Consultation responses as yet unseen... Posted 13th May
deno, 13 May 2006 12:39:56
In a message dated 13/05/2006 02:06:25 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
A chill has just flickered down my spine...
Are they going to play a numbers game, based on the JLT petition, and claim
the vast majority of respondents agree with them?!
T.
Am wondering if HO officials dealing with drafting legislation are aware
that two of the three sites mentioned in the Coutts case have already gone.
Hanging bitches and death by aspyhxia taken off following pressure by media
after they tracked the webmaster to his hideout.
Hanging bitches clicks through to severe games but the "hanged" actors all
have their feet on the ground. This only leaves necro babes the site owned or
run by an American woman.
Persecution there means that this site may soon disappear and I don't see
that watching it
motivates anyone to commit murder.
So are HO using a sledgehammer to crack a non existant nut? Did hear Mrs
Longhurst
say that she was not keen on censorship and only campaigned for those three
sites to be taken off.
Could our team in consultation with HO inform them of this situation, if not
having done so already?
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 13 May 2006 20:12:37
Thoughts interdispersed...
> Am wondering if HO officials dealing with drafting legislation are aware
> that two of the three sites mentioned in the Coutts case have already gone.
> Hanging bitches and death by aspyhxia taken off following pressure by media
> after they tracked the webmaster to his hideout.
> Hanging bitches clicks through to severe games but the "hanged" actors all
> have their feet on the ground. This only leaves necro babes the site owned or
> run by an American woman.
> Persecution there means that this site may soon disappear and I don't see
> that watching it
> motivates anyone to commit murder.
I agree that the idea that this stuff could turn someone into a psychopath is ridiculous. However, these sites and others are, it seems, disappearing. This "censorship by media" is bad enough in my opinion.
> So are HO using a sledgehammer to crack a non existant nut? Did hear Mrs
> Longhurst
> say that she was not keen on censorship and only campaigned for those three
> sites to be taken off.
There is a statement in the JLT petition that possession of "such material" should be banned. At the end of the day, it is pie-in-the-sky to think that the 3 offending sites could be just made to vanish and everything would then be fine; a more likely outcome is that many others will be made to suffer to vindicate the JLT position. This is wrong...
> Could our team in consultation with HO inform them of this situation, if not
> having done so already?
> deno
Although it shows that this claim of a "growing problem" has doubtful veracity, I doubt if they're really interested. This situation is being used to suit the HO's agenda.
T.
deno, 13 May 2006 21:53:28
In a message dated 13/05/2006 20:08:01 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
Thoughts interdispersed...
> Am wondering if HO officials dealing with drafting legislation are aware
> that two of the three sites mentioned in the Coutts case have already
gone.
> Hanging bitches and death by aspyhxia taken off following pressure by
media
> after they tracked the webmaster to his hideout.
> Hanging bitches clicks through to severe games but the "hanged" actors all
> have their feet on the ground. This only leaves necro babes the site
owned or
> run by an American woman.
> Persecution there means that this site may soon disappear and I don't see
> that watching it
> motivates anyone to commit murder.
I agree that the idea that this stuff could turn someone into a psychopath
is ridiculous. However, these sites and others are, it seems, disappearing.
This "censorship by media" is bad enough in my opinion.
> So are HO using a sledgehammer to crack a non existant nut? Did hear Mrs
> Longhurst
> say that she was not keen on censorship and only campaigned for those three
> sites to be taken off.
There is a statement in the JLT petition that possession of "such material"
should be banned. At the end of the day, it is pie-in-the-sky to think that
the 3 offending sites could be just made to vanish and everything would then
be fine; a more likely outcome is that many others will be made to suffer to
vindicate the JLT position. This is wrong...
> Could our team in consultation with HO inform them of this situation, if
not
> having done so already?
> deno
Although it shows that this claim of a "growing problem" has doubtful
veracity, I doubt if they're really interested. This situation is being used to
suit the HO's agenda.
T.
Hi Teddy
We must be unsure of HO agenda especially now Goggins has gone. Maybe they
feel it is in their interests to respond to the JLT and the Petition. Are
we dealing with civil servants
rather than politicians?
My idea is for our team to make very point possible so they might just
eventually see the absurdity of the proposed action. My experience in dealing
with such people is that they often conceed after hassle and persistent
pressure. Maybe they think, "What's in it for us"
Later if the new law is drafted we can lobby MP's by quoting the paragraph
or sentence
which is unjust nonsense (I guess there will be plenty of these) and give
opposition and rebels a chance to bash the government. Perhaps our lawyer
could take it apart.
Clare Short's bill to ban page 3 girls got short shrift. You never know and
we have to keep trying!
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)