wrote:
> http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>
> see the end of the above document for the list shown below. I am trying to get some more information from the author, but if true it means that the Government are already expanding the scope of this legislation.
>
> If anyone cannot see the above page please can you let me know and let me know which ISP you use. It has been suggested that this site has been blocked by the IWF or BT, but I had no trouble accessing it via my NTL line and the content is mostly text as far as I can see.
>
>
>
> "And just in case you are wondering exactly what is going to be banned under this new legislation, I have the complete list here (in simplified format obtained under the Freedom of Information Act). Note this list is by no means comprehensive as the Home Office Legal Department are adding categories and clauses all the time but it gives you an idea of how wide ranging this is:
>
> Asphyxia. Where the person is being choked in order to gain sexual pleasure.
>
> Bestiality. Sexual acts between humans and animals.
>
> Bondage. Tying a person in an unnatural position for sexual gratification where the participant is unable to withdraw their consent (for example they are gagged).
>
> Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
>
> Cruelty to animals. Includes organised dog fighting, bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting. Also 'crush' material which features humans stamping on vertebrates or standing on them with increased pressure until they are crushed.
>
> Defecation. Voiding excrement from the bowels.
>
> Enemas. Flushing the bowels with water, usually to drink the product or torture the victim.
>
> Fisting. (anal or vaginal) Inserting a fist in the anus or vagina for sexual gratification.
>
> Insertion of an object. Only where the insertion clearly inflicts pain.
>
> Menstrual Blood. Sex between adults where the female is menstruating heavily and the blood is being smeared on the body or the used tampon is being sucked etc. This does not include post-intercourse depictions where a small amount of blood can be seen on the participants.
>
> Necrophilia. Sexual intercourse with a corpse.
>
> Sado-masochism. Sadists achieve sexual pleasure through inflicting torture and humiliation upon another person. Masochists desire maltreatment as a means of sexual gratification.
>
> Scatology. Depictions indicating a general interest in excrement such as smearing or eating of excrement.
>
> Urolagnia. The act of urination in the context of any of the following where a person is shown:
> urinating at the same time as they are engaged in a sexual act. The urination and sexual act must be seen at the same time. The sexual act includes those such as fellatio (oral sex) and masturbation which would not be obscene if shown without urination; smearing urine on themselves or another;
> urinating on another person; being urinated upon;
> drinking urine.
>
> Violence (non-simulated). Scenes of actual violence or mutilation shown in an exploitative context where they are not part of a legitimate documentary. For example a compilation of newsreel footage concentrating solely on scenes of violence or mutilation. This would also cover scenes of actual sexual assault including rape.
>
> Violence (simulated). Scenes of simulated sexual violence such as rape shown in an exploitative context where the activity is graphically depicted and clearly intended to appear non-consensual. This excludes scenes contained in serious dramatic films."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D2860
>
DAury, 02 Nov 2005 21:47:18
> http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>
> see the end of the above document for the list shown below.
How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
"extreme pornography"?
If this list is genuine, then surely a new consultation would have to be
undertaken as the new categories are so far beyond those described
in the original.
Keith
Paul Tavener, 02 Nov 2005 21:58:55
I will let everyone know when I find out. I might even directly ask the Home Office.
Author wrote:
> > http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
> >
> > see the end of the above document for the list shown below.
> How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
> "extreme pornography"?
> If this list is genuine, then surely a new consultation would have to be
> undertaken as the new categories are so far beyond those described
> in the original.
> Keith
MsDemmie, 02 Nov 2005 22:12:09
I have cross posted this to various other forums including IC - hopefully those in the "it won't affect us brigade" will now sit up and take some notice.
guy, 02 Nov 2005 22:20:34
** Reply to message from doulos on Wed, 2 Nov 2005
21:15:48 +0000
> This is a very useful site, with high level arguments. There are a
> handful of broken links but the site itself is working. I don't think
> IWF can be banning this since I use a fairly mainstream cable net
> company.
