Home Office Response to questions about consultation process.
MsDemmie, 13 Dec 2005 15:27:24
Today I received a reply from the Home Office to my questions about how the consultation process worked ( or didnt).
Home OfficeCriminal Law Policy Unit2nd FloorFry Building2 Marsham StreetLondon SW1P 4DFTelephone 020 7035 6961Fax 0870 336 9141Email @homeoffice.gsi.gov.ukwww.noms.homeoffice.gov.uk
Mrs N J Brownc/o msdemmie@gmail.com
12 December 2005
Dear Mrs Brown,
Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography
Thank you for your email dated 15 November addressed to Pio Smith, the Consultation Co-ordinator at the Home Office, about the above consultation. Pio has passed your letter to me for reply as part of the Unit managing the consultation exercise.
I understand that you have a number of concerns about the way in which the consultation has been taken forward and you feel that groups representing the BDSM community and the pornography industry should have been involved at an earlier stage.
It may be helpful if I explain some background to the consultation, which, as is indicated in the consultation paper, is aimed at tackling the circulation of extreme pornography which would be likely to contravene the Obscene Publication Act 1959 if it were published within the UK. In view of the nature of the material, we were mainly concerned to seek views from law enforcement in drawing up the proposals. The proposals themselves are not aimed at any particular part of society and, whilst we acknowledge that the Bondage & Discipline, Domination and Submission and Sadomasochism community have an interest in particular types of pornographic material, the consultation is not concerned with the consensual material which already circulates within that community and which does not already breach the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Therefore there was not felt to be a particular need to have a preliminary consultation with groups who have an interest in legal pornographic material.
We nevertheless recognise the genuine concerns which the BDSM community and similar groups have expressed and the difficulties which are potentially raised by some aspects of our proposals. I can assure you we will be taking their comments very seriously – the main aim of the consultation is to seek wider views to ensure we get the proposals right. Our aim is to produce proposals which meet genuine concerns of this kind.
As you point out, the list of consultees mentioned in the consultation document is quite short. This was simply due to the timescales in getting the document ready for print and the pulling together of a final list. Many of the organisations you mention in your email were included on our initial list of those to whom the consultation document was sent on 30 August. Full lists of the initial groups to whom the consultation paper was sent are attached.
As you will be aware, the consultation was widely covered in the media, much more so than many other Government consultations. Many other consultees who contacted us therefore were also sent copies of the consultation paper, either in hard copy or electronically, but we do not retain central records of this. Clearly many other individuals and groups also downloaded the document from the Home Office and Scottish Executive websites.
I understand your concerns about the problems we had with the Home Office website. It was very unfortunate that an upgrade to the site had negative effects on the links to the consultation documents. We can only apologise for this although the document was fully available on the Scottish Executive website during that time. With regard to the response document there was no requirement for respondents to use the official response form if they did not wish to, and all comments, however submitted, will be taken into account. We will also take seriously comments which fall outside the questions in the consultation but are relevant to the proposals. We have received over 370 responses in various formats and from a wide range of interests, since the consultation began.
With regard to formally extending the deadline for the consultation period, we do not consider that there is a need for this. The period itself is more than a 13 week period, rather than the 12 week period suggested in the code of practice. We also note that the 12 week period itself is not mandatory and that many other consultations last for a much shorter period. As I mentioned previously, wide media coverage when the consultation was announced has ensured that those interested in these matters were informed about it. We are also aware that the existence of the document has been widely discussed in many websites covering censorship issues. We have received responses from several of the organisations you list such as The Spanner Trust, the Sexual Freedom Coalition and SM Pride.
Having said this, we do not regard 2 December as an absolute cut-off date and will certainly include for consideration responses received shortly after the end of the consultation period. We are aware that the proposals in the consultation raise difficulties of definition which we will need to examine in detail.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Ruddell
Criminal Law Policy Unit
Alan, 16 Dec 2005 13:55:46
reading between the lines we can see that the home office want to criminalise that which they cannot censor. This is just about the nastiest most intrusive piece of thinking to come out of tony Bliars (typo deliberate) governement ever! We can also rest assured that they won't give a sh*t how many harmless bods might get their lives destroyed by it either.
