Fw: Consultation document.
Amelie, 21 Nov 2005 11:28:15
we had reply today from Paul Goggins saying that the acts in question are
already illegal as GBH and that only images of GBH are intended to be
covered by the document. We shall be replying, as per draft below:-
We appreciate these acts are already illegal . Adequate deterrent penalties
are already in place. Our position is that there is no need for any change
in the law. The consultation document seeks to criminalise innocent people
who will be imprisoned for three years and/or put on the sex offenders
register, simply for LOOKING at images in which no crime has been proven to
have been committed, no complaint has been made and for which there is no
support for any claim that they may tend to corrupt or deprave. If looking
at pictures of possible or posed criminal activity is to become an offence
then all tabloids, tv and filmmakers will be out of business. There is no
suggestion that we should criminalise the possession of images of any other
crimes except paedophilia - we watch murder, robbery and blackmail films on
tv - the only difference is that the word sex appears in all four lines of
the description of images included in the consultation document. There is
far more real and lasting harm done by murder, theft, fraud, and alcohol
and drug related crime. They are all covered by law, but no-one is
suggesting (so far) that it should be criminal to look at images, real or
posed, of these activities
Under the Obscene Publications Act, it was the distributor who profited who
was liable to any conviction, fined, imprisoned etc, but now there is a
major shift to criminalise the end user, or the person who might not even
know the images were on their computer.
Just as in the issue of child pornography , where criminals continue to
thrive whilst ordinary people have been reduced to fear, despair and even
suicide by recent witch-hunts, there will no longer be any legal safeguard
for the suspected offender. No-one needs to prove their intent. In the
same way that loving parents can now be criminalised for the possession of
innocent family photographs of their own children, the "crime" will exist,
not in production of the material, nor in the mind of the possessor, but in
the mind of the prosecutor!
Amelie and silver
Manniq, 21 Nov 2005 11:46:19
I would be inclined to ask a question here, rather than make the point that you rightly make. So either keep the text as is, and then specifically draw out the question: so why is it that only images of illegality in a sexual context will be criminlaised - or similar.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> we had reply today from Paul Goggins saying that the acts in question are
> already illegal as GBH and that only images of GBH are intended to be
> covered by the document. We shall be replying, as per draft below:-
> We appreciate these acts are already illegal . Adequate deterrent penalties
> are already in place. Our position is that there is no need for any change
> in the law. The consultation document seeks to criminalise innocent people
> who will be imprisoned for three years and/or put on the sex offenders
> register, simply for LOOKING at images in which no crime has been proven to
> have been committed, no complaint has been made and for which there is no
> support for any claim that they may tend to corrupt or deprave. If looking
> at pictures of possible or posed criminal activity is to become an offence
> then all tabloids, tv and filmmakers will be out of business. There is no
> suggestion that we should criminalise the possession of images of any other
> crimes except paedophilia - we watch murder, robbery and blackmail films on
> tv - the only difference is that the word sex appears in all four lines of
> the description of images included in the consultation document. There is
> far more real and lasting harm done by murder, theft, fraud, and alcohol
> and drug related crime. They are all covered by law, but no-one is
> suggesting (so far) that it should be criminal to look at images, real or
> posed, of these activities
> Under the Obscene Publications Act, it was the distributor who profited who
> was liable to any conviction, fined, imprisoned etc, but now there is a
> major shift to criminalise the end user, or the person who might not even
> know the images were on their computer.
> Just as in the issue of child pornography , where criminals continue to
> thrive whilst ordinary people have been reduced to fear, despair and even
> suicide by recent witch-hunts, there will no longer be any legal safeguard
> for the suspected offender. No-one needs to prove their intent. In the
> same way that loving parents can now be criminalised for the possession of
> innocent family photographs of their own children, the "crime" will exist,
> not in production of the material, nor in the mind of the possessor, but in
> the mind of the prosecutor!
> Amelie and silver
Paul C. Dickie, 21 Nov 2005 13:19:31
In message <002401c5ee8e$927d9e80$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>we had reply today from Paul Goggins saying that the acts in question are
>already illegal as GBH and that only images of GBH are intended to be
>covered by the document.
If that is really what he has now claimed, then he has either a memory
slightly longer in duration than that of the average goldfish or he is
simply a liar. Has he really forgotten:
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.
Only the lattermost is stated to be limited to GBH.
One must also wonder why he does not seek to outlaw images shewing (or
apparently shewing) sexual interference with the corpse of an animal...
Personally, I blame the education system for the antics of Goggins and,
in particular, the poor standard of geography teaching. It must have
come as something of a shock to the poor fellow when he discovered there
is no such province of China as Wan-King...
--
< Paul >
Amelie, 21 Nov 2005 14:07:27
that still stands but his clarification of the list of four types of
material was that the sexual violence could be prosecuted as GBH - which is
rather more than hand prints, bruises and cane marks!
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 21 Nov 2005 14:07:27
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:14 PM
> In message <002401c5ee8e$927d9e80$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie > osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>we had reply today from Paul Goggins saying that the acts in question are
>>already illegal as GBH and that only images of GBH are intended to be
>>covered by the document.
>
> If that is really what he has now claimed, then he has either a memory
> slightly longer in duration than that of the average goldfish or he is
> simply a liar. Has he really forgotten:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Only the lattermost is stated to be limited to GBH.
>
> One must also wonder why he does not seek to outlaw images shewing (or
> apparently shewing) sexual interference with the corpse of an animal...
>
> Personally, I blame the education system for the antics of Goggins and,
> in particular, the poor standard of geography teaching. It must have
> come as something of a shock to the poor fellow when he discovered there
> is no such province of China as Wan-King...
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D3893
>