>
> >
> > Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
> >
No if or buts, no reference to consensuality, extent, context, reasons, etc.,
apparently
However corporal punishment can currently be shown, in appropriate contexts, in
BBFC 18-rated video, let alone 18R, videos.
So if 18R started out as the comparison standard it is already being abandoned
as being too "liberal".
I would suspect the same will be found to be true in many of the other
categories.
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, 02 Nov 2005 23:36:09
Original Message:
-----------------
KeithD megakd@blueyonder.co.uk, 02 Nov 2005 23:36:09
> http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>
> see the end of the above document for the list shown below.
How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
"extreme pornography"?
Somebody photoshopped a few fannies or arses into the pictures? WHile it's
perfectly
plausible that there are individuals somewhere out there tossing off over
the concept of
bear/badger baiting (and, indeed, news reports of same), to definte it as
"pornography" is
a bit of a misuse of language unless you (sorry, 'one') mean it in the same
way that
people have described city salaries, for instance, as 'obscene'..
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
DAury, 03 Nov 2005 00:13:35
> hopefully those in the "it won't affect us brigade" will now sit up and take some notice.
Yup, if it's genuine, it looks like the excrement will be hitting a lot
more fans than first thought.
Of course, you would not be able to own a photo of said excrement
hitting said fan.................
Keith
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Nov 2005 00:34:14
--- KeithD wrote:
> > hopefully those in the "it won't affect us
> brigade" will now sit up and take some notice.
>
> Yup, if it's genuine, it looks like the excrement
> will be hitting a lot
> more fans than first thought.
>
> Of course, you would not be able to own a photo of
> said excrement
> hitting said fan.................
Well, if it was part of a scientific research project,
you might get away with it.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
(planning a big research project on religious
parallels in extreme pornographic material, see if I
can get away with owning it like that!)
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Nov 2005 00:37:15
--- Sir Guy Masterleigh wrote:
> ** Reply to message from doulos
> on Wed, 2 Nov 2005
> 21:15:48 +0000
>
> > This is a very useful site, with high level
> arguments. There are a
> > handful of broken links but the site itself is
> working. I don't think
> > IWF can be banning this since I use a fairly
> mainstream cable net
> > company.
> >
> > >
> > > Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another
> person
> > >
> No if or buts, no reference to consensuality,
> extent, context, reasons, etc.,
> apparently
>
> However corporal punishment can currently be shown,
> in appropriate contexts, in
> BBFC 18-rated video, let alone 18R, videos.
>
> So if 18R started out as the comparison standard it
> is already being abandoned
> as being too "liberal".
>
> I would suspect the same will be found to be true in
> many of the other
> categories.
How long before they ban paying Twister in your own
home, on the grounds that it's pornographic? (Yes, I
nicked that one from Bill Hicks ;-) )
Actually, thinking about it, pictures of people
playing Twister might be covered by the restriction on
people being forced into unnatural positions!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Manniq, 03 Nov 2005 01:25:43
You know, oddly enough: the more borad brush the government paints this proposal, the less worried I get.
If they get it through, it will immediately define the UK as one of the most illiberal places in the world - whereupon loads of people will sit up and take notice.
Whereas, the more they widen the definitions, the more they widen the community of affected people. And therefore the greater the potential Backlash!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> ** Reply to message from doulos on Wed, 2 Nov 2005
> 21:15:48 +0000
> > This is a very useful site, with high level arguments. There are a
> > handful of broken links but the site itself is working. I don't think
> > IWF can be banning this since I use a fairly mainstream cable net
> > company.
> >
> > >
> > > Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
> > >
> No if or buts, no reference to consensuality, extent, context, reasons, etc.,
> apparently
> However corporal punishment can currently be shown, in appropriate contexts, in
> BBFC 18-rated video, let alone 18R, videos.
> So if 18R started out as the comparison standard it is already being abandoned
> as being too "liberal".
> I would suspect the same will be found to be true in many of the other
> categories.
