Very very important-Croaker lies on national radio re. the Consultation-a huge blunder
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 03:05:14
POST AMENDED AND EXPANDED-FURTHER DETAILS ESPECIALLY ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES AND THE OPA.
In an interview with Home Office Minister Mr.Vernon Coaker on the BBC Radio 4 "World at One" programme for Wednesday August 30 2006,Mr.Coaker makes a false assertion as to the facts about the responses made to the Government Consultation. As this was a statement made on national radio by the minister responsible,and it was concerning an area involving major criminal legislation,this was seriously misleading the public and elected representatives as to highly pertinent facts. Mr.Coaker`s whole case for legislation given in the interview is based on the claim that respondents had asked for it and over precedents regarding the legal status of the material conferred by the "Obscene Publications Act"(OPA). Pressed by the interviewer concerning the question of such material being actually harmful,causing people to act out what they might see("changes behaviour" was the term used by the interviewer),Mr.Coaker would not address the issue,he would say nothing about this at all,apart from claiming that organization Consultation responders inferred it could. Nor was the Longhurst case referred to. I am sure Mr.Coaker would have made much of this if it was not currently under Appeal. Instead, as stated,he only referred to the public Consultation responses,falsley asserting that most people and organizations responding had found the situation unacceptable and called for legislation from Government and to the OPA as his justifications for proceding with legislation.
This is a highly significant matter. It is not just misleading by "inference",it appears that it is direct unambiguous falsehood. Mr. Coaker may have spoken falsely regarding the OPA as well. As part of his "case" Mr.Coaker says this material is already "illegal"-to distribute and publish under the OPA(Obscene Publications Act). "Illegal" is the exact word used, not unacceptable,or might lead to prosecution but actually "illegal". Thus we are given the familiar yarn-this is about tightening a gap due to the arrival of the net as a "distributor". Now is it the not in fact the case that the OPA operates as a "case by case" law? Can you say truthfully and accurately that material on the internet is "illegal" to publish,distribute etc,unless that specific material has been the subject of an OPA conviction? And that means each of the "images" etc is looked at in turn as to its "deprave and corrupt" status and only if the publisher/distributor of that material is then convicted under the definitions can material be said to be illegal-and that refers only to the particular image or images considered in that particular conviction. So a sweeping statement by Mr.Coaker,the only other plank he uses in justifying the law(the first as we have seen is false)that the things they want to criminalze are already "illegal" to distribute and publish is false as well,as there is no way all the material can have been the subject of a conviction under the OPA? Now if this is the case we have Mr.Coaker misleading and falsifying twice in the same interview. And he says this regarding the OPA more than once! The exact quote from the transcript is-
"We KNOW that ALREADY under the Obscene Publications Act it`s ILLEGAL to publish and distribute THIS MATERIAL...."(My emphasis")
I will return to this in more detail later.
The falsehood Mr.Coaker tells that is established and proven about the Consultation is not trivial,to tell the listeners that "most" who responded to the Consultation wanted action by government is wrong and highly misleading about any grounds for lergislation. Here is a transcription of Mr.Coaker`s words when asked why they are doing this-
"...we consulted on it and most people that responded to the Consultation and organizations that responded to the Consultation found it unacceptable found it that(sic)it was a standard of of(sic)the Government needing to do something..."
And Mr.Coaker is falsifying reality in a big way.
In fact "most" who responded did not say the Govt. needed to "to do something" and find the situation "unacceptable" as Mr.Coaker wrongly asserts at all. Mr.Coaker is not separating organizations and people(individuals)in this direct quote from the transcript,he is clearly asserting a majority of the total number of all respondents call for Government action-that is untrue. Here are the figures from the Home Office Response document. No action means the respondents rejected legislation.
For action means the respondents called for legislation.
INDIVIDUALS NO ACTION 223
INDIVIDUALS FOR ACTION 90
INDIVIDUALS NO STATED PREFERENCE 0
ORGANIZATIONS NO ACTION 18
ORGANIZATIONS FOR ACTION 53
ORGANIZATIONS NO STATED PREFERENCE 13
TOTAL NO ACTION 241
TOTAL FOR ACTION 143
TOTAL NO STATED PREFERENCE 13
TOTAL OF ALL RESPONDENTS-INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 397
No action was felt necessary by a very large margin in the responses received by the Home Office,the precise opposite of what Mr.Coaker has led the public to believe in his broadcast statement.
