Latest from Mediawatch
Teddy, 12 Aug 2006 05:58:40
Wow!
A letter from the infamous Beyer himself, no less. Not quite as loopy as I might have expected, but interesting to note how he feels the the existing OPA is something that politicians have been democratically elected to uphold. I wasn't aware it was something that I'd had a chance to vote on...certainly not a core issue in any of the party manifestos at the last election.
He also seems to conveniently conflate the issues of publication and possession; surely, personal ownership of porn IS a private matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for your e-mail yesterday.
The remark you quote from our summer 2006 newsbrief was speculative and I had hoped that it might encourage the Home Office to publish the responses as a result. I am grateful for the link to the BBC page which I had not seen before but I suggest that your observations are speculative too.
We hold the view that delays are unacceptable because the consultation closed on 2 December 2005 and we were told that an announcement would be made three months after this date. Then we were told an announcement would be made before the summer recess. Both these junctures have passed and still there has been no announcement. We expended a great deal of time and effort in responding to the consultation and so it is not unreasonable to expect the Home Office to work to its own timetable. The due process of democracy is one thing but inexplicable delays quite another.
I simply do not agree with you that extreme pornographic imagery is a "non-issue". Our democratically elected Government has enacted legislation to deal with obscene publications and it is plainly not working. We believe it should work and work effectively to make at least the imagery described in the consultation illegal. Consensual activities in private, so long as they are not illegal, is one thing but the Internet is not private: it is a means for publishing and should be subject to the criminal law just like all other publications. We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
Regards,
John C Beyer
rovacs, 12 Aug 2006 14:00:23
This is interesting-it looks like someone at the Home Office has told the prurient Mr Beyer very recently that this extreme porn stuff is a non issue and he is unhappy about it. Could this be a hint that sanity may prevail I wonder?
On this subject. The other day one of the BBC channels,in a programme on the portyrayl of ancient Rome on tv,showed the scene in "I Claudius" where the mad Emperor Caligula-who has sexual relations with his sister-has her strung up naked hanging from the ceiling. She thinks this is another of his sex games,but he proceeds to cut her open with a knife and consumes his/her unborn child she is carrying. You see him take the knife to her,she screams,then the scene cuts to Caligula exiting the room his mouth and beard bloodied and covered with flesh etc. This is a piece of extreme sexual violence okay-whether its porn is debateable. How do we know it wasn't included by the makers to give some kind of perverse titillation to some people? Is it "acceptable" under the loopy proposals on extreme violent porn because it is in the context of a historical series rather than just being a porno movie? Is it acceptable because it could be said that though we see Caligula take the knife to his sister,the scream,the bloodied Caligula subsequent to the deed etc,the act itself is not properly shown? Would someone who merely has a copy of this particular scene and not the rest of the episode be more liable to prosecution under such a law? Are the makers of this scene 30 years ago liable to prosecution as peddlers of violent porn? My point in all this is that viewers of a mainstream BBC production of 30 years ago-copies of which are in Video shops and public libraries,might be liable for prosecution under these mad proposals,OR importantly could with reason believe they cxould be prosecuted .It might be argued by the Home Office that such a scene would not invite prosecution because it doesn't show everything,it is not being done in the context of specifically pornographic material etc-but would anyone viewing this scene or with a copy of it really feel assuredly safe from prosecution under such a law? Would people not conversant with the fine detail of such a law which maybe did exempt say material not purposely produced sexual arousal,be clear whether or not they were liable to be jailed for viewing such scenes as this?
Author wrote:
> Wow!
> A letter from the infamous Beyer himself, no less. Not quite as loopy as I might have expected, but interesting to note how he feels the the existing OPA is something that politicians have been democratically elected to uphold. I wasn't aware it was something that I'd had a chance to vote on...certainly not a core issue in any of the party manifestos at the last election.
> He also seems to conveniently conflate the issues of publication and possession; surely, personal ownership of porn IS a private matter?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Mr Smith,
> Thank you for your e-mail yesterday.
