Just uploaded to news.bbc.co.uk
Devan Willemburg, 23 Nov 2005 12:25:51
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4460828.stm
Anti-porn petition given to MPs
Elizabeth Longhurst, PA
'My daughter's killer cannot win'
The mother of a murdered teacher is to hand in more than 50,000
signatures to the House of Commons calling on MPs to ban violent
internet porn.
Liz Longhurst, 74, of Reading, Berkshire, said new laws would "represent
a wonderful memorial" to her daughter, Jane, who was killed in 2003.
The 31-year-old music teacher from Brighton was murdered by her violent
porn-obsessed friend, Graham Coutts.
Her mother has been campaigning ever since to ban violent internet images.
Musician Coutts, who was convicted of strangling Miss Longhurst with a
pair of tights in February 2004, was obsessed with looking at violent
images involving women on the internet.
Distributing extreme pornography is illegal in the UK but material from
abroad is still accessible through websites and it is not an offence to
possess it.
Mrs Longhurst said: "If we are successful in changing the law this will
represent a wonderful memorial to my beloved daughter Jane who may still
have been with us had her killer not been able to access these sickening
internet images, which fuelled his dangerous fantasies."
'Strength of feeling'
The Home Office and Scottish Executive have been consulting on whether
new laws are needed and what should be covered.
They have proposed making it an offence to download and possess violent
and abusive porn.
Mrs Longhurst's MP, Martin Salter, added: "This campaign has taken a
huge amount of time and effort but it has struck a chord right across
the country and this massive petition demonstrates the strength of
feeling behind our demand to clean up the internet.
"We are now pretty confident that the government is serious about
bringing forward proposals to change the law to treat violent internet
pornography in the same way as child pornography."
Paul C. Dickie, 23 Nov 2005 15:22:59
In message <43845F8B.1010402@convergence.cx>, Devan Willemburg
wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4460828.stm
>
>Mrs Longhurst said: "If we are successful in changing the law this will
>represent a wonderful memorial to my beloved daughter Jane who may still
>have been with us had her killer not been able to access these sickening
>internet images, which fuelled his dangerous fantasies."
But the stupid and draconian 'proposals' would not prevent anyone from
accessing "these sickening internet images", nor would any sites be
closed as a result. All that would happen is that otherwise law-abiding
citizens would be condemned, fined and/or gaoled for having dared to
look at something that Mrs Longhurst doesn't like.
And exactly *how* would that be a "wonderful memorial" to her daughter?
In one way, Jane Longhurst was lucky: she is no longer alive to hear her
grieving mother speaking such banausic bunkum.
>Mrs Longhurst's MP, Martin Salter, added: "This campaign has taken a
>huge amount of time and effort but it has struck a chord right across
>the country and this massive petition demonstrates the strength of
>feeling behind our demand to clean up the internet.
Massive? Larger petitions are commonly gathered to support all manner
of causes, such as motorway diversion to miss beauty spots and
restoration of capital punishment. Those petitions don't work so why
should Salter suppose this one would work?
>"We are now pretty confident that the government is serious about
>bringing forward proposals to change the law to treat violent internet
>pornography in the same way as child pornography."
I really do believe that man is downright EVIL.
--
< Paul >
chris, 23 Nov 2005 18:41:54
I think it is a tradgedy that Mrs Longhurst has chosen to believe the
excuses of a now convicted killer against those of reason, but quite
understandable in her circumstances. I cannot however understand how the so
called well informed educated state representatives have decided to give
creedance to the words of this convict. They never believed the words of
convicts in the past. Surely if these new laws do get passed because of his
pathetic excuses for his real crime, it will be his name that will go down
in history and be remembered, would that be "a wonderful memorial" , I think
not.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 23 Nov 2005 18:41:54
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:05 PM
> In message <43845F8B.1010402@convergence.cx>, Devan Willemburg
> wrote:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4460828.stm
>>
>>Mrs Longhurst said: "If we are successful in changing the law this will
>>represent a wonderful memorial to my beloved daughter Jane who may still
>>have been with us had her killer not been able to access these sickening
>>internet images, which fuelled his dangerous fantasies."
>
> But the stupid and draconian 'proposals' would not prevent anyone from
> accessing "these sickening internet images", nor would any sites be
> closed as a result. All that would happen is that otherwise law-abiding
> citizens would be condemned, fined and/or gaoled for having dared to
> look at something that Mrs Longhurst doesn't like.
>
> And exactly *how* would that be a "wonderful memorial" to her daughter?
>
> In one way, Jane Longhurst was lucky: she is no longer alive to hear her
> grieving mother speaking such banausic bunkum.
>
>>Mrs Longhurst's MP, Martin Salter, added: "This campaign has taken a
>>huge amount of time and effort but it has struck a chord right across
>>the country and this massive petition demonstrates the strength of
>>feeling behind our demand to clean up the internet.
>
> Massive? Larger petitions are commonly gathered to support all manner
> of causes, such as motorway diversion to miss beauty spots and
> restoration of capital punishment. Those petitions don't work so why
> should Salter suppose this one would work?
>
>>"We are now pretty confident that the government is serious about
>>bringing forward proposals to change the law to treat violent internet
>>pornography in the same way as child pornography."
>
> I really do believe that man is downright EVIL.
>
> --
> < 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%3D3938
>
>
Paul C. Dickie, 23 Nov 2005 20:27:21
In message <003301c5f05d$85b9ac90$0602a8c0@joneswp1ubx9b3>,
chris@glamour.org.uk wrote:
>I think it is a tradgedy that Mrs Longhurst has chosen to believe the
>excuses of a now convicted killer against those of reason, but quite
>understandable in her circumstances.
And if the killer of Jane Longhurst had claimed that the Almighty had
ordered him to kill her, would Mrs Longhurst now be campaigning for the
closure of religious sites or the imprisonment of the (largely
decorative) Archbishop of Canterbury? Somehow, I doubt that she would.
What she appears to have done is to latch onto inaccurate reports of the
obsessions of Coutts and use those as a way of sublimating her grief
into a form of self-righteous anger. I have personal experience of
this: when my mother died from cancer (some 19 years ago) I coped with
the upset by blaming the oncologist who was allegedly treating her with
a drug that, remarkably for the time, did not cause any hair loss
whatever. It is probably worth noting that, as the only chemotheraputic
drugs licensed for use in the UK at the time *did* cause hair loss, it
was immediately obvious that he'd not given her an effective drug.
Coutts was a violent and evil creature long before he'd even discovered
the undoubted joys of cyberspace. Evidence from one or more previous
relationships was withheld from the court as not being immediately
relevant to the case, yet evidence of his web browsing was introduced as
shewing the background to his crime. That was plainly illogical.
Nor did other 'sadistic' killers use the 'net to inspire their crimes.
Ian Brady used printed textual works, such as the novels of the Marquis
de Sade and/or descriptions of Nazi atrocities, to inspire his torture
of children. Yet nobody at the time or since suggested a mass book-
burning of such material or that possession of a *book* should result in
a person being gaoled.
--
< Paul >
Paul Tavener, 23 Nov 2005 21:35:11
"And if the killer of Jane Longhurst had claimed that the Almighty had ordered him to kill her, would Mrs Longhurst now be campaigning for the closure of religious sites or the imprisonment of the (largely decorative) Archbishop of Canterbury? Somehow, I doubt that she would."
I think not. Peter Sutcliffe was suposed to have claimed that God made him kill 13 women but nobody was interested in what he had to say.