Responses to Question 1
deno, 11 Jun 2006 22:04:22
However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
(228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
_http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
(http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
shows the above.
Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
us?
deno posted 11th June
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 11 Jun 2006 23:13:30
Singh's paper seemed pretty strong in its critique of the proposals and their legality to me; the bit about the "legitimate aim" was a statement of the obvious regarding the government's motives and intent, not an endorsement of it!
So...a pretty weak attempt to refute the legal framework of the ECHR; but this lot are so arrogant, they probably think they are above the judiciary and the law. On a related issue, won't the new legislation need to go through a process of judicial review at an early stage?
T.
Author wrote:
>
> However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
>
> Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> shows the above.
> Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> us?
>
> deno posted 11th June
Alan, 12 Jun 2006 15:05:32
Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old boys??? Ha bloody ha.
Al
Author wrote:
>
> However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
>
> Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> shows the above.
> Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> us?
>
> deno posted 11th June
Alan, 12 Jun 2006 15:36:26
Sorry about that. No offence to gays was intended it was just a bit of spleen venting
Seriously the hypocrasy of this government knows no bounds,
Here we have a government espousing non judgementalism saying all relationships and sexualities have equal value and doing its damnedest to undermine marriage and solid family values. Now they want to pick on a soft target to make them selves look good in the tabloids and be seen to to "doing something" about "pervs" and threaten them/us with prison for merely looking at adults pretending to do adult things to each other. Lovely grub to their nasty spin doctors etc and now they have the audacity to distort what a leading human rights lawyer had to say on the matter
There is a but here. This target unlike child porn users who rightly deserve public shaming and jailing happens to be people who are otherwise law abiding sane and intelligent citizens that hurt no one else at all. Myself I am a father of 3 and an engineer who just happens to enjoy execution fantasies and I bet there are many just like me too.
So what can the goverenment expect but sane and intelligent opposition to this crap. I have asked many associates and friends about this issue and the consensus is
that the whole idea is a nonsense and an appalling abuse of power. I can see the whole shakey edifice running aground at the first prosecution because just who would send their fellow citizens to jail merely for looking at actors acting? I sure wouldn't and I doubt that many others would either. if there was a successful prosecution I can see an appeal running its course right through to the European court of justice and at huge public expense too. I think the UK government will come to look stupid over all this
Al
Phew 90 F in the shade....
T
Author wrote:
> Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old boys??? Ha bloody ha.
> Al
> Author wrote:
> >
> > However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> > (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> > to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> > Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> > proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> > as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> > _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> > (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
> >
> > Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> > shows the above.
> > Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> > given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> > us?
> >
> > deno posted 11th June
zak, 12 Jun 2006 20:17:36
You're entitled to your own rampant heterosexuality and/or your insecurity
about it, but making farty-old-colonel type comments like this is not the
best of ideas. It makes people on either side of the debate think you're a
bit of a dick.
Original Message:
-----------------
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 12 Jun 2006 20:17:36
Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex
in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old
boys??? Ha bloody ha.
Al
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Teddy, 13 Jun 2006 01:31:24
Hi Alan,
Perhaps worth remembering that you can delete/edit your entries on the forum!
You definitely have my admiration for the way you are quite open and bold in your opposition to these ridiculous proposals, even though you might well fall within the scope of the "offenders" the HO wants to victimise...maybe worth also considering how the current predicament echoes the suffering imposed on harmless and consenting sexual minorities in the past.
T.
Author wrote:
> Sorry about that. No offence to gays was intended it was just a bit of spleen venting
> Seriously the hypocrasy of this government knows no bounds,
> Here we have a government espousing non judgementalism saying all relationships and sexualities have equal value and doing its damnedest to undermine marriage and solid family values. Now they want to pick on a soft target to make them selves look good in the tabloids and be seen to to "doing something" about "pervs" and threaten them/us with prison for merely looking at adults pretending to do adult things to each other. Lovely grub to their nasty spin doctors etc and now they have the audacity to distort what a leading human rights lawyer had to say on the matter
> There is a but here. This target unlike child porn users who rightly deserve public shaming and jailing happens to be people who are otherwise law abiding sane and intelligent citizens that hurt no one else at all. Myself I am a father of 3 and an engineer who just happens to enjoy execution fantasies and I bet there are many just like me too.
> So what can the goverenment expect but sane and intelligent opposition to this crap. I have asked many associates and friends about this issue and the consensus is
> that the whole idea is a nonsense and an appalling abuse of power. I can see the whole shakey edifice running aground at the first prosecution because just who would send their fellow citizens to jail merely for looking at actors acting? I sure wouldn't and I doubt that many others would either. if there was a successful prosecution I can see an appeal running its course right through to the European court of justice and at huge public expense too. I think the UK government will come to look stupid over all this
> Al
> Phew 90 F in the shade....
