wrote:
> > > > If the HO are putting off making any comment or decision until after
> their summer jolly can we hope they are feeling the heat?
> > > Most likely not. If my time working for the Home Office is any
> > > indication of how they are working these days, putting off making a
> > > comment will simply mean those responsible for commenting haven't been
> > > putting much attention toward drafting their comment and so now need
> > > more time to finish it.
> > > Zoë, remembering a time when one person took a two week holiday in the
> > > middle of producing a report that had a one month deadline.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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%3D4657
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Teddy, 08 Jul 2006 15:10:38
http://www.mediawatchuk.org/newsbriefs/Summer2006.htm
The "so-called BDSM community"?? Proof, if it were needed, what a bunch of self-righteous losers Mediawatch are...
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi All,
> From the website-
> "The Home Office and Scottish Executive Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material closed on Friday 2 December 2005. We have been advised that the issues raised, in the almost 400 responses, are currently being examined and the Government will indicate the way forward before the Summer Recess."
> When is the summer recess? Could this be yet a further delay before the HO even REPORTS upon the content of responses? No summary pervert-cull for the gratification of Mediawatch then?!
> Teddy.
Graham Marsden, 08 Jul 2006 21:46:15
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> http://www.mediawatchuk.org/newsbriefs/Summer2006.htm
>
> The "so-called BDSM community"?? Proof, if it were needed, what
> a bunch of self-righteous losers Mediawatch are...
Shouldn't that be the "so-called Mediawatch"?!
Although the actual comments from them are interesting:
"We have also learned that the Home Office will not be publishing the
responses to the consultation because it is said most of them disagree
with the Government\x{2019}s proposals to make the possession of extreme
pornographic material a new criminal offence. After meetings with the
so-called \x{201C}Bondage, Domination and Sado-Masochism community\x{201D} we
understand that the proposals will be watered down in order to make them
workable."
Also: "We believe that the delay and indecision surrounding this
consultation is unacceptable and suggests an unwillingness to carry out
the proposals as originally intended." which is actually good news for us!
You might also like to visit the website of "Mediawatch-Watch" at
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/
With the subtitle: Watching. Pointing. Laughing. :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
zak, 08 Jul 2006 23:32:05
Original Message:
-----------------
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 08 Jul 2006 23:32:05
http://www.mediawatchuk.org/newsbriefs/Summer2006.htm
The "so-called BDSM community"?? Proof, if it were needed, what a bunch of
self-righteous losers Mediawatch are...
T.
Er, anyone was supposed to be taking this bucnh of fish-head mentalists
seriously in the first place???
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Teddy, 09 Jul 2006 04:38:02
And my web-browser crashes whenever I visit the Mediawatch website! Let's hope their odious supporters are having similar problems... :o)
> Er, anyone was supposed to be taking this bucnh of fish-head mentalists
> seriously in the first place???
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
adrian, 10 Jul 2006 12:28:38
as quoted from the Mediawatch site
"We have also learned that the Home Office will not be publishing the
responses to the consultation because it is said most of them disagree
with the Government's proposals to make the possession of extreme
pornographic material a new criminal offence."
This is dynamite.
Teddy, 10 Jul 2006 20:11:06
Yes; one wonders whether they have been reading some of the postings on the sites which oppose the proposals OR if they have had this from an official/reliable source? This would be an outrage if true...
Author wrote:
> as quoted from the Mediawatch site
> "We have also learned that the Home Office will not be publishing the
> responses to the consultation because it is said most of them disagree
> with the Government's proposals to make the possession of extreme
> pornographic material a new criminal offence."
> This is dynamite.
SnowdropExplodes, 10 Jul 2006 21:52:31
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Yes; one wonders whether they have been reading some of the postings on the sites which oppose the proposals OR if they have had this from an official/reliable source? This would be an outrage if true...
Author wrote:
> as quoted from the Mediawatch site
> "We have also learned that the Home Office will not be publishing the
> responses to the consultation because it is said most of them disagree
> with the Government's proposals to make the possession of extreme
> pornographic material a new criminal offence."
> This is dynamite.
I don't know about the source for the Mediawatch statement, but the fact that the Home Office are in serious trouble over their proposals is mentioned in Hansard:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): "...the Home Office is consulting now on proposals to criminalise the possession of abhorrent material involving the abuse of humans, which it has been illegal to distribute for many years. The wide range of responses that it has received indicates that there will be huge difficulties in criminalising the possession of such images. Quite a number of respondees considered the proposals to be a major increase in powers and unnecessary when such imagery is legal in many other parts of the world." Standing Committee (20 January 2006)
Animal Welfare Bill
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 10 Jul 2006 23:09:15
Interesting to read how we've managed to put flies-in-the- ointment of the plans of our gutless MPs. Also disturbing to read that Bradshaw thinks this is about "material featuring the abuse of humans"...once again, reality and fiction are recklessly conflated.
T.
> I don't know about the source for the Mediawatch statement, but the fact that the Home Office are in serious trouble over their proposals is mentioned in Hansard:
> The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): "...the Home Office is consulting now on proposals to criminalise the possession of abhorrent material involving the abuse of humans, which it has been illegal to distribute for many years. The wide range of responses that it has received indicates that there will be huge difficulties in criminalising the possession of such images. Quite a number of respondees considered the proposals to be a major increase in powers and unnecessary when such imagery is legal in many other parts of the world." Standing Committee (20 January 2006)
> Animal Welfare Bill
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ---------------------------------
> All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
doulos, 11 Jul 2006 02:29:22
Good news people! We've pissed off the enemy!
Teddy, 11 Jul 2006 03:00:40
Possibly! The time until the recess is rapidly passing by; let's see what (if any) kind of a horlicks the HO come back with...
Author wrote:
> Good news people! We've pissed off the enemy!
adrian, 11 Jul 2006 09:13:39
See the new site front page
Teddy, 11 Jul 2006 12:53:01
?
Author wrote:
> See the new site front page
snowflake, 11 Jul 2006 17:15:59
On 11/07/06, Adrian wrote:
> See the new site front page
It doesn't seem to have one - it goes to a domain name search engine.
Zoë
adrian, 12 Jul 2006 22:40:13
PS, does the full address http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html
work? I've had something like this with a different site and server
recently, when it should be able to work out the home page but can't.
adrian, 12 Jul 2006 22:41:43
It's working fine with me. Are other people finding this? Could you
send me the search engine address you get to by private mail asap
please?
On 11/07/06, Zoë Robinson wrote:
> It doesn't seem to have one - it goes to a domain name search engine.
demolitionred, 13 Jul 2006 15:21:43
working fine for me too...
adrian, 13 Aug 2006 01:51:34
Ben Bradshaw has an interesting background. Though Labour, he could
be worth contacting. He might be open to tactful correction of his
assumptions.
From Wikipedia:
Ben Bradshaw was selected to contest the marginal parliamentary seat
of Exeter at the 1997 General Election after the first choice
candidate, John Lloyd, was deselected by the local Labour party on
instructions from central office. The sitting Conservative MP, John
Hannam had retired and the Conservatives chose Adrian Rogers to be
their candidate. This created a very interesting election campaign,
Bradshaw an openly gay man, and Rogers a Christian and leading member
of the religious right. The campaign was vitriolic and bitter with
allegations of homophobia and sin. The result, however was not close,
and Ben Bradshaw was elected as the Labour MP for Exeter with a
majority of 11,705.
Teddy, I'm not sure what your '?' means. You know I hope that
Backlash has a website http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk. The front page
has changed and most of the text relates to this thread. Maybe you
need to hit the Refresh button to see the change.