said: >>consenting adults to not have the law interfere in their private lives,
>>citing eg Regina vs Wilson, European Convention on Human Rights and the
>>fact that laws already exist to protect people from acts of sexual
>>abuse, violence etc>
>
> Would the gormless Goggins outlaw pictures of love bites and, if not,
> why not? After all, such bites would be a form of wounding...
He would claim that the consultation only talks about *grievous* bodily
harm, ie stuff that would require hospital treatment.
>>What do people think?
>
> I believe you may need the services of a profo reeder...
Hey, I was typing that up at half past three in the morning! Even for me
that's verging on "getting a bit late!: :-)
> BTW, is it just me or does anyone else wonder if the word "Podcast"
> sounds like it would be made in utero? ;-)
Err, I think it's just you ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 19:20:47
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>> Ok, here's some suggestions for possible content of the Pod Cast, just
>> to get something going...
>
>> What do people think?
>
>
> Very good. Gets my vote.
Thanks :-)
Hmm, I seem to have managed to walk myself into organising this without
realising...! Oh well ;-)
> WOuld offer to help with the voiceover but I think distance and
> my lack of technical equipment rules that out.
AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
together.
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 07 Nov 2005 20:10:05
Original Message:
-----------------
graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 07 Nov 2005 20:10:05
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>> Ok, here's some suggestions for possible content of the Pod Cast, just
>> to get something going...
>
>> What do people think?
>
>
> Very good. Gets my vote.
Thanks :-)
Hmm, I seem to have managed to walk myself into organising this without
realising...! Oh well ;-)
> WOuld offer to help with the voiceover but I think distance and
> my lack of technical equipment rules that out.
AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
together.
Cheers,
Graham.
Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
they made it for
Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
Z
--
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%3D324
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 07 Nov 2005 20:14:35
Original Message:
-----------------
Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, 07 Nov 2005 20:14:35
In message <380-220051117163936132@M2W049.mail2web.com>,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>Original Message:
>-----------------
Paul C. Dickie pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk, Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:50:55 +0000
>Subject: Re: [backlash] Podcast promotion for Backlash?
>
>BTW, is it just me or does anyone else wonder if the word "Podcast"
>sounds like it would be made in utero? ;-)
>
>It's just you. Weirdo.
>
>z
Really, Zak!
You'll have folk saying we're in love!
--
< Paul >
Get your coat, you've pulled.
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
fobix, 07 Nov 2005 20:18:46
I dunno what kind of sound recorders come (or don't) with Macs, but
Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) is a Free (capital F)
sound recorder that runs on Macs, and would be pretty capable of
producing audio in a common file format. Now you ust need a cheap mic
(presuming you have a sound card or at least on-board sond)
On 07/11/05, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
> they made it for
> Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
>
> Z
Topbit, 07 Nov 2005 20:36:14
> AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
> you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
> together.
>
> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
> they made it for Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
A lot of the podcasts I listen to are made on Macintoshes. All you'd
need is a decent microphone to plug in.
Meanwhile, if anyone wants to say Hi to me in person, I'll be in
London tomorrow (Tues 8th Nov) at Borders and then BU/Blue Posts pub.
If you have Skype. I'm 'topbit', on there (and most other places, like Yahoo IM)
Topbit
Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 20:56:53
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
> you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
> together.
>
> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
> they made it for Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
Does it have somewhere you can plug a mic into? Does it have software
that can record in something vaguely approaching a widely recognised
format? If not, do you know someone with a PC which you can use?
I think it would be good if the podcast could say something like:
"The consultation suggests that banning these images will protect women.
"We asked Zak from Feminists Against Censorship who said:"
Zak: "Bollocks!"
