CONSERVATIVES/LIB DEMS
JnJ, 04 Sep 2006 21:00:00
Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting the legislation.
Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres nothing there.
In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several reasons why they might not.
Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what isn't to be proscribed.
Nothing on the lib dem site either?
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 22:43:59
I wrote to Cameron long ago about this-no reply. A couple of weeks back I wrote to David Davis-again(wrote to him months back-no reply)with a lot of info-so far nothing. Wrote ages ago to Clegg the Lib Dem Home Shadow-not a pip.
Trouble is,like daring to smoke a fag,this subject has been so demonized,so larded with lies,myths and crud of all manner that no politician dares speak against it-even if they really know its garbage and totally unwarrented. This is essentially why I think getting Parliament to evince reason on this is a bit of a dead loss. Unless the falsehoods that are being used by ministers create enough of a stink to discredit them and drag this hateful proposed law down with them,then the numbers make stopping it becoming legislation once introduced impossible in the House of Androids-though it still might be amended a lot in Committee/the Lords to pull some of the spiky molars out and make it less sabre toothed and more gummy. Yet I really don't see this has much support otherwise out there-it is the illogical claims of a bereaved woman whose cause was grabbed onto by one political poltroon in particular and given life by a regime of god bothering oppressors for whom stealing liberty away is a 24 hour a day project. Demonize something-fags,drugs,porn,the Girl Guides and nobody in the careerist slimepot of the Westminster village will dare say a word for it. The days of independent minded politicians who risked the wrath of the whips and the snarls of the leadership for principles and wore their scars with pride seem a distant memory-the mavericks,be they Enoch or Benn (wonder if he really approves of Hilary)or even a guy like Peter Shore(you may be too young!)are dead or gone.
So maybe unless they stick to the nastiest stuff possible what I see as killing it are-
1.Stupid prosecutions getting the shaft from judges who,unlke ministers understand the law,rules of evidence etc and the common sense of Johnny Englander who will refuse to convict and mostly hates this sort of uncrime crime. But lives can be smashed even without a conviction.
2.An incompatabiity case here or at the ECHR labelling Blair,Chokey etc human rights abusers. If this thing is compatible with HR obligations Blair and Bush are peaceniks. Blair can ignore even a major incompatibility ruling-but I doubt they could remain members of the Convention if he did. And an incompat.ruling opens the door to compesation for unjustly cluster bombed life courtesy of Anthony the Anti-Christ.
Author wrote:
> Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting the legislation.
> Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres nothing there.
> In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several reasons why they might not.
> Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what isn't to be proscribed.
> Nothing on the lib dem site either?
demolitionred, 06 Sep 2006 15:25:57
there were meetings with the tories and the libdems..
there will be more.
watch this space.
rovacs, 06 Sep 2006 19:46:36
DR-I would be happy to meet the Shadow guys/gals if something was arranged. I'm quite presentablish and don't look loopy or anything-I hope The tome on Coaker has been amended significantly with a lot on the human rights angle-it's going to the press-wonder if the Opposition might like some ammo against a Blair Minister and to gets some facts as opposed to myths about this-I'm livid about it,and I don't even like any sort of porn really, but want to see people's liberty protected. IF this becomes a law I no longer wish to be in this country at all-it stinks to Hell.
> there were meetings with the tories and the libdems..
> there will be more.
> watch this space.
phantom, 09 Sep 2006 14:07:12
The conservatives were apparently part of the consultation process...
i.e. one of the 'organisations' in favour of the ban...
however, they might be willing to knock Coaker around a bit, given that they
are the opposition...
I hope everybody is doing some serious writing to places here and not merely
morally supporting those two or three who declared they'd written... we need
to carpet bomb this.... for what little options we possess in having any
influence on this process, this might be our best chance...
Phantom
-----Original Message-----
johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net [mailto:johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net], 09 Sep 2006 14:07:12
Sent: 04 September 2006 20:52
Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made
with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting
the legislation.
Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres
nothing there.
In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several
reasons why they might not.
Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique
crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the
ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his
castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major
review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what
isn't to be proscribed.
Nothing on the lib dem site either?
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5581
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 16:20:31
How about a meeting with "Dave" himself. Neither Davis or Cameron have really been supportive of it themselves. These people are busy with all sorts of other things,I would be amazed if they had any real grasp of what this is going to do yet-Dave might be shocked his house could be raided and he could be imprisoned if he has a copy of "Carry on Screaming" in it. These sort of guys have very full diaries though.
