a great leap forward
demolitionred, 20 Apr 2006 21:41:36
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
of the possession of extreme pornography.
The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
consultation paper.
The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
included.
The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
proposals with us as they evolved.
It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
their original plans.
The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
individuals were against the proposals.
The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
and the Internet Watch Foundation.
=============================
Teddy, 21 Apr 2006 01:29:53
Hi All,
I am guardedly optimistic about this development.
PROS: It is clear that the lobbying from Backlash and other opponents of the legislation is making an impact; I had feared things would just get pushed through regardless, but this is seemingly not going to be the case. That the majority of the responses from the public were on our side will be food for thought down at the HO. This puts our campaign in a position of strength...
CONS: "The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the proposals with us as they evolved"...so there's still work to do here, as this indicates they still favour legislation of some form! Also, although there has been concern about the potentially wide scope of the proposals (covering spanking, for example), their comments that they're not targetting material outside the OPA isn't particularly convincing or reassuring. I hope this isn't intended as a carrot to keep the BDSM community quiet. The extension of the OPA to cover instances of possession, as well as distribution, represents a very significant change in the law and to peoples' rights; this requires very strong justification.
"It was suggested that only images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be included." Again, there is no mention of whether it is fact or fiction being depicted, or whether it involves consensual or non-consensual situations. The fact remains that, even the sites mentioned in the Longhurst case, do not involve real harm to (or the infringement of the rights of) those involved.
Best Wishes to all!
Teddy
Author wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
> Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
> of the possession of extreme pornography.
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
> The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
> proposals with us as they evolved.
> It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
> for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
> individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
> their original plans.
> The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
> 313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
> individuals were against the proposals.
> The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
> and the Internet Watch Foundation.
> =============================
*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 21 Apr 2006 01:36:38 ***
SnowdropExplodes, 21 Apr 2006 04:03:38
Author wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
> Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
> of the possession of extreme pornography.
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
> The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
> proposals with us as they evolved.
> It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
> for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
> individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
> their original plans.
> The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
> 313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
> individuals were against the proposals.
> The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
> and the Internet Watch Foundation.
> =============================
Looks like we're starting to win this one, but there's still serious concerns based on these issues, and they haven't fully addressed the points we've made or that the legal opinion made.
Two things spring out immediately:
Firstly, they haven't explained how a person is to know that what they are downloading is going to prove to be illegal before they do so.
Secondly, this report doesn't say anything about the question of faked versus real footage. And then, again, if they did make it expicitly about real footage only, then they would be asking people to have an expert opinion on whether or not a scene had been faked or was for real.
On the other hand, that they say the majority of individuals' responses were anti- the proposals is extremely positive. It shows that there *is* a BDSM community out here who should be taken into consideration.
I think I have to agree that it is a great leap forward.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
AV8R, 21 Apr 2006 07:03:24
I have to agree. Cautiously optimistic is an appropriate way to describe it, however, there are also many things to be concerned about here.
The OPA statement is ridiculous. The material covered under the OPA is already some of the most restrictive censorship anywhere in the "free" world. The majority of BDSM material on the web is published overseas, and is far in excess of what is allowed in the UK. This is the material that has always needed the most protection for personal viewing.
As for "life threatening or result in serious disabling injury", this is again still extremely troubling.
Dem Red, can you give us some more input as to how that discussion went? What about breath play, both asphyxial and non-asphyxial breath rate or depth control. Would these be included? (I suspect they will) If so why? Does the home office understand the difference between the two types of play? etc etc etc....
What about water bondage, forced immersion, etc?
What about electro play?
I have very little faith in the home offices ability to determine SSC, and I still see masses of material becoming illegal under that very broad and ambivalent statement.
Where does backlash stand on this? Where does backlash intend to draw the line? What are the next steps for the campaign?
I dont want to sound too negative, clearly some very good things have been achieved, but from what we've heard so far, there is still a lot to do.
Av8r
Author wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
> Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
> of the possession of extreme pornography.
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
> The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
> proposals with us as they evolved.
> It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
> for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
> individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
> their original plans.