;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 07 Nov 2005 22:40:17
Original Message:
-----------------
Phoebe _ foibey@gmail.com, 07 Nov 2005 22:40:17
I dunno what kind of sound recorders come (or don't) with Macs, but
Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/) is a Free (capital F)
sound recorder that runs on Macs, and would be pretty capable of
producing audio in a common file format. Now you ust need a cheap mic
(presuming you have a sound card or at least on-board sond)
On 07/11/05, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk
wrote:
> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
> they made it for
> Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
>
> Z
Thanks for the tip, but Graham will undoubtedly have some throbbingly-husky
voiced babe
lined up with her own speakerboxxx already :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 07 Nov 2005 22:46:28
Original Message:
-----------------
graham graham@affordable-leather.co.uk, 07 Nov 2005 22:46:28
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
> you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
> together.
>
> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
> they made it for Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
Does it have somewhere you can plug a mic into? Does it have software
that can record in something vaguely approaching a widely recognised
format? If not, do you know someone with a PC which you can use?
SOrry, don't have any useful software of that type, nor do I have the time
to go and
record round a mate's house (assuming I could track down someone in time).
I'm sure there
will be plenty of suitable folk to help out though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 23:21:55
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> SOrry, don't have any useful software of that type, nor do I have the time
> to go and record round a mate's house (assuming I could track down someone
> in time).
>
> I'm sure there will be plenty of suitable folk to help out though.
Ok is there anyone here from Feminists Against Censorship who has the
time and the equipment and would be able to give some sort of quote for
the Podcast when we've got an idea of what's needed?
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 08 Nov 2005 04:40:24
In message <436FBFD4.1040204@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
wrote:
>zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
>> AFAIK all you need is a PC with a Mic and Windows Sound Recorder, then
>> you just e-mail the file to whoever's collating and editing the bits
>> together.
>> Yes dear. I have a Mac rather than a PC and wouldn't run Windows even if
>> they made it for Macs. That's why I said "lack of technical equipment.
>Does it have somewhere you can plug a mic into? Does it have software
>that can record in something vaguely approaching a widely recognised
>format? If not, do you know someone with a PC which you can use?
>I think it would be good if the podcast could say something like:
>"The consultation suggests that banning these images will protect women.
>"We asked Zak from Feminists Against Censorship who said:"
>Zak: "Bollocks!"
It would protect Zak's bollocks?
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 09 Nov 2005 02:09:25
Right, here's some more thoughts on the Podcast.
(Note this is a bit long, but, please, if you're at all interested in
helping, or think you have knowledge which would be of benefit, stick
with it! :-)
I've broken this down into 10 "questions" which IMO cover the main
points of objection (although I'm quite happy for anyone to suggest
ideas if there's anything I've missed or something that they feel
shouldn't be in there).
The bits with dashes in front of them were from an unfinished
"deconstruction" that I was doing of the Executive Summary that I was
considering adding to my letter to my MP, but it would have made it way
too long, so I've popped them in here because they might give some extra
ideas for comments/ refutations.
This isn't a script as such, I'd like the refutations and responses from
each contributor to be more or less in their own words, but they're
welcome to use my comments for ideas.
What I would like is for anyone who feels that they can give a valid and
credible refutation to any or all of these points to get in touch with
me so we can co-ordinate who is going to reply to what.
(If anyone knows someone who could help, please feel free to suggest
their names too)
Ideally I think it would be good to have a different person/
organisation responding to each point, just to indicate that we've got
*lots* of expertise in all sorts of areas! :-)
(Note that if I'm going to be doing the main "interviewer" part, I
probably shouldn't reply to any of the questions, so I can appear
"impartial", although I'm not really sure I've got the greatest voice
for doing the interviewing!)
* * * * *
"Warning: The following Pod Cast contains references to adult themes and
sexual behaviour and is for adults only" [Which should definitely hook
listeners in!]
[Acted introduction of "Police raid" as before]
* * * * *
Hi. My name is Graham Marsden and I am speaking on behalf of a group
called Backlash.
The Home Office is currently engaged in a consultation exercise over
plans to make the possession of what it refers to as quote Extreme
Pornography unquote a criminal offence which can be punished by up to
three years in jail.
