Home Office consultation on extreme pornography
Jon Fuller, 29 Jan 2006 17:22:14
From J Fuller to Backlash.
When I met with the group I mentioned that in addition to making a
submission to the Home Office (which can be seen from the Backlash site) I
was also writing to all members on the House of Commons PAC (Public Accounts
Committee).
I have received a reply from Sarah McCarthy-Fry (member for Portsmouth
North) which is attached. People may have a keen interest in the reply she
has received from the Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins. I then set out
copies of my replies to Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to Paul Goggins. Please let
me know if you would like paper copies.
Dear J Fuller
Further to my letter of 7 December, I have now received a response from the
Home Office on your concerns, which I enclose.
I hope that this is of help, and reassurance to you.
Yours sincerely.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry
The attachment is from Paul Goggins at the Home Office
It reads: -
Dear Sarah,
Thank you for your letter of 7 December on behalf of J Fuller (address)
about the consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material.
I understand that Mr Fuller has concerns about the arguments put forward in
the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the impact of
the proposals. This is a difficult and sensitive area of public policy and
the purpose of launching a public consultation exercise was to elicit as
wide a range of views as possible.
The consultation document proposes a case for making a limited category of
extreme pornographic material, which it would be illegal to publish or
distribute in this country under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, illegal
to possess. We believe this is necessary to combat the circumvention of
existing controls which has been made possible by the development of new
technologies. We are also determined to continue to act against publishers
where we can but we also require the individual to take greater
responsibility with regard to this material.
Mr Fuller seems particularly concerned that the proposals in the
consultation paper will restrict a wide range of material, affect the
legitimate pornography industry in the UK and curtail freedom of expression.
Whilst I appreciate Mr Fuller’s concerns, I believe that the consultation
document does make clear that, subject to the outcome of the consultation,
any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
explicit actual scenes or 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.
By “serious violence” we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of
grievous bodily harm (GBH) can be brought in England and Wales or in
Scotland, assault to severe injury.
Mr Fuller has challenged the GBH threshold pointing out that there is a huge
range of material available on the internet which falls below or very near
this level, suggesting that it would be very difficult for people to judge
what may be illegal to possess. One of the purposes of the consultation was
to seek views on the categories and definitions which were outlined. We will
be looking carefully at all the responses to see whether greater clarity is
needed and how it might be achieved.
As you may be aware, the consultation period ended on 2 December 2005. We
have received over 370 responses including detailed submissions from the
mainstream and adult entertainment industry, and BDSM groups. A full
Government response will be made within three months of the closing date.
I am grateful to Mr Fuller for his contribution to the consultation process.
Yours
Paul Goggins
Here is my response to 1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to 2. Paul Goggins: -
1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry
Dear Sarah McCarthy-Fry,
Thank you for your letter of 9 January, and for obtaining the comments from
the minister, Paul Goggins.
I must say that my reason for referring this matter to all PAC members was
because I felt that the Home Office had misled Parliament and the public on
two separate occasions concerning the scale of costs associated with the
UK’s repressive censorship regime. The partial RIA attached to this
consultation document had omitted a huge range of costs. The Californian
adult entertainment industry has captured a huge proportion of the UK market
and now enjoys a turnover of between $5 and $7 billion annually, of which
nearly $1 billion comes from Internet sales of online material.
This, I suggested, was the crucial issue for PAC members. I quote from my
letter to you: -
4.5 Of course, it’s up to Members of Parliament to decide if they are happy
to see this industry operate from abroad, with the loss of hundreds of
£millions in revenue, and over a £billion in lost trade to the national
economy, but MPs should at least be provided by the Home Office with the
relevant facts. As the consultation paper mentions, all the Internet sites
it is focussing upon operate from outside the UK, but what MPs are not told
is what that fact means for the UK economy.
