Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:46 PM
> Thanks to pearl_maude for the following:
>
>
> At the original trial Coutts and his Defence Counsel were invited by the
Judge to ask for manslaughter to be put to the Jury as an alternative
verdict.
> Coutts rejected this offer and decided to gamble with the choice between
murder or acquittal.
>
> This was his gamble: the Jury could only convict Coutts of murder if they
were satisfied that he intended to kill. If there was any doubt about his
intent, he would have been acquitted. If manslaughter had been offered to
the Jury they could have convicted him of manslaughter because intent to
kill is not a necessary element of that offence.
>
> The House of Lords decision is on a very technical question of whether the
Judge ought to have offered manslaughter to the Jury even though Coutts
decided he didn't want that option.
>
> This decision doesn't add anything to the law's approach to BDSM. Although
one of the Judges commented that breath play is so inherently dangerous that
if someone died a charge of manslaughter would be inevitable. He also seems
to suggest that the introduction of the evidence that Coutts used violent
porn may have influenced the jury.
>
>
>
> So what does that mean for us, if anything?
>
>
>
> The proposals to criminalise porn were heavily linked in the consulation
press releases with Longhurst's death.
>
> In the judgement -- as it has been explained to me ( ) thanks -- the
Judge's view of the evidence was that is was likely that the porn did not
cause Coutts to develop sadistic tendencies.
>
> Coutts was doing what he had always done and without intent to harm.
Instead the porn caused prejudice and assumption in the mind of the jury.
>
>
>
>
> Again, this might be something that it is worth writing to MPs about.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5245
>
Graham Marsden, 19 Jul 2006 14:30:53
Hi there,
demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> The proposals to criminalise porn were heavily linked in the
> consulation press releases with Longhurst's death.
>
> In the judgement -- as it has been explained to me ( ) thanks
> -- the Judge's view of the evidence was that is was likely
> that the porn did not cause Coutts to develop sadistic tendencies.
>
> Coutts was doing what he had always done and without intent to
> harm. Instead the porn caused prejudice and assumption in the
> mind of the jury.
>
> Again, this might be something that it is worth writing to MPs about.....
Overall I *think* this ruling is (more or less) good news for us in
that, as you say, the "murder" conviction seems to have very much been
based on the "extreme porn made him do it" idea also IMO it shouldn't
have met the criteria of "malice aforethought" ie he did not have the
*intent* to kill.
I can see, to some extent, why Coutts chose to "gamble" on an all or
nothing strategy, unfortunately it backfired for him (and with unforseen
consequences on us).
Of course if (as I think will happen) he is re-tried, he will almost
certainly now be convicted of manslaughter given the publicity that has
surrounded the case.
As regards the Consultation, I have little doubt that the Home Office
will try to weasel out of this by saying that the Consultation was not
about the Jane Longhurst murder but a wider point about morals and
obscenity or some such, but it certainly seems to weaken their case
given the way they related the two when the Consultation first came out.
Cheers,
Graham.
deno, 19 Jul 2006 18:42:21
In a message dated 19/07/2006 10:54:21 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/5193712.stm
I don't really understand what happens next; does there have to be a
re-trial? With the HO report also imminent, we may hear quite a lot on the issue of
"extreme" porn in the media in the coming days.
T.>
Quite a surprise! My thoughts are that it could be to our advantage
especially if, as has been suggested by an MP, HO might like to let the proposed
legislation slide or even die a natural death (not strangulation!)
Do we need to consider a change in tactics in view of this development?
Seems Coutts will get a new trial and the papers may have to keep quiet, sub
judice.
What if we keep quiet, awaiting developments, if any? Am worried that
contacting them regarding publishing responses to consultation, etc., could have
the effect of needling or urging them to draft a rubbish proposed new law when
really they have different priorities
if left to their own devices?
Appreciate this is a high risk strategy but it seems Coutts original gamble,
all or nothing, has paid off in the long run and he may gain from a new
trial.
Should we consider taking a chance with a lower profile?
deno
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Teddy, 20 Jul 2006 00:58:55
Hi All,
I think comparing the defence of the rights of law-abiding people to make their own choices about pornography to the legal tactics of Coutts is perhaps disingenuous and not so helpful.