> 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
Paul C. Dickie, 03 Nov 2005 09:07:25
In message <380-220051132233142562@M2W146.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Original Message:
>-----------------
KeithD megakd@blueyonder.co.uk, 03 Nov 2005 09:07:25
>Subject: Re: [backlash] A worrying development
>
>
>> http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>>
>> see the end of the above document for the list shown below.
>
>How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
>"extreme pornography"?
Perhaps they meant "beaver bating" or "beaver eating"?
--
< Paul >
guy, 03 Nov 2005 09:53:53
** Reply to message from "Paul C. Dickie" on Thu, 3
Nov 2005 09:06:05 +0000
> >How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
> >"extreme pornography"?
>
Re my earlier point: about the STOPP campaign against corporal punishment in
schools, this will prevent any campaigner against the re-introduction of badger
baiting, etc. (and there are those out in the countryside who consider it their
right to do it for fun, who will try to legalise it again if the UK becomes a
much more repressive and corrupt regime as I fear), collecting images of it and
sending them to legislators, etc. One more perverse result directly
contradictory to the ostensible intent of the legislation.
More to the point it will prevent any campaigner, like eg Mrs Longhurst,
collecting evidence against the any of the really nasty websites she is trying
to shut down (an aim some of us may support); because when she presents the
dossier she will be immediately charged with possessing obscene material.
This is not mere conjecture; some friends of mine locally were charged with
"publishing Obscene Material", eg making a video of a foursome they had with
another couple and giving them a copy.
Outraged at this he collected some much more extreme images off the web and
said in effect; with this out there, how can you consider this worth
prosecuting. And, you guessed it, he was charged with possessing kiddie-porn
images, convicted and chased out of the country.
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
Manniq, 03 Nov 2005 10:01:20
Um. Ms Longhurst and her crew will probably escape prosecution a) because it would be deemed not in the public interest to go after her and b) because in a minor amendment to the SO Act, IWF lobbied for it to be a justification to hold images of the sort under consideration if the purpose of so doing was to assist the forces of lawn'order.
Though keeping them and wanking over them afterward is probably still frowned upon.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "Paul C. Dickie" on Thu, 3
> Nov 2005 09:06:05 +0000
> > >How can bear or badger baiting be included in the category of
> > >"extreme pornography"?
> >
> Re my earlier point: about the STOPP campaign against corporal punishment in
> schools, this will prevent any campaigner against the re-introduction of badger
> baiting, etc. (and there are those out in the countryside who consider it their
> right to do it for fun, who will try to legalise it again if the UK becomes a
> much more repressive and corrupt regime as I fear), collecting images of it and
> sending them to legislators, etc. One more perverse result directly
> contradictory to the ostensible intent of the legislation.
> More to the point it will prevent any campaigner, like eg Mrs Longhurst,
> collecting evidence against the any of the really nasty websites she is trying
> to shut down (an aim some of us may support); because when she presents the
> dossier she will be immediately charged with possessing obscene material.
> This is not mere conjecture; some friends of mine locally were charged with
> "publishing Obscene Material", eg making a video of a foursome they had with
> another couple and giving them a copy.
> Outraged at this he collected some much more extreme images off the web and
> said in effect; with this out there, how can you consider this worth
> prosecuting. And, you guessed it, he was charged with possessing kiddie-porn
> images, convicted and chased out of the country.
> 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
guy, 03 Nov 2005 10:08:09
> Um. Ms Longhurst and her crew will probably escape prosecution a) because it
> would be deemed not in the public interest to go after her and b) because in a
> minor amendment to the SO Act, IWF lobbied for it to be a justification to hold
> images of the sort under consideration if the purpose of so doing was to assist
> the forces of lawn'order.
>
So it would be OK to collect them to lobby for a more repressive regime?
But what if one were lobbying our legislators against said repressive regime?
I suspect the answer is that in the latter instance one would be prosecuted.