> T
> Author wrote:
> > Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old boys??? Ha bloody ha.
> > Al
> > Author wrote:
> > >
> > > However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> > > (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> > > to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> > > Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> > > proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> > > as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> > > _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> > > (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
> > >
> > > Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> > > shows the above.
> > > Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> > > given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> > > us?
> > >
> > > deno posted 11th June
Alan, 13 Jun 2006 18:36:30
I may be a bit of a dick and I don't mind being called one.
Rampamt heterosexuality? I used to be very ambivalent about that when I was a BOY of 16 and 16s are still boys in my book. Insecure? nah and I don't have an issue with gay people all but many so called normal people do.
The comments about changes to gay sex laws were to illustrate the hypocracy of our government. There are lot of people who detest the idea of gay sex in public bogs or grown men having their way with boys and equate this with falling public morals
Ditto a governent that seems to almost encourage underage sex of either orientation too and thats many many more citizens than are represented here. So my point was that the gov dept responsible for this perceived lowering of morals now wants to persecute people who happen to like certain pictures or scenarios. What hypocritical crap.
Take my comments or leave em I dont care but I did send my name and address to the HO along with my response to the consultaion so can expect my door smashed in sometime soon after any new laws comes into force. Did you?
Al
Author wrote:
> You're entitled to your own rampant heterosexuality and/or your insecurity
> about it, but making farty-old-colonel type comments like this is not the
> best of ideas. It makes people on either side of the debate think you're a
> bit of a dick.
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 13 Jun 2006 18:36:30
> Subject: [backlash] Re: Responses to Question 1
> Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex
> in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old
> boys??? Ha bloody ha.
> Al
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Alan, 13 Jun 2006 18:39:43
Thanks for you words
Re being a potential offender yes I do have a collection of fantasy material and would probably be culled in the first pogrom
but sometimes we have to stand tall
al
Author wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Perhaps worth remembering that you can delete/edit your entries on the forum!
> You definitely have my admiration for the way you are quite open and bold in your opposition to these ridiculous proposals, even though you might well fall within the scope of the "offenders" the HO wants to victimise...maybe worth also considering how the current predicament echoes the suffering imposed on harmless and consenting sexual minorities in the past.
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > Sorry about that. No offence to gays was intended it was just a bit of spleen venting
> > Seriously the hypocrasy of this government knows no bounds,
> > Here we have a government espousing non judgementalism saying all relationships and sexualities have equal value and doing its damnedest to undermine marriage and solid family values. Now they want to pick on a soft target to make them selves look good in the tabloids and be seen to to "doing something" about "pervs" and threaten them/us with prison for merely looking at adults pretending to do adult things to each other. Lovely grub to their nasty spin doctors etc and now they have the audacity to distort what a leading human rights lawyer had to say on the matter
> > There is a but here. This target unlike child porn users who rightly deserve public shaming and jailing happens to be people who are otherwise law abiding sane and intelligent citizens that hurt no one else at all. Myself I am a father of 3 and an engineer who just happens to enjoy execution fantasies and I bet there are many just like me too.
> > So what can the goverenment expect but sane and intelligent opposition to this crap. I have asked many associates and friends about this issue and the consensus is
> > that the whole idea is a nonsense and an appalling abuse of power. I can see the whole shakey edifice running aground at the first prosecution because just who would send their fellow citizens to jail merely for looking at actors acting? I sure wouldn't and I doubt that many others would either. if there was a successful prosecution I can see an appeal running its course right through to the European court of justice and at huge public expense too. I think the UK government will come to look stupid over all this
> > Al
> > Phew 90 F in the shade....
> > T
> > Author wrote:
> > > Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old boys??? Ha bloody ha.
> > > Al
> > > Author wrote:
> > > >
> > > > However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> > > > (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> > > > to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> > > > Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> > > > proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> > > > as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> > > > _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> > > > (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
> > > >
> > > > Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> > > > shows the above.
> > > > Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> > > > given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> > > > us?
> > > >
> > > > deno posted 11th June
Paul Tavener, 14 Jun 2006 00:18:36
I amire your bravery. If it comes to the crunch and you are prosecuted then I do hope that you will fell able to push the issue through the courts and all the way to Europe and also be provided with sufficient support from groups like this to do so.
But there is a lot of water to go under the bridge yet...
Author wrote:
> Thanks for you words
> Re being a potential offender yes I do have a collection of fantasy material and would probably be culled in the first pogrom
> but sometimes we have to stand tall
> al
> Author wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> > Perhaps worth remembering that you can delete/edit your entries on the forum!
> > You definitely have my admiration for the way you are quite open and bold in your opposition to these ridiculous proposals, even though you might well fall within the scope of the "offenders" the HO wants to victimise...maybe worth also considering how the current predicament echoes the suffering imposed on harmless and consenting sexual minorities in the past.
