *how* they might use the chicken I left up to the imagination of the
reader...

I'd say that shoving one's pecker into a frozen chicken would not
necessarily be a wise thing to do. Can you imagine explaining to the
hospital Emergency Room how one came to be suffering from penile
frostbite in the middle of summer?

--
< Paul >


Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 14:34:27

Paul C. Dickie wrote:

> I'd say that shoving one's pecker into a frozen chicken would not
> necessarily be a wise thing to do. Can you imagine explaining to the
> hospital Emergency Room how one came to be suffering from penile
> frostbite in the middle of summer?

Well it would make a change from all those "fell over whilst doing the
Hoovering in the nude" excuses...! :-)

Cheers,
Graham.