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
demolitionred, 03 Nov 2005 14:20:40
Author wrote:
> http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
> see the end of the above document for the list shown below. I am trying to get some more information from the author, but if true it means that the Government are already expanding the scope of this legislation.
Not as I understand it.
SM Pride read out this list at the first meeting.
The list is topics that the BBFC currently won't pass a certification for under the OPA....
SnowdropExplodes, 03 Nov 2005 14:50:48
--- demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Author wrote:
> >
>
http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
> > see the end of the above document for the list
> shown below. I am trying to get some more
> information from the author, but if true it means
> that the Government are already expanding the scope
> of this legislation.
>
>
> Not as I understand it.
>
>
> SM Pride read out this list at the first meeting.
>
>
> The list is topics that the BBFC currently won't
> pass a certification for under the OPA....
This is true, but that means it is definitely
extending the scope of the proposals.
In particular, it appears to mean that they are de
facto intending to use option 1 from the consultation
document, 'add a general offence of possession of
"obscene" material to the OPA'.
To which the consultation document makes this remark:
'This proposal would significantly extend the scope of
the OPA and the CG(S)A but would not achieve the
clarity which would help individuals to identify
material which was clearly illegal, when making
personal decisions about viewing pornography.'
(Which is our contention for *all* the proposed
options anyway, but here they explicitly acknowledge
the difficulty)
The consultation paper's preferred option, option 3,
is "create a new free standing offence in respect of
material we have set out", where the material set out
was specific: necrophilia, bestiality, serious sexual
violence or serious violence in a sexual context.
Which means that they are now talking about vastly
extending the scope of the material they set out in
the document to include even milder forms of SM, and
are introducing other categories to their proposals,
such as enemas, scat and watersports.
In particular, it has apparently gone beyond the
intention of protecting the participants from being
victims of activities that are crimes in this country.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Alan, 03 Nov 2005 21:54:09
This all sound slike the personal prejudices of a bunch of anal retentive civil servants. Sounds like our wunderool governement........
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
see the end of the above document for the list shown below. I am trying to get some more information from the author, but if true it means that the Government are already expanding the scope of this legislation.
If anyone cannot see the above page please can you let me know and let me know which ISP you use. It has been suggested that this site has been blocked by the IWF or BT, but I had no trouble accessing it via my NTL line and the content is mostly text as far as I can see.
"And just in case you are wondering exactly what is going to be banned under this new legislation, I have the complete list here (in simplified format obtained under the Freedom of Information Act). Note this list is by no means comprehensive as the Home Office Legal Department are adding categories and clauses all the time but it gives you an idea of how wide ranging this is:
Asphyxia. Where the person is being choked in order to gain sexual pleasure.
Bestiality. Sexual acts between humans and animals.
Bondage. Tying a person in an unnatural position for sexual gratification where the participant is unable to withdraw their consent (for example they are gagged).
Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
Cruelty to animals. Includes organised dog fighting, bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting. Also ‘crush’ material which features humans stamping on vertebrates or standing on them with increased pressure until they are crushed.
Defecation. Voiding excrement from the bowels.
Enemas. Flushing the bowels with water, usually to drink the product or torture the victim.
Fisting. (anal or vaginal) Inserting a fist in the anus or vagina for sexual gratification.
Insertion of an object. Only where the insertion clearly inflicts pain.
Menstrual Blood. Sex between adults where the female is menstruating heavily and the blood is being smeared on the body or the used tampon is being sucked etc. This does not include post-intercourse depictions where a small amount of blood can be seen on the participants.
Necrophilia. Sexual intercourse with a corpse.
Sado-masochism. Sadists achieve sexual pleasure through inflicting torture and humiliation upon another person. Masochists desire maltreatment as a means of sexual gratification.
Scatology. Depictions indicating a general interest in excrement such as smearing or eating of excrement.
Urolagnia. The act of urination in the context of any of the following where a person is shown:
urinating at the same time as they are engaged in a sexual act. The urination and sexual act must be seen at the same time. The sexual act includes those such as fellatio (oral sex) and masturbation which would not be obscene if shown without urination; smearing urine on themselves or another;
urinating on another person; being urinated upon;
drinking urine.
