Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
deno, 03 Sep 2006 19:19:31
In a message dated 03/09/2006 17:52:57 GMT Standard Time,
mrlucky@fastermail.com writes:
scary thought!> "In your guts, you know he's nuts!"
Hi Mr Lucky
Great minds think alike! You knew that quote was about Barry Goldwater the
neoCon canditate against LBJ. Also the same thoughts passed my mind about
John Prescott maybe doing a better job. Did quite a good job on his diary
secretary so is hardly a god bothering holy joe. Maybe he could give
pornographers a few hints! Thought, perhaps some film will surface, that would be great
for us.
Seriously though, can anyone advise about the possibility of a legal
challenge regarding the fake consultation. Waste of public time and money and
reflects on the integrity of those involved. Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
extreme pornography? Does such a thing actually exist outside the minds
burdened, or taken over, by religious fantasy? Surely answers are needed and it
would be great for us to throw a spanner in their works.
deno posted 3 Sept
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
demolitionred, 03 Sep 2006 20:15:53
> Seriously though, can anyone advise about the possibility of a legal
> challenge regarding the fake consultation. Waste of public time and money and
> reflects on the integrity of those involved.
We have had advise.. this would be a waste of time and resources given we're struggling to keep even the main campaign going
Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> extreme pornography?
That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much tighter than it was in the consultation.
Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition. a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if they could?
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 20:56:10
'fraid a lobbyist-Longhurst-did demand a govt. do something-and this bag of .... did what she asked-only worse!
Author wrote:
> > Seriously though, can anyone advise about the possibility of a legal
> > challenge regarding the fake consultation. Waste of public time and money and
> > reflects on the integrity of those involved.
> We have had advise.. this would be a waste of time and resources given we're struggling to keep even the main campaign going
> Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> > Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> > extreme pornography?
> That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much tighter than it was in the consultation.
> Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition. a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if they could?
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 22:07:59
It may be "tighter" but it coasts on the subjective.What is erotically stimulating depends on who looks at it. This is one of the many reasons criminal legislation like this based in opinions in the eye of the beholder are such guff. I would speculate this was why the framers of the OPA went for the "if it depraves and corrupts" nonsense-they thought then they might get more of a consensus on even that than on an agreement whether something was erotic/pornographic. This idiotoic legislation goes for a "definition" that is impossible to be clear on-because it's subjective-in some cases it's asking if the people who produced it meant it to be erotic-how the hell can anyone know THAT in most cases. This is utter utter rubbish-flawed in principle,fuzzy and incoherent in detail. Unless particular actual things are concretely specified ,its impossible for someome to know if they are acting legally or criminally-unless the material is of the most extreme and direct sort. The ambiguities in some of the child porn law are nothing to this-because here the individual is being told that-
1.They must decide if something is pornographic-well as that is subjective what they think is not pornographic may be regarded as pornographic by the police,CPS,but then not by the jury-or any other permutation on this involving these individuals.
2Then the "looker" is being asked about a level of violence-and the times I've tried to get this thru to them-again it may be clear,but it is often going to be simply subjective. Take a scenario where someone is stabbed with a knife in the arm-that may be a serious lasting injury,it may be a trivial injury which will heal quickly. Who on earth knows unless it is clearly spelled out in the narrative?. They are bringing the criminal law about levels of violence into frikin fantasy pictures!!!into fields where the evidence is an image-not a medical report and a real victim to look at as in a real world crime! There the defendent is found innocent or guilty on the basis of proper evidence-here they try to say it can be done from an image-laughable,stupid,pathetic,dangerous and wrong. Unless a representation is of the clearest and most unambiguous sort,the "looker" must make a subjective judgement on the violence level. And that may or may not concur with that of others! I can't believe we have been reduced to dealing with such utter stupidity The product of Clown College Westminster. It offends totally against the basic principle that legislation must be reasonably clear if it involves matters of personal behaviour,it twists rules of evidence into meaninglessness and it drives a battleship thru so many human rights Convention/Act obligations-including crucially "clarity",it is as likely to be declared compatible legislation as Robert Mugabe is to get the "Humanitarian of the year" prize.
> Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> > Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> > extreme pornography?
> That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much tighter than it was in the consultation.
> Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition. a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if they could?
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 03 Sep 2006 22:11:29 ***
rovacs, 03 Sep 2006 22:15:58
Ignore this folks-a repeat of the above-pressed the wrong button in amending it! Can't see how to delete it yet!
Author wrote:
> It may be "tighter" but it coasts on the subjective.What is erotically stimulating depends on who looks at it. This is one of the many reasons criminal legislation like this based in opinions in the eye of the beholder are such guff. I would speculate this was why the framers of the OPA went for the "if it depraves and corrupts" nonsense-they thought then they might get more of a consensus on even that than than on an agreement whether something was erotic/pornographic. This idiotoic legislation goes for a "definition" that is impossible to be clear on-because it's subjective-in some cases it's asking if the people who produced it meant it to be erotic-how the hell can anyone know THAT in most cases. This is utter utter rubbish-flawed in principle,fuzzy and incoherent in detail. Unless particular actual things are concretely specified ,its impossible for someome to know if they are acting legally or criminally-unless the material is of the most extreme and direct sort. The ambiguities in some of the child porn law are nothing to this-because here the individual is being told that-
> 1.They must decide if something is pornographic-well as that is subjective what they think is not pornographic may be regarded as pornographic by the police,CPS,but then not by the jury-or any other permutation on this involving these individuals.
> 2Then the "looker" is being asked about a level of violence-and the times I've tried to get this thru to them-again it may be clear,but it is often going to be simply subjective. Take a scenario where someone is stabbed with a knife in the arm-that may be a serious lasting injury,it may be a trivial injury which will heal quickly. Who on earth knows unless it is clearly spelled out in the narrative?. They are bringing the criminal law about levels of violence into frikin fantasy pictures!!!into fields where the evidence is an image-not a medical report and a real victim to look at as in a real world crime! There the defendent is found innocent or guilty on the basis of proper evidence-here they try to say it can be done from an image-laughable,stupid,pathetic,dangerous and wrong. Unless a representation is of the clearest and most unambiguous sort,the "looker" must make a subjective judgement on the violence level. And that may or may not concur with that of others! I can't believe we have been reduced to dealing with such utter stupidity The product of Clown College Westminster. It offends totally against the basic principle that legislation must be reasonably clear-especially so if it involves matters of personal behaviour-
it twists rules of evidence into meaninglessness and it drives a battleship thru so many human rights Convention/Act obligations-including crucially "clarity",it is as likely to be declared compatible legislation as Robert Mugabe is to get the "Humanitarian of the year" prize.
> > Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> > > Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> > > extreme pornography?
> > That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much tighter than it was in the consultation.
> > Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition. a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if they could?
>
>
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 03 Sep 2006 22:13:55 ***
JnJ, 03 Sep 2006 22:30:04
You about sum it up when you refer to clown college westminster. Its like Iraqs ability to deliver chemical/biological weapons. As a layman I knew it was bullshit so why didn't Blair? Did he really believe it. Question of integrity and he aint got none
The only way Saddam could have delivered would have been to shove them up a camels arse and treat it to a vindaloo.
Its like the Ofcom ruling(blairs ruling) that you can't have R18 material on satelite that features good old boring healthy hard core cos kids have a knack of finding out pin numbers. Although there is no proven harm we better not take any chances. So its ok for kids to steal the pin and watch violent 18 rated movies then.
Its like this legislation. Goverment arguments that go nowhere and arguments that just contradict themselves or make no sense. Maybe they have such contempt for the electorate that they feel they can say anything and get away with it.
If the reason for bringing in this legislation is really down to the 50,000 petition (which it isn't and although misguided would at least have given it a little nobility) then can we please organise a 50,000 petition to ask the new socialists to have no confidence in themselves as a Goverment and disappear up the proverbial.
Author wrote:
> It may be "tighter" but it coasts on the subjective.What is erotically stimulating depends on who looks at it. This is one of the many reasons criminal legislation like this based in opinions in the eye of the beholder are such guff. I would speculate this was why the framers of the OPA went for the "if it depraves and corrupts" nonsense-they thought then they might get more of a consensus on even that than than on an agreement whether something was erotic/pornographic. This idiotoic legislation goes for a "definition" that is impossible to be clear on-because it's subjective-in some cases it's asking if the people who produced it meant it to be erotic-how the hell can anyone know THAT in most cases. This is utter utter rubbish-flawed in principle,fuzzy and incoherent in detail. Unless particular actual things are concretely specified ,its impossible for someome to know if they are acting legally or criminally-unless the material is of the most extreme and direct sort. The ambiguities in some of the child porn law are nothing to this-because here the individual is being told that-
> 1.They must decide if something is pornographic-well as that is subjective what they think is not pornographic may be regarded as pornographic by the police,CPS,but then not by the jury-or any other permutation on this involving these individuals.
> 2Then the "looker" is being asked about a level of violence-and the times I've tried to get this thru to them-again it may be clear,but it is often going to be simply subjective. Take a scenario where someone is stabbed with a knife in the arm-that may be a serious lasting injury,it may be a trivial injury which will heal quickly. Who on earth knows unless it is clearly spelled out in the narrative?. They are bringing the criminal law about levels of violence into frikin fantasy pictures!!!into fields where the evidence is an image-not a medical report and a real victim to look at as in a real world crime! There the defendent is found innocent or guilty on the basis of proper evidence-here they try to say it can be done from an image-laughable,stupid,pathetic,dangerous and wrong. Unless a representation is of the clearest and most unambiguous sort,the "looker" must make a subjective judgement on the violence level. And that may or may not concur with that of others! I can't believe we have been reduced to dealing with such utter stupidity The product of Clown College Westminster. It offends totally against the basic principle that legislation must be reasonably clear if it involves matters of personal behaviour,it twists rules of evidence into meaninglessness and it drives a battleship thru so many human rights Convention/Act obligations-including crucially "clarity",it is as likely to be declared compatible legislation as Robert Mugabe is to get the "Humanitarian of the year" prize.
> > Also if we have a lawyer (Spanner
> > > Trust?) could he demand a tight definition of
> > > extreme pornography?
> > That's what we did at the HO meeting which is why the definition is so much tighter than it was in the consultation.
> > Now we have to keep the pressure up about the risks of the vague definition. a lobyist can't demand a govt do anything....what would the world be like if they could?
>
>
deno, 08 Sep 2006 09:27:29
Hi Mr Lucky
Am wondering if you are perhaps a bit hard on what may just be a well
meaning, pathetic prat.
Would like to enter a plea to you on his behalf. Just had a funny feeling,
am I now the devil's advocate?! Well here it is, "Not guilty by virtue of
insanity" Do you think that sums him up?
Seriously, tongue out of cheek now, I think he will just give a nod to the
new law which will be "other buggers efforts" with little or no input from
him, or should I say , on high.
Have lived under old Labour Governments and they were even worse control
freaks. Bread rationing, a flop. A tax on jobs, same. Nationalisation of
steel, maybe the biggest dead loss in our history, was it a million per minute or
per hour? The list could go on and on and the reason I mention it is
because the public soon became pissed off and flocked to the polling stations to
vote them out.
Seems that situation is again approaching as history repeats itself and the
longer Blair clings to office, entirely discredited by the carnage in Iraq,
the more he ensures the demise of New Labour.
Regarding the new law the critical path for HO staff will be to come up with
a definition of extreme porn. That could be our best opportunity as
anything they spew out will most likely
reflect the absurdity of the whole exercise and give us the ammunition we
need.
deno posted 2 Sept
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
deno, 08 Sep 2006 14:42:28
Hi Mr Lucky,
Maybe I was right after all! Looked up your R D Laing and see where the
link took me!