Backlash is a group which brings together many groups, from The
Libertarian Alliance to Feminists Against Censorship to The Sexual
Freedom Coalition, all of whom consider the Home Office's proposals to
be an unwarranted and unjustified infringement on basic liberties and
the right of Freedom of Expression.
The proposals would give the Home Office the ability to declare that
certain forms of images are quote abhorrent unquote and quote to not
have a place in society unquote.
The following comments are the views of Backlash members which call into
question the credibility of the proposals and the claims of what they
will achieve.
* * * * *
1) The consultation document seeks views on a proposal to make illegal
the possession of a limited range of extreme pornographic material.
We asked for their opinions on whether they felt the
claim that only a "limited range" of material would be made illegal was
credible or whether these proposals, combined with other laws would
simply allow this "limited range" to be expanded virtually at will.
- The expression "limited range" is more than a little equivocal as the
document claims that it would only deal with material which "would be
illegal to publish, sell or import here under our existing obscenity
legislation", but it then goes on "The material depicts activities which
are illegal in themselves and the participants may in some cases have
been the victims of criminal offences. [...] Thus our mainstream
entertainment industry, which works within the obscenity laws, would not
be affected by the proposals in this document."
- This is, however, not entirely accurate. Under the existing BBFC
guidelines, it is illegal to show the use of devices such as Gags
because they believe that by using them "consent cannot be withdrawn".
The logical conclusion from this is, therefore, that even an image of
someone using a Gag could be classed in this same category, so the range
of these proposals is by no means as "limited" as it is claimed.
2) The second claim in the consultation is that by making possession of
these image they can break the demand/ supply cycle and will discourage
interest in this material and it states that the proposal will mirror
the arrangements already in place in respect of indecent photographs of
children, possession of which is already an offence.
We spoke to of who said: on inability to block or prosecute illegal content such as child porn
which has international support and much greater resources>
- This, for a start, attempts to link adult material with child
pornography, a disingenuous beginning and an attempt to load the dice as
children cannot, by law, consent to sexual acts, whereas adults, of
course, can.
3) The third claim is that they consider looking at this material may
encourage or reinforce interest in violent and aberrant sexual activity.
of had this to say: research showing claimed links are not valid and that respectable
studies show cathartic effects that make viewers less likely to offend etc>
4) In the document they state that quote: It is not our intention to
penalise anyone who accidentally stumbles across the material specified
in the proposal, or who has it sent to them without their consent,
However of commented: people being arrested and lives and reputations ruined based subjective
opinions of whether material is illegal, deleted material not being
fully deleted/ left in caches etc plus burden of proof and right of
presumption of innocent being turned upside down since the viewer would
have to prove that they *didn't* seek it out deliberately.>
- This is all very laudable, however given that it is an offence to
possess this material, the normal rule of law, ie "Presumed innocent
until proven guilty" is effectively turned on its head since the person
who (perhaps quite unwittingly) has come into possession of this
material would then have to prove (somehow) that they did not seek it
out deliberately, another breach of basic rights.
also had this to say on "Possession offences":
- There have been previous attempts by governments to introduced
"possession offences", examples include Prohibition in America in the
1920s, the current "War on Drugs" and the firearms bans following the
Hungerford and Dunblane outrages, however the first experiment was
deemed a complete failure, the second is showing no signs of working and
third has, to the objective eye, only impacted on law abiding gun owners
whilst having no discernable effect on criminals, the rising levels of
gun crime being evidence of this.
- Given these examples, is it really credible to consider that creating
an offence of possession of so-called "extreme pornographic material" is
really going to have any effect?
5) The document states that the proposals to strengthen controls on
extreme pornographic material are based on a desire to protect those who
participate in the creation of sexual material containing violence,
cruelty or degradation, who may be the victim of crime in the making of
the material, whether or not they notionally or genuinely consent to
take part;
of said: consenting adults to not have the law interfere in their private lives,
citing eg Regina vs Wilson, European Convention on Human Rights and the
fact that laws already exist to protect people from acts of sexual
abuse, violence etc>
- There are already sufficient laws on the statute books to protect
people from crime involving assault, injury or other harm, making it an
offence to possess certain pictures will not have any effect on this and
will be superfluous.