Violence (non-simulated). Scenes of actual violence or mutilation shown in an exploitative context where they are not part of a legitimate documentary. For example a compilation of newsreel footage concentrating solely on scenes of violence or mutilation. This would also cover scenes of actual sexual assault including rape.
Violence (simulated). Scenes of simulated sexual violence such as rape shown in an exploitative context where the activity is graphically depicted and clearly intended to appear non-consensual. This excludes scenes contained in serious dramatic films."
--
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%3D2860
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Alan, 03 Nov 2005 22:00:58
Further to my comment: This lot would result in the need for thousands and thousands of new prison places. I mean just who hasn't got something on their HD that just might fall within the definitions described??
I have a feeling that our wunderfool government might be about to make a laughing stock of them selves in Europe
Al
alan slaughter wrote:
This all sound slike the personal prejudices of a bunch of anal retentive civil servants. Sounds like our wunderool governement........
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
see the end of the above document for the list shown below. I am trying to get some more information from the author, but if true it means that the Government are already expanding the scope of this legislation.
If anyone cannot see the above page please can you let me know and let me know which ISP you use. It has been suggested that this site has been blocked by the IWF or BT, but I had no trouble accessing it via my NTL line and the content is mostly text as far as I can see.
"And just in case you are wondering exactly what is going to be banned under this new legislation, I have the complete list here (in simplified format obtained under the Freedom of Information Act). Note this list is by no means comprehensive as the Home Office Legal Department are adding categories and clauses all the time but it gives you an idea of how wide ranging this is:
Asphyxia. Where the person is being choked in order to gain sexual pleasure.
Bestiality. Sexual acts between humans and animals.
Bondage. Tying a person in an unnatural position for sexual gratification where the participant is unable to withdraw their consent (for example they are gagged).
Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person
Cruelty to animals. Includes organised dog fighting, bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting. Also ‘crush’ material which features humans stamping on vertebrates or standing on them with increased pressure until they are crushed.
Defecation. Voiding excrement from the bowels.
Enemas. Flushing the bowels with water, usually to drink the product or torture the victim.
Fisting. (anal or vaginal) Inserting a fist in the anus or vagina for sexual gratification.
Insertion of an object. Only where the insertion clearly inflicts pain.
Menstrual Blood. Sex between adults where the female is menstruating heavily and the blood is being smeared on the body or the used tampon is being sucked etc. This does not include post-intercourse depictions where a small amount of blood can be seen on the participants.
Necrophilia. Sexual intercourse with a corpse.
Sado-masochism. Sadists achieve sexual pleasure through inflicting torture and humiliation upon another person. Masochists desire maltreatment as a means of sexual gratification.
Scatology. Depictions indicating a general interest in excrement such as smearing or eating of excrement.
Urolagnia. The act of urination in the context of any of the following where a person is shown:
urinating at the same time as they are engaged in a sexual act. The urination and sexual act must be seen at the same time. The sexual act includes those such as fellatio (oral sex) and masturbation which would not be obscene if shown without urination; smearing urine on themselves or another;
urinating on another person; being urinated upon;
drinking urine.
Violence (non-simulated). Scenes of actual violence or mutilation shown in an exploitative context where they are not part of a legitimate documentary. For example a compilation of newsreel footage concentrating solely on scenes of violence or mutilation. This would also cover scenes of actual sexual assault including rape.
Violence (simulated). Scenes of simulated sexual violence such as rape shown in an exploitative context where the activity is graphically depicted and clearly intended to appear non-consensual. This excludes scenes contained in serious dramatic films."
--
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%3D2860
---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
backdooruk, 05 Nov 2005 13:54:56
This is the reply I got from the author of the article wrt where they got the list from. Most worrying to me is the fact of asking HM customs for an idea of what the new law should cover - customs being the most restrictive of all the enforcement agencies when it comes to porn!