> The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
> 313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
> individuals were against the proposals.
> The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
> and the Internet Watch Foundation.
> =============================
mobscene, 21 Apr 2006 12:42:13
I am cautiously optimistic too.
The biggest part of this, is that if 313 individuals responded and most were against it, that represents a significant proportion of voters. The HO will no doubt have "done the math" and worked out that of those brave enough to respond in public, perhaps a good few million, or at least several hundred thousand voters, would be severely alienated by the proposals. Naturally they will not be keen on alienating such a significant proportion of the electorate, and perhaps did not realise they even would.
Agreed it is still worrying - since the use of ballgags is effectively prohibited by the BBFC and could therefore come under the OPA (which, remember, is a very vague law, and it is only what the courts decide would "deprave and corrupt").
Still, thanks to all those involved and I certainly feel better having read this news than I did before it. Let's hope it is a great foundation for better developments to come.
Graham Marsden, 21 Apr 2006 13:05:27
Hi there,
Ok, overall this sounds like good news, although I have some reservations:
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
That "at the present time at least [...] will be much less far-reaching"
is worrying because it's perfectly possible for much broader proposals
to be re-inserted at the committee stage after which it's a lot more
difficult to get them removed again unless you keep a very close eye on
what's happening.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
"Bollocks!" is the short answer to that one...
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
And who decides? And how? Would this include films like Basic Instict or
Fatal Attraction? They're not "obscene" under current legislation, but
it wouldn't be a big step from what they show to them being "obscene"
and, of course, "showing activities which are life threatening..."
> The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
> proposals with us as they evolved.
I'm glad to hear that!
> The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
> 313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
> individuals were against the proposals.
Huzzah!
I'll give this a cautious welcome, but we mustn't take our eye off the
ball because I have little doubt that Goggins et al will be looking at
how they can get their way to impose their morality onto us.
Cheers,
Graham.
doulos, 21 Apr 2006 13:40:59
It is possible that many of the replies were anti- the proposals but
not quite as anti as many of us had hoped. Some people on here were in
favour of porn involving animals being made illegal for example. So it
is quite possible the HO is going for a compromise position. But hey,
its a result. We tried to take it all the way, and we took it most of
the way.
zak, 21 Apr 2006 17:23:33
Original Message:
-----------------
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 21 Apr 2006 17:23:33
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
of the possession of extreme pornography.
The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
consultation paper.
The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
included.
OK, now I'm confused. So it's ok to show life-threatening/serious and
disabling injury pictures if they are not pornographic - so beheading is
cool as long as there are no willies or nipples in shot????
Just goes to show, really, pro-censorship people are always sexually
peculiar and projecting it onto others....
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Alan, 21 Apr 2006 17:48:16
Hi
<material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).>>
This statement tell me all I need to know about these s*ds, anything else that they say is mere obfuscation. They want to be able to nail any material they don't like ie anything that wouldn'd get past the BBFC and that is just about everything people here enjoy. The only test in law would be the OPA itself which is subject to trial by jury. Thus our liberty would be at the mercy of "twelve good persons and true" The end result will be just what Goggins et al hope for meaning a deep chilling of people's ativities in expressing their fantasy lives via the internet or what ever.
I say fear the worst about Goggins and his cohorts.
WE MUST KEEP OUT GUARD UP!!!!
Alan
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: demolitionred@yahoo.com, 21 Apr 2006 17:48:16
> Subject: [backlash] a great leap forward
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
> Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
> of the possession of extreme pornography.
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
> OK, now I'm confused. So it's ok to show life-threatening/serious and
> disabling injury pictures if they are not pornographic - so beheading is
> cool as long as there are no willies or nipples in shot????
> Just goes to show, really, pro-censorship people are always sexually
> peculiar and projecting it onto others....
> Z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Mick, 22 Apr 2006 00:05:53
That is very good news. We all realise there are many more questions to be asked and answered but for now it is a positive step to know that the 'other side' say they are willing to involve us rather than totally ignore our views which is what most of us expected.