No link between Mr.Hussein and the terrorists(official US Senate),no WMDs-a war launched due to a conspiracy of lies-Blair trundles nearer the Hague as an accused war criminal. Mr.Bush had the reserves of sense not to give the Court juristiction over him-unlike sanctimonious Tone(off topic mate,but it shows how thousands of lives get destroyed by politicians who base what they do on lies,myth and blatant fabrication-sound familiar?)
Author wrote:
> The conservatives were apparently part of the consultation process...
> i.e. one of the 'organisations' in favour of the ban...
> however, they might be willing to knock Coaker around a bit, given that they
> are the opposition...
> I hope everybody is doing some serious writing to places here and not merely
> morally supporting those two or three who declared they'd written... we need
> to carpet bomb this.... for what little options we possess in having any
> influence on this process, this might be our best chance...
> Phantom
> -----Original Message-----
: johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net [mailto:johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net], 09 Sep 2006 16:20:31
> Sent: 04 September 2006 20:52
> Subject: [backlash] CONSERVATIVES/LIB DEMS
> Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made
> with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting
> the legislation.
> Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres
> nothing there.
> In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several
> reasons why they might not.
> Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique
> crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the
> ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his
> castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major
> review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what
> isn't to be proscribed.
> Nothing on the lib dem site either?
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5581
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 09 Sep 2006 17:43:31 ***
Paul Tavener, 09 Sep 2006 22:32:36
Nobody, or at least none of the political bigwigs are going to come out publicly on our side as it would be a political disaster for them given the moral manic that is currently underway.
That being said it doesn't mean that
a) they all agree with the proposals (although a lot probably do) or
b) that the would refuse an opportunity to do some damage to labour.
The most effective way of engaging the opposition would be to find an angle where they could pour scorn on Labour without ever having to confront Liz Longhurst in an interview.
If the operation Ore situation explodes in the near future or the Coutts cases unravels this could provide them with plenty of amunition. "We dispise extreme porn BUT the public must also be protected from dangerously unsafe legislation".
"We believe that the Government has included material that should be excluded (fantasy images) and excluded material that should be included (oral sex with dead animals - or any other loop hole) - in short the Government has been incompetant in handling this issue."
Author wrote:
> How about a meeting with "Dave" himself. Neither Davis or Cameron have really been supportive of it themselves. These people are busy with all sorts of other things,I would be amazed if they had any real grasp of what this is going to do yet-Dave might be shocked his house could be raided and he could be imprisoned if he has a copy of "Carry on Screaming" in it. These sort of guys have very full diaries though.
> No link between Mr.Hussein and the terrorists(official US Senate),no WMDs-a war launched due to a conspiracy of lies-Blair trundles nearer the Hague as an accused war criminal. Mr.Bush had the reserves of sense not to give the Court juristiction over him-unlike sanctimonious Tone(off topic mate,but it shows how thousands of lives get destroyed by politicians who base what they do on lies,myth and blatant fabrication-sound familiar?)
> Author wrote:
> > The conservatives were apparently part of the consultation process...
> > i.e. one of the 'organisations' in favour of the ban...
> > however, they might be willing to knock Coaker around a bit, given that they
> > are the opposition...
> > I hope everybody is doing some serious writing to places here and not merely
> > morally supporting those two or three who declared they'd written... we need
> > to carpet bomb this.... for what little options we possess in having any
> > influence on this process, this might be our best chance...
> > Phantom
> > -----Original Message-----
om: johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net [mailto:johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net], 09 Sep 2006 22:32:36
> > Sent: 04 September 2006 20:52
> > Subject: [backlash] CONSERVATIVES/LIB DEMS
> > Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made
> > with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting
> > the legislation.
> > Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres
> > nothing there.
> > In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several
> > reasons why they might not.
> > Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique
> > crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the
> > ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his
> > castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major
> > review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what
> > isn't to be proscribed.
> > Nothing on the lib dem site either?
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5581
rovacs, 09 Sep 2006 23:30:46
I say again-I see no support anyplace for this apart from Longhurst and the oily political gonks who have climbed aboard. This proposal does not come from a moral panoc but one woman playing on the strings of a Government that lives and breathes to ban and criminalize anything it can,and thought its flagging ratings might be helped by this-well thst didn't work did it! It was a total flop,the press comments are hostile,no floods of letter of support,BBC message boards crammed with hostility etc. The reason is clear to me-Longhurst knows nothing about the internet/computers,political oiks like Coaker and Goggins don't either-but anyone who uses a computer knows how vunerable they could be to a police witchhunt based on such ill defined rubbish as this-few think prohibitions on child porn will bother them-but this!!!A computer they use might have stuff on they don't even know about and it might cost them their liberty. Thus the shuddery cold shoulder this has been given. But I agree no politico is going to dare to seem to be favouring any kind of hardish porn,though I think Cameron is is on record as saying he felt porn,though not nice,it was up to to the individual. Which is like the political equivelent of being Larry Flint among the righteous Westminster wally class of today.
I think,like you,it has to be presented to them as illogical and stupid in its targets,too fuzzy so nobody knows where the heck they are with it-and something which is rather more likely to lose votes than gain 'em. There is no doubt in my mind that this is blueprint dangerous legislation-this is why I have written that people like the Law Lords and the Human Rights Committee must scrutinize it and make it more of a banger than the h-bomb it looks now.
rote:
> Nobody, or at least none of the political bigwigs are going to come out publicly on our side as it would be a political disaster for them given the moral manic that is currently underway.
> That being said it doesn't mean that
> a) they all agree with the proposals (although a lot probably do) or
> b) that the would refuse an opportunity to do some damage to labour.
> The most effective way of engaging the opposition would be to find an angle where they could pour scorn on Labour without ever having to confront Liz Longhurst in an interview.
> If the operation Ore situation explodes in the near future or the Coutts cases unravels this could provide them with plenty of amunition. "We dispise extreme porn BUT the public must also be protected from dangerously unsafe legislation".
> "We believe that the Government has included material that should be excluded (fantasy images) and excluded material that should be included (oral sex with dead animals - or any other loop hole) - in short the Government has been incompetant in handling this issue."
> Author wrote:
> > How about a meeting with "Dave" himself. Neither Davis or Cameron have really been supportive of it themselves. These people are busy with all sorts of other things,I would be amazed if they had any real grasp of what this is going to do yet-Dave might be shocked his house could be raided and he could be imprisoned if he has a copy of "Carry on Screaming" in it. These sort of guys have very full diaries though.
> > No link between Mr.Hussein and the terrorists(official US Senate),no WMDs-a war launched due to a conspiracy of lies-Blair trundles nearer the Hague as an accused war criminal. Mr.Bush had the reserves of sense not to give the Court juristiction over him-unlike sanctimonious Tone(off topic mate,but it shows how thousands of lives get destroyed by politicians who base what they do on lies,myth and blatant fabrication-sound familiar?)
> > Author wrote:
> > > The conservatives were apparently part of the consultation process...
> > > i.e. one of the 'organisations' in favour of the ban...
> > > however, they might be willing to knock Coaker around a bit, given that they
> > > are the opposition...
> > > I hope everybody is doing some serious writing to places here and not merely
> > > morally supporting those two or three who declared they'd written... we need
> > > to carpet bomb this.... for what little options we possess in having any
> > > influence on this process, this might be our best chance...
> > > Phantom
> > > -----Original Message-----
From: johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net [mailto:johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net], 09 Sep 2006 23:30:46
> > > Sent: 04 September 2006 20:52
> > > Subject: [backlash] CONSERVATIVES/LIB DEMS
> > > Read one of the posts (but can't find it now)about contact having been made
> > > with the Conservatives but would be a waste of time as they were supporting
> > > the legislation.
> > > Is this a fact. Just had a look at their recent press releases and theres
> > > nothing there.
> > > In principle could see them being supportive but could think of several
> > > reasons why they might not.
> > > Its rushed through, populist, unworkable,vague,unilateral, creates a unique
> > > crime for uk citizens thats nowhere else in the democratic world. Joins the
> > > ranks of china and iran in internet censorship. Englishmans home is his
> > > castle. Will be abused by the Authorities. Needs to be part of a major
> > > review of our censorship laws. International agreement on what is and what
> > > isn't to be proscribed.
> > > Nothing on the lib dem site either?
> > > --
> > > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> > > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> > > Report abuse
> > > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5581
Teddy, 14 Sep 2006 21:59:01
Attached is the reply I got from my Lib Dem MP, David Howarth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your e mail about the proposal to make possession of extreme pornography a criminal offence.
The Home Office consultation proposes that it should be a criminal offence to possess certain types of pornography, in addition to the existing offence of giving, hiring, lending or selling such material. The categories of material which are considered for inclusion in the new offence are images of intercourse with an animal, intercourse with a human corpse (both of which are straightforward to define in law) and images of serious violence in a sexual context / serious sexual violence. The last are where definitional problems arise.
There is a case for limiting the availability of this kind of material, where creating it involves committing a crime or there is evidence that it increases the risk of crimes being committed.
However, we have concerns about how the law could be framed on the question of ‘serious sexual violence’ and 'serious violence in a sexual context' to avoid inappropriate prosecutions. These terms will be extremely difficult to define and could lead to the criminalising of certain sado-masochistic material which it may not be necessary or desirable to ban.
Pending further discussions on these issues we believe that the legal threshold for consensual sexual violence needs to be revisited, and that any extension of the law on obscene publications will be dependent on finding a definition which does not lead to injustice.
I have also spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation, who have some concerns about the effect of a crime of pure possession or the willingness of members of the public to bring the existence of such websites to their attention.
------------------------------------------------------
I think the last point is quite interesting. In correspondence I have had myself with the IWF, I sensed their indifference. They probably realise better than anyone how community support has been critical in fighting child porn and how they are not going to get a similar consensus over these barmy new laws.
Graham Marsden, 15 Sep 2006 02:13:48
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Pending further discussions on these issues we believe that the legal
> threshold for consensual sexual violence needs to be revisited, and
> that any extension of the law on obscene publications will be
> dependent on finding a definition which does not lead to injustice.
>
> I have also spoken to the Internet Watch Foundation, who have some
> concerns about the effect of a crime of pure possession or the
> willingness of members of the public to bring the existence of such
> websites to their attention.
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think the last point is quite interesting. In correspondence I
> have had myself with the IWF, I sensed their indifference. They
> probably realise better than anyone how community support has been
> critical in fighting child porn and how they are not going to get
> a similar consensus over these barmy new laws.
This is indeed interesting and useful.
Also interesting, however, is the previous paragraph where the Lib Dem
says that "we believe that the legal threshold for consensual sexual
violence needs to be revisited" which would be good news for the Spanner
related causes too.
Cheers,
Graham.
demolitionred, 15 Sep 2006 13:53:26
The more people have the law and its implications detailed to them the more people are opposed to it.
There has been spontaneous opposition to this from many quarters on the net..
as well as some good publishing from people here.
I think we will get some fo the tories on side. we'll defintely get a lot of lib dems...
its Labour MPs we need to be focussing on.
Teddy, 17 Sep 2006 03:33:04
It good that Howarth seems interested in addressing some of the ludicrous impracticalities of the proposals and appears to value the idea of consent. I am less hopeful where he says-
"There is a case for limiting the availability of this kind of material, where creating it involves commiting a crime or there is evidence that it increases the risk of crimes being commited"
Such as where?! He is apparently accepting some of the mythology of the advocates of this new law.
T.
Author wrote:
> The more people have the law and its implications detailed to them the more people are opposed to it.
> There has been spontaneous opposition to this from many quarters on the net..
> as well as some good publishing from people here.
> I think we will get some fo the tories on side. we'll defintely get a lot of lib dems...
> its Labour MPs we need to be focussing on.
demolitionred, 18 Sep 2006 06:35:11
Author wrote:
> It good that Howarth seems interested in addressing some of the ludicrous impracticalities of the proposals and appears to value the idea of consent. I am less hopeful where he says-
> "There is a case for limiting the availability of this kind of material, where creating it involves commiting a crime or there is evidence that it increases the risk of crimes being commited"
> Such as where?! He is apparently accepting some of the mythology of the advocates of this new law.
> T.
But its a good start and this is where the education starts.
we have to act as researchers for MPs, giving them all the links and the knowledge they need.
Bear in mind they're busy and less informed on specialist subjects and every little we can do helps them.
Teddy, 19 Sep 2006 02:54:41
http://www.libdems.org.uk/campaigns/campaign.html?navPage=campaigns.html&id=16625
No guessing what I voted for!! Although it makes you realise how much meddling Blair's lot have been up to these last few years...
T.
budgiebird, 12 Oct 2006 01:11:07
Just joined this group and have been reading back over some of the older threads.
With regard to the Conservative's position, it is not looking good, if Tim Loