Latest from Mediawatch (Please see PS)
deno, 26 Aug 2006 21:55:09
In a message dated 23/08/2006 22:31:17 GMT Standard Time, CORODENCO writes:
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
PS to Mr Lucky. Posted this but am sending you a copy as there may be the
usual delay.
Have thought since it is all very well us debating these matters between
ourselves. Although it clarifies the confused situation, maybe what we really
need is a good lawyer to write on our behalf against the way the consultation
paper was drafted. Such manipulation, complained about in a number of
submissions, may be actually illegal or at least against regulations and unfair.
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?
d
d
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul C. Dickie, 06 Sep 2006 23:09:40
Now that the morons have declared that they propose the full and
draconian nonsense of an outright ban on downloading and possession of
"extreme pornography", they can no longer reasonably claim that release
of the response data could somehow influence or impair policy decisions.
Will those data now be released?
Will monkeys fly from Gormless Goggins's backside?
>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?
Frankly, I would be astounded if the fellow had any balls at all.
>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.
Exactly.
The whole nonsense is therefore based on a LIE.
But then, that seems to be the norm with Blair; the invasions of
Afghanistan and of Iraq were also based on barefaced lies. The untruth
on which the campaign in Afghanistan was based was that the Taliban had
refused to surrender Usama bin Laden; the truth was that they required
prima facie evidence to be submitted and Bush refused even to consider
that. The repeated untruths of the 'dodgy dossier' and the '15 minute
claim' that formed the basis for the Iraqi war have surely been exposed
for what they were so often that nobody save a recently returned UFO
abductee could now be fooled by them.
Then there are the various 'justifications' presented over the years for
the costly and wasteful national ID card. Initially, the claim was that
it would prevent illegal immigration, then it was supposed to combat
benefit fraud, then it was supposed to prevent identity theft and, most
recently, it would somehow prevent terrorism. It would do none of
those, but it would cost an enormous sum of taxpayers' money and, once
more, impair one's civil liberties.
>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 >
rovacs, 07 Sep 2006 00:51:23
At least 2 of the papers have taken an intersst in the Coaker lies on air angle. Expose Coaker as a liar misleading the public like this and the untruths of his 2 "justifications" for severe and serious criminal legislation are exposed as rubbish as well-it has the "potential" for a huge stink. I may be being naive but if they can bring down Bliar like this,a political midgie like Coaker is a soft target. The "Independent" has already got the whole story,the political reporter seemed genuinely interested and even sympathetic to the cause-he wanted to know about "the campaign" and the sites where people were discussing this. The "Telegraph" have shown no enthusiasnm for the law,even the "Mail" published a big stinging attack last week on it by Tom Utley-another nanny state load of rubbish. As a "populism" attempt to boost their sagging fortunes its been a flop-and like everything Turdy's bunch touch it will end in costly fiasco-while damaging innocent lives in the process-maybe more deaths even on that unspeakable piece of filths doorstep.. The "Telegraph" political reporter seemed interested too and wanted more. Clearly the press have not known Coaker was fabricating and dissembling to the public-they rely often on people cluing them in to underhand practices. This one is a charge of no small seriousness if it gets out and isn't buried. It could finish him politically-his majority is so small he will probably be turfed out next election anyway,which is some justice I guess. Our moral friend who thinks he's qualified to tell us what "belongs" in our society is exposed as a public liar,oh he admits to using a banned drug too when younger. What tools they all are.
Scary-people voted for these lying goofs-wanted them to make laws to govern them.
Author wrote:
> Now that the morons have declared that they propose the full and
> draconian nonsense of an outright ban on downloading and possession of
> "extreme pornography", they can no longer reasonably claim that release
> of the response data could somehow influence or impair policy decisions.
> Will those data now be released?
> Will monkeys fly from Gormless Goggins's backside?
> >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?
> Frankly, I would be astounded if the fellow had any balls at all.
> >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.
> Exactly.
> The whole nonsense is therefore based on a LIE.
> But then, that seems to be the norm with Blair; the invasions of
> Afghanistan and of Iraq were also based on barefaced lies. The untruth
> on which the campaign in Afghanistan was based was that the Taliban had
> refused to surrender Usama bin Laden; the truth was that they required
> prima facie evidence to be submitted and Bush refused even to consider
> that. The repeated untruths of the 'dodgy dossier' and the '15 minute
> claim' that formed the basis for the Iraqi war have surely been exposed
> for what they were so often that nobody save a recently returned UFO
> abductee could now be fooled by them.
> Then there are the various 'justifications' presented over the years for
> the costly and wasteful national ID card. Initially, the claim was that
> it would prevent illegal immigration, then it was supposed to combat
> benefit fraud, then it was supposed to prevent identity theft and, most
> recently, it would somehow prevent terrorism. It would do none of
> those, but it would cost an enormous sum of taxpayers' money and, once
> more, impair one's civil liberties.
> >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 >
demolitionred, 07 Sep 2006 06:48:55
Thats fantastic news, especially if you win the indy over.
then we just ahve to get the Guardian which is still running its ok to destrooy lives to protect the women that might possibly -- though we don't know how be harmed -- line.