- Also there the implication here that even if someone consents to the
acts they are participating in, the Nanny State will again consider that
they need to be protected "for their own good". So much for wanting
people to "take responsibility".
- There is also precedent for this in law, namely the Appeals Court
ruling in the case of Regina vs Wilson (a husband had branded his
initials on his consenting wife's buttocks) where it was stated that
"Consensual activity between husband and wife, in the privacy of the
matrimonial home, is not a proper matter for criminal investigation or
prosecution" yet these proposals could create the ludicrous situation of
them still being found guilty of an offence if they had take photographs
of what they were doing if a member of the Home Office considered their
activities "abhorrent"!
(Quote from QC?)
6) Any new offence, according to the consultation, 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.1
necrophilia and BDSM intended to ensure that *everyone* has something to
be offended by>
- As has already been explained, the proposals are much more wide
reaching than this short summary seeks to imply as evinced by the
footnote to the fourth item: "By \x{201C}serious violence\x{201D} we mean violence in
respect of which a prosecution of grievous bodily harm could be brought
in England and Wales or in Scotland, assault to severe injury."
- This could, for instance, quite easily be applied to the case of
Regina vs Wilson referred to previously, meaning that had they taken a
photograph of the activity, they could have been jailed, echoing the
words of Judge Crabtree who heard the original case: "we are now saddled
with a law which means that anyone who injures his partner, spouse, or
whatever, in the course of some consensual activity is at risk of having
his or her private life dragged before the public to no good purpose."
- It would be ironic if Mr and Mrs Wilson had taken photographs of their
activities and, after they were acquitted by the Appeals Court, were
subsequently convicted of possession of photographs of "serious sexual
violence"!
7) The consultation document states quote: "As to evidence of harm,
conducting research in this area is complex. We do not yet have
sufficient evidence from which to draw any definite conclusions as to
the likely long term impact of this kind of
material on individuals generally, or on those who may already be
predisposed to violent or aberrant sexual behaviour."
link, plus the above suggests that evidence may be found even though
only evidence that backs up a link is generally discredited>
- This is almost an honest statement, however it says "we do not have
sufficient evidence", implying that evidence may yet be found to back up
these conclusions, except that the weight of evidence is actually on the
opposing side, ie that time and again it has been demonstrated that this
sort of material does not affect individuals or, indeed, can provide a
"cathartic" effect thus reducing the likelihood of them committing offences.
- The only evidence that may support conclusions suggesting that it may
make people more disposed to commit offences is generally considered to
be fundamentally flawed by experts in the field.
8) The Home Office state that they are determined to act where we can
against publishers but require the individual to take greater
responsibility if we are to maintain our controls on illegal material.
They believe the material which is under consideration would be
abhorrent to most people and has no place in our society.
- If they wish individuals to "take responsibility" why is it therefore
necessary to introduce these "Nanny State" regulations which seem to say
"you cannot look at this because we think it is bad for you"?
- This is just an attempt by a minority to impose their views of what is
acceptable on the majority seemingly based on the hope that not many
people will have the courage to stand up and say that bans of this or
any material are not acceptable.
- It is not the job of the State to tell its citizens what they may or
may not look at "for their own good" or because it is "not acceptable to
the State". That way lies repression.
9) It is the Home Office's claim that they have a desire to protect
society, particularly children, from exposure to such material, to which
access can no longer be reliably controlled through legislation dealing
with publication and distribution, and which may encourage interest in
violent or aberrant sexual activity
most likely only succeed in affecting legal sites whilst totally missing
its target>
- The responsibility for protecting children from any unacceptable
material available from the internet is generally acknowledged to be the
responsibility of the parent, not the state, hence the repeated advice
to ensure that children browse the internet (and use chat rooms etc) in
family areas or when an adult is present.
- Also here we have the assumption that this material "may encourage
interest in violent or aberrant sexual activity", however this makes as
much sense as suggesting that seeing child pornography will "encourage"
someone to become sexually attracted to children.