Are you happy for me to copy your comments to our local munch members, some of whom may not be on Backlash?
Mick_H
========================================
Message Received: Apr 21 2006, 05:11 AM
demolitionred@yahoo.com, 22 Apr 2006 00:05:53
Cc:
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
of the possession of extreme pornography.
The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
consultation paper.
The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
included.
The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
proposals with us as they evolved.
It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
their original plans.
The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
individuals were against the proposals.
The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
and the Internet Watch Foundation.
=============================
--
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%3D4606
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Alan, 22 Apr 2006 00:12:41
I refer you to my previous comments DO NOT TRUST THE HOME OFFICE
Al
Author wrote:
> That is very good news. We all realise there are many more questions to be asked and answered but for now it is a positive step to know that the 'other side' say they are willing to involve us rather than totally ignore our views which is what most of us expected.
> Are you happy for me to copy your comments to our local munch members, some of whom may not be on Backlash?
> Mick_H
> ========================================
> Message Received: Apr 21 2006, 05:11 AM
: demolitionred@yahoo.com, 22 Apr 2006 00:12:41
> Cc:
> Subject: [backlash] a great leap forward
> On Wednesday 19 April 2006 BDSM community groups and officials at the Home
> Office had a very fruitful meeting to discuss the proposed criminalisation
> of the possession of extreme pornography.
> The discussions reassured us that -- at the present time at least -- any
> plans to criminalise the viewing of extreme pornographic imagery will be
> much less far-reaching than had been indicated in the Government's
> consultation paper.
> The Civil Servants explained that the intent had never been to criminalise
> material which it wasn't already an offence to publish or distribute under
> the Obscene Publications Act (OPA).
> They agreed that the range of imagery that it was reasonable to make it a
> criminal offence to view had to be restricted to much more extreme imagery
> than that which had been originally discussed. It was suggested that only
> images that are pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities
> which are life threatening or result in serious disabling injury should be
> included.
> The Home Office also said they would like to continue to discuss the
> proposals with us as they evolved.
> It was clear from the meeting that the opinion of Rabinder Singh QC, paid
> for by money you helped to raise and the huge number of submissions from
> individuals had helped to inform them about the potential risks inherent in
> their original plans.
> The Home Office representatives said they had received over 400 responses,
> 313 from individuals and 82 from organisations and the majority of
> individuals were against the proposals.
> The Home Office had also held meetings with broadcast companies, the BBFC
> and the Internet Watch Foundation.
> =============================
> --
> 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%3D4606
Teddy, 22 Apr 2006 02:43:28
The HO do have certain fascistic tendencies (and the idea of criminalising possession of EP was a nasty and sociopathic one from the start), but only when they think it's in their political interests to behave like that towards seemingly soft-targets.
If they say that so many of the consultation responses were against the legislation, it will be fascinating to see this "summary" we are expecting soon!! I notice the Scot-Exec are also not so fast in coming forward here either! The momentum is on our side; not so much a time for complacency, but a time to redouble our efforts...I believe we can win this.
Author wrote:
> I refer you to my previous comments DO NOT TRUST THE HOME OFFICE
> Al
> Author wrote:
> > That is very good news. We all realise there are many more questions to be asked and answered but for now it is a positive step to know that the 'other side' say they are willing to involve us rather than totally ignore our views which is what most of us expected.
> > Are you happy for me to copy your comments to our local munch members, some of whom may not be on Backlash?
> > Mick_H
> > ========================================
mobscene, 22 Apr 2006 02:59:55
If I am honest, I am a tad intrigued by some of the comments posted on here in light of the meeting with the home office.
Some people seem to love to live in a paranoid state and cast their paranoid fears as far around them as they can.
From an adult industry point of view, it did not become legal to sell, publish and distribute hardcore pornography within the UK until a few years ago, UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT. There are still one or two problems, eg with mail order DVDS, but this is ongoing. Despite this fact, it is THIS GOVERNMENT which has made more progress towards decriminalising adult pornography than any other in the history of human civilisation in the UK.