One a ray of hope is that their proposals will contravene the european charter of human rights as mentioned elswhere
I wanna emmigrate!
Todd
Author wrote:
> Today I received a reply from the Home Office to my questions about how the consultation process worked ( or didnt).
> Home OfficeCriminal Law Policy Unit2nd FloorFry Building2 Marsham StreetLondon SW1P 4DFTelephone 020 7035 6961Fax 0870 336 9141Email @homeoffice.gsi.gov.ukwww.noms.homeoffice.gov.uk
> Mrs N J Brownc/o msdemmie@gmail.com
> 12 December 2005
>
> Dear Mrs Brown,
> Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornography
> Thank you for your email dated 15 November addressed to Pio Smith, the Consultation Co-ordinator at the Home Office, about the above consultation. Pio has passed your letter to me for reply as part of the Unit managing the consultation exercise.
> I understand that you have a number of concerns about the way in which the consultation has been taken forward and you feel that groups representing the BDSM community and the pornography industry should have been involved at an earlier stage.
> It may be helpful if I explain some background to the consultation, which, as is indicated in the consultation paper, is aimed at tackling the circulation of extreme pornography which would be likely to contravene the Obscene Publication Act 1959 if it were published within the UK. In view of the nature of the material, we were mainly concerned to seek views from law enforcement in drawing up the proposals. The proposals themselves are not aimed at any particular part of society and, whilst we acknowledge that the Bondage & Discipline, Domination and Submission and Sadomasochism community have an interest in particular types of pornographic material, the consultation is not concerned with the consensual material which already circulates within that community and which does not already breach the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Therefore there was not felt to be a particular need to have a preliminary consultation with groups who have an interest in legal pornographic material.
> We nevertheless recognise the genuine concerns which the BDSM community and similar groups have expressed and the difficulties which are potentially raised by some aspects of our proposals. I can assure you we will be taking their comments very seriously – the main aim of the consultation is to seek wider views to ensure we get the proposals right. Our aim is to produce proposals which meet genuine concerns of this kind.
> As you point out, the list of consultees mentioned in the consultation document is quite short. This was simply due to the timescales in getting the document ready for print and the pulling together of a final list. Many of the organisations you mention in your email were included on our initial list of those to whom the consultation document was sent on 30 August. Full lists of the initial groups to whom the consultation paper was sent are attached.
> As you will be aware, the consultation was widely covered in the media, much more so than many other Government consultations. Many other consultees who contacted us therefore were also sent copies of the consultation paper, either in hard copy or electronically, but we do not retain central records of this. Clearly many other individuals and groups also downloaded the document from the Home Office and Scottish Executive websites.
>
> I understand your concerns about the problems we had with the Home Office website. It was very unfortunate that an upgrade to the site had negative effects on the links to the consultation documents. We can only apologise for this although the document was fully available on the Scottish Executive website during that time. With regard to the response document there was no requirement for respondents to use the official response form if they did not wish to, and all comments, however submitted, will be taken into account. We will also take seriously comments which fall outside the questions in the consultation but are relevant to the proposals. We have received over 370 responses in various formats and from a wide range of interests, since the consultation began.
> With regard to formally extending the deadline for the consultation period, we do not consider that there is a need for this. The period itself is more than a 13 week period, rather than the 12 week period suggested in the code of practice. We also note that the 12 week period itself is not mandatory and that many other consultations last for a much shorter period. As I mentioned previously, wide media coverage when the consultation was announced has ensured that those interested in these matters were informed about it. We are also aware that the existence of the document has been widely discussed in many websites covering censorship issues. We have received responses from several of the organisations you list such as The Spanner Trust, the Sexual Freedom Coalition and SM Pride.
> Having said this, we do not regard 2 December as an absolute cut-off date and will certainly include for consideration responses received shortly after the end of the consultation period. We are aware that the proposals in the consultation raise difficulties of definition which we will need to examine in detail.
> Yours sincerely
> Stephen Ruddell
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
>
>