Thread

Today's Times

deno, 24 Jul 2006 20:53:04

Hi

Saw two news items which may be of interest:

First on page 26, "Despair as forced marriages stay legal"
"Last September the Home Office launched a consultation paper on creating a
specific criminal offence of forcing someone into wedlock. Although the
proposal was welcomed by many victims' groups, some organisations complained that
it would increase racial segregation. The Muslim Council of Britian gave a
warning that such a law might become "another way to stigmatise our
communities."
When Baroness Scotland the Home Office Minister announced the Government's
reversal she said that most of those consulted "felt that the disadvantages of
creating new legislation would outweigh the advantages""
Seems similar to our situation especially as our consultation was mainly
against and maybe we can remind MP's of this precedent if necessary.

Second on Register page 53 Law Report "Alternative verdict should usually
be left to the jury" House of Lords July 19,2006 Regina v Coutts Before
Lords Bingham, Nicholls, Hutton, Rodger and Mance. (As we know) The House
of Lords allowed an appeal by Graham James Coutts from dismissal by the Court
of Appeal of his appeal against his conviction at Lewes Crown Court on
February 4, 2004, of murder.
"LORD BINGHAM (Senior Law Lord, former Lord Chief Justice and Master of the
Rolls) said that on March 14, 2003, Jane Longhurst had died at the appellant's
flat. He had stored her body first in his car, then in his shed, then in a
commercial storage facility.
On April 19 he had taken it to an area of woodland and set fire to it. It
had been found burning and unclothed with a ligature made from a pair of
tights tied twice around the neck."
In previous accounts of the case have read the ligature was so tight it was
imbedded in the flesh. If it was accident as he says why did he not untie
and try to resusitate her?
At his trial he said he had been fascinated by women's necks for about 20
years but had no interest in violence and that his fetish did not extend to
strangulation. They had consensual asphyxial sex and it was a tragic accident.
He did not know how she had died!
Rather weak from a chap educated at grammar school!
Then Lord Bingham mentions," he visited a number of pornographic websites
showing violence towards women plus his repeated visits to the storeage
facility, suggesting that he had necrophiliac propensities."

The point here is that the websites are mentioned to show his interest in
violence towards women which he had confessed years ago to an old girlfriend.
As in previous accounts of the case the learned judges with their vast
experience of criminal motivation do not blame the websites for the crime as do
tabloids and other ill informed parties.
So the Coutts case has nothing whatsoever to do with us in BDSM and the
proposed new legislation should be dropped as they have done with the attempt to
stop forced marriages.

deno

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 24 Jul 2006 23:19:49

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 24 Jul 2006 23:19:49

alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk

Hi

Saw two news items which may be of interest:

First on page 26, "Despair as forced marriages stay legal"
"Last September the Home Office launched a consultation paper on creating a
specific criminal offence of forcing someone into wedlock. Although the
proposal was welcomed by many victims' groups, some organisations
complained that
it would increase racial segregation. The Muslim Council of Britian gave a
warning that such a law might become "another way to stigmatise our
communities."
When Baroness Scotland the Home Office Minister announced the Government's
reversal she said that most of those consulted "felt that the
disadvantages of
creating new legislation would outweigh the advantages""
Seems similar to our situation especially as our consultation was mainly
against and maybe we can remind MP's of this precedent if necessary.

So the Coutts case has nothing whatsoever to do with us in BDSM and the
proposed new legislation should be dropped as they have done with the
attempt to
stop forced marriages.

deno

I may not have understood you properly, but I wouldn't be too keen on
linking these two proposed bits of legislation as it might *just* give the
impression that perverts don't think forced marriage is a problem.
This is, of course, not the place for a rant on how yet again abuse of
women is regarded as less important than the preservation of men's cultural
sensitivities, so I'll spare you all that.

Z

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

deno, 25 Jul 2006 04:49:04

In a message dated 24/07/2006 23:16:13 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

I may not have understood you properly, but I wouldn't be too keen on
linking these two proposed bits of legislation as it might *just* give the
impression that perverts don't think forced marriage is a problem.
This is, of course, not the place for a rant on how yet again abuse of
women is regarded as less important than the preservation of men's cultural
sensitivities, so I'll spare you all that.

Thanks. Yes, these two cases are very different and I was interested only
to observe that HO had a consultation, appeared, to listen and then actually
dropped the controversial proposal. Of course, that one should have passed if
they have the principles and the moral high ground they seem to presume.

Regarding abuse of women I agree with you 100% as my fantasy is total
submission to femdom so am actually totally biased in favour of womens rights.
As I can't type properly I couldn't quote it all and one of the main
objections was it would drive the long outdated practice underground. A familiar
arguement ........?

d

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

zak, 25 Jul 2006 09:53:11

Original Message:
-----------------

CORODENCO@aol.com, 25 Jul 2006 09:53:11