Under a government which effectively legalised the distribution of hardocore porn, it is incredibly difficult to accuse them of the motivations we currently believe are prevalent.
The HO did not simply vanish these proposals out of the air. They received a protest of some 35,000 signatures asking that "exteme porn" be made illegal. They did not understand how such proposals could alienate and challenge 1000's of UK citizens; they did not understand how thousands of UK Citizen's could be alienated and effectively jailed because of their belief's, how many UK people could be jailed and interrogated and imprisoned because their beliefs involved more than ordinary people's beliefs...
Teddy, 22 Apr 2006 04:28:02
I'm afraid I tend to agree with Alan on this one. Comments interdispersed...
Author wrote:
> If I am honest, I am a tad intrigued by some of the comments >posted on here in light of the meeting with the home office.
> Some people seem to love to live in a paranoid state and cast >their paranoid fears as far around them as they can.
In reality, many of the folks who support Backlash are potentially facing persecution and/or 3 years imprisonment as a result of private activities which do not, in themselves, cause harm to others. It is only natural that people feel a certain amount of anxiety and paranoia about such a potentially unjust and oppresive situation!
> From an adult industry point of view, it did not become legal >to sell, publish and distribute hardcore pornography within >the UK until a few years ago, UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT. There >are still one or two problems, eg with mail order DVDS, but >this is ongoing. Despite this fact, it is THIS GOVERNMENT >which has made more progress towards decriminalising adult >pornography than any other in the history of human >civilisation in the UK.
> Under a government which effectively legalised the >distribution of hardocore porn, it is incredibly difficult to >accuse them of the motivations we currently believe are >prevalent.
Big Deal?
We still have some of the most draconian and out-dated laws relating to censorship and obscenity anywhere in the non-totalitarian world, in spite of any recent progress that may have been made. And there are still disturbing influences from religious and/or non-governmental organisations in the decision making.
> The HO did not simply vanish these proposals out of the air. >They received a protest of some 35,000 signatures asking >that "exteme porn" be made illegal. They did not understand >how such proposals could alienate and challenge 1000's of UK >citizens; they did not understand how thousands of UK >Citizen's could be alienated and effectively jailed because of >their belief's, how many UK people could be jailed and >interrogated and imprisoned because their beliefs involved >more than ordinary people's beliefs...
Before this petition of 35,000 signatures was even presented to Parliament, the government had afforded the family of JL the privilege of many hours of the Home Secretary's time and they were clearly interested in how best they could exploit this to provide some kind of cheap scapegoatism for society's ills. Do you seriously believe Goggins is in on this for any other purpose than to further his own career? The other democratic nations at the G8 summit were also lobbied last summer and, apparently, were not particularly supportive of the UK governments position.
Also, 35,000 signatures (with hardly a coherent argument in evidence) is a derisory excuse to impliment such a drastic change to the law and to peoples' rights; 1,000,000+ protested agaist the Iraq war and it didn't make a stuff of difference to governmental policy! The HO made no apparent attempt to consider who the potential stake-holders were, let alone consult them, prior to the publication of the consultation document. The tone of this document when it emerged was authoritarian and dishonest; and the social, legal and moral implications of the proposals had clearly been given embarrasingly little consideration, bordering on ignorance.
If the HO is, as seems at least possible, going to backtrack on this as it becomes more enlightened of the issues; this won't be to their credit, but rather a symptom of their initial complacency and negligence.
Goodnight all,
Teddy
rosalee, 22 Apr 2006 10:14:17
I agree. I don't think we should be lulled into a false sense of security.
They are still proposing to criminalise the viewing of images 'that are
pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities which are life
threatening or result in serious disabling injury'. Who will decide whether
or not images fall into this category? The same idiots who wrote the
extreme porn paper?
And why should it be illegal to view them anyway?
Sorry if I sound less than optimistic about this.
Ginny
-----Original Message-----
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk [mailto:alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk], 22 Apr 2006 10:14:17
Sent: 22 April 2006 00:08
I refer you to my previous comments DO NOT TRUST THE HOME OFFICE
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4623
Alan, 22 Apr 2006 11:58:18
Author wrote:
> I agree. I don't think we should be lulled into a false sense of security.