> > T.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Sorry about that. No offence to gays was intended it was just a bit of spleen venting
> > > Seriously the hypocrasy of this government knows no bounds,
> > > Here we have a government espousing non judgementalism saying all relationships and sexualities have equal value and doing its damnedest to undermine marriage and solid family values. Now they want to pick on a soft target to make them selves look good in the tabloids and be seen to to "doing something" about "pervs" and threaten them/us with prison for merely looking at adults pretending to do adult things to each other. Lovely grub to their nasty spin doctors etc and now they have the audacity to distort what a leading human rights lawyer had to say on the matter
> > > There is a but here. This target unlike child porn users who rightly deserve public shaming and jailing happens to be people who are otherwise law abiding sane and intelligent citizens that hurt no one else at all. Myself I am a father of 3 and an engineer who just happens to enjoy execution fantasies and I bet there are many just like me too.
> > > So what can the goverenment expect but sane and intelligent opposition to this crap. I have asked many associates and friends about this issue and the consensus is
> > > that the whole idea is a nonsense and an appalling abuse of power. I can see the whole shakey edifice running aground at the first prosecution because just who would send their fellow citizens to jail merely for looking at actors acting? I sure wouldn't and I doubt that many others would either. if there was a successful prosecution I can see an appeal running its course right through to the European court of justice and at huge public expense too. I think the UK government will come to look stupid over all this
> > > Al
> > > Phew 90 F in the shade....
> > > T
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Protect public morals!!! This from a government that has legalised gay sex in public toilets and made it possible for grown men to bugger 16 year old boys??? Ha bloody ha.
> > > > Al
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > However, Rabinder Singh QC who provided an opinion to The Spanner Trust
> > > > > (228) concluded that while he considered the legislation as proposed to give rise
> > > > > to real concerns as to its compatibility with an individual?s rights under
> > > > > Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, he also believed that as the aim of the
> > > > > proposed legislation would be the protection of morals, this would be accepted
> > > > > as legitimate by the domestic courts and Strasbourg courts.
> > > > > _http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc_
> > > > > (http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/pdfs/agcssumm.doc)
> > > > >
> > > > > Note with concern that Scottish Executive "Responses to Question 1" para.43
> > > > > shows the above.
> > > > > Am wondering if they have misinterpreted this opinion or has Rabinder Singh
> > > > > given them the green light and so the price inflated effort is of no use to
> > > > > us?
> > > > >
> > > > > deno posted 11th June
zak, 14 Jun 2006 13:56:05
Original Message:
-----------------
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 14 Jun 2006 13:56:05
I may be a bit of a dick and I don't mind being called one.
Rampamt heterosexuality? I used to be very ambivalent about that when I was
a BOY of 16
and 16s are still boys in my book. Insecure? nah and I don't have an issue
with gay
people all but many so called normal people do.
Many people have an issue with any kind of sexual behaviour between
consenting adults if
it doesn't turn them on. Many people have issues about pornography and
kinky sex. Isn't
Backlash partly about pointing out to such people that their prejudices are
their problem
and they don't have the right never to be offended?
The comments about changes to gay sex laws were to illustrate the
hypocracy of our
government. There are lot of people who detest the idea of gay sex in
public bogs or grown
men having their way with boys and equate this with falling public morals
But grown men having their way with 16-year-old GIRLS is ok, right? Because
that's
perfectly legal...
Take my comments or leave em I dont care but I did send my name and address
to the HO
along with my response to the consultaion so can expect my door smashed in
sometime soon
after any new laws comes into force. Did you?
Al
Yes. And my MP. Your po
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Alan, 14 Jun 2006 14:21:44
Ok lets call a halt to this now. I tried to make a point about hypocracy and perceived morality but have been missunderstood. Ok I opologise for any offence that others may have taken from my comments. lets get on with the business of opposing our crappy governement
Ok
Al
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 14 Jun 2006 14:21:44
> Subject: RE: [backlash] Re: Responses to Question 1
> I may be a bit of a dick and I don't mind being called one.
> Rampamt heterosexuality? I used to be very ambivalent about that when I was
> a BOY of 16
> and 16s are still boys in my book. Insecure? nah and I don't have an issue
> with gay
> people all but many so called normal people do.
> Many people have an issue with any kind of sexual behaviour between
> consenting adults if
> it doesn't turn them on. Many people have issues about pornography and
> kinky sex. Isn't
> Backlash partly about pointing out to such people that their prejudices are
> their problem
> and they don't have the right never to be offended?
