Goverment Tactics
JnJ, 03 Sep 2006 13:06:10
New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
Teddy, 03 Sep 2006 13:34:57
Welcome JnJ! There is still time for useful lobbying to be done, even if the "consultation" period is over. I agree that once freedoms are surrendered, they can often never be recovered.
Author wrote:
> New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 13:59:24
Welcome to the club JnJ
THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
Author wrote:
> New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
JnJ, 03 Sep 2006 14:41:53
For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
Author wrote:
> Welcome to the club JnJ
> THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> Author wrote:
> > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 15:44:30
Most English language porn is from US hosts I think. What we have here can't compared to-or blamed on the US. I know who I blame! Up to now we have had the Obscene Publications Act in the UK which prosecutes publishers,distributors etc(rarely!). This proposed law has quite a different effect. It is not,as many may believe, a case of chasing pornographers,it is chasing the private individual and threatening them with 3 years imprisonment merely for possessing/looking at the material-3 years jail for looking at a consensual adult picture. It criminalizes the "looker",not the producer or publisher. Such a law to imprison private citizens on such a basis is unconstitutional in the US,so quite impossible. The Federal Government has passed legislation which demands stringent record keeping by "pornographers" relating to the ages of real people who feature in their productions-"protecting minors"-but also an attempt to throttle the producers in bureacracy and make life generally more difficult and dangerous for them. America is going thru one of its periodic moral crusades-but what they are doing here cannot be done there to private individuals-it's a far cry from the nightmare Turdy Blair is saddling this country with. No nation in the western world has a law of such breathtaking wickedness as this sickening proposed legislation.
" Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale"
Quite impossible at present I'm afraid. The vagueness and ambiguity in the response document from the Home Office can't be a guide. The fear is that the ambiguities and lack of clarity might remain in the final legislation-a deliberate attempt by them to frighten people so they won't be sure if they risk criminality by having anything sexual/violent. So it could only be done when the law is finally passed with all amendments etc made-and not even then very meaningfully if it's as woolly as it is now.
All you can say now is the material must be pornographic-for sexual arousal,and the violence life threatening or of a kind which may cause serious lasting harm-spank fans are okay,but on this you could potentially be prosecuted for watching a knife fight with a stabbing between scantily clad babes on the beach.
All this from allowing a delusional God bothering madman to rule over the UK.
Some interesting ideas-great-go blast your local MP about it and get friends and family to do the same
Author wrote:
> For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
> I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
> Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
> Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
> Author wrote:
> > Welcome to the club JnJ
> > THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> > All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> > Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> > Author wrote:
> > > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 09 Sep 2006 00:20:56 ***
demolitionred, 03 Sep 2006 16:23:02
Of the widely celebrated 7,000 "paedophiles" arrested, I beleieve less than 50 have been prosecuted...anyone know where we can find that info?
what a complete waste of time and resopurces...
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 17:23:02
DR - I don't know if you are referring to "Operation Ore"-which seems to have been a disaster. There's a guy(think it's a guy?) who regularly posts on the melon farmers forum,he is very good on Ore,knows it inside out. I think he may be involved somehow with it all. He goes under the name "Harvey" and a request to him on the forum should be answered quickly as he's there a lot. Apparently there is a "class action" in the UK about to begin by innocent people caught up in "operation Ore"-compensation and that. "Ore" clearly netted people merely looking for adult material and the police seem to have behaved very badly,indeed criminally in one case at least-don't know the details-this is off the top of my head,so don't quote me! A murky nasty business.Basically innocent people were treated as paedophile downloaders. I think "Ore" has resulted in 32 suicides-people given the death penalty over porn! All this is highly relevant for a human rights case against this legislation-showing what a mess can result when the cops start on a morality based virtual crime witch-hunt. With this adult law the potential for disasters-false accusation and miscarriage are much worse as it is so nebulous and hazy-child porn is a far more clear cut issue and that goes pear shaped-but this tripe?
I am mad as Hell over this-enraged at this snivelling Govt. which equates people who look at child porn and feed the demand for child molesting images with those who look at consensual adult material which can in no way be compared. Blair and his pathetic goons have slandered millions of people across the world as well as here.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/
Author wrote:
> Of the widely celebrated 7,000 "paedophiles" arrested, I beleieve less than 50 have been prosecuted...anyone know where we can find that info?
> what a complete waste of time and resopurces...
Teddy, 03 Sep 2006 21:03:32
"Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing."
As I understand it, I doubt this assertion is correct. If the CP legislation is anything to go by, viewing the material on your screen is effectively "creating an image", which counts as possession even if you don't subsequently download the image.
Author wrote:
> For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
> I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
> Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
> Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
> Author wrote:
> > Welcome to the club JnJ
> > THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> > All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> > Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> > Author wrote:
> > > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
JnJ, 04 Sep 2006 20:14:12
Just reading salters comments and Im not convinced re streaming. So if that is the case whats the point in the law. It would also prevent the likes of the IWF from instructing sites to be blocked as the goverments intention is not to ban people looking at them. Urrrr Bet they don't wheel Salter out again. Had to include the last sentence. Wow what sites does he surf? He should have been challenged bt Anita Amand where his evidence for these sites came from. As far as I'm concerned they don't exist and even if they did involving non consensuality as he suggests then they should be taken down but by existing laws involving international cooperation not by this ridiculous unilateral action.
Martin Salter: We’re not banning them from looking at it, we’re making it a criminal offence to possess images that are already illegal under the 1959 obscene publications act. These images are illegal to publish and to distribute – we have a situation that has now fundamentally changed as a result of the internet. In 1959 there was no internet and it was comparatively easy for the authorities to take action against book distributors or distributors of videos or whatever. With images now available in cyberspace, from sites often hosted in mexico, florida, Guatemala, featuring sometimes at the more extreme end of the market snuff movies where people from impoverished backgrounds are raped, tortured, murdered on camera and the images then put out there for private profit and for extreme sexual gratification.
Author wrote:
> "Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing."
> As I understand it, I doubt this assertion is correct. If the CP legislation is anything to go by, viewing the material on your screen is effectively "creating an image", which counts as possession even if you don't subsequently download the image.
> Author wrote:
> > For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
> > I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
> > Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
> > Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Welcome to the club JnJ
> > > THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> > > All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> > > Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > > > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > > > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
Teddy, 04 Sep 2006 20:28:03
Certainly "Necrobabes" is still out there on the net, and is a fairly cheesy effort at scenes of faked violence...if looking at this justifies 3 years in prison, we really have become a society devoid of reason.
T.
Author wrote:
> Just reading salters comments and Im not convinced re streaming. So if that is the case whats the point in the law. It would also prevent the likes of the IWF from instructing sites to be blocked as the goverments intention is not to ban people looking at them. Urrrr Bet they don't wheel Salter out again. Had to include the last sentence. Wow what sites does he surf? He should have been challenged bt Anita Amand where his evidence for these sites came from. As far as I'm concerned they don't exist and even if they did involving non consensuality as he suggests then they should be taken down but by existing laws involving international cooperation not by this ridiculous unilateral action.
>
> Martin Salter: We’re not banning them from looking at it, we’re making it a criminal offence to possess images that are already illegal under the 1959 obscene publications act. These images are illegal to publish and to distribute – we have a situation that has now fundamentally changed as a result of the internet. In 1959 there was no internet and it was comparatively easy for the authorities to take action against book distributors or distributors of videos or whatever. With images now available in cyberspace, from sites often hosted in mexico, florida, Guatemala, featuring sometimes at the more extreme end of the market snuff movies where people from impoverished backgrounds are raped, tortured, murdered on camera and the images then put out there for private profit and for extreme sexual gratification.
> Author wrote:
> > "Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing."
> > As I understand it, I doubt this assertion is correct. If the CP legislation is anything to go by, viewing the material on your screen is effectively "creating an image", which counts as possession even if you don't subsequently download the image.