Such an appalling misrepresentation of the facts,a misrepresentation leading the public and their representatives in Parliament to believe something critical to the case for the enactment of major criminal legislation which is utterly incorrect,is no insignificant matter. Mr.Coaker admits publicly here by omission,that they have no grounds for criminalization on the basis of actual harm-that it "changes behaviour". To reiterate,he in fact bases the case on-
1.Most Consultation responders asked for action. Untrue. This statement can only be made for organizations,not the total. This is misleading the public,deliberately or thru ignorance of the facts about what the Consultation responses from the responders actually say. That the minister in charge of major criminal legislation did not know the results of his Departments own Consultation response,regarding his own major legislative proposals seems absolutely mind boggling. This allows for only 4 logical conclusions to be drawn-
a.Mr.Coaker genuinely did not know the results,but pretended he did,using falsity to bolster the grounds for legislation. He should have admitted this to the interviewer if this was the case. This calls into question his competence and integrity,it is a lie,to adapt Dr.Reid his fitness for his purpose is shattered.
b.Mr.Coaker had forgotten the results and as above,used what he thought were the results-this again means he lied-if he could not recall the results,this was what he should have told the public in the interview. This exposes him as a liar,he should be removed from office.
c.He knew the Consultation response results in question to be against legislation and he lied saying they were the opposite of what they were. Again those who tell a lie over such an important matter cannot be allowed to hold office.
d.Mr.Coaker misread the responder conclusions and was stating something he felt to be correct but is in fact not .Unlike the others,this does not mean he lied or is evidence of lack of integrity. But having someone who does this over such a hugely serious issue cannot inspire confidence in the process of government and shows that Mr.Coaker is unsuitable for the high office he holds.
If this seems at all "hard" on Mr.Coaker,this is the justification for it. This proposed law is very serious indeed. The Government has said it wants major criminal legislation over a controversial issue which severely impacts on personal privacy and freedom and potentially carries heavy penalties for those convicted under the legislation. Such legislation heavily imposes itself into fundemental human rights. There are no more severe penalties that can be suffered by citizens of "European Convention on Human Rights" member states than imprisonment under a domestic statute which breaches these rights-which governments are thus obligated NOT to implement. There is a strong case for saying this proposed legislation is quite incompatible with guarantees this Government has given to protect and respect such human rights. Membership of the "European Convention on Human Rights" demands such committments be taken with the utmost seriousness by governments. This involves an obligation not to enact legislation which removes such rights from citizens without evidence of the utmost necessity to do so. Necessity provides grounds for exemption and evidence of it must be strong. It is useful to stress here that no member state of the "European Convention on Human Rights" has or intends having(bar this one)legislation criminalizing the possession by private individuals of extreme violent pornography. Yet this Government has declared publicly that a country must have such legislation to be a civilized one! This would seem to seriously cast aspersions upon any nations lacking such laws as these,damning most western nations as tolerators of the intolerable! It would be interesting to see how judges from the "European Court of Human Rights",from nations this Government have effectively labelled barbaric will,if the circumstances arise,take such assertions. Similar western democracies outside the "Convention",such as the United States,do not have such legislation either. Whether Mr.Blair or Mr.Coaker or any other Minister has told President Bush of the United States his country is damned for not having such a law may be doubted(in fact such a law would be unconstitutional in the US and we may thus feel America's founding fathers showed greater wisdom and seriousness over human freedom in the eighteenth century by this fact,than Mr.Blair's Government are showing over 200 years later). None of these countries feel the requirement,the necessity for such legislation which must exist and be proven to exist to allow a case for exemption from the relevant legislation and Articles of the Convention. The most relevant Articles such legislation impacts on are number 8 regarding the right to privacy and number 10 on freedom of information. No reading of the Home Office Consultation Document of 2005 or the response it published to the Consultation in August 2006,shows any evidence that this has been seriously considered by the Government(this is not saying they have not done so,though it seems astonishing legislative proposals such as these could have emerged if this is the case,but the reader can find no proof this has been done in the published Home Office material). The Home Office "Consultation Paper" of 2005 just basically asserts they think it is compatible. So we may be confident in believing they have no such evidence,among the reasons for confidence being its failure to appear in the Government's own document and Mr.Coaker's refusal to provide any or even address the issue in his Radio 4 broadcast on "The World at One". So opponents of this proposed law seem on firm grounds in believing that such legislation is incompatible with membership of the Convention and in hoping it will be declared so following consideration by the "European Court of Human Rights" and/or in this country under the domestic "Human Rights Act". For in addition to being a member of the European Convention,the UK citizen has the protection of the 1998 "Human Rights Act"(HRA),cementing the Convention into domestic law,so its Articles may be adjudicated within the UK domestic courts.