It looks to me that they intend to duplicate those things prosecutable under the OPA *whatever* option they take as given in the consultation document.
- Chris
-----------------------
I got the list via a freedom of information act request to:
Mrs Marguerite Rivers
HM Customs & Revenue
Lockton House
Clarendon Road
Cambridge
CB2 2BH
Marguerite.Rivers@hmce.gsi.gov.uk
It was sent to me by:
Mrs Gill Connors
HM Customs & Revenue
Room WG/14
Custom House,
Lower Thames Street
London,
EC3R 6EE
FOI Request Reference Number: FOI/42/05
I was told that HM customs were asked to create the list as they had the expertise
to decide what would be considered to be 'abhorrent' to the public as they'd been
screening adult material since the 1880s. So I asked them if they had the list and
they sent me the one you saw.
I did add the asphyxial sex item as most of the MPs interviewed stated that it will be
in the act even though it wasn't on the original list.
I also believe this list is a guideline for use in obscenity trials (under OPA). So this
may well be an attempt to 'clarify' the current law after Paul Goggins came under fire
for his support of the Cockburn 'corrupt and deprave' definition during a debate as
he said it had stood the test of time and was still a flexible definition that moves
with the times (ie it was just as woolly then as it is now) and to comply with the
1998 ECHR ruling (Sunday Times v UK Government) on clarity in laws.
The home office Justice department will, if requested, issue clarifications like the
8 minute rule (that its ok to spank someone if the marks faded within 8 minutes).
They seem to have taken it over now (see below)
Personally if they are going to bring in this law then I'd prefer that the definition
was non consensual acts where it could not be proved that the participants were over
the age of consent and had willingly agreed to take part. That might actually make
some sense, I'd also like it to become the benchmark so that all other material can
be legally obtained, imported and owned (but not sold on). Is that likely to happen?
Hope this helps
K
PS: This is an email from the Home Office Justice Department that was sent to a member
of a spanking website regarding the proposals.
"The proposals would cover pornography in all forms, whether on a website, in a magazine, video or any other form. If the spanking or corporal punishment (in a sexual context) being depicted was so severe that it could be charged as serious assault (or in England grievous bodily harm) then such images would be included in the proposals. However if the actions being depicted were less severe (eg consensual and no injury was caused), then they would be very unlikely to be included in the proposals."
Yours sincerely,
Susie
Criminal Law Branch 2
Home Office
Justice Department
Which is odd as the discussion document specifically said that the act would automatically be regarded as non consensual in order to make prosecutions easier.
Notice it says 'could' be charged with GBH, not that it would suceed in court as such, I'd prefer to see it would result in a conviction, rather than could be charged.
The definition of GBH (from Archbold) is:
Unlawful wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Act.
The offence is committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either:
wounds another person; or
inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.
It is an either way offence, which carries a maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Summarily, the maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
Wounding means the breaking of the continuity of the whole of the outer skin, or the inner skin within the cheek or lip. It does not include the rupturing of internal blood vessels. (Archbold 19-212).
Interesting that the penalty for possession of the proscribed material is almost as severe as actually going out and doing it.
MsDemmie, 05 Nov 2005 14:15:34
I wrote to the consultation department about the *inclusion* of that list ..... here is my email and their reply.
Dear Sirs
I am currently considering my response to the above consultation document.
In order for me to consider my reponse more thorourghly I would be grateful if you could clarify certain points.
My main area of concern is where the line is going to be drawn - ie how wide the net is going to be cast.
My particular concern is the following information taken
from http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
Are you able to confirm or deny the inclusion of the above categories ?
Yours sincerely
Their reply
" Dear Mrs Brown,
Thank you for your email which has been passed to me as part of the team
managing the consultation exercise.
With regard to your query the consultation paper, contains the only list
that has been drawn up for the proposals ie
"Any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
iv) serious sexual violence."
It is unclear to me where the list referred to below has come from.