4.6 I ask that you demand that the Home Office calculate what the loss is to
the economy of the UK’s historically tough censorship/regulatory regime. The
Home Office should also be instructed to calculate what the financial
implications are for criminalisation of the possession of the various
categories of material, which might be described as “extreme”. The most
significant category for the industry is that which is rough but consensual
(the BDSM category). It is this more subjective area which is crucial to an
accurate calculation of what is involved in the Home Office proposals. I
hope that you agree that the £ billions at stake warrant a slightly more
analytical approach to such a complex subject! Given the scale of failure
within the Home Office with this, and the former consultation exercise, I
ask that you require the department to draft in professional assistance to
calculate accurately the costs associated with future proposals.
Regrettably, the minister did not tackle this crucial area when he replied
to you. I do feel that PAC members have a duty to ensure that government
departments produce accurate information so that Members of Parliament can
reach informed decisions.
I propose to wait until the Home Office responds to the comments received,
announcing its decision. If, as I fear, the Home Office announces a regime
which will lead to destruction of the lives of consenting adults who
participate in BDSM sex (by facilitating criminal investigations which cause
appalling personal damage) I will write one final time to PAC members
setting out an honest evaluation of the real costs of any legislation.
Quite separately I have approached the European Court of Human Rights,
Strasbourg. I have received the necessary papers to commence proceedings
against the UK, but will await the Home Office decision before initiating
proceedings.
In conclusion, I regret I am not reassured by the minister’s letter and fear
the Government is leading the nation along a path of ever greater
intolerance, which will lead to utter misery for very many people.
Yours sincerely,
J Fuller
2. Paul Goggins
Dear Mr Goggins,
I refer to your letter of 20 December to Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP (copy
enclosed). I enclose a copy of my reply to her.
As stated, I will await the outcome of Home Office deliberations before
commencing proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.
Please may I now have a reply to the FoI requests set out in my letter of 14
November?
Yours sincerely,
J Fuller
Teddy, 30 Jan 2006 02:49:21
Pity Gormless can't even answer the issues posed! Admittedly the reply was back on the 20th Dec, but I fear the overall tone suggests the New Labour machine isn't in the mood to listen. Is the ambiguity of definition of the proscribed material REALLY the point here? These proposals are wrong in principle, as there is no credible evidence of harm and it would be a victimless crime based on subjective criteria.
Teddy
Author wrote:
> From J Fuller to Backlash.
> When I met with the group I mentioned that in addition to making a
> submission to the Home Office (which can be seen from the Backlash site) I
> was also writing to all members on the House of Commons PAC (Public Accounts
> Committee).
> I have received a reply from Sarah McCarthy-Fry (member for Portsmouth
> North) which is attached. People may have a keen interest in the reply she
> has received from the Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins. I then set out
> copies of my replies to Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to Paul Goggins. Please let
> me know if you would like paper copies.
> Dear J Fuller
> Further to my letter of 7 December, I have now received a response from the
> Home Office on your concerns, which I enclose.
> I hope that this is of help, and reassurance to you.
> Yours sincerely.
> Sarah McCarthy-Fry
> The attachment is from Paul Goggins at the Home Office
> It reads: -
> Dear Sarah,
> Thank you for your letter of 7 December on behalf of J Fuller (address)
> about the consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material.
> I understand that Mr Fuller has concerns about the arguments put forward in
> the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the impact of
> the proposals. This is a difficult and sensitive area of public policy and
> the purpose of launching a public consultation exercise was to elicit as
> wide a range of views as possible.
> The consultation document proposes a case for making a limited category of
> extreme pornographic material, which it would be illegal to publish or
> distribute in this country under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, illegal
> to possess. We believe this is necessary to combat the circumvention of
> existing controls which has been made possible by the development of new
> technologies. We are also determined to continue to act against publishers
> where we can but we also require the individual to take greater
> responsibility with regard to this material.
> Mr Fuller seems particularly concerned that the proposals in the
> consultation paper will restrict a wide range of material, affect the
> legitimate pornography industry in the UK and curtail freedom of expression.
> Whilst I appreciate Mr Fuller’s concerns, I believe that the consultation
> document does make clear that, subject to the outcome of the consultation,
> any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
> explicit actual scenes or 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.
> By “serious violence” we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of
> grievous bodily harm (GBH) can be brought in England and Wales or in
> Scotland, assault to severe injury.
> Mr Fuller has challenged the GBH threshold pointing out that there is a huge
> range of material available on the internet which falls below or very near
> this level, suggesting that it would be very difficult for people to judge
> what may be illegal to possess. One of the purposes of the consultation was
> to seek views on the categories and definitions which were outlined. We will
> be looking carefully at all the responses to see whether greater clarity is
> needed and how it might be achieved.
> As you may be aware, the consultation period ended on 2 December 2005. We
> have received over 370 responses including detailed submissions from the
> mainstream and adult entertainment industry, and BDSM groups. A full
> Government response will be made within three months of the closing date.
> I am grateful to Mr Fuller for his contribution to the consultation process.
> Yours
> Paul Goggins
> Here is my response to 1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to 2. Paul Goggins: -
> 1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry
> Dear Sarah McCarthy-Fry,
> Thank you for your letter of 9 January, and for obtaining the comments from
> the minister, Paul Goggins.
> I must say that my reason for referring this matter to all PAC members was
> because I felt that the Home Office had misled Parliament and the public on
> two separate occasions concerning the scale of costs associated with the
> UK’s repressive censorship regime. The partial RIA attached to this
> consultation document had omitted a huge range of costs. The Californian
> adult entertainment industry has captured a huge proportion of the UK market
> and now enjoys a turnover of between $5 and $7 billion annually, of which
> nearly $1 billion comes from Internet sales of online material.
> This, I suggested, was the crucial issue for PAC members. I quote from my
> letter to you: -
> 4.5 Of course, it’s up to Members of Parliament to decide if they are happy
> to see this industry operate from abroad, with the loss of hundreds of
> £millions in revenue, and over a £billion in lost trade to the national
> economy, but MPs should at least be provided by the Home Office with the
> relevant facts. As the consultation paper mentions, all the Internet sites
> it is focussing upon operate from outside the UK, but what MPs are not told
> is what that fact means for the UK economy.
> 4.6 I ask that you demand that the Home Office calculate what the loss is to
> the economy of the UK’s historically tough censorship/regulatory regime. The
> Home Office should also be instructed to calculate what the financial
> implications are for criminalisation of the possession of the various
> categories of material, which might be described as “extreme”. The most
> significant category for the industry is that which is rough but consensual
> (the BDSM category). It is this more subjective area which is crucial to an
> accurate calculation of what is involved in the Home Office proposals. I
> hope that you agree that the £ billions at stake warrant a slightly more
> analytical approach to such a complex subject! Given the scale of failure
> within the Home Office with this, and the former consultation exercise, I
> ask that you require the department to draft in professional assistance to
> calculate accurately the costs associated with future proposals.
> Regrettably, the minister did not tackle this crucial area when he replied
> to you. I do feel that PAC members have a duty to ensure that government
> departments produce accurate information so that Members of Parliament can
> reach informed decisions.
> I propose to wait until the Home Office responds to the comments received,
> announcing its decision. If, as I fear, the Home Office announces a regime
> which will lead to destruction of the lives of consenting adults who
> participate in BDSM sex (by facilitating criminal investigations which cause
> appalling personal damage) I will write one final time to PAC members
> setting out an honest evaluation of the real costs of any legislation.
> Quite separately I have approached the European Court of Human Rights,
> Strasbourg. I have received the necessary papers to commence proceedings
> against the UK, but will await the Home Office decision before initiating
> proceedings.
> In conclusion, I regret I am not reassured by the minister’s letter and fear
> the Government is leading the nation along a path of ever greater
> intolerance, which will lead to utter misery for very many people.
> Yours sincerely,
> J Fuller
> 2. Paul Goggins
> Dear Mr Goggins,
> I refer to your letter of 20 December to Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP (copy
> enclosed). I enclose a copy of my reply to her.
> As stated, I will await the outcome of Home Office deliberations before
> commencing proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.
> Please may I now have a reply to the FoI requests set out in my letter of 14
> November?