Further,the Government/Mr. Coaker have ignored the most important result which came out of its own Consultation in seeking to procede with this legislation. Worse it is using falsehood here concerning the stated opinions of the responders to the Consultation as a major justification for proceding with legislation. Worse still it is the responsible Home Office minister who is spreading that falsehood in public. The public and their representatives are being deceived by the claim being made by the responsible minister,the truth is the exact opposite to the claim he has made regarding the responders and their expressed preferences. He claims most support a call for government action,when in truth they categorically do not-and by a huge margin legislative action is rejected. This totally misrepresents the situation,over an issue where draconian laws,probably in abuse of human rights,are being proposed,with sentences of a severity which appear quite disproportionate to any supposed offense for convicted individuals(human rights guarantees also cover the "proportionality" of punishment for offenses as well). The Consultation response is actually grounds for NOT proceding with such legislation-the responders mainly reject the need for action by a considerable margin! To label this situation an outrageous travesty over a matter of the most serious importance is far too mild a rebuke. The seriousness of the issue means to use falsity as a means of enacting such a law cannot be seen as anything other than despicable.
2. Let us look again at the only other justification used by Mr. Coaker in the interview,one which has been "spread around" continually during the campaign for such a law as imprisoning private citizens for possession of extreme violent porn by private campaigners(who may be granted the excuse of unfamiliarity with the details of criminal law)and officials(who may be granted much less excuse for failing to comprehend the law of the land and so confidently misleading the people of this country). The assertion in question that all the said material is already "illegal" to publish/distribute by reason of the Obscene Publications Act(OPA) is I feel wrong. So let us recall the precise words of the responsible minister himself on the "World at One" interview-
"We KNOW that ALREADY under the Obscene Publications Act it`s ILLEGAL to publish and distribute THIS MATERIAL...."(My emphasis")
Mr Coaker,and his "we",which may mean the Government,or may refer to others as well (or may be merely a Royal adoption by Mr.Coaker)"know" the legal status regarding the publishing and distributing of the material they wish to criminalize he says-and that is its "illegal". So what we are being told here,is that Mr.Coaker and his "we" have taken the records of every conviction under the "Obscene Publications Act",dating back to the nineteenth century and have sat at computers looking at everything which might be held to be extremely violent pornography,compared that with the convictions listed and found everything,the whole lot,has been used in evidence to bring about an OPA conviction!!! As the OPA does not confer some kind of blanket "illegality" on things,it looks at each separately and adjudicates its status as "depraving" etc,convicting or not on a case by case basis,I feel confident to assert that this has not been done! And Mr.Coaker and like are confessing to powers of clairvoyance if they are claiming to "know" the legal OPA status of material which may come under their new law,but does not even exist yet! "We" I would say,cannot "know already" any such thing about it with regard to the bulk of the material,that it has never been made "illegal" to publish or distribute,because it has never been declared as such in an OPA conviction. At best an accurate statement would be-
"We KNOW a bit of it is illegal to publish and distribiute under the OPA,we feel there may be the POSSIBILITY that publishers and distributors MAY be convicted(but they might not either!) by the OPA on the grounds of evidence used in connection with the material we wish to target".
No more. But this is not what Mr.Coaker said at all,it is not what many other advocates of this legislation are telling the public either. It appears what they are saying is quite wrong. Thus the public and MPs are being seriously misled-though some may feel stronger words are appropriate about such deliberate deviousness or at best ignorant incompetence. Precision is important in law,a fact which those who make them,like Mr.Coaker,should have a closer aquaintence with it seems here.