My personal view is that this man is a nasty piece of work, be he a murderer or a manslaughter-er, who has haplessly brought about a highly reactionary governmental agenda. Granted, if any retrial helps to differentiate his actions from the porn issue, this would be positive. However, having launched this whole saga on the basis of this crime, I wouldn't be so surprised to see the HO now shift their arguments along lines of upholding "morality".
I think our campaign should remain as vocal as possible; there will always be the mediawatch-types who will make themselves heard if we don't...
T.
Author wrote:
>Appreciate this is a high risk strategy but it seems Coutts original gamble,
> all or nothing, has paid off in the long run and he may gain from a new
> trial.
> Should we consider taking a chance with a lower profile?
> deno
adrian, 20 Jul 2006 11:09:59
Is he a nasty piece of work? Possibly. I don't know all the
available facts, but I do know he revisited the body and that stands
against him. If as I seem to remember he visited the sites soon after
the death this looks very bad too. If I was involved in ethical play
that went remotely seriously wrong, the last thing I'd want to do is
to is to visit a porn site on the subject for a long time after.
But does it mean he's a cold-blooded murderer? He's just been given
leave to appeal. If, out of terror at being tarred with the Coutts
brush, we prejudge him, we lose our claim to be the rational or moral
party in this debate.
Bear in mind the bdsm community position. Most think heavier play
should be legal than currently is legal. But few to none accept or
condone play involving any real risk of death. The community works
hard to educate and prevent this. Causing death through recklessness
is manslaughter and I don't see any lesser charge than this.
Remember, other sides may have the best of intentions, but we hold the
most purely moral position.
zak, 20 Jul 2006 15:04:38
Original Message:
-----------------
Adrian adrianhb@googlemail.com, 20 Jul 2006 15:04:38
Is he a nasty piece of work? Possibly. I don't know all the
available facts, but I do know he revisited the body and that stands
against him.
It's difficult for any of us to know: the Longhurst side certainly claimed
that JL would not have had consensual sex with him, the implication being
that she was far too virtuous to be kinky and he was a vile beast who had
not only murdered her but was blackening her name by suggesting that she
might have had sex with him - and there were added complications in that
both he and she were in official relationships with other people.
I\m in the camp that says we shouldn't dwell too heavily on this particular
case because 'upsetting' cases (ie the death of anyone white and middle
class) are a bad basis for legal precedent and we are better off sticking
to logic and the human rights aspect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Teddy, 20 Jul 2006 20:55:15
I would agree with this analysis; justice in this case is one thing, injustice for many would be quite another. There is an article in the Reading Post today-
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2002706/ill_take_one_day_at_a_time
Once again, Salter is sticking his oar in, it seems (has anyone read the hard-copy of the paper and read his "letter of support"?).
T.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> I\m in the camp that says we shouldn't dwell too heavily on this particular
> case because 'upsetting' cases (ie the death of anyone white and middle
> class) are a bad basis for legal precedent and we are better off sticking
> to logic and the human rights aspect.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Graham Marsden, 20 Jul 2006 21:15:58
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> There is an article in the Reading Post today-
>
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2002706/ill_take_one_day_at_a_time
Whilst looking at that, I happened to notice the following link:
"Jailed for sale of illegal porn"
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2002658/jailed_for_sale_of_illegal_porn
* * * * *
"The bosses of a mail-order video porn empire have been jailed for money
laundering and distributing illegal films. [...]
"Many of the films were rated \x{201C}R-18\x{201D}, meaning it is legal to buy them in
person from a licensed sex shop but not to sell them via mail order."
[Of course had they been selling them from Europe and posting them to
this country it would have been legal!"]
"The tamest of the titles appearing in court files included \x{201C}I Like it
Fat\x{201D} and \x{201C}Rubber and Laytex\x{201D}, while others featured \x{201C}unnatural
activities between adults,\x{201D} including coprophilia, Mr Price [the
Prosecutor] said.
