time for a meeting
demolitionred, 23 May 2006 12:04:53
We have certain important issues to debate about future campaigning and -- given the Home Office looks likely to forge ahead with some concessions - - we need to come up with at the very least --
a list of possible defences for ownership that should be excluded from any proposal.
evidence on harm from all the images they may want to criminalise
and generally evidence that the law would be unworkable, unjust and impossible for anybody to understand.
as well, of course, as continuing to find ways to pressure MPs and persuade them to counter the law.
Since the Home Office will be suggesing which laws it wants priotritsed over the summer recess, we need to try and find ways to step up the press campaign etc as well.
I would like to propose a meeting on the Tuesday 6th..
Central Station, King's Cross, 37, Wharfdale Rd, London, N1 9SD Tel: 020 7278 3294
from 6.30 for 7
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 06 Jun 2006 11:40:41 ***
demolitionred, 23 May 2006 18:07:04
Sorry I can only make Tuesday 6th after all.
Who else can make it on that day?
rosalee, 26 May 2006 13:29:59
I'd prefer the 5th.
Ginny
-----Original Message-----
demolitionred@yahoo.com [mailto:demolitionred@yahoo.com], 26 May 2006 13:29:59
Sent: 23 May 2006 08:21
We have certain important issues to debate about future campaigning and --
given the Home Office looks likely to forge ahead with some concessions - -
we need to come up with at the very least --
a list of possible defences for ownership that should be excluded from any
proposal.
evidence on harm from all the images they may want to criminalise
and generally evidence that the law would be unworkable, unjust and
impossible for anybody to understand.
as well, of course, as continuing to find ways to pressure MPs and persuade
them to counter the law.
Since the Home Office will be suggesing which laws it wants priotritsed over
the summer recess, we need to try and find ways to step up the press
campaign etc as well.
I would like to propose a meeting on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the first
full week in June..is that the 5th and 6th..
Can people say which they prefer?
5th would be best for me.
--
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%3D4858
Paul Tavener, 27 May 2006 01:19:50
Here's some thoughts - at the very least any "realistic depictions" that can be shown to be not real by verbal evidence from actors, evidence of photo retouch, etc when carefully examined should be excluded.
The burden of proof should be moved to the prosecution to establish intent, rather than the defence to prove innocence.
CLEAR guidelines should be laid down to show EXACTLY what was and what was not permitted. It is unreasonable that the law should have to be chiselled out bit by bit at the cost of people’s lives and visits to the European court for borderline cases.
What about the issue of wireless routers? I heard a story today from a colleague of mine, he said his brother recently visited him from the US and he brought his own laptop with him. On arrival he sat in my colleague’s conservatory and managed to link into and use the internet via a wireless broadband connection even although my colleague’s computer was switched off. - He managed to access a nearby wireless connection by simply switching on his PC and letting the laptop search for somewhere to connect to. Any one could use it. How safe would a conviction be if An ISP recorded a user as having accessed a forbidden site or transferred a forbidden picture?
It “might” be worth considering a warning to them of the consequences of a significant minority revolt against the legislation. If enough people were to object strongly enough the result if they were ever asked to decide as part of a jury would be highly uncertain and it would be very difficult to gain convictions. I personally I don’t think I could ever find someone guilty of one of these offences out of conscience and moral (yes moral) considerations concerning liberty, freedom and justice. It would only take a few dissenting voices in a jury and the show would be over for that case.
Finally we should never loose sight of the fact that there is still at least a possibility of having this whole thing thrown out. The Home Office is not at its best at the moment and it might be a good time to ask them to put it off / give more time for consideration / have another consultation over the new proposals etc and see if it can be stalled - it might disappear. We should never give them the impression that we would agree to their proposals however watered down they are.
Author wrote:
> We have certain important issues to debate about future campaigning and -- given the Home Office looks likely to forge ahead with some concessions - - we need to come up with at the very least --
> a list of possible defences for ownership that should be excluded from any proposal.
> evidence on harm from all the images they may want to criminalise
> and generally evidence that the law would be unworkable, unjust and impossible for anybody to understand.
> as well, of course, as continuing to find ways to pressure MPs and persuade them to counter the law.
> Since the Home Office will be suggesing which laws it wants priotritsed over the summer recess, we need to try and find ways to step up the press campaign etc as well.
> I would like to propose a meeting on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the first full week in June..is that the 5th and 6th..
> Can people say which they prefer?
> 5th would be best for me.
Teddy, 27 May 2006 07:39:47
Hi Paul,
Thoughts interdispersed...
Author wrote:
> Here's some thoughts - at the very least any "realistic depictions" that can be shown to be not real by verbal evidence from actors, evidence of photo retouch, etc when carefully examined should be excluded.
We all know this cuts to the heart of the whole matter. It seems as though the HO is more interested in criminalising "horrific images", in true tabloid style, rather than affording the issue any proper ethical, legal or intellectual debate. "Consent is hard to prove", apparently...
> The burden of proof should be moved to the prosecution to establish intent, rather than the defence to prove innocence.
> CLEAR guidelines should be laid down to show EXACTLY what was and what was not permitted. It is unreasonable that the law should have to be chiselled out bit by bit at the cost of people’s lives and visits to the European court for borderline cases.
Trouble is that this is an almost impossible ask! Even on the most cursory level, this new law will be complex to the point of absurdity, with all sorts of "crimes of context" and subjective judgements. If they were to publish a list of state-banned sites, then this would at least allow Joe-Public to make decisions about whether they were breaking the law or not; but wouldn't this be such an embarrassing situation? Democracy RIP...
> What about the issue of wireless routers? I heard a story today from a colleague of mine, he said his brother recently visited him from the US and he brought his own laptop with him. On arrival he sat in my colleague’s conservatory and managed to link into and use the internet via a wireless broadband connection even although my colleague’s computer was switched off. - He managed to access a nearby wireless connection by simply switching on his PC and letting the laptop search for somewhere to connect to. Any one could use it. How safe would a conviction be if An ISP recorded a user as having accessed a forbidden site or transferred a forbidden picture?
Have no fear...they don't intend to target "accidental possession", so everything will be just fine. Let's hope they never intend to prosecute either, otherwise we could see the entire criminal justice system overwhelmed...
> It “might” be worth considering a warning to them of the consequences of a significant minority revolt against the legislation. If enough people were to object strongly enough the result if they were ever asked to decide as part of a jury would be highly uncertain and it would be very difficult to gain convictions. I personally I don’t think I could ever find someone guilty of one of these offences out of conscience and moral (yes moral) considerations concerning liberty, freedom and justice. It would only take a few dissenting voices in a jury and the show would be over for that case.
There may be some scope for an "I'm Spartacus" kind of approach to such oppression. Failing that, I agree that obtaining convictions in cases where no harm to any individual is even alleged to have occurred may be problematic.
> Finally we should never lose sight of the fact that there is still at least a possibility of having this whole thing thrown out. The Home Office is not at its best at the moment and it might be a good time to ask them to put it off / give more time for consideration / have another consultation over the new proposals etc and see if it can be stalled - it might disappear. We should never give them the impression that we would agree to their proposals however watered down they are.
Hopefully! I seriously believe that the nanny-statists at the HO made an error of judgement on what the reaction to this would be and may be less enamoured with the whole idea now. It may come down to what is prioritised in the workings of government, but I continue to note how little of this is mentioned ANYWHERE in the media. We should present as uncompromising a case as possible, in my view.
T.
Graham Marsden, 29 May 2006 16:57:38
Hi there,
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> I would like to propose a meeting on the Tuesday or Wednesday
> of the first full week in June..is that the 5th and 6th..
The 5th of June is a Monday, the 6th is Tuesday and that would be best
for me.
Cheers,
Graham.
Nigel Meek, 31 May 2006 01:06:14
Dem - I'll have to send my "apologies for absence" for any date that week. It's a bit busy for me at the moment! I hope that it goes well.
Nigel Meek
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I would like to propose a meeting on the Tuesday or Wednesday
> > of the first full week in June..is that the 5th and 6th..
> The 5th of June is a Monday, the 6th is Tuesday and that would be best
> for me.