> > Author wrote:
> > > For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
> > > I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
> > > Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
> > > Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Welcome to the club JnJ
> > > > THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> > > > All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> > > > Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > > > > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > > > > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
>
>
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 20:52:04
Salter is repeating the same falsehood as Croaker-most all the images on the net are not "illegal under the 1959 OPA" total utter tripe mr Saltmines-images are only illegal if they have been made so by a conviction under the act-that applies to hardly anything on the net! This is being done by fallacies and deceit-they are talking mumbo jumbo when claims like this are made with no basis in legal reality. Choker doesn't understand the law of the land-yet some sad souls put him in office as competent to make laws. Exposing the fundemental falsity of such specious justifications is important. What Salter is saying is factually wrong-if a conscious falsehood a lie-he's just a polemicist on this going round stirring,Croak is the responsible minister and his comments prove he either fails to comprehend his own Consultation and the UK law he is talking about,or he does and he's lying about it-he's a fool or a knave. No way he can be shown to be anything else on this.
Salter should be contacted and contradicted about the OPA, he's spreading falsehoods-his main "argument" is untrue-he has prattled piffle all over the tv/radio-I wonder if a prosecution may be possible for publicly misrepresenting the law by mps.
Author wrote:
> Just reading salters comments and Im not convinced re streaming. So if that is the case whats the point in the law. It would also prevent the likes of the IWF from instructing sites to be blocked as the goverments intention is not to ban people looking at them. Urrrr Bet they don't wheel Salter out again. Had to include the last sentence. Wow what sites does he surf? He should have been challenged bt Anita Amand where his evidence for these sites came from. As far as I'm concerned they don't exist and even if they did involving non consensuality as he suggests then they should be taken down but by existing laws involving international cooperation not by this ridiculous unilateral action.
>
> Martin Salter: We’re not banning them from looking at it, we’re making it a criminal offence to possess images that are already illegal under the 1959 obscene publications act. These images are illegal to publish and to distribute – we have a situation that has now fundamentally changed as a result of the internet. In 1959 there was no internet and it was comparatively easy for the authorities to take action against book distributors or distributors of videos or whatever. With images now available in cyberspace, from sites often hosted in mexico, florida, Guatemala, featuring sometimes at the more extreme end of the market snuff movies where people from impoverished backgrounds are raped, tortured, murdered on camera and the images then put out there for private profit and for extreme sexual gratification.
> Author wrote:
> > "Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing."
> > As I understand it, I doubt this assertion is correct. If the CP legislation is anything to go by, viewing the material on your screen is effectively "creating an image", which counts as possession even if you don't subsequently download the image.
> > Author wrote:
> > > For me its the effect that matters not the action. The States has very effectively removed all extreme pornographic material from servers based there with the threat of malicous prosecution. Reckon they'll go for gay sites next and there must be some swamp governors whowant to see the likes of blacks and blondes proscribed.Anyway thats there not here
> > > I shall lobby my mp and hes already taken the point that this is the shi**iest socialist goverment ever.
> > > Fundraising. Probably stupid idea but how about an informative dvd of the sorts of material that will be illegal put up for sale. Don't think by its nature it will require a certificate. Certainly get the press attention.Need to be choosey about content. Reckon something from sex and submission would be the ideal sort of material.I'm sure they'd consent to using one of their movies. Idea needs working on if its a goer but all proceeds to the cause.
> > > Finally btw not sure if these should be seperate threads but the crime will be possession. So it will be perfectly acceptable to stream movies and view pictures. Just don't save them. So the proposed legislation is a total waste of time as it stops nothing.
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Welcome to the club JnJ
> > > > THe US Govt does not have or propose locking up people for looking at material as this regime here does. They have a thing called a Constitution which prevents such unwarranted abuse of power.It's not possible in the USA to criminalize "lookers" of consensual adult material as this legislation threatens to. On sites with US contributors,many find it hard to believe such wickedness as this is happening here. Some even say they thought Blair was a liberal! Ha!
> > > > All we have is the common sense of juries and maybe human rights guarantees-which are being totally shot to bits by this-to stop it as I see it.