> The remark you quote from our summer 2006 newsbrief was speculative and I had hoped that it might encourage the Home Office to publish the responses as a result. I am grateful for the link to the BBC page which I had not seen before but I suggest that your observations are speculative too.
> We hold the view that delays are unacceptable because the consultation closed on 2 December 2005 and we were told that an announcement would be made three months after this date. Then we were told an announcement would be made before the summer recess. Both these junctures have passed and still there has been no announcement. We expended a great deal of time and effort in responding to the consultation and so it is not unreasonable to expect the Home Office to work to its own timetable. The due process of democracy is one thing but inexplicable delays quite another.
> I simply do not agree with you that extreme pornographic imagery is a "non-issue". Our democratically elected Government has enacted legislation to deal with obscene publications and it is plainly not working. We believe it should work and work effectively to make at least the imagery described in the consultation illegal. Consensual activities in private, so long as they are not illegal, is one thing but the Internet is not private: it is a means for publishing and should be subject to the criminal law just like all other publications. We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> Regards,
> John C Beyer
stripey, 12 Aug 2006 16:41:12
Cor, I wonder if Mr Beyer inherits the same superhuman ability that his predecessor Mary Whitehouse had. She could sit through hours and hours of material that would obviously deprave and corrupt lesser mortals like you and me, yet she would emerge unscathed.
Why can't these busybodies ever find the off button (or the "back" link in the internet age)?
As Kenny Everett said to Mrs Whitehouse once: "You have a knob. Use it."
Paul Tavener, 12 Aug 2006 17:59:02
It should be made clear exactly where these Christian Fascists at mediawatch realy stand, the truth is that the Mediawatch response to the extreme porn debate suggests that totaly consentual R18 content should also be included within the scope of criminalisation:
" We believe, however, that the scope of the material that is the focus of the new offences is far too narrow and should be broadened to include a much wider range of extreme pornographic imagery. The scope should certainly be extended to include that which the British Board of Film Classification has unilaterally decided is suitable to be classified at ‘R18’."
They arn't interested in anyone elses point of view, they just want their views imposed. Well I'm not up for that, Mr Beyer can boil his head - in fact I suggest that he might be better employed in Afganistan fighting against the Islamic Fascists, and letting everyone else get on with there lives free from God bothers.
Author wrote:
> Wow!
> A letter from the infamous Beyer himself, no less. Not quite as loopy as I might have expected, but interesting to note how he feels the the existing OPA is something that politicians have been democratically elected to uphold. I wasn't aware it was something that I'd had a chance to vote on...certainly not a core issue in any of the party manifestos at the last election.
> He also seems to conveniently conflate the issues of publication and possession; surely, personal ownership of porn IS a private matter?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Mr Smith,
> Thank you for your e-mail yesterday.
> The remark you quote from our summer 2006 newsbrief was speculative and I had hoped that it might encourage the Home Office to publish the responses as a result. I am grateful for the link to the BBC page which I had not seen before but I suggest that your observations are speculative too.
> We hold the view that delays are unacceptable because the consultation closed on 2 December 2005 and we were told that an announcement would be made three months after this date. Then we were told an announcement would be made before the summer recess. Both these junctures have passed and still there has been no announcement. We expended a great deal of time and effort in responding to the consultation and so it is not unreasonable to expect the Home Office to work to its own timetable. The due process of democracy is one thing but inexplicable delays quite another.
> I simply do not agree with you that extreme pornographic imagery is a "non-issue". Our democratically elected Government has enacted legislation to deal with obscene publications and it is plainly not working. We believe it should work and work effectively to make at least the imagery described in the consultation illegal. Consensual activities in private, so long as they are not illegal, is one thing but the Internet is not private: it is a means for publishing and should be subject to the criminal law just like all other publications. We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> Regards,
> John C Beyer
Teddy, 12 Aug 2006 20:02:30
Also interesting to note how quickly the halcyon era of Goggins is recalled. Maybe the present HO team aren't deemed authoritarian enough for Mediawatch?
T.
Author wrote:
We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > Regards,
> > John C Beyer
>
>
Alan, 12 Aug 2006 23:39:10
I understood the goggs to be a christo fascist of some renoun hence his affinity with oddbods like beyers et al. Mayhap the new boys are a bit more mormal
Todd
Author wrote:
> Also interesting to note how quickly the halcyon era of Goggins is recalled. Maybe the present HO team aren't deemed authoritarian enough for Mediawatch?
> T.
> Author wrote:
> We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > > Regards,
> > > John C Beyer
> >
> >
rovacs, 14 Aug 2006 10:49:08
Blair is the first really "practicing believing Christian" in Downing Street for decades(as opposed to "lip service" ones)-and I'm convinced he has some kind of Messiah complex. I think he shows strong signs of having a very dangerous psychopathic personality-the consequence among others is all those he's helped into early graves. He's out to save the world from what he regards as all its "evils"-fags,porn,crime,some sorts of "nasty" governments-booze is being cranked up as a juicy target for his holy war on "sin" and the diet police can't be far down the pike either. Any measures are legitimate to him-wars,police state laws,destroying the British political and legal system etc in his battle with his "demons". "Taliban Tone" is a name that suits him.
Beyer and co are similarly righteous,control freak tunnel visioned authoritarians and have their best allies in power for years with many of this lot.
End of political rant!
Author wrote:
> It should be made clear exactly where these Christian Fascists at mediawatch realy stand, the truth is that the Mediawatch response to the extreme porn debate suggests that totaly consentual R18 content should also be included within the scope of criminalisation:
> " We believe, however, that the scope of the material that is the focus of the new offences is far too narrow and should be broadened to include a much wider range of extreme pornographic imagery. The scope should certainly be extended to include that which the British Board of Film Classification has unilaterally decided is suitable to be classified at ‘R18’."
> They arn't interested in anyone elses point of view, they just want their views imposed. Well I'm not up for that, Mr Beyer can boil his head - in fact I suggest that he might be better employed in Afganistan fighting against the Islamic Fascists, and letting everyone else get on with there lives free from God bothers.
>
> Author wrote:
> > Wow!
> > A letter from the infamous Beyer himself, no less. Not quite as loopy as I might have expected, but interesting to note how he feels the the existing OPA is something that politicians have been democratically elected to uphold. I wasn't aware it was something that I'd had a chance to vote on...certainly not a core issue in any of the party manifestos at the last election.
> > He also seems to conveniently conflate the issues of publication and possession; surely, personal ownership of porn IS a private matter?
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Dear Mr Smith,
> > Thank you for your e-mail yesterday.
> > The remark you quote from our summer 2006 newsbrief was speculative and I had hoped that it might encourage the Home Office to publish the responses as a result. I am grateful for the link to the BBC page which I had not seen before but I suggest that your observations are speculative too.
> > We hold the view that delays are unacceptable because the consultation closed on 2 December 2005 and we were told that an announcement would be made three months after this date. Then we were told an announcement would be made before the summer recess. Both these junctures have passed and still there has been no announcement. We expended a great deal of time and effort in responding to the consultation and so it is not unreasonable to expect the Home Office to work to its own timetable. The due process of democracy is one thing but inexplicable delays quite another.
> > I simply do not agree with you that extreme pornographic imagery is a "non-issue". Our democratically elected Government has enacted legislation to deal with obscene publications and it is plainly not working. We believe it should work and work effectively to make at least the imagery described in the consultation illegal. Consensual activities in private, so long as they are not illegal, is one thing but the Internet is not private: it is a means for publishing and should be subject to the criminal law just like all other publications. We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > Regards,
> > John C Beyer
>
>
doulos, 14 Aug 2006 10:59:46
The first excuse to be trotted out is "democratic mandate". It means
they don't want to engage with an ethical argument - their side is
right because their side is biggest. Bolshevism distilled.
On 8/12/06, alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
> I understood the goggs to be a christo fascist of some renoun hence his affinity with oddbods like beyers et al. Mayhap the new boys are a bit more mormal
>
> Todd
> Author wrote:
> > Also interesting to note how quickly the halcyon era of Goggins is recalled. Maybe the present HO team aren't deemed authoritarian enough for Mediawatch?
> > T.
> > Author wrote:
> > We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > John C Beyer
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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%3D5361
>
deno, 19 Aug 2006 19:01:03
In a message dated 13/08/2006 17:31:24 GMT Standard Time,
admin@ofwatch.org.uk writes:
views imposed. Well I'm not up for that, Mr Beyer can boil his head - in fact
I suggest that he might be better employed in Afganistan fighting against the
Islamic Fascists, and letting everyone else get on with there lives free
from God bothers.>
As you say, a shame they are so intolerant. Regarding the Taleban are they
not Beyer's
religious cousins fighting "western decadence." Maybe he should be drafted
to that hell hole to fight for them! Then our lads could get him in their
sights and ........ How's that for a fantasy?
d
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
deno, 19 Aug 2006 22:19:27
In a message dated 13/08/2006 20:11:13 GMT Standard Time,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
recalled. Maybe the present HO team aren't deemed authoritarian enough for
Mediawatch?
T.
Author wrote:
We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that
extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we
will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > Regards,
> > John C Beyer>
Note some posts very critical of Blair perhaps hinting at his Messianic
trends, but is he personally involved with the proposed new law? This matter of
the Consultation maybe beneath his status and profound dignity. After all it
is a petty UK affair and does not involve meddling overseas, sending troops
to their deaths in a hopeless cause, in another country we have ruined.
Hardly the moral highground anyway to promote laws against us.
What I am driving at, is the instigator of our troubles the one who said,
"The law for extreme pornography will be a mirror image of that for possession
of child pornography"?
None other than St Paul Goggins himself? Obviously a genius to make such an
illogical extension as that and so fatally flawed it gives us a good chance
to prove it as nonsense.
d
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
zak, 20 Aug 2006 01:22:51
Whast a man witout a clue! Like all these soundbite merchants he needs
asking whether he wants to have all prime time entertainment (which afer
all depicts shitloads of rape and murder - portrayed by ACTORS) banned....
Original Message:
-----------------
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 20 Aug 2006 01:22:51
Wow!
A letter from the infamous Beyer himself, no less. Not quite as loopy as I
might have expected, but interesting to note how he feels the the existing
OPA is something that politicians have been democratically elected to
uphold. I wasn't aware it was something that I'd had a chance to vote
on...certainly not a core issue in any of the party manifestos at the last
election.
He also seems to conveniently conflate the issues of publication and
possession; surely, personal ownership of porn IS a private matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Smith,
Thank you for your e-mail yesterday.
The remark you quote from our summer 2006 newsbrief was speculative and I
had hoped that it might encourage the Home Office to publish the responses
as a result. I am grateful for the link to the BBC page which I had not
seen before but I suggest that your observations are speculative too.
We hold the view that delays are unacceptable because the consultation
closed on 2 December 2005 and we were told that an announcement would be
made three months after this date. Then we were told an announcement would
be made before the summer recess. Both these junctures have passed and
still there has been no announcement. We expended a great deal of time and
effort in responding to the consultation and so it is not unreasonable to
expect the Home Office to work to its own timetable. The due process of
democracy is one thing but inexplicable delays quite another.
I simply do not agree with you that extreme pornographic imagery is a
"non-issue". Our democratically elected Government has enacted legislation
to deal with obscene publications and it is plainly not working. We
believe it should work and work effectively to make at least the imagery
described in the consultation illegal. Consensual activities in private,
so long as they are not illegal, is one thing but the Internet is not
private: it is a means for publishing and should be subject to the criminal
law just like all other publications. We agree entirely with the former
Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that extreme pornographic imagery
should have no place in a decent society and we will support measures that
will make such material illegal.
Regards,
John C Beyer
--
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%3D5349
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
rovacs, 20 Aug 2006 21:45:09
In the letters I sent to the Home Office,I tried to contradict the line the civil servants were peddling to me that the proposed law was merely some kind of "extension" of the OPA. Obviously that contradicts what the absurd(but dangerous)Goggins himself said as quoted below. The "adult violent porn" rubbish is indeed a wicked illogical extension of child porn possession law-which is the sole exemption currently to interference with individual private life that governs what you can look at without being a "criminal". The child porn laws are logical because users are criminal accessories/encouraging an illegal business based on child molesting. This situation does not exist as a case against adult fictional material-therefore such a law is illogical and a massive human rights abuse. The Consultation Paper's constant comparisons of child material and adult material are unjustifuable,illogical and totally disgraceful-the 2 cases are utterly different-the document has no case to make that such fictional adult material it targets is non consensual-thus it constantly throws up subjective moral opinionating-this is not a good reason to imprison people for up to 3 years-I'm sure the ECHR will agree too.
Blair's regime is bossy,self righteous and ban happy-the fish rots from the head as the Chinese say. It is obsessed with the surveillance of the citizen-cameras/id cards/,car tracking. His regime subverts the law and due process itself with "guilt by police accusation"-Asbos and soon to come "super Asbos" to harass people,without the need for anything like an actual criminal conviction to have taken place. Of course such extra judicial measures-proclaimed to be there to deal with "untouchable" criminals, will be used against anyone the state want to boss about and shut up. With these porn proposals this Government seeks to dictate what people may look at in private life. What next-you're a criminal if you look at paricular political websites,read certain "immoral" books etc. Once a ban on "looking" at something simply on the basis of "morals"-opinions-is accepted there is no reason such a principle could not be infinitely expanded to whatever they disapprove of.
I warned people about what to expect from Anthony Blair long before he came to power-I wasn't too successful. Unfortunately I have not been proved wrong. His invasion of a country not threatening us in any way,his lying warmongering makes me deeply ashamed of belonging to this country. Thank God Blair and Bush weren't around during the Cuban missile crisis-none of us would be here at all.
Sorry to seem to go "off topic",but these proposals are utterly characteristic of what you get from control freak totalitarians who think they have the answers to everything and a monopoly on virtue.
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 13/08/2006 20:11:13 GMT Standard Time,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk writes:
> > recalled. Maybe the present HO team aren't deemed authoritarian enough for
> Mediawatch?
> T.
> Author wrote:
> We agree entirely with the former Minister of State, Paul Goggins MP, that
> extreme pornographic imagery should have no place in a decent society and we
> will support measures that will make such material illegal.
> > > Regards,
> > > John C Beyer>
> Note some posts very critical of Blair perhaps hinting at his Messianic
> trends, but is he personally involved with the proposed new law? This matter of
> the Consultation maybe beneath his status and profound dignity. After all it
> is a petty UK affair and does not involve meddling overseas, sending troops
> to their deaths in a hopeless cause, in another country we have ruined.
> Hardly the moral highground anyway to promote laws against us.
> What I am driving at, is the instigator of our troubles the one who said,
> "The law for extreme pornography will be a mirror image of that for possession
> of child pornography"?
> None other than St Paul Goggins himself? Obviously a genius to make such an
> illogical extension as that and so fatally flawed it gives us a good chance
> to prove it as nonsense.
> d
deno, 31 Aug 2006 06:21:26
In a message dated 22/08/2006 23:30:28 GMT Standard Time,
mrlucky@fastermail.com writes:
civil servants were peddling to me that the proposed law was merely some
kind of "extension" of the OPA. Obviously that contradicts what the absurd(but
dangerous)Goggins himself said as quoted below. The "adult violent porn"
rubbish is indeed a wicked illogical extension of child porn possession law-which
is the sole exemption currently to interference with individual private life
that governs what you can look at without being a "criminal". The child porn
laws are logical because users are criminal accessories/encouraging an
illegal business based on child molesting. This situation does not exist as a case
against adult fictional material-therefore such a law is illogical and a
massive human rights abuse. The Consultation Paper's constant comparisons of
child material and adult material are unjustifuable,illogical and totally
disgraceful-the 2 cases are utterly different-the document has no case to make that
such fictional adult material it targets is non consensual-thus it
constantly throws up subjective moral opinionating-this is not a good reason to
imprison people for up to 3 years-I'm sure the ECHR will agree too.>
Yes. Have just realised that the authors of the Consultation are perhaps
aware of the real situation and maybe trying a cynical manipulation in linking
child porn, an obvious crime,
with a proposed new crime, possession of "extreme porn" (whatever that turns
out to be)
Seems they give their game away by starting off suggesting bans on images
showing sex with corpses and animals which is intended to immediately prejudice
anyone considering the matter. If they thought that and the link with child
porn would ensure the answers they required then the returned negative
consultations must have been very disappointing.
Another reason why I think Goggs is the main instigator of this fiasco is
because he swallowed the JLT hook line and sinker and said, "If it was not for
those sites (hanging bitches, necro babes, etc.) Miss Longhurst would still be
alive." Did voices tell him or maybe he has a crystal ball?
Last week was in a waiting room looking through the usual pile of old
magazines when I saw something that really impacted. It was "Chat" dated 30 Sept
2004 and on the cover an attractive woman and the headline, "Play dead for me"
"It was our secret. Till Graham turned killer and kept the corpse...."
Article by Sandra Gates who took Coutts as her toy boy when he was 21 and he
moved in with her and her five kids. Soon he was tying things round her neck
during sex and making her play dead. After five years she threw him out as she
found a suitcase under the bed with nude photos of his old flames with
nooses drawn around their necks. He confessed, "I am sick" and told her of his
desire to rape and strangle a woman. This would be around 1996 before the
internet really got going over here and is evidence that he was well into his
fatal obsession before he had a computer and most likely had been like that
since adolesence.
When I left that waiting room the magazine was inside my coat and I wonder
if it is useful to us to indicate that Goggs is wrong to blame the sites.
Rather than having a fatal effect wanking to them probably delayed the tragedy.
deno posted 23 August
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
deno, 08 Sep 2006 23:42:52
Copy of email sent to demred
Obviously you are very busy, but now you have put me in the picture which is
a great help.
Glad we have made progress but from here the mountain looks very steep.
Have a lot of experience consulting solicitors and the questions I would be
inclined to ask
are:
Was the manipulatively worded consultation document legal and in accordance
with regulations.
Why were the results not published?
Why did HO proceed by announcing the proposed law when the vast majority of
replies ignored the leading consultation paper and voted against?
Have we any legal redress against Coaker for falsely stating on the radio
the result of the consultation that the majority were in favour of the new law?
Why have HO done no research into the sites mentioned at Coutts trial?
(Only Necro Babes left out of the three)
Why are they spinning the line that snuff movies often depict real rape and
murder?
Where is their proof that this happens, or ever did?
Is this their reason for bracketing us with paedo viewers as accessories to
real crime?
If so are they, or can they made to be, aware that the whole "basis" for the
new law is only lies and myth as no real snuff movies have ever been found.
Are they aware that the apparent psychopath Coutts had this obsession from
adolescence
long before he saw films and videos? He made his own porn by photographing
girl friends in the nude and afterwards drawing nooses around their necks
with a felt tip.
Have they read the account "Play dead for me" by Mrs Sandra Gates who lived
with Coutts for 5 years starting when he was 21. She had near escapes as he
rehearsed over and over the crime he eventually committed and confessed to her
his sick fantasy to rape and strangle a woman. Lead in "Chat" mag 30th Sept
2004. (Can we get copies,she gave evidence at trial?)