> They are still proposing to criminalise the viewing of images 'that are
> pornographic and clearly and explicitly show activities which are life
> threatening or result in serious disabling injury'. Who will decide whether
> or not images fall into this category? The same idiots who wrote the
> extreme porn paper?
> And why should it be illegal to view them anyway?
> Sorry if I sound less than optimistic about this.
> Ginny
Hi
Yep they have not really back tracked one jot. I fully support the ruthless pursuit and prosecution of child porn peddlars and users alike BUT the idea that adults can got to jail for merely looking at something acted out by other ADULTS is totally new and very very scary developement.
Why do I say do not trust the home office? take this small example. The sex offences act was ammended in 2003 I think. They changed the age under which an "indecent" picture is deemed to be child porn from 16 to 18. A small change you might say but at a stroke hundreds maybe thousands of people were created
pedophiles in the eyes of the law for having in their collections "indecent" images of persons old enough to bear their children. Remember that in magazines like Mayfair and Penthouse used to have girls as young as 16 posing in their pages. Was this important change broadcast? you bet your sweet liberty is was NOT! That smells like entrapment to me!
Do any of you have old nude pics maybe photos by David Hamilton or old Mayfair's or even a copy of the Sun with Sammy Fox topless on page three in your loft? If so you are now a PEDOPHILE in the eyes of the law so get purging your collections before the cops lovingly smash your door down early one morning. I took a long hard look at my stuff and got real scared even though I only like fully grown women some of my stuff was probably illegal and had to go pronto
I say the HO do want to nail ALL erotic porn, anything with a life threatening scenario ie execution role play, noose play or even a consenting asphix play during sex is in their sights as well as the really nasty brutal sex killings that the murderer Couts liked to look at. So yes maybe the BDSM people can beath a bit easier but I cannot and neither can YOU!
Can we rely on the HRA and the European Court Of Justice to defend us? I aint so sure...
Yours feeling pretty oppressed right now
Alan
> -----Original Message-----
: alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk [mailto:alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk], 22 Apr 2006 11:58:18
> Sent: 22 April 2006 00:08
> Subject: RE: [backlash] a great leap forward
> I refer you to my previous comments DO NOT TRUST THE HOME OFFICE
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4623
Graham Marsden, 22 Apr 2006 14:22:32
Hi there,
robhardcoreuk@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> If I am honest, I am a tad intrigued by some of the comments
> posted on here in light of the meeting with the home office.
>
> Some people seem to love to live in a paranoid state and cast
> their paranoid fears as far around them as they can.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
However personally I don't think I'm being at all paranoid. I simply
don't trust this Government, nor people like Mr Goggins who think that
what they like is "right" and anything else is "wrong".
> From an adult industry point of view, it did not become legal
> to sell, publish and distribute hardcore pornography within the
> UK until a few years ago, UNDER THIS GOVERNMENT. There are
> still one or two problems, eg with mail order DVDS, but this
> is ongoing. Despite this fact, it is THIS GOVERNMENT which has
> made more progress towards decriminalising adult pornography
> than any other in the history of human civilisation in the UK.
This is true, as far as it goes, however it is clear (and *not*
paranoid) that there is a strong body of opinion amongst people like
Goggins that *we* the BDSM/ porn loving people of this country *cannot*
be trusted to view this material without turning into deranged murderers
or sex fiends or child molestors or whatever other excuse they can use
to try to ban stuff they don't like.
> Under a government which effectively legalised the distribution of
> hardocore porn,
"Effectively" is the operative word. There are still ridiculous
restrictions on being able to distribute it. As you mention on the
subject of DVDs etc, if I, as part of my business, want to sell R18
videos, I have to apply for a Sex Establishment Licence (costing £5,000
to *apply* for and I don't get my money back if I don't get it!) yet I
could set up a business abroad and sell DVDs to anyone and everyone.