> > > > Oh and please if you haven't,write to Reid ,Bliar and your mp to protest. And get as many as you can to do the same.
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > New to the group and feel a little guilty as I obtained the consultation paper but never got round to a response. However I'm certain there could have been a 100% response against and we would still be where we are today. My stance is from an anti censorship point of view and feel that to give the establishment this power over effectively material that would not be classified by the BBFC is tantamount to throwing democracy and freedom away. Give an establishment an inch and they'll take a yard
> > > > > The emphasis however seems to be on the courts and people being prosecuted but this will not be the goverments strategy. I accept that there will be prosecutions but these will be incidental to other crimes where peoples homes are raided. The press certainly will have have a field day should they arise from a sex crime investigation. Censorship has always been undertaken with stealth. As I type the IWF already has the list to go to ISPs to block the sites. The list will not be made public.
> > > > > Thought we were part of Europe not the 51st state. The goverment need to explain again why we are allying ourselves with the bad old usa and not with our fellow Europeans. Why is it felt neccessary to restrict my freedoms in the UK that no other democratic European Goverment would even consider. Its no surprise that Home Office Ministers actually visited the States on this one and I now rofl everytime I hear Bush and Blair use the words Freedom and Democracy
>
>
John Thow, 09 Sep 2006 00:15:13
On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:15:30 +0100 (BST), demolitionred@yahoo.com said:
> Of the widely celebrated 7,000 "paedophiles" arrested, I beleieve less
> than 50 have been prosecuted...anyone know where we can find that info?
>
Hi Dem,
Great work on Sky News BTW!!
7,200 were on the Ore list. Of these 4,200 have been searched with 870
ongoing investigations, 1451 convictions and 870 cautions. There have
been 35 documented suicides (but probably many more).
109 children were 'rescued' from abuse but we do not know how many of
these were actually abused (some may have been siblings at-risk) or how
many abusers were responsible. In spite of persistent FOI requests, the
police refuse to release this information.
Comparative figures from the US suggest perhaps 1 abuser per 3 rescued
children and the best guess of the number of people actually abusing
kids is probably around 30-40 i.e. 1% of the total so far investigated.
The Scottish police did release their figures - 1 abuser for 700 cases
and 300 arrests.
These figures are around baseline for child abuse i.e. if you were to
pick the first 4,200 families in the phone book you would get the same
sort of result.
The police were expecting and touting figures of 33%+ at the outset, so
either their belief (as with violent porn) that looking "leads to doing"
is deeply flawed, or their conduct of the investigation itself was
appalling.
In fact both is true. They failed to recognise the true extent of credit
card fraud involved, were misled by perjurous statements by the US
police that all Landslide Keyz sites were child porn (actually only 16
out of 400 sites had definitely illegal material along with perhaps
another 100 which may have been illegal but were never properly
investigated).
See http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html
As will be discovered if the violent porn law goes through, the vast
majority of those caught will not be "paedophiles" or "violent rapists"
but the curious or porn addicts.
The cost of each Ore investigation is probably well in excess of £10,000
for police time alone, so we are looking a cost of £50 million before
thinking about court costs , incarceration, probation, social services
etc and of course the incalculable cost of broken families and deaths.
I understand that there may be significant events in the coming months
in calling those responsible to account.
The best resources on Operation Ore are at
OreExposed: http://www.ore-exposed.co.uk/
XUK: http://www.xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/
IQ21: www.inquisition21.com
JT
--
JonhThow
johnthow@petml.com
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
Graham Marsden, 09 Sep 2006 01:19:25
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> As I understand it, I doubt this assertion is correct. If the CP
> legislation is anything to go by, viewing the material on your
> screen is effectively "creating an image", which counts as
> possession even if you don't subsequently download the image.
From what I've heard it's "Making an image", ie implying that when it
appears on your screen you're as guilty as the person who committed the
act shown in it.
(Hmm, so am I as guilty as the September 11th hijackers because I've
seen the pictures of their attacks?!)
Cheers,
Graham.