"In my guts I know he's nuts!" Should he be locked up somewhere or at
least, for the good of the world, decently retired?
Seriously though, the business we oppose will proceed without him as there
are plenty of up and coming nutters in the junior ranks.
d
_Psychosis is a generic _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis)
_psychiatric_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry) _ term for a _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _mental state_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_status_examination) _ in which thought and perception are severely impaired.
Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _hallucinations_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination) _, hold _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _delusional_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion) _ beliefs (e.g., _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _grandiose_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grandiosity&action=edit) _ or _ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _paranoid_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia) _ delusions), demonstrate _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _personality_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality) _ changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _thought disorder_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_disorder) _). This is often accompanied by _
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis) _lack of insight_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia) into
the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social
interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A
psychotic episode is often described as involving a "loss of contact with
reality. (Weapons of Mass Destruction!)
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
rovacs, 13 Sep 2006 19:35:23
"Yes, there are areas in which the State, or the community, no longer has a role or, if it does have one, it is a role that is completely different. It is not for the State to tell people that they cannot choose a different lifestyle, for example in issues to do with sexuality. All that has changed and rightly."
-Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Sept 2006
Let us not forget these words. Pearls which fell from the quivering lips of Tony "WMD" Blair.
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: CORODENCO@aol.com, 13 Sep 2006 19:35:23
> To: mrlucky@fastermail.com, backlash@smartgroups.com
> Subject: [backlash] Re: Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
> Hi Mr Lucky
> Am wondering if you are perhaps a bit hard on what may just be a well
> meaning, pathetic prat.
> deno posted 2 Sept
> He's not being too hard on the snake-oil-selling, megalomaniac, fascist
> little shit at all. Remember when the Parasite of Wales got splattered in a
> car crash and Blair wobbled and blubbered about the People's Princess?
> Smart thinkers then pointed out that the last glorious leader to use the
> "people's this, people's that" turn of phrase was, er, Hitler.
> Now look what he's fostered and built: a climate of emotionally
> incontinent, gullible, paranoid morons who can be encouraged to shop their
> neighbours out of malice, torch the housese of anyone who looks a bit funny
> and stand about with their mouths open while all their civil liberties are
> stripped away in the name of safety.
> This Extreme Porn business is just another bit of "spy on your neighbours,
> denounce your friends, trust the Government" only this time it's to keep
> you safe from evil perverts and pornographers rather than evil muslims and
> foreigners.
> ZJK
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
deno, 15 Sep 2006 03:07:49
In a message dated 13/09/2006 05:07:05 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:
He's not being too hard on the snake-oil-selling, megalomaniac, fascist
Hi
A pigeon just flew in with your message! One notes you like him even less
than Mr Lucky.
Saw a paper at work yesterday where the historian Corelli Barnet described
him as "a Christian zealot" Maybe he wears his halo too low on his forehead
thus restricting the blood supply! However, going, going will soon be gone
and I wonder how we will cope if the Rev Dr
Brown's son takes over? Did you see now it's two years in jail and/or
£2,500 fine for not having a bell on your bike. Maybe they think they are letting
us pervs off lightly with only an extra year on top of the bike criminal's
sentence. Of course, in their fantasy, our punishment comes after we are dead
and we feel the flames of hell around our tender parts!
Seriously though, I hope we can give them hell first and Mr Lucky has a
point with the HR challenge. Also every other anomaly posted from the flawed,
ignored, consultation, lies of minister and MPs, based on a one off crime not
caused by porn as they allege,etc.,etc., should be hurled their way. My
strong feeling is that having ignored the consultation replies they will almost
certainly ignore our letters and so our representations should be through
solicitors. The possibility of a legal challenge might just make them think
again and we can play them at their own game of bluff. "It's not what
things are but what they can be made to seem that matters!"
deno 13 Sept
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)