So we cannot "know" anything regarding publishing and distributing legality of said material-apart from a tiny proportion of it which has actually been used specifically in an OPA conviction. A mere opinion by Mr.Coaker it seems is masquerading here as a fact-and not just any old "not too critical" fact,but a major evidential one used as a justification on which Mr.Coaker and others are telling us it is right to pass a law imprisoning their fellow citizens for years! .
So a sweeping statement by Mr.Coaker on "the World at one",the only other plank he uses justifying the proposed law(the first as we have seen is false)that the things they want to criminalze are already "illegal" to distribute and publish is,it may appear, false as well-as there is no way all the material can have been the subject of a conviction under the OPA . Now if this is the case,we have Mr.Coaker misleading and falsifying twice in the same interview. And he says this regarding the OPA more than once!
If both justifications are-
1)In fact the direct opposite to what Mr.Coaker tells us-the Consultation claim.
2)A seriously incorrect misleading assertion as to the current legality of the vast majority of the material with regard to publication and distribution-the OPA claim.
-neither the Consultation responses or the "OPA" can be used as reasons for legislation. If this is so,Mr.Coaker has no grounds whatever for legislation and should have sat mute during "the World at One" interview,for he has totally misrepresented those he claims exist-they don't.
The false claim regarding the Consultation is devastating enough,if both are it is catastrophic. Whether this can stop legislation grounded in prejudice,subjective opinionizing,ignorance and blatant falsehood is a moot point,but it is very important and it cuts the ground from under it a great deal.
If there have been similar,at best unconscious misleading statements at worst downright lies made elsewhere by Mr.Coaker and members of the Government,attempts should be made to track down recordings and press transcripts. If demolishing the grounds used from their own mouths does not halt the legislation from appearing,it certainly gives critical ammunition for a non-compatability case on human rights grounds,as both the grounds and necessity exemptions to the relevant Articles are severely discredited by such information-especially when they condemn themselves by their own words.
We may have a serious tendeny to "shoot from the lip" here,which can help discredit and destroy this thought police rubbish.
Concerned citizens and organizations are contacting the BBC complaints people to point out Mr.Coaker falsified fact and that this should be given merited treatment by BBC outlets. I believe contacts will be made with other broadcasting organizations and the press.
This needs attention urgently-it is a "break in the case" I would say and points to some highly usefull means to procede to seriously challenge this-hopefully to stop it before a statute,or demolish it after one appears.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 06 Sep 2006 13:21:04 ***
Teddy, 04 Sep 2006 10:34:23
A lot will depend on how the BBC editors want to view this; there has only been sporadic coverage of the issue so far. The transcription of the interview indicates he was indeed talking complete shite and (quite possible) telling porkies.
T.
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 11:07:23
t-He was speaking with forked tongue-the Responses do not mostly favor legislation at all-he has used this as his main justification for legislation-it's not just untrue a bit(if such a thing is logically possible),it's totally madly deeply untrue! Its no small matter either as I've tried to show. Doubtless he learned from his master!
rovacs
Author wrote:
> A lot will depend on how the BBC editors want to view this; there has only been sporadic coverage of the issue so far. The transcription of the interview indicates he was indeed talking complete shite and (quite possible) telling porkies.
> T.
phantom, 04 Sep 2006 11:29:18
my, did I do that? I read a post on melonfarmers where someone said Coaker had been economic with the truth... so I found the recorded program on bbc site yesterday, listened to it, then posted the link on melonfarmers forum...
here it is by the way... should be there until the slot is overwritten by next wednesay's program...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/wato_wed
then wrote a nice message to the BBC on their site, followed by an email to the Times... and finally, before hopping into bed, I posted off a message to the backlash site...
when I got up this morning I found that there seems to be some people out there who are quite enthusiastic about this... well, fingers crossed...
as an afterthought, I've since sent a message to the conservative party website... why? they're in support of the policy? true, but naturally they'd like to cause any labour minister as much trouble as possible...
perhaps someone here wants to notify the Lib Dems... after all, if just one part or paper or broadcaster reacts, then in turn they all might...
why should we be interested in this? well, it's the pain principle... the more it hurts them to pursue a policy the less willing they will be to do so...
also, the more discredited their actions become the more discredited the law becomes in the public eye...