And there are still the nonsensical restrictions on what BDSM activities
are or are not "acceptable" to show, although Channel 4 has just pushed
the boundaries of that with their "Me and My Slaves" programme showing
someone getting a thrashing and I'll be interested to see if there is
any fall out from that, although the excuse may be that "it was a
documentary and not for sexual arousal".
So please don't think that everything is hearts and flowers (or whips
and chains) yet, because there are still those who want to slam the door
on us.
> it is incredibly difficult to accuse them of the motivations we
> currently believe are prevalent.
This Government has shown itself capable of amazing hypocrisy time and
again. Do you really believe this issue is any different?
> The HO did not simply vanish these proposals out of the air. They
> received a protest of some 35,000 signatures asking that "exteme
> porn" be made illegal. They did not understand how such proposals
> could alienate and challenge 1000's of UK citizens; they did not
> understand how thousands of UK Citizen's could be alienated and
> effectively jailed because of their belief's, how many UK people
> could be jailed and interrogated and imprisoned because their
> beliefs involved more than ordinary people's beliefs...
They saw a bandwagon which they could jump on to placate the Tabloid
Media and their readers and be seen "to be doing something" about this
"menace to society" which "caused the death of Jane Longhurst".
The fact that it's just a convenient scape-goat and probably had damn
all to do with the underlying causes of Graham Coutts' behaviour, is, of
course, completely irrelevant.
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul Tavener, 22 Apr 2006 20:47:56
"Under a government which effectively legalised the distribution of hardocore porn,"
Unfortunately the Government were very much against liberalisation. It was the BBFC that wanted to liberalise R18 and even they only wanted a SMALL change rather than the much larger change that actualy occured.
The reason why hardcore is now legal is because the BBFC changing the rules without the Governments knowledge, released a few titles to the new rules and were ordered to change the rules back by the Government.
Fortunately for us and unfortunately for the Government the whole issue was so incompetantly managed that when it went to court they didn't realy have any evidence or any leg to stand on.
The Government booted out the chairman of the BBFC over this issue and after the changes the Government carried out a public consultation over TIGHTENING the distribution of R18 content, but the whole idea was unworkable, the public showed little interest and the whole issue was quitely dropped.
If the Government had their way selling hardcore would still be criminal in the UK.
Mick, 29 Apr 2006 15:06:49
I DON'T and I'm sure no one else does and as with most discussions you have to make your own mind up as to the true agenda behind what is being discussed. Remember that when the Consultation document was drawn up the BDSM community was not a part of that process, now we are recognised (some might say that was one of the HO's aims) and have at least been told that we will be allowed future input.
Mick_H
========================================
Message Received: Apr 22 2006, 09:11 AM
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 29 Apr 2006 15:06:49
Cc:
I refer you to my previous comments DO NOT TRUST THE HOME OFFICE
Al
Author wrote:
> That is very good news. We all realise there are many more questions to be asked and answered but for now it is a positive step to know that the 'other side' say they are willing to involve us rather than totally ignore our views which is what most of us expected.
> Are you happy for me to copy your comments to our local munch members, some of whom may not be on Backlash?
> Mick_H
> =========================
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 04 May 2006 10:23:42
there remians a lot to do.
From the meeting it seems unlikely plans will be shelved altogether.
The meeting did offer some hope that they would take guidance on what imagery it will be illegal to view.
We therfore need to continue to push to show how ridiculous the proposal is but also to make sure that as few images as possible will be included.
while the Home Office representatives seemed to think consent would be unhelpful because it will be difficult to prove, they were happy to discuss other tests.
and while they sugegsted permanent, disabling injury was a good test I think we need to be very wary as this is too open and many images could be caught by zealous police by referrring to this.
The Home Office has made a small concession because of the opinion of Rabin=der Singh that backlash supporters paid for and because so many individuals clearly expressed the risks.
we need to stop chatting here, advertise the proposals more widely, encourage more people to stand against the proposals and make sutre our arguments are well understood.
anybody who would like to take on any aspect of this, pls say so...
Teddy, 04 May 2006 12:30:43
Comments interdispersed...
> while the Home Office representatives seemed to think consent would be unhelpful because it will be difficult to prove, they were happy to discuss other tests.
This is the level of shite we are up against. They should be aiming at law which is FAIR and protects the rights of people and prevents harm; not laws which are skewed into being easy to enforce to support their own viewpoint!
> and while they sugegsted permanent, disabling injury was a good test I think we need to be very wary as this is too open and many images could be caught by zealous police by referrring to this.
So does this cover REAL images or just depictions then? They would be creating criminal offences with no victim...
> The Home Office has made a small concession because of the opinion of Rabin=der Singh that backlash supporters paid for and because so many individuals clearly expressed the risks.
> we need to stop chatting here, advertise the proposals more widely, encourage more people to stand against the proposals and make sutre our arguments are well understood.
> anybody who would like to take on any aspect of this, pls say so...
I have been sending 1 or 2 letters a day on average to politicians, various groups and consultation respondants. I get very few replies; whether this is disagreement or apathy is a moot point in many cases. Indeed, the general media is silent on the subject and the various forums and polls (e.g. Ch4 following the "Animal Farm" documentary) are consistently showing public opinion as being against the new laws; if only all these folks had replied to the consultation!
demolitionred, 04 May 2006 20:19:28
demolitionred:> > anybody who would like to take on any aspect of this, pls say so...
Teddy wrote:> I have been sending 1 or 2 letters a day on average to politicians, various groups and consultation respondants. I get very few replies; whether this is disagreement or apathy is a moot point in many cases. Indeed, the general media is silent on the subject and the various forums and polls (e.g. Ch4 following the "Animal Farm" documentary) are consistently showing public opinion as being against the new laws; if only all these folks had replied to the consultation!
Thats great...some points though...
I had no idea. I think this needs to be co-ordinated. what are you writing? to whom? on behalf of yourself? Can you publish links?
I said elsewhere we need a matrix of who is being contacted and what they are saying. To do that, we need to know what people are doing. We also need more people to get involved.
Are you refering people to backlash where you have these discussions?
There are only 377 members of this group...hardly a groundswell of opinion...
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 04 May 2006 20:16:47 ***
Teddy, 04 May 2006 22:42:23
Hi DemRed,
I am writing as an individual, although I sometimes refer to Backlash and to other forums such as Melon Farmers, to demonstrate how opposition to the legislation is shaping up.
I've posted many of the discussions I have had with the Scottish Council officers on here and also the reply I got from JAnet and from my MEP, Andrew Duff (supportive). We all know the score with Liberty(!) and Amnesty said this issue was beyond their scope (despite being reported as supporting the Longhurst campaign).
I have also written (without response) to my MP, all my MEPs, many politicians (including Goggins, Salter and members of the Tory and LibDem home affairs teams), members of my local labour party (who have taken on the Longhurst campaign in a big way), many of the child/womens protection groups who responded to the consultation, the Scottish Law Society, NHS Wales and have posted messages on the BBCs "action network". The list isn't exhaustive...
There are clealy a lot of people out there who agree with us;
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4196864.stm
It is frustratingly difficult to know how to reach-out to these potential supporters, given our limited resources.
Teddy
Author wrote:
> demolitionred:> > anybody who would like to take on any aspect of this, pls say so...
> Teddy wrote:> I have been sending 1 or 2 letters a day on average to politicians, various groups and consultation respondants. I get very few replies; whether this is disagreement or apathy is a moot point in many cases. Indeed, the general media is silent on the subject and the various forums and polls (e.g. Ch4 following the "Animal Farm" documentary) are consistently showing public opinion as being against the new laws; if only all these folks had replied to the consultation!
> Thats great...some points though...
> I had no idea. I think this needs to be co-ordinated. what are you writing? to whom? on behalf of yourself? Can you publish links?
> I said elsewhere we need a matrix of who is being contacted and what they are saying. To do that, we need to know what people are doing. We also need more people to get involved.
> Are you refering people to backlash where you have these discussions?
> There are only 377 members of this group...hardly a groundswell of opinion...