> Cheers,
> Graham.
doulos, 01 Jun 2006 05:12:15
Things are slightly up in the air at the moment but I could probably
do the 6th in the evening.
zak, 01 Jun 2006 22:33:59
Original Message:
-----------------
admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 01 Jun 2006 22:33:59
Finally we should never loose sight of the fact that there is still at
least a possibility of having this whole thing thrown out. The Home Office
is not at its best at the moment and it might be a good time to ask them to
put it off / give more time for consideration / have another consultation
over the new proposals etc and see if it can be stalled - it might
disappear. We should never give them the impression that we would agree to
their proposals however watered down they are.
INdeed. While we should remain alert, at least, the reasons for optimism
are increasing. Even if someone were to suggest that, after their current
run of fuckups, the HO might like to try to "crack down on porn" to show
that they are doing something, it's quite likely that even the least
liberal of papers will go more in the direction of "you won't be able to do
this properly either, dickheads" rather than forgiving them all their
previous sins. INdeed, should the HO be silly enough to try and regain
ground by going after Vile Perverts (TM), a good strand of attack would be
their total incompetence as demonstrated so far, and the high risk of
innocent middel-class heterosexual white men getting their doors kicked in
and their computers siezed.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
deno, 02 Jun 2006 01:56:45
In a message dated 31/05/2006 23:15:36 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
a possibility of having this whole thing thrown out. The Home Office is not
at its best at the moment and it might be a good time to ask them to put it
off / give more time for consideration / have another consultation over the
new proposals etc and see if it can be stalled - it might disappear. We should
never give them the impression that we would agree to their proposals however
watered down they are.
Hopefully! I seriously believe that the nanny-statists at the HO made an
error of judgement on what the reaction to this would be and may be less
enamoured with the whole idea now. It may come down to what is prioritised in the
workings of government, but I continue to note how little of this is mentioned
ANYWHERE in the media. We should present as uncompromising a case as
possible, in my view.>
T.
These two posters seem to have the situation weighed up.
Regarding our uncompromising case are we in a position to add more
supporting
professional reports, medical, legal,etc., to the Opinion by Rabinder
Singh?
Think such evidence might convince HO of the inanity of these proposals
which were a
knee jerk reaction to the Longhurst murder and the campaign that
followed.
As the papers indicate daily murders continue unabated and usually for
no rational reason
Anyone with an ounce of understanding and a little research will
realise that the proposed
legislation will not stop the occasional sadistic crime. Likely it
will make matters worse
especially as people now innocent with no murderous intent will be
classed as criminals
and their lives ruined.
How should we proceed to make our case as strong as possible?
deno posted 1st June
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul Tavener, 02 Jun 2006 18:28:04
I think it would be wise to wait to see what the HO have to say (if anything) before the summer recess
After reading that we will know where we stand and have a better idea of what to do. Either the thing will die the death or more likely reserface in a modified form. We could perhaps get another legal opinion then (although we need to be careful as the opinion is not garanteed to go our way).
The summer will be the time to lobby MP's about any proposals if required.
> How should we proceed to make our case as strong as possible?
> deno posted 1st June
deno, 03 Jun 2006 14:09:02
In a message dated 03/06/2006 06:53:40 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:
Original Message:
-----------------
admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 03 Jun 2006 14:09:02
To: backlash@smartgroups.com
demolitionred, 04 Jun 2006 01:36:04
pAUL tAVERNER WROTE:
Author wrote:
> I think it would be wise to wait to see what the HO have to say (if anything) before the summer recess
> After reading that we will know where we stand and have a better idea of what to do. Either the thing will die the death or more likely reserface in a modified form. We could perhaps get another legal opinion then (although we need to be careful as the opinion is not garanteed to go our way).
> The summer will be the time to lobby MP's about any proposals if required.
We have the opportunity to give one last dig and point out why they would be foolish to advise the Minister to push ahead (i.e. before they publish their review of the consultaion). I think we should take full advantage of that...
demolitionred, 06 Jun 2006 11:45:49
Oooops.
I forgot to put these up...
Central Station, King's Cross, 37, Wharfdale Rd, London, N1 9SD Tel: 020 7278 3294
from 6.30 for 7
If anyone wants to submit some ideas but can't attend, email me on demolitionred@yahoo.com.