> The comments about changes to gay sex laws were to illustrate the
> hypocracy of our
> government. There are lot of people who detest the idea of gay sex in
> public bogs or grown
> men having their way with boys and equate this with falling public morals
> But grown men having their way with 16-year-old GIRLS is ok, right? Because
> that's
> perfectly legal...
> Take my comments or leave em I dont care but I did send my name and address
> to the HO
> along with my response to the consultaion so can expect my door smashed in
> sometime soon
> after any new laws comes into force. Did you?
> Al
> Yes. And my MP. Your po
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
deno, 14 Jun 2006 18:30:19
In a message dated 13/06/2006 10:41:21 GMT Standard Time,
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk writes:
_http://xxxratedgroups.com/_ (http://xxxratedgroups.com/) This a legal
site in Holland just over the channel. I think the lovely UK gov might have
trouble making anti porn legislation stick because under HR rules laws have to be
in step with the rest of europe and guess what the other 24 states refuse to
criminalise so called extreme porn
Extracted from private email as I thought worth posting. Has this point
been made to HO
that we will be out of step with Europe?
deno posted 14th June
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
zak, 14 Jun 2006 20:10:31
Original Message:
-----------------
alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk, 14 Jun 2006 20:10:31
Ok lets call a halt to this now. I tried to make a point about hypocracy
and perceived morality but have been missunderstood. Ok I opologise for any
offence that others may have taken from my comments. lets get on with the
business of opposing our crappy governement
Ok
Al
Agree with you entirely on that one.
Z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
demolitionred, 16 Jun 2006 08:07:17
As I understand it, individual states can choose to be out of step on certain topics that effect public good, morality eyc so they don't care. In any event, other countries are contemplating similar laws.
SnowdropExplodes, 16 Jun 2006 10:18:34
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
As I understand it, individual states can choose to be out of step on certain topics that effect public good, morality eyc so they don't care. In any event, other countries are contemplating similar laws.
Which other countries, and do we have any information about what campaigning is taking place there? Is there any way we can coordinate efforts with those campaigns to make ours and theirs more effective?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 16 Jun 2006 10:26:25
Greece, Germany and Holland that I have heard about.
At the moment we're not even doing a successful job of raising awareness here dso going overseas might be stretching resources too far.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 18 Jun 2006 14:50:58 ***
SnowdropExplodes, 16 Jun 2006 11:33:55
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
Greece, amsterdam and Holland that I have heard about.
At the moment we're not even doing a successful job of raising awareness here dso going overseas might be stretching resources too far.
Amsterdam AND Holland?
Okay, geographical mickey-taking aside, I was thinking more of finding out if there are groups in Greece or (more probably) Holland who are fighting the proposals, and whether it would be possible to establish some form of link to share resources etc. Not so much trying to do the work ourselves!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Alan, 16 Jun 2006 23:54:29
Holland? I read that the Dutch priminister said that dutch law was not there to condemn private matters like porn. Thats my paraprase because I can't remember the exact quotation. Basically he disagreed with the UK goverment as did the other EU states.
where did you hear about anti porn proposals in other EU states?
al
Author wrote:
> Greece, amsterdam and Holland that I have heard about.
> At the moment we're not even doing a successful job of raising awareness here dso going overseas might be stretching resources too far.
demolitionred, 18 Jun 2006 15:03:23
Author wrote:
> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> Greece, amsterdam and Holland that I have heard about.
> At the moment we're not even doing a successful job of raising awareness here dso going overseas might be stretching resources too far.
> Amsterdam AND Holland?
> Okay, geographical mickey-taking aside, I was thinking more of finding out if there are groups in Greece or (more probably) Holland who are fighting the proposals, and whether it would be possible to establish some form of link to share resources etc. Not so much trying to do the work ourselves!
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
My point was that in another post asking what people are up to there have been no replies. On all posts where I list what needs doing I get few -- if any -- replies.
Who therefore would find and contact these groups and is it really more important than all the jobs that need doing here?
demolitionred, 18 Jun 2006 15:06:31
I don't think it was the Prime Minister. In greece they decided not to go ahead from what I remember, there has been no news from the US and I read German plans are on hold...I heard there are plans in Italy to mirror our anti-child porn laws but haven't looked any further into it.
I won't be looking for refernces cos I think this is the least important job for us to be doing at the moment. If we can stop the law here I think that will deter any governments thinking of doing something similar from going ahead in other countries.
Author wrote:
> Holland? I read that the Dutch priminister said that dutch law was not there to condemn private matters like porn. Thats my paraprase because I can't remember the exact quotation. Basically he disagreed with the UK goverment as did the other EU states.
> where did you hear about anti porn proposals in other EU states?
> al
> Author wrote:
> > Greece, amsterdam and Holland that I have heard about.
> > At the moment we're not even doing a successful job of raising awareness here dso going overseas might be stretching resources too far.