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 12:52:11
I have done some "preliminary" research into the OPA,from this it would appear Coaker can maybe be got on 2 falsehoods,an addition to that established pertaining to the Consultation response-the sum of his "justifications" on Radio 4 on August 30th. It would seem,so far as I have looked,that what has been said regarding the OPA is correct. Unless the material has been used to convict under "deprave and corrupt" the material is not illegal to distribute/publish. It may make the publisher/distributor subject to prosecution for doing it-they might be found guilty of "distributing" depraving and corrupting stuff,but equally they might be found innocent. It would seem possible old Coaker could be a fitting disciple of "Asbo" Blair-a punishing before actually having been convicted of anything by due legal process "kinda guy".
What this suggests-and further research will probably tighten that(I hope!)-is that when Vernon C. says-I paraphrase-we are justified in going after this stuff 'cos you can't legally publish or distribute courtesy of the OPA,he is not telling us the truth(shocked ? stunned? a politician being-mendacious?). You cannot distribute and publish the things legally if it has been used to convict someone under the OPA-CONVICT as in found guilty . As the material in question on(let us say)the net,may-but almost certainly has not-been used to convict under the OPA saying as VC does with what may be the brash confidence of ignorance-
"We KNOW that ALREADY under the Obscene Publications Act it`s ILLEGAL to publish and distribute THIS MATERIAL...."(My emphasis")
-indicates he either has the complete records of the convictions which have taken place under the OPA to hand,as he scoured the internet for years linking said OPA convictions to everything mebbe sorta "violently porno" on the net and discovered everything he thinks may meet the rather indistinct criteria we have(though he may know more than the rest of us as to the final form of the legislation-er though actually he can't because barring clairvoyant powers he cannot know what amendments may be made by hands other than his or Dr.Reids)and LO every last bit of it has been the subject of an OPA conviction (dating back to the nineteenth century)or Mr.Coaker is talking.... bunkum!
You can't "know already" anything about most of the material and its intimate relations with the OPA,because it has almost certainly never been introduced to it.
So,the man someone somewhere thought was a fit person to make laws governing them,is seriously deviating from actuality if I've got this right so far.
The OPA and his "precedent"-banishing such fiendish stuff to the wilderness of illegality-seems to be a "factoid" held dear by Mr.C-something Norman Mailer says is "thought to be true"-but aint!
So-to try patience further(there's a rotten joke there,I'm tempted but won't) I reckon justification #2 crashes around the piffling pedagogue's lugs.
Now barring further research invalidating all this-and I will be duly embarrassed, Mr.Coaker's claim that-
"We KNOW that ALREADY under the Obscene Publications Act it`s ILLEGAL to publish and distribute THIS MATERIAL...."(My emphasis")
-as a cornerstone for his fast crumbling case for justifying criminalizing possession is wrong. The only one he had on the radio 4 interview barring the discredited Consultation falsehood is no justification at all-it is factually wrong as we say in politer circles about fibbing. So to all this fast and loose talk about tightening up gaps and loopholes 'cos things are falling thru nets.
"Well the good old OPA can't hack it-sterling fellow but getting on a bit,he has nabbed these EVP blighters but they wriggle away-we need a shiny new Captain of the guard who can chase 'em into that odd cyber thingy they congregate in and see the imprint of OPA's fingerprints on their sexually deviant necks and know we will be safe in our beds from the lurking fugitives of the Extreme violent porno gang!"
The material,friend Vernon,most likely has no OPA "form" at all . The material has not crossed from the legal to the "illegal" because no conviction has put it there. You can't close a gap loophole...blah blah to catch something which you are "predefining" in some wild opinion based decree as having been "illegal" and therefore this is really just net number 2 making up for the hole in net number 1-which has done its job its own way,but maybe is no longer "fit for the purpose"-the durn things fall out these days and escape-outlaws of the internet-duly tried and convicted but requiring a new porn smeller with internet nous to make sure the fugitive is tracked to his new lair.
You are I think probably telling falsehoods before the assembled masses Mr.C .The wickedness is you are using them to justify imprisoning and destroying those who have the misfortune to be your country men and women.
Boy-will I have to "OD" on humble pie if this is wrong!
wrote:
> Melon Farmers posters have identified an interview with Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker from the BBC Radio 4 "World at One" programme for Wed August 30 2006,in which Coaker appears to falsify the facts about the responses made to the Consultation. I have heard it and copied it. As this was a statement made on national radio by the minister responsible,and it was concerning an area involving major criminal legislation,this was seriously misleading the public and elected representatives as to highly pertinent facts. Coaker`s whole case for legislation given in the interview is based on the claim that respondents had asked for it and over precedents regarding the "Obscene Publications Act"(OPA). Pressed by the interviewer concerning the question of such material being actually harmful,causing people to act out what they might see("changes behaviour" was the term used by the interviewer),Coaker ignored the issue,he would say nothing about this at all,apart from claiming that organization Consultation responders inferred it could. Nor was the Longhurst case referred to. I am sure Coaker would have made much of this if it was not currently under Appeal. Instead, as stated,he only referred to the Consultation response,falsley asserting that most people and organizations responding had found the situation unacceptable and called for legislation from Government and to the OPA as his justifications for proceding with legislation.
> This is a major boob by the enemy I would say. It is not just misleading by inference,it appear that it is peddling falsehood,unambiguously. He may have spoken falsely over the OPA as well . As part of his "case" Coaker says this material is already "illegal"-to distribute and publish under the OPA(Obscene Publications Act)"illegal" is the exact word used, not unacceptable,or might lead to prosecution but actually "illegal". Thus we are given the familiar yarn-this is about tightening a gap due to the arrival of the net as a distributor. Now is it the not in fact the case that the OPA operates as a "case by case" law? Can you say truthfully and accurately that material on the internet is "illegal" to publish,distribute etc,unless that specific material has been the subject of an OPA conviction? And that means each of the "images" etc is looked at in turn as to its "deprave and corrupt" status and only if the publisher/distributor of that material is then convicted under the definitions can material be said to be illegal-and that refers only to the particular image or images considered in that particular conviction. So a sweeping statement by Coaker,the only other plank he uses in justifying the law(the first as we have seen is false)that the things they want to criminalze are already "illegal" to distribute and publish is false as well,as there is no way all the material can have been the subject of a conviction under the OPA? Now if this is the case,and I have not checked it and cannot yet say if it is or not,we have Coaker misleading and falsifying twice in the same interview. And he says this regarding the OPA more than once! I need to be more certain about this. An exact quote from the transcript is-
> "We KNOW that ALREADY under the Obscene Publications Act it`s ILLEGAL to publish and distribute this material...."(My emphasis")
> The falshood Coaker tells that is established and proven now is not trivial,to tell the listeners that "most" who responded to the Consultation wanted action is wrong. Here is a transcription of Coaker`s words when asked why they are doing this-
> "...we consulted on it and most people that responded to the Consultation and organizations that responded to the Consultation found it unacceptable found it that(sic)it was a standard of of(sic)the Government needing to do something..."
> A sloppy grammatical mess from a teacher. And Coaker is falsifying reality in a big way.
> In fact most who responded did not say the Govt. needed to "to do something" and find the situation "unacceptable" as Coaker wrongly asserts. Here are the figures from the Home Office Response document.
> No action means the respondents rejected legislation.
> For action means the respondents called for legislation.
> INDIVIDUALS NO ACTION 223
> INDIVIDUALS FOR ACTION 90
> INDIVIDUALS NO STATED PREFERENCE 0
> ORGANIZATIONS NO ACTION 18
> ORGANIZATIONS FOR ACTION 53
> ORGANIZATIONS NO STATED PREFERENCE 13
> TOTAL NO ACTION 241
> TOTAL FOR ACTION 143
> TOTAL NO STATED PREFERENCE 13
> TOTAL OF ALL RESPONDENTS-INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 397
> No action was felt necessary by a very large margin.
> Such an appalling misrepresentation of the facts,a misrepresentation leading the public and their representatives in Parliament to believe something critical to the case for the enactment of major criminal legislation which is utterly incorrect,is no insignificant matter. Coaker admits publicly here by omission,that they have no grounds for criminalization on the basis of actual harm-that it "changes behaviour". To reiterate,he in fact bases the whole case on-
> 1.Most Consultation responders asked for action. Untrue. This is misleading the public deliberately or thru ignorance of the facts about what the Consultation responses from the responders actually say. That the minister in charge of major legislation did not know the results of his Departments own Consutation response regarding his own major legislative proposals seems absolutely mind boggling. But here is the proof and it allows for only 4 logical conclusions-
> a.Coaker genuinely did not know the results,but pretended he did using falsity to bolster the grounds for legislation.He should have admitted this to the interviwer if it was the case. This calls into question his competence and integrity,it is a lie,to adapt Reid his fitness for his purpose is shattered.
> b.Coaker had forgotten the results and as above used what he thought were the results-this again means he consciously lied-if he could not recall the results this was what he should have told the public in the interview. This exposes him as a liar,he should be removed from office.
> c.He knew the Consultation response results in question to be against legislation and he lied deliberately saying they were the opposite of what they were. Again a liar over such an important matter cannot be allowed to hold office.
> d.He misread the responder conclusions and was stating something he felt to be correct but is in fact false. This again questions his competence in correctly fulfilling the high public office and responsibility he holds,but unlike the others does not mean he lied or is evidence of lack of integrity. But having someone who does this over such a hugely serious issue cannot inspire confidence in the process of government.
> If this seems at all hard on Coaker,this is the justification for it. This matter is very serious indeed. The Government has proposed major criminal legislation over a controversial issue which severely impacts on personal privacy and freedom. Such legislation heavily imposes itself into fundemental human rights. There is a strong case for saying such legislation is incompatible with guarantees this Government has given to protect and respect such human rights. Membership of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) demands such committments be taken with the utmost seriousness by government. This involves a obligation not to enact legislation which removes such rights from citizens without evidence of the utmost necessity to do so. It is useful to stress here that no member of the European Convention on Human Rights has or intends having legislation criminalizing the possession of violent pornography as these UK Government proposals seek to do. Similar western democracies outside the Convention such as the United States do not have such legislation either. None of these countries feel the requirement,the necessity for such legislation. Members of the Convention may believe,almost certainly correctly,that such legislation is incompatible with membership of the Convention. In addition to being a member of the European Convention,the UK also has the 1998 Human Rights Act(HRA) cementing the Convention into domestic law,so its Articles may be adjudicated within the UK domestic courts. The Government has ignored the most important result which came from its own Consultation in seeking to procede with this legislation. Worse it is using here a blatant falsehood concerning the stated opinions of the responders to the Consultation as a major justification for proceding with legislation. Worse still it is the responsible Home Office minister who is spreading that falsehood in public. The public and their representatives are being deceived by the claim being made by the responsible minister,the truth is the exact opposite to the claim he has made regarding the opinions of the responders. He claims most support a call for government action,when in truth they categorically do not-and by a huge margin legislative action is rejected. This totally misrepresents the situation,over an issue where draconian laws,probably in abuse of human rights are being proposed with sentences of a severity which appear quite disproportionate to any supposed offense for convicted individuals. The Consultation response is actually grounds for not proceding with such legislation-the responders mainly reject the need for action by a considerable margin! To label this situation an outrageous travesty over a matter of the most serious importance is far too mild a rebuke. The seriousness of the issue means to use falsity as a means of enacting such a law cannot be seen as anything other than an outrage.
> 2.That the material was already "illegal" to publish/distribute by reason of the Obscene Publications Act(OPA).
> As I said earlier-I don`t know if this assertion actually true or not. If not,then both Coaker`s given justifications broadcast nationally are false and he even more severely mislead the public as to both the justifications made for criminalization of individuals by such proposed legislation. If both are the direct opposite to these claims(and the Consultation claim is)-neither the Consultation or the "OPA" can be used as reasons for legislation. If this is so Coaker has no grounds whatever for legislation from these pronouncements-he is totally misrepresenting those he claims he has.
> The claim regarding the Consultation is false,that is devastating enough,if both are it is catastrophic. Whether this can stop them is a moot point,but it is very important and it cuts the ground from under them a great deal. If there have been similar,at best unconscious misleading statements at worst downright lies made elsewhere by Coaker and members of the Government,attempts should be made to track down recordings and press transcripts. If demolishing the grounds used from their own mouths does not halt the legislation from appearing,it certainly gives critical ammo for a non-compatability case on human rights grounds,as both the grounds and necessity exemptions to the relevant Articles are severely discredited by such information-especially when they condemn themselves by their own words. We may have a serious tendeny to "shoot from the lip" here,which can help discredit and destroy this vicious rubbish.
> Melon Farmers posters are contacting the BBC complaints people to point out Coaker falsified the facts and that this should be given merited treatment by BBC outlets. I believe contacts will be made with other broadcasting organizations and the press.
> This needs attention urgently-it is a "break in the case" I would say and points to some highly usefull means to procede to seriously challenge this-hopefully to stop it before a statute,or demolish it after one appears.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 04 Sep 2006 16:55:13 ***
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 13:27:36
The facts about what we KNOW extreme violent porn does to people-they're all here! See below-
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 04 Sep 2006 13:27:37 ***
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 14:07:16
This stuff needs attention Phantom-looks like Croke was talking a pack of piffle to bamboozle the hapless proles they think we all are. He either lied or he stands before us as a complete idiot,prat or utter villain,take your choice.
Whichever doesn't change the fact that the justification(s) being peddled to deceive the public on this are false. There is no mandate from Consultation responders(provable falsehood),the targeted material cannot-it seems to me-be actually illegal either under the OPA unless it has been used in an OPA conviction-which the vast bulk of it has not been(I would not bet my shirt yet on this,but this seems case-I could still be shot down on it,that's why I'm being more cagey here than the bullish Mr.Coaker seems to feel his particular record for veracity requires he should be).
I would be more forgiving of even their mendacity (and less sarcy)if they weren't trying to do something so vile by it.
Author wrote:
> my, did I do that? I read a post on melonfarmers where someone said Coaker had been economic with the truth... so I found the recorded program on bbc site yesterday, listened to it, then posted the link on melonfarmers forum...
> here it is by the way... should be there until the slot is overwritten by next wednesay's program...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/wato_wed
> then wrote a nice message to the BBC on their site, followed by an email to the Times... and finally, before hopping into bed, I posted off a message to the backlash site...
> when I got up this morning I found that there seems to be some people out there who are quite enthusiastic about this... well, fingers crossed...
> as an afterthought, I've since sent a message to the conservative party website... why? they're in support of the policy? true, but naturally they'd like to cause any labour minister as much trouble as possible...
> perhaps someone here wants to notify the Lib Dems... after all, if just one part or paper or broadcaster reacts, then in turn they all might...
> why should we be interested in this? well, it's the pain principle... the more it hurts them to pursue a policy the less willing they will be to do so...
> also, the more discredited their actions become the more discredited the law becomes in the public eye...
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 04 Sep 2006 14:24:10 ***
phantom, 04 Sep 2006 16:06:44
Have just posted an online message to the Committee on Public Standards, regarding Coaker's interview, urgint hem to look into this as it might be a breach of the ministerial code
I'd urge other to follow suit.
follow the link below...
http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/contact/feedback.asp
phantom
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 17:28:38
rock on Phantom-good. Every press and broadcasting outlet-including the Radio 4 interviewer need to be brought in on this. I might guess that similar things were said by Coaker and other regime stooges around 30 August all over the place and we've got just 1 of them here,if there are many more and-please-this isn't blacked out,Coaker may not only be spending more time with his family,but people will have to learn the truth about the "case" for this law-and what the Consultation responders actually said-as opposed to this lying spin. More of his/their economies of truth need to be winkled out and transcripted. Am I right in thinking you got this Radio 4 one?. I will speculate Coaker and co have lied thru their dentures all over the place on this-if the papers start a "witch-hunt" on it it won't need us to track them down-they'll be pouring out I should think! Even our moral friends at the Mail-who have actually reacted to this with no enthusiasm whatever,might,just might take delight in a chance to rubbish one of Bliar's henchmen as a lying hound hoodwinking Joe Public over serious criminal legislation-thus undermining the Bliar himself of course. The prosecution case is in that message-and I'm fairly sure the OPA claim can be nailed as a lie as well.
It gives some comfort to learn Vogon has a thin majority and stands a good chance of being turfed into the wilderness by the voters. The "Mail" will no doubt be delighted to learn that our criminalizing crusader admits to having partaken of the waccy baccy in his greener years.
"Pot smoker minister lies about law claim" Woo!
Author wrote:
> Have just posted an online message to the Committee on Public Standards, regarding Coaker's interview, urgint hem to look into this as it might be a breach of the ministerial code
> I'd urge other to follow suit.
> follow the link below...
> http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/contact/feedback.asp
> phantom
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 04 Sep 2006 17:27:56 ***