Letter from my MP and from Vernon Coaker MP
SnowdropExplodes, 17 May 2006 22:39:44
My MP has forwarded to me the letter he's received from Vernon Coaker MP, in response to my latest attempt to engage my MP in a correspondence on the proposals. This may be the first take we have from Coaker, who's moved into Goggins' old job.
Overall, the letter does not make any new statements over and above what we've seen already from the HO. It repeats the story we've been given about the large number of responses and the further meetings with the BDSM community, and that there will be a report "before the Summer Recess".
Here are a few key passages/phrases from the letter:
"I understand that Mr. XXX has concerns about the arguments put forward in the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the impact of the proposals. Mr. XXX also raised similar concerns in his response to the consultation. This is a difficult and sensitive area of public policy and the purpose of launching a public consultation was to elicit as wide a range of views as possible"
[That last sentence is somewhat dubious given the consultation questions!]
(after explaining about "closing the loophole") "We are 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."
[For responsibility, read: "liability", I suppose]
"Mr. XXX 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. It will not capture material which is already produced legitimately.
"I appreciate Mr. XXX's concerns, but 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 "
This seems to indicate the line that they will take to try to discredit our claims - namely, that they will try to present us as not being aware of the limited scope of the material to be covered.
It is possible that the reason for Mr. Coaker's misunderstanding of the position I represented in my letter is that I used the popularity of erotic fiction featuring BDSM, and films such as "Secretary", to suggest that there was a much larger audience for the affected material than the HO appeared to appreciate.
I also explained that acting a rape is no different in a pornographic movie as compared to a mainstream movie (that is, there is no actual rape or violence involved).
Most telling is that there is no comment on issues regarding the lack of need for the new laws, or the effect on police manpower. It seems that those parts of my letter for which Mr. Coaker had no ready answer, have been ignored.
My MP added in his covering letter that, if I would still like to discuss the matters further, I may telephone his secretary to arrange a meeting. I intend to do so, and to present myself as being a representative of the Backlash campaign group when I go to the meeting. I intend to be well-prepared and will ask for information here about any specific points for which I need resources.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Teddy, 18 May 2006 00:42:43
A standard response letter from Coaker; I doubt if he is firmly settled in his seat at the HO yet!
To Coaker: We were all perfectly capable of reading the consultation document, thank you! What needs explanation is how these restricted categories are at all consistent or workable and why this consensually produced material should be illegal to possess anyway, bearing in mind that viewing does not, in itself, cause harm to others.
Very encouraging to hear of a sympathetic MP, however.
T.
Author wrote:
> My MP has forwarded to me the letter he's received from Vernon Coaker MP, in response to my latest attempt to engage my MP in a correspondence on the proposals. This may be the first take we have from Coaker, who's moved into Goggins' old job.
> Overall, the letter does not make any new statements over and above what we've seen already from the HO. It repeats the story we've been given about the large number of responses and the further meetings with the BDSM community, and that there will be a report "before the Summer Recess".
> Here are a few key passages/phrases from the letter:
> "I understand that Mr. XXX has concerns about the arguments put forward in the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the impact of the proposals. Mr. XXX also raised similar concerns in his response to the consultation. This is a difficult and sensitive area of public policy and the purpose of launching a public consultation was to elicit as wide a range of views as possible"
> [That last sentence is somewhat dubious given the consultation questions!]
> (after explaining about "closing the loophole") "We are 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."
> [For responsibility, read: "liability", I suppose]
> "Mr. XXX 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. It will not capture material which is already produced legitimately.
> "I appreciate Mr. XXX's concerns, but 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 "
> This seems to indicate the line that they will take to try to discredit our claims - namely, that they will try to present us as not being aware of the limited scope of the material to be covered.
> It is possible that the reason for Mr. Coaker's misunderstanding of the position I represented in my letter is that I used the popularity of erotic fiction featuring BDSM, and films such as "Secretary", to suggest that there was a much larger audience for the affected material than the HO appeared to appreciate.
> I also explained that acting a rape is no different in a pornographic movie as compared to a mainstream movie (that is, there is no actual rape or violence involved).
> Most telling is that there is no comment on issues regarding the lack of need for the new laws, or the effect on police manpower. It seems that those parts of my letter for which Mr. Coaker had no ready answer, have been ignored.
> My MP added in his covering letter that, if I would still like to discuss the matters further, I may telephone his secretary to arrange a meeting. I intend to do so, and to present myself as being a representative of the Backlash campaign group when I go to the meeting. I intend to be well-prepared and will ask for information here about any specific points for which I need resources.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 18 May 2006 03:00:37 ***
Amelie, 18 May 2006 09:53:22
Why don't we simply distribute that message - it says it all!
----- Original Message -----
, 18 May 2006 09:53:22
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 12:37 AM
>A standard response letter from Coaker; I doubt if he is firmly settled in
>his seat at the HO yet!
> To Coaker: We were all perfectly capable of reading the consultation
> document, thank you! What needs explanation is how these restricted
> categories are at all consistent or workable and why this consensually
> produced material should be illegal to possess anyway, bearing in mind
> that viewing does not, in itself, cause harm to others.
>
> Very encouraging to hear of a sympathetic MP, however.
>
> T.
>
> Author wrote:
>> My MP has forwarded to me the letter he's received from Vernon Coaker MP,
>> in response to my latest attempt to engage my MP in a correspondence on
>> the proposals. This may be the first take we have from Coaker, who's
>> moved into Goggins' old job.
>> Overall, the letter does not make any new statements over and above what
>> we've seen already from the HO. It repeats the story we've been given
>> about the large number of responses and the further meetings with the
>> BDSM community, and that there will be a report "before the Summer
>> Recess".
>> Here are a few key passages/phrases from the letter:
>> "I understand that Mr. XXX has concerns about the arguments put forward
>> in the consultation document and makes a number of claims about the
>> impact of the proposals. Mr. XXX also raised similar concerns in his
>> response to the consultation. This is a difficult and sensitive area of
>> public policy and the purpose of launching a public consultation was to
>> elicit as wide a range of views as possible"
>> [That last sentence is somewhat dubious given the consultation
>> questions!]
>> (after explaining about "closing the loophole") "We are 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."
>> [For responsibility, read: "liability", I suppose]
>> "Mr. XXX 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. It will not capture material which is already produced
>> legitimately.
>> "I appreciate Mr. XXX's concerns, but 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 "
>> This seems to indicate the line that they will take to try to discredit
>> our claims - namely, that they will try to present us as not being aware
>> of the limited scope of the material to be covered.
>> It is possible that the reason for Mr. Coaker's misunderstanding of the
>> position I represented in my letter is that I used the popularity of
>> erotic fiction featuring BDSM, and films such as "Secretary", to suggest
>> that there was a much larger audience for the affected material than the
>> HO appeared to appreciate.
>> I also explained that acting a rape is no different in a pornographic
>> movie as compared to a mainstream movie (that is, there is no actual rape
>> or violence involved).
>> Most telling is that there is no comment on issues regarding the lack of
>> need for the new laws, or the effect on police manpower. It seems that
>> those parts of my letter for which Mr. Coaker had no ready answer, have
>> been ignored.
>> My MP added in his covering letter that, if I would still like to discuss
>> the matters further, I may telephone his secretary to arrange a meeting.
>> I intend to do so, and to present myself as being a representative of the
>> Backlash campaign group when I go to the meeting. I intend to be
>> well-prepared and will ask for information here about any specific points
>> for which I need resources.
>> Ta,
>> SnowdropExplodes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D4806
>
>