I note the author of that particular article also refers to the British
Board of Film Classification so that list may have been taken from information on their classification guidelines which are freely available at www.bbfc.co.uk
I should also say of course, that with regard to the above list, one of the questions asked is whether the list should be different.
regards
XXXXXXXXXX "
Now I can post a reply to them !
Amelie, 05 Nov 2005 16:11:04
----- Original Message -----
, 05 Nov 2005 16:11:04
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:15 PM
>
> I wrote to the consultation department about the *inclusion* of that list
> ..... here is my email and their reply.
>
>
> Dear Sirs
>
> I am currently considering my response to the above consultation document.
>
> In order for me to consider my reponse more thorourghly I would be
> grateful if you could clarify certain points.
>
> My main area of concern is where the line is going to be drawn - ie how
> wide the net is going to be cast.
>
> My particular concern is the following information taken
>
> from http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>
>
>
> Are you able to confirm or deny the inclusion of the above categories ?
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Their reply
>
> " Dear Mrs Brown,
>
> Thank you for your email which has been passed to me as part of the team
> managing the consultation exercise.
>
> With regard to your query the consultation paper, contains the only list
> that has been drawn up for the proposals ie
>
> "Any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
> explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
>
> i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
> ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
> iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
> iv) serious sexual violence."
>
> It is unclear to me where the list referred to below has come from.
>
> I note the author of that particular article also refers to the British
> Board of Film Classification so that list may have been taken from
> information on their classification guidelines which are freely available
> at www.bbfc.co.uk
>
> I should also say of course, that with regard to the above list, one of
> the questions asked is whether the list should be different.
>
> regards
>
> XXXXXXXXXX "
>
> Now I can post a reply to them !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3050
>
>
Amelie, 05 Nov 2005 16:12:04
there is so much going on here that we could soon find ourselves back in the
dark ages.
It needs a campaign that can not be left dead in the water by the first
broadside against pervs. By identifying ourselves in this way we are
playing right into Blair's hands and providing him with a target at which to
point the finger of ridicule, "Would any right-thinking person want to be
associated with these?"
We need to get across the message that the threats here are against the
individual freedom and mental health of every person in the country.
Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 05 Nov 2005 16:12:04
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 2:15 PM
>
> I wrote to the consultation department about the *inclusion* of that list
> ..... here is my email and their reply.
>
>
> Dear Sirs
>
> I am currently considering my response to the above consultation document.
>
> In order for me to consider my reponse more thorourghly I would be
> grateful if you could clarify certain points.
>
> My main area of concern is where the line is going to be drawn - ie how
> wide the net is going to be cast.
>
> My particular concern is the following information taken
>
> from http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~117~page_num~10.html
>
>
>
> Are you able to confirm or deny the inclusion of the above categories ?
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Their reply
>
> " Dear Mrs Brown,
>
> Thank you for your email which has been passed to me as part of the team
> managing the consultation exercise.
>
> With regard to your query the consultation paper, contains the only list
> that has been drawn up for the proposals ie
>
> "Any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
> explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
>
> i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
> ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
> iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
> iv) serious sexual violence."
>
> It is unclear to me where the list referred to below has come from.
>
> I note the author of that particular article also refers to the British
> Board of Film Classification so that list may have been taken from
> information on their classification guidelines which are freely available
> at www.bbfc.co.uk
>
> I should also say of course, that with regard to the above list, one of
> the questions asked is whether the list should be different.
>
> regards
>
> XXXXXXXXXX "
>
> Now I can post a reply to them !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3050
>
>
guy, 05 Nov 2005 17:25:50
> We need to get across the message that the threats here are against the
> individual freedom and mental health of every person in the country.
> Amelie
>
As 'perves' we should indeeed be campaigning for the individual freedom and
mental
health of every person in the country, and not be seen as solely defending our
own turf. That was certainly my pitch when I went on Channel 5.
