the arguments against the government's proposals.

demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 11:18:43

As requested I set up a writeboard on Nov 2 so that we could write a list of all the arguments against the proposals. I kicked it off with a list of arguments.


Since then no-one has added anything.


I know I'm omnipotent but surely I missed something.

http://123.writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850/login
Password: backlash-uk


clare, 07 Nov 2005 11:41:37

Apologies Dem. I asked for it and meant to add to it, and will do so today.

Author wrote:
> As requested I set up a writeboard on Nov 2 so that we could write a list of all the arguments against the proposals. I kicked it off with a list of arguments.
> Since then no-one has added anything.
> I know I'm omnipotent but surely I missed something.
> http://123.writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850/login
> Password: backlash-uk


adrian, 07 Nov 2005 11:47:34

I've been working on my own submission and MP letter. It's taken many
days. Now it's more or less done I can start to extract the
arguments. Unfortunately, the same I guess as with everyone's letter,
each argument tends to follow from the previous ones so I'm starting
to see the drawbacks to this approach, which I originally liked the
idea of.

I can certainly list the points of the case I want to make but the
argument itself doesn't seem to come in self-contained paragraphs
attached to each. Maybe this is why others have not added to the
writeboard. I'll submit the MP letter as a sample for the website,
hope it will be of use in this form.


Roel, 07 Nov 2005 11:53:46

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> As requested I set up a writeboard on Nov 2 so that we could write a
> list of all the arguments against the proposals. I kicked it off with
> a list of arguments.
>
>
> Since then no-one has added anything.

Perhaps it's a bit too much detail, but I like what graham pointed out
in his correspondence with his MP. I'd like to add a little to that from
my own professional background[1].

The idea that combinations of restraints and gags imply that the
"victim" becomes unable to withdraw consent raises serious doubts if the
people behind that list have done their homework and have conducted a
serious study of what SM is and is not. They obviously do not know about
safe signals, as graham pointed out, they also grossly overestimate the
effect of a simple ball gag[2].
As this list of offences seem to be a realistic list of what might
become included under the new legislation, one should seriously doubt
the knowledge of the proponents of consensual BDSM.

Now, I don't think they should be relying on the consultation process to
bring out such points. I think any government supporting the idea of
"Good Governance" will agree that those writing a proposal should
pro-actively obtain a thorough knowledge of what they are about to
legislate.

Two big errors these civil servants make to my opinion are:

a) they either fail to realisticly estimate the scope of their proposals
to extend well beyond "what everybody finds abhorrent" or purposely fail
to inform the public on the true scope of the proposals.

and in either case

b) they fail to show a thorough knowledge of the (part of the) subject
matter

I think this should be made clear to the public as an example of bad
governance. Perhaps you could make such a point in a line or two in your
text.

[1] I have a masters degree in Public Administration, close to finishing
my PhD dissertation.
[2] I can assure you, a simple ball gag will not prevent my subbie from
making enough noise to get the message through to me.

Roel


demolitionred, 07 Nov 2005 13:42:13

Roel. can you add these to the writeboard so all the arguments are in on eplace

http://123.writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850/login
Password: backlash-uk


adrian, 07 Nov 2005 14:04:24

_On 07/11/05, guilty^ wrote:
> The idea that combinations of restraints and gags imply that the
> "victim" becomes unable to withdraw consent raises serious doubts if the
> people behind that list have done their homework and have conducted a
> serious study of what SM is and is not. They obviously do not know about
> safe signals, as graham pointed out, they also grossly overestimate the
> effect of a simple ball gag[2].
> As this list of offences seem to be a realistic list of what might
> become included under the new legislation, one should seriously doubt
> the knowledge of the proponents of consensual BDSM.

Very true. In fact, as I point out from time to time, one sentence in
the document makes it very clear that the writer has no conception of
consent. The one that goes something like 'This does not include
consensual acts, _nor_even_ ... mild bondage...'.

They have decided that anything they are concerned with must be evil.
Of course they have no conception of SM, or that such a group might
have its own moral code. Nor of quite how many of us there are!


Roel, 07 Nov 2005 16:01:39

Adrian wrote:

> Very true. In fact, as I point out from time to time, one sentence in
> the document makes it very clear that the writer has no conception of
> consent. The one that goes something like 'This does not include
> consensual acts, _nor_even_ ... mild bondage...'.

Now that you point it out, that's a beautiful example. Being a
non-native speaker I must have glanced over it.

Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://yahoo.touwtjes.tk/ - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)


Graham Marsden, 07 Nov 2005 19:15:57

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:

> As requested I set up a writeboard on Nov 2 so that we could
> write a list of all the arguments against the proposals.
>
> Since then no-one has added anything.
>
> I know I'm omnipotent but surely I missed something.

Err, I think I missed the original post, actually!

Thing is: I've just posted my response to the consultation which is
rather too long to be included in the writeboard itself, so perhaps a
simple collection of responses linked to from the site would be more
useful as people could pick whichever bits of them they liked, instead
of having a "stock response"?

Cheers,
Graham.


Paul Tavener, 08 Nov 2005 02:01:38

I have had that page open since you posted it but there's so much to do and it's getting late

Author wrote:
> As requested I set up a writeboard on Nov 2 so that we could write a list of all the arguments against the proposals. I kicked it off with a list of arguments.
> Since then no-one has added anything.
> I know I'm omnipotent but surely I missed something.
> http://123.writeboard.com/e4ec177e09c4bb850/login
> Password: backlash-uk


demolitionred, 08 Nov 2005 10:32:38

Graham, I used ome of your arguments in the list.

we have added peoples' submission to the website,

The point at the moment is that many people like Pandy beleive they will eb arrested f they make a submission.

therefore I wanted to show that there are many arguments you can use that don't out you.