Met my MP
SnowdropExplodes, 14 Jul 2006 19:17:15
I've just returned from my meeting with my MP, Charles Hendry (Conservative).
It was a lot harder than I thought it would be to talk to him about it - at least partly, I think, because I've never met an MP for any campaigning purpose before.
I explained some of our concerns about the proposed legislation, and I showed him the anecdotal evidence from the Backlash website ("Am I suddeny going to be labelled a criminal?") to back up worries about the effect it will have on lawabiding people.
Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to produce or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal to possess".
On a more positive note, he agreed to read my response to the HO report on the consultation, and to meet again depending on what comes out of the letter and the HO proposals put forward.
This encourages me, because he is not dismissing our point of view out of hand, and at least appears to be keeping an open mind on the issues involved. It also means that I may have another opportunity to present our case, and will be better positioned to do so having heard what Mr. Hendry had to say.
He told me that there was a chance that the legal advisors would look at the proposals and say that they were unworkable, and that could kill the proposals off.
He also offered his "sense" of what is likely to happen. he stressed that this was not a "belief" or an "opinion" (when i pressed him on it) but was just based on his impressions of the types of people involved. So this is at best a "vague guess" on his part.
He said that he felt that this was the sort of thing of which Blunkett would have been very supportive, he didn't think there would have been as much push for it from Charles Clarke. In particular, he said his impression of John Reid and Vernon Coaker was that they were more inclined towards social liberalism and that they would have much less of an impetus to drive it forwards against opposition. His impression was that John Reid had many other things that would be more important to him, that he would put into the Queen's Speech ahead of these proposals. In short, his guess would be that actually these proposals are unlikely to get much further.
As noted, Mr. Hendry did not want to make this guess any stronger than a vague sense of the people involved, and said that it was a most unreliable opinion as a basis of action. However, I think we can draw some hope from it.
Now would be a good time to get letters to MPs sent in, asking that they let Mr. Reid and Mr. Coaker know that there is a mobilised opposition to the proposals. If Mr. Hendry's sense of their politics is correct, it may be enough to bury this for good. If not, then at least it keeps them aware of us and the fact that we won't go quietly!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
demolitionred, 14 Jul 2006 19:50:16
That tallies with what we've been hearing. I really think now is the time to put the pressure on.
Graham Marsden, 14 Jul 2006 20:02:35
Hit here,
snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com wrote:
> Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to
> produce or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal
> to possess".
I don't know if you did this, but my response would have been to hit
back with "OK, so who's going to enforce it and how? How is your average
person going to know exactly where the limits are? There are no hard and
fast rules, so any decisions will be subjective."
I'd also have brought up the points raised by the BBFC who have pointed
out that stuff they've classified as 18 would be rendered illegal or by
Channel 4 who commented that programmes they've broadcast would be
covered under the proposals.
Obviously this isn't helpful to you now (unless you do have the follow
up meeting) but if anyone else meets with MPs, it's something to bear in
mind.
> On a more positive note, he agreed to read my response to the HO
> report on the consultation, and to meet again depending on what
> comes out of the letter and the HO proposals put forward.
That's good news.
Cheers,
Graham.
SnowdropExplodes, 14 Jul 2006 22:31:35
graham wrote: Hit here,
snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com wrote:
> Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to
> produce or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal
> to possess".
I don't know if you did this, but my response would have been to hit
back with "OK, so who's going to enforce it and how? How is your average
person going to know exactly where the limits are? There are no hard and
fast rules, so any decisions will be subjective."
I'd also have brought up the points raised by the BBFC who have pointed
out that stuff they've classified as 18 would be rendered illegal or by
Channel 4 who commented that programmes they've broadcast would be
covered under the proposals.
Obviously this isn't helpful to you now (unless you do have the follow
up meeting) but if anyone else meets with MPs, it's something to bear in
mind.
I mentioned both these points. His answer to the first was that the effective scope would be worked out over the first few months of the legislation being in force, as people tested the limits to see what they could or could not view. Presumably, he meant that the CPS would end up producing guidelines based on the results of court cases. Being short of time, I was unable to follow up the idea further, and moved on.
His answer re: BBFC etc seemed to be that once classified by the BBFC, he assumed that it would not be affected by the legislation - even though I pointed out that there were parts of the definitions that were more restrictive than the R18 guidelines, and that movies containing scenes that appeared to match all the criteria in the proposals had been passed uncut at 18. I think he assumed that there would be a clause in the bill to render all material classified by the BBFC as legitimate. Again, I didn't have time to follow up about instances of those scenes taken out of the context of the movies/tv show.
If the report comes out and suggests that legislation will be put together, I will certainly be arguing the case more directly to the position Mr. Hendry has adopted, and will further develop the ideas above.
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)
zak, 14 Jul 2006 22:57:45
Good effort, dude. If you're going to be around at Kinkfest, come up and
claim a free badge from the Decadent Media stall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Graham Marsden, 15 Jul 2006 01:44:24
-OJT- wrote:
>>Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to
>>produce or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal
>>to possess".
>
> I don't know if you did this, but my response would have been to hit
> back with "OK, so who's going to enforce it and how? How is your average
> person going to know exactly where the limits are? There are no hard and
> fast rules, so any decisions will be subjective."
> I mentioned both these points. His answer to the first was that the
> effective scope would be worked out over the first few months of the
> legislation being in force, as people tested the limits to see what
> they could or could not view. Presumably, he meant that the CPS
> would end up producing guidelines based on the results of court cases.
"Ah, so, Mr Hendry you think it's fair that the scope of the law should
be decided by some poor bastard being hauled before the courts such that
if they are found guilty (through no fault of their own because they had
a just different idea of the intepretation of the law) they're going to
be locked up in jail for three years and even if they're found not
guilty they're going to be screwed anyway since their reputation will
have been dragged throught the mud by the media..."
> His answer re: BBFC etc seemed to be that once classified by the BBFC,
> he assumed that it would not be affected by the legislation
A somewhat optimistic assumption IMO!
> If the report comes out and suggests that legislation will be put
> together, I will certainly be arguing the case more directly to
> the position Mr. Hendry has adopted, and will further develop the
> ideas above.
Good for you :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 16 Jul 2006 00:16:23
Pretty unfortunate for those involved in these "test cases", wouldn't you say?? It's unbelievable that such a thing could happen in a modern democracy...
It's perhaps helpful that now at least a few MPs are getting to hear other schools-of-thought and may be more inclined to give some rational consideration to this issue.
T.
Author wrote:
His answer to the first was that the effective scope would be worked out over the first few months of the legislation being in force, as people tested the limits to see what they could or could not view. Presumably, he meant that the CPS would end up producing guidelines based on the results of court cases.
*** This message has been edited by Teddy on 16 Jul 2006 01:17:14 ***
demolitionred, 16 Jul 2006 11:49:21
This is why we need a concerted effort to raise awareness and get people to talk to their MPs over the summer.
I have created an account on myspace,com and a live journal account to help build awareness.
Doulos has created a banner which needs to be distributed far and wide.
www.backlash-uk.org.uk/banner.html
We have also put an ad on an award winning political blog -- due for publication tomorrow.
Bizarre magazine have finally agreed to do an editorial.
and if someone is willing to do it, it has been suggested we should take part in www.blogathon.org.
I can't because its on the 29th July when I will be working, speaking at Kinkfest3.
If someone else can do it -- post a blog every 30 mins for a period of 24 hours -- or people want to take it in turns, I'll prepare the 48 blogs and give access to our livejournal account.
Teddy wrote:
> Pretty unfortunate for those involved in these "test cases", wouldn't you say?? It's unbelievable that such a thing could happen in a modern democracy...
> It's perhaps helpful that now at least a few MPs are getting to hear other schools-of-thought and may be more inclined to give some rational consideration to this issue.
> T.
Amelie, 17 Jul 2006 15:22:28
so this makes it just as criminal to possess an intellectual position as to
possess a drug? Thought crime indeed!
----- Original Message -----
, 17 Jul 2006 15:22:28
To:
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:10 PM
> I've just returned from my meeting with my MP, Charles Hendry
> (Conservative).
>
> It was a lot harder than I thought it would be to talk to him about it -
> at least partly, I think, because I've never met an MP for any campaigning
> purpose before.
>
> I explained some of our concerns about the proposed legislation, and I
> showed him the anecdotal evidence from the Backlash website ("Am I suddeny
> going to be labelled a criminal?") to back up worries about the effect it
> will have on lawabiding people.
>
> Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to produce
> or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal to possess".
>
> On a more positive note, he agreed to read my response to the HO report on
> the consultation, and to meet again depending on what comes out of the
> letter and the HO proposals put forward.
>
> This encourages me, because he is not dismissing our point of view out of
> hand, and at least appears to be keeping an open mind on the issues
> involved. It also means that I may have another opportunity to present
> our case, and will be better positioned to do so having heard what Mr.
> Hendry had to say.
>
> He told me that there was a chance that the legal advisors would look at
> the proposals and say that they were unworkable, and that could kill the
> proposals off.
>
> He also offered his "sense" of what is likely to happen. he stressed
> that this was not a "belief" or an "opinion" (when i pressed him on it)
> but was just based on his impressions of the types of people involved.
> So this is at best a "vague guess" on his part.
>
> He said that he felt that this was the sort of thing of which Blunkett
> would have been very supportive, he didn't think there would have been as
> much push for it from Charles Clarke. In particular, he said his
> impression of John Reid and Vernon Coaker was that they were more inclined
> towards social liberalism and that they would have much less of an impetus
> to drive it forwards against opposition. His impression was that John
> Reid had many other things that would be more important to him, that he
> would put into the Queen's Speech ahead of these proposals. In short,
> his guess would be that actually these proposals are unlikely to get much
> further.
>
> As noted, Mr. Hendry did not want to make this guess any stronger than a
> vague sense of the people involved, and said that it was a most unreliable
> opinion as a basis of action. However, I think we can draw some hope
> from it.
>
> Now would be a good time to get letters to MPs sent in, asking that they
> let Mr. Reid and Mr. Coaker know that there is a mobilised opposition to
> the proposals. If Mr. Hendry's sense of their politics is correct, it
> may be enough to bury this for good. If not, then at least it keeps them
> aware of us and the fact that we won't go quietly!
>
> 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%3D5211
>
Amelie, 17 Jul 2006 15:30:12
it is an even bigger mockery as producers and filmakers are made an
exception!
----- Original Message -----
"graham" , 17 Jul 2006 15:30:12
To:
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 7:55 PM
> Hit here,
>
> snowdrop-explodes@talk21.com wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, his view kept coming back to "It's already illegal to
> > produce or distribute, so I have no problem with it being illegal
> > to possess".
>
> I don't know if you did this, but my response would have been to hit
> back with "OK, so who's going to enforce it and how? How is your average
> person going to know exactly where the limits are? There are no hard and
> fast rules, so any decisions will be subjective."
>
> I'd also have brought up the points raised by the BBFC who have pointed
> out that stuff they've classified as 18 would be rendered illegal or by
> Channel 4 who commented that programmes they've broadcast would be
> covered under the proposals.
>
> Obviously this isn't helpful to you now (unless you do have the follow
> up meeting) but if anyone else meets with MPs, it's something to bear in
> mind.
>
>> On a more positive note, he agreed to read my response to the HO
> > report on the consultation, and to meet again depending on what
> > comes out of the letter and the HO proposals put forward.
>
> That's good news.
>
> Cheers,
> Graham.
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5213
>
Amelie, 17 Jul 2006 16:38:42
I wrote to my MP again attaching Prof. Barker's response and silver and I
have a 2-page centre spread coming out in the local weekly.
----- Original Message -----
, 17 Jul 2006 16:38:42
To:
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:39 AM
> This is why we need a concerted effort to raise awareness and get people
> to talk to their MPs over the summer.
>
> I have created an account on myspace,com and a live journal account to
> help build awareness.
>
>
> Doulos has created a banner which needs to be distributed far and wide.
>
>
> www.backlash-uk.org.uk/banner.html
>
>
> We have also put an ad on an award winning political blog -- due for
> publication tomorrow.
>
> Bizarre magazine have finally agreed to do an editorial.
>
> and if someone is willing to do it, it has been suggested we should take
> part in www.blogathon.org.
>
> I can't because its on the 29th July when I will be working, speaking at
> Kinkfest3.
>
> If someone else can do it -- post a blog every 30 mins for a period of 24
> hours -- or people want to take it in turns, I'll prepare the 48 blogs and
> give access to our livejournal account.
>
>
>
>
>
> Teddy wrote:
>> Pretty unfortunate for those involved in these "test cases", wouldn't you
>> say?? It's unbelievable that such a thing could happen in a modern
>> democracy...
>> It's perhaps helpful that now at least a few MPs are getting to hear
>> other schools-of-thought and may be more inclined to give some rational
>> consideration to this issue.
>> T.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5222
>
demolitionred, 18 Jul 2006 11:20:25
Author wrote:
> I wrote to my MP again attaching Prof. Barker's response and silver and I
> have a 2-page centre spread coming out in the local weekly.
Thats amazing. can you send us an url or a scan when it appears.