We must also be encouraging and briefing non-perve allies to be fighting for
our right to do what harms nobody else and to be able to express ourselves
freely.
When the Social Democrats and Liberals negotiated for seats in the 1980s the
Liberal PPCs were each left to fight their own corner, Social Democrats
organised themselves to never put anybody in to defend themselves; but had each
of their people brief their negotiating team. Guess which side "won"?
If a bdsmer wants to demonstrate publicly or to take direct action 'in role'
I'd implore them to bear that in mind; make the focus of your stunt the
danger to the whole nation and do your best to get that point across to the
press.
But I cannot accept anybody has the right to tell them to, 'go away and leave
it to us
sensible people' .
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
Amelie, 05 Nov 2005 18:28:09
since we seem to be in agreement, where did the flak come from? Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"Sir Guy Masterleigh" , 05 Nov 2005 18:28:09
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 5:26 PM
>
>> We need to get across the message that the threats here are against the
>> individual freedom and mental health of every person in the country.
>> Amelie
>>
> As 'perves' we should indeeed be campaigning for the individual freedom
> and
> mental
> health of every person in the country, and not be seen as solely defending
> our
> own turf. That was certainly my pitch when I went on Channel 5.
>
> We must also be encouraging and briefing non-perve allies to be fighting
> for
> our right to do what harms nobody else and to be able to express ourselves
> freely.
>
> When the Social Democrats and Liberals negotiated for seats in the 1980s
> the
> Liberal PPCs were each left to fight their own corner, Social Democrats
> organised themselves to never put anybody in to defend themselves; but had
> each
> of their people brief their negotiating team. Guess which side "won"?
>
> If a bdsmer wants to demonstrate publicly or to take direct action 'in
> role'
> I'd implore them to bear that in mind; make the focus of your stunt the
> danger to the whole nation and do your best to get that point across to
> the
> press.
>
> But I cannot accept anybody has the right to tell them to, 'go away and
> leave
> it to us
> sensible people' .
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3074
>
>
Paul C. Dickie, 05 Nov 2005 20:55:14
In message <005801c5e223$a4473530$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>there is so much going on here that we could soon find ourselves back in the
>dark ages.
>
>It needs a campaign that can not be left dead in the water by the first
>broadside against pervs. By identifying ourselves in this way we are
>playing right into Blair's hands and providing him with a target at which to
>point the finger of ridicule, "Would any right-thinking person want to be
>associated with these?"
>
>We need to get across the message that the threats here are against the
>individual freedom and mental health of every person in the country.
>Amelie
When watching his attack on the Terrorism bill (and other recent
legislation) on television last Thursday night, it occurred to me that
perhaps Sir John Mortimer QC, CBE might care to comment on this latest
authoritarian idiocy.
http://www.625.org.uk/biograph/biogmort.htm
If we could get him involved, I am relatively sure that even the
silliest minister would not try to ridicule him in that manner.
--
< Paul >
Manniq, 06 Nov 2005 11:30:24
I had a similar thought...but then worried that involving the guy might bring about his premature demise (through raised blood pressure and a heart attack!)
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> In message <005801c5e223$a4473530$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie > osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >there is so much going on here that we could soon find ourselves back in the
> >dark ages.
> >
> >It needs a campaign that can not be left dead in the water by the first
> >broadside against pervs. By identifying ourselves in this way we are
> >playing right into Blair's hands and providing him with a target at which to
> >point the finger of ridicule, "Would any right-thinking person want to be
> >associated with these?"
> >
> >We need to get across the message that the threats here are against the
> >individual freedom and mental health of every person in the country.
> >Amelie
> When watching his attack on the Terrorism bill (and other recent
> legislation) on television last Thursday night, it occurred to me that
> perhaps Sir John Mortimer QC, CBE might care to comment on this latest
> authoritarian idiocy.
> http://www.625.org.uk/biograph/biogmort.htm
> If we could get him involved, I am relatively sure that even the
> silliest minister would not try to ridicule him in that manner.
> --
> < Paul >