Are they aware that porn is used as aid to masturbation and the sites
mentioned at the trial
likely delayed the crime rather than exacerbated the realisation of Coutts
sick fantasy.
Are they aware that a new law would be difficult to enforce and could be
counterproductive by removing a safety valve and it would have no effect on the
odd psychopath who strikes every few years due to mental problems?
Well that's it for now and I expect you can think of plenty of other
questions. Maybe you could show my mail to our solicitor and ask him if he can use
any of my suggestions with a view to persuading Coaker and HO that proposed
legislation will serve no useful purpose and should be dropped.
d 8 Sept
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 00:27:35
I think we have kicked around this idea somewhere,or maybe I just thought about it
Getting the civil service regulations(and there will be regulations and they will say what they can and can't do) as to how a Consultation Paper should be done seem important-does this one offend against the rules? There is little doubt this CP coasts on opinion and is a morass of misleading bunk as to the subject it is supposed to be "informing" the public who are being "consulted". And of course it is structured as a foregone conclusion. One big con. Haven't got it in front of me,but there's a question which runs along the lines-"is there any legitimate reason you "consulted" can tell us why people should be permitted to have this stuff?" .It is surely for the document to show clearly why there is a legitimate reason they should not...it fails to do this. Can you get away with all this kind of shallow opinionizing and fibbing and pass it off as of any validity over a major matter of criminal legislation.? The totally unwarrented link of child and adult porn,which this doc appeals to time and again seems to me a major issue that needs thoroughly discrediting as irrelevant to the issue-and its use in such a document manifestly wrong and misleading to consultees.
Bottom line no.1- are actual lies and statements in a Govt document made without any proof or evidence acceptable to be in there and to be boldly used as the grounds for criminal legislation?.
Bottom line no.2-can laws be lied onto the Statute book in this way? Is there a case for a public enquiry to look at the issue and actually consider matters like "real" people being injured and sites showing snuff and all the rest of the piffle this is being sold on?
Surely so ropey a document must offend against the requirements of a Govt doc. Like you Deno I have some experience of this sort of thing and it always seems that proving they have ridden roughshod over rules they should have observed is a good counter. Shout "this ain't fair" and they can ignore it,show how procedure has been ignored and serious malpractice has taken place and the wheels can start turning and the legal boys come in. There are rules on this sort of thing and if slipshod methods and dishonesty can be established they can throw a spanner in the works. The regime is reeling and discredited,unfortunately it can limp on for years,but it will be imploding within with squabbles and scandal for much of the time. They are widely hated,everything is going wrong they've touched and it will get worse and people will be lining up to have a go at them. The enemy is not a confident,firm and popular Govt but a shambles of overpromoted oafs and pygmies.
Coker's falsehood in public over a major criminal legislation seems a good idea-complaints have already gone to Parliamentary Standards that he seems to have offended against the Code of conduct for members and thus brought the House into disrepute by doing this. More to them would help insure they don't ignore the complaints
.
There
Author wrote:
> Copy of email sent to demred
> Obviously you are very busy, but now you have put me in the picture which is
> a great help.
> Glad we have made progress but from here the mountain looks very steep.
> Have a lot of experience consulting solicitors and the questions I would be
> inclined to ask
> are:
> Was the manipulatively worded consultation document legal and in accordance
> with regulations.
> Why were the results not published?
> Why did HO proceed by announcing the proposed law when the vast majority of
> replies ignored the leading consultation paper and voted against?
> Have we any legal redress against Coaker for falsely stating on the radio
> the result of the consultation that the majority were in favour of the new law?
> Why have HO done no research into the sites mentioned at Coutts trial?
> (Only Necro Babes left out of the three)
> Why are they spinning the line that snuff movies often depict real rape and
> murder?
> Where is their proof that this happens, or ever did?
> Is this their reason for bracketing us with paedo viewers as accessories to
> real crime?
> If so are they, or can they made to be, aware that the whole "basis" for the
> new law is only lies and myth as no real snuff movies have ever been found.
> Are they aware that the apparent psychopath Coutts had this obsession from
> adolescence
> long before he saw films and videos? He made his own porn by photographing
> girl friends in the nude and afterwards drawing nooses around their necks
> with a felt tip.
> Have they read the account "Play dead for me" by Mrs Sandra Gates who lived
> with Coutts for 5 years starting when he was 21. She had near escapes as he
> rehearsed over and over the crime he eventually committed and confessed to her
> his sick fantasy to rape and strangle a woman. Lead in "Chat" mag 30th Sept
> 2004. (Can we get copies,she gave evidence at trial?)
> Are they aware that porn is used as aid to masturbation and the sites
> mentioned at the trial
> likely delayed the crime rather than exacerbated the realisation of Coutts
> sick fantasy.
> Are they aware that a new law would be difficult to enforce and could be
> counterproductive by removing a safety valve and it would have no effect on the
> odd psychopath who strikes every few years due to mental problems?
> Well that's it for now and I expect you can think of plenty of other
> questions. Maybe you could show my mail to our solicitor and ask him if he can use
> any of my suggestions with a view to persuading Coaker and HO that proposed
> legislation will serve no useful purpose and should be dropped.
> d 8 Sept
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 09 Sep 2006 01:16:22 ***
deno, 10 Sep 2006 23:45:27
In a message dated 07/09/2006 13:19:38 GMT Standard Time,
pcd-sm@bozzie.demon.co.uk writes:
>When I left that waiting room the magazine was inside my coat and I wonder
>if it is useful to us to indicate that Goggs is wrong to blame the sites.
>Rather than having a fatal effect wanking to them probably delayed the
tragedy.
I entirely agree, but the BBC and other media organisations have
entirely swallowed the piffle and prattle put out by the family of the
unfortunate Jane Longhurst.
Just as the total ban on the possession of handguns after the Dunblane
massacre seems to have increased gun ownership by criminals and the
number of handgun incidents has certainly increased since that law was
passed, this proposed law is hardly likely to decrease the number of
violent rapes. If anything, such crimes are likely to increase.
And won't THAT be a fine and fitting memorial to Jane Longhurst?
>Also a lawyer could highlight the absurdity and injustice of linking a very
>different activity, between consenting adults on one hand and on the
other,
>existing laws against the definite crime of child pornography.
>This seems that the legally and politically illiterate drafters of the
>consultation propose a grave miscarriage of natural justice which will
have no
>effect whatsoever on the incidence of sexual violence.
>Could action on these lines throw a final spanner in the works of these ill
>considered
>machinations?
>No, for Blair, Reid, Goggins et al seem to be afflicted with permanent
cephalo-proctal intromission.
>Do you really believe that the same wunch of bankers that took the UK
into war against Saddam's regime on the basis of what was subsequently
proved to be half-truths, untruths, piffle and lies could care at all
about such legal niceties as 'natural justice'?<
--
< Paul >
Hi Paul
Not sure what cephalo-proctal intromission means, lack of moral fibre?,
bonkers?!
Seriously my point was can we consult a solicitor or act via Spanner's to
advise us if the present position of HO is illegal. If it is can a rainbow
association of freedom campaigners
take legal action so that the culprits and public are aware that their
machinations are based on an ignored, irregular consultation, lies and the myth of
real rape and snuff films. Obviously the latter would be very serious
crimes and surely there is some way we can enlighten them that this does not
happen.
It is difficult up here in this neck of the woods, Midlands, to get the feel
of how we stand with
HO. Maybe we cut as much ice as the proverbial snowflake in hell! Although
one did get the impression they were surprised that we consulted a QC. Now
as events have moved on, a letter from an ordinary, and less expensive, law
firm might find a chink in their armour and concentrate tiny minds. "Where is
your proof? Put up or shut up!"
deno posted 7th may
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)