- This simply confuses the "symptoms" with the "problem", ie any who
may be inclined to such things will seek out this sort of material, it
is a result, not a causative factor.
10) The Home Office consider that creating a new free standing offence
to operate alongside the OPA 1959 and the CG(S)A offers the most
flexible and effective approach and they propose a penalty for
possession of the material specified of up to 3 years.
for causing havoc around your neighbourhood and terrifying innocent
people, but three years in jail and a starring role on the Sex Offenders
Register for having some pictures of consenting adults!>
- How exactly is such an offence to be Policed? The only realistic way
for someone to be charged with such an offence would be for the material
to be found on their computer or in their possession which presumes that
either they have already been arrested for another offence or that
someone else has taken it upon themselves to snoop through another
person's private files, for whatever reason.
- There is also, of course, the potential for a malicious person to
plant such images on someone's computer (and these images would be much
easier to obtain than ones of child pornography which are illegal
virtually everywhere)
CONCLUSION:
We have heard in this Pod cast from a wide range of people, all of whom
have serious doubts about the ability of these proposals to actually
achieve anything useful and which will most likely only ever succeed in
criminalising perfectly law abiding adults who would never commit any
acts of violence or non-consensual sexual activity.
It is the belief of Backlash that if anything is "abhorrent" or to "not
have a place in this society", it is a sanctimonious and self-righteous
document like this which is nothing more than an attack on the
principles of freedom of expression and the most basic rights that our
society holds dear.
Contact details of Backlash web page etc.
* * * * *
Any comments observations etc welcomed.
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 21 Nov 2005 18:23:47
Sir Guy has suggested that the podcast could be circulated to local and
national radio stations as well, saying that if they want live speakers
they can be provided too.
This seems a reasonable idea, but I thought I'd check with people on
here to see if anyone had any objections.
I've got no idea how to go about this (short of googling for Radio
Station details and then e-mailing them all), so if anyone has any
suggestions or ideas, they'd be welcomed :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Graham Marsden, 22 Nov 2005 15:14:05
I'm trying to get things sorted for the Podcast, but at the moment I
don't have anyone who can speak authoritatively on the "legal" side of
matters.
I need people who can give answers to the following questions:
* * * * *
1) The consultation document seeks views on a proposal to make illegal
the possession of a limited range of extreme pornographic material.
We asked for their opinions on whether they felt the
claim that only a "limited range" of material would be made illegal was
credible or whether these proposals, combined with other laws would
simply allow this "limited range" to be expanded virtually at will.
* * * * *
2) The second claim in the consultation is that by making possession of
these image they can break the demand/ supply cycle and will discourage
interest in this material and it states that the proposal will mirror
the arrangements already in place in respect of indecent photographs of
children, possession of which is already an offence.
We spoke to of who said: on inability to block or prosecute illegal content such as child porn
which has international support and much greater resources>
* * * * *
6) Any new offence, according to the consultation, 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.1
necrophilia and BDSM intended to ensure that *everyone* has something to
be offended by>
* * * * *
8) The Home Office state that they are determined to act where we can
against publishers but require the individual to take greater
responsibility if we are to maintain our controls on illegal material.
They believe the material which is under consideration would be
abhorrent to most people and has no place in our society.
- If they wish individuals to "take responsibility" why is it therefore
necessary to introduce these "Nanny State" regulations which seem to say
"you cannot look at this because we think it is bad for you"?
- This is just an attempt by a minority to impose their views of what is
acceptable on the majority seemingly based on the hope that not many
people will have the courage to stand up and say that bans of this or
any material are not acceptable.
- It is not the job of the State to tell its citizens what they may or
may not look at "for their own good" or because it is "not acceptable to
the State". That way lies repression.
* * * * *
If there's anyone here who would be able to respond to these questions
(preferably on behalf of an organisation or with appropriate credentials
to support their points) please can they contact me ASAP.
Cheers,
Graham.