> Yours sincerely,
> J Fuller
Paul C. Dickie, 02 Feb 2006 02:50:18
In message , Jon Fuller
wrote:
>I have received a reply from Sarah McCarthy-Fry (member for Portsmouth
>North) which is attached. People may have a keen interest in the reply she
>has received from the Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins. I then set out
>copies of my replies to Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to Paul Goggins. Please let
>me know if you would like paper copies.
>
>The attachment is from Paul Goggins at the Home Office
>
>It reads: -
>
>Whilst I appreciate Mr Fuller\x{2019}s concerns, I believe that the consultation
>document does make clear that, subject to the outcome of the consultation,
>any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
>explicit actual scenes or depictions of:
>
>i) Intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
>ii) Sexual interference with a human corpse;
Has he ever set out how he (or anyone else, for that matter) might
determine if a person in a still picture was actually or supposedly
dead, or merely resting after a long squawk^W session?
--
< Paul >
Alan, 02 Feb 2006 08:55:03
Question: does the European Court Of Justice actually have any jurisdiction over local laws like the proposed? Its a nice idea that of being protected by a higher and more just authority than Bliars (typo intentional) Moral Storm Troopers and the lovely customs and excise thugs but is it a reality? I don't hold out much hope
Al
Author wrote:
> From J Fuller to Backlash.
> When I met with the group I mentioned that in addition to making a
> submission to the Home Office (which can be seen from the Backlash site) I
> was also writing to all members on the House of Commons PAC (Public Accounts
> Committee).
> I have received a reply from Sarah McCarthy-Fry (member for Portsmouth
> North) which is attached. People may have a keen interest in the reply she
> has received from the Home Office Minister, Paul Goggins. I then set out
> copies of my replies to Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to Paul Goggins. Please let
> me know if you would like paper copies.
> Dear J Fuller
> Further to my letter of 7 December, I have now received a response from the
> Home Office on your concerns, which I enclose.
> I hope that this is of help, and reassurance to you.
> Yours sincerely.
> Sarah McCarthy-Fry
> The attachment is from Paul Goggins at the Home Office
> It reads: -
> Dear Sarah,
> Thank you for your letter of 7 December on behalf of J Fuller (address)
> about the consultation on the possession of extreme pornographic material.
> I understand that Mr Fuller has concerns about the arguments put forward in
> the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the impact of
> the proposals. This is a difficult and sensitive area of public policy and
> the purpose of launching a public consultation exercise was to elicit as
> wide a range of views as possible.
> The consultation document proposes a case for making a limited category of
> extreme pornographic material, which it would be illegal to publish or
> distribute in this country under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, illegal
> to possess. We believe this is necessary to combat the circumvention of
> existing controls which has been made possible by the development of new
> technologies. We are also determined to continue to act against publishers
> where we can but we also require the individual to take greater
> responsibility with regard to this material.
> Mr Fuller seems particularly concerned that the proposals in the
> consultation paper will restrict a wide range of material, affect the
> legitimate pornography industry in the UK and curtail freedom of expression.
> Whilst I appreciate Mr Fuller’s concerns, I believe that the consultation
> document does make clear that, subject to the outcome of the consultation,
> any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
> explicit actual scenes or 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.
> By “serious violence” we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of
> grievous bodily harm (GBH) can be brought in England and Wales or in
> Scotland, assault to severe injury.
> Mr Fuller has challenged the GBH threshold pointing out that there is a huge
> range of material available on the internet which falls below or very near
> this level, suggesting that it would be very difficult for people to judge
> what may be illegal to possess. One of the purposes of the consultation was
> to seek views on the categories and definitions which were outlined. We will
> be looking carefully at all the responses to see whether greater clarity is
> needed and how it might be achieved.
> As you may be aware, the consultation period ended on 2 December 2005. We
> have received over 370 responses including detailed submissions from the
> mainstream and adult entertainment industry, and BDSM groups. A full
> Government response will be made within three months of the closing date.
> I am grateful to Mr Fuller for his contribution to the consultation process.
> Yours
> Paul Goggins
> Here is my response to 1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry and to 2. Paul Goggins: -
> 1. Sarah McCarthy-Fry
> Dear Sarah McCarthy-Fry,
> Thank you for your letter of 9 January, and for obtaining the comments from
> the minister, Paul Goggins.
> I must say that my reason for referring this matter to all PAC members was
> because I felt that the Home Office had misled Parliament and the public on
> two separate occasions concerning the scale of costs associated with the
> UK’s repressive censorship regime. The partial RIA attached to this
> consultation document had omitted a huge range of costs. The Californian
> adult entertainment industry has captured a huge proportion of the UK market
> and now enjoys a turnover of between $5 and $7 billion annually, of which
> nearly $1 billion comes from Internet sales of online material.
> This, I suggested, was the crucial issue for PAC members. I quote from my
> letter to you: -
> 4.5 Of course, it’s up to Members of Parliament to decide if they are happy
> to see this industry operate from abroad, with the loss of hundreds of
> £millions in revenue, and over a £billion in lost trade to the national
> economy, but MPs should at least be provided by the Home Office with the
> relevant facts. As the consultation paper mentions, all the Internet sites
> it is focussing upon operate from outside the UK, but what MPs are not told
> is what that fact means for the UK economy.
> 4.6 I ask that you demand that the Home Office calculate what the loss is to
> the economy of the UK’s historically tough censorship/regulatory regime. The
> Home Office should also be instructed to calculate what the financial
> implications are for criminalisation of the possession of the various
> categories of material, which might be described as “extreme”. The most
> significant category for the industry is that which is rough but consensual
> (the BDSM category). It is this more subjective area which is crucial to an
> accurate calculation of what is involved in the Home Office proposals. I
> hope that you agree that the £ billions at stake warrant a slightly more
> analytical approach to such a complex subject! Given the scale of failure
> within the Home Office with this, and the former consultation exercise, I
> ask that you require the department to draft in professional assistance to
> calculate accurately the costs associated with future proposals.
> Regrettably, the minister did not tackle this crucial area when he replied
> to you. I do feel that PAC members have a duty to ensure that government
> departments produce accurate information so that Members of Parliament can
> reach informed decisions.
> I propose to wait until the Home Office responds to the comments received,
> announcing its decision. If, as I fear, the Home Office announces a regime
> which will lead to destruction of the lives of consenting adults who
> participate in BDSM sex (by facilitating criminal investigations which cause
> appalling personal damage) I will write one final time to PAC members
> setting out an honest evaluation of the real costs of any legislation.
> Quite separately I have approached the European Court of Human Rights,
> Strasbourg. I have received the necessary papers to commence proceedings
> against the UK, but will await the Home Office decision before initiating
> proceedings.
> In conclusion, I regret I am not reassured by the minister’s letter and fear
> the Government is leading the nation along a path of ever greater
> intolerance, which will lead to utter misery for very many people.
> Yours sincerely,
> J Fuller
> 2. Paul Goggins
> Dear Mr Goggins,
> I refer to your letter of 20 December to Sarah McCarthy-Fry MP (copy
> enclosed). I enclose a copy of my reply to her.
> As stated, I will await the outcome of Home Office deliberations before
> commencing proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg.
> Please may I now have a reply to the FoI requests set out in my letter of 14
> November?
> Yours sincerely,
> J Fuller
Teddy, 02 Feb 2006 20:06:51
Hmmm. Maybe the website the image is on just has to specify "this is depicting necrophilia", allowing the dodgy idea of proscribing "realistic depictions" to be enforced. On the other hand, some of the sites the bill would be targetting tend to say things like "this is not a porn site" ("fantasy horror" being a favoured variation)...
I doubt Gormless has thought about any of these obvious inconsistencies or even cares!
> >Whilst I appreciate Mr Fuller’s concerns, I believe that the consultation
> >document does make clear that, subject to the outcome of the consultation,
> >any new offence would apply only to pornographic material containing
> >explicit actual scenes or depictions of:
> >
> >i) Intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
> >ii) Sexual interference with a human corpse;
> Has he ever set out how he (or anyone else, for that matter) might
> determine if a person in a still picture was actually or supposedly
> dead, or merely resting after a long squawk^W session?
> --
> < Paul >