"He said none of the movies featured animals, children or other illegal
acts, and were not sold to anyone under age.
"\x{201C}The people taking part are volunteers, and there is no suggestion that
they were sold to anyone other than enthusiastic connoisseurs of
pornographic films,\x{201D} he said.
"Judge Christopher Critchlow [...] said nine per cent of the videos
seized had been classed as \x{201C}obscene\x{2026} degrading and corrupting,\x{201D} but said
he took note of the fact that none showed activity that was not between
consenting adults.
"Each of the men was jailed for a total of 21 months."
* * * * *
It's interesting to note that emphasis was made of the point that "none
of the movies featured animals, children or other illegal acts" by the
prosecution.
Cheers,
Graham.
Teddy, 20 Jul 2006 21:36:28
Misleading, and probably incorrect, use of the term "illegal porn"...this gives the impression the material was illegal per se, whereas the prosecution was related specifically to the means of distribution.
Author wrote:
> Whilst looking at that, I happened to notice the following link:
> "Jailed for sale of illegal porn"
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2002/2002658/jailed_for_sale_of_illegal_porn
> * * * * *
> "The bosses of a mail-order video porn empire have been jailed for money
> laundering and distributing illegal films. [...]
> "Many of the films were rated “R-18”, meaning it is legal to buy them in
> person from a licensed sex shop but not to sell them via mail order."
> [Of course had they been selling them from Europe and posting them to
> this country it would have been legal!"]
> "The tamest of the titles appearing in court files included “I Like it
> Fat” and “Rubber and Laytex”, while others featured “unnatural
> activities between adults,” including coprophilia, Mr Price [the
> Prosecutor] said.
> "He said none of the movies featured animals, children or other illegal
> acts, and were not sold to anyone under age.
> "“The people taking part are volunteers, and there is no suggestion that
> they were sold to anyone other than enthusiastic connoisseurs of
> pornographic films,” he said.
> "Judge Christopher Critchlow [...] said nine per cent of the videos
> seized had been classed as “obscene… degrading and corrupting,” but said
> he took note of the fact that none showed activity that was not between
> consenting adults.
> "Each of the men was jailed for a total of 21 months."
> * * * * *
> It's interesting to note that emphasis was made of the point that "none
> of the movies featured animals, children or other illegal acts" by the
> prosecution.
> Cheers,
> Graham.
SnowdropExplodes, 21 Jul 2006 00:02:56
This is another example of the censorship laws actually encouraging pervery - the reason being that if you order the same videos from overseas, very often what you get sent are not the versions passed as R-18 by the BBFC, with whatever cuts they saw fit to make, but the uncut European versions.
And, because mail-order is so much easier these days, and of course some people have inhibitions about going to sex shops (or like me, live in an area where there aren't any because they only lifted the bye-law banning them last year, and nobody's moved in to tap the market yet) - it gives a natural pressure towards buying the harder, uncut, "perverted" versions.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
graham wrote:
"Many of the films were rated “R-18”, meaning it is legal to buy them in
person from a licensed sex shop but not to sell them via mail order."
[Of course had they been selling them from Europe and posting them to
this country it would have been legal!"]
---------------------------------
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 21 Jul 2006 13:45:59
Except one of her friends said in court that she had done breathplay in previous realtionships, acording to athread on bondage.com
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: Adrian adrianhb@googlemail.com, 21 Jul 2006 13:45:59
> Subject: Re: [backlash] House of Lords ruling
> Is he a nasty piece of work? Possibly. I don't know all the
> available facts, but I do know he revisited the body and that stands
> against him.
> It's difficult for any of us to know: the Longhurst side certainly claimed
> that JL would not have had consensual sex with him, the implication being
> that she was far too virtuous to be kinky and he was a vile beast who had
> not only murdered her but was blackening her name by suggesting that she
> might have had sex with him - and there were added complications in that
> both he and she were in official relationships with other people.
> I\m in the camp that says we shouldn't dwell too heavily on this particular
> case because 'upsetting' cases (ie the death of anyone white and middle
> class) are a bad basis for legal precedent and we are better off sticking
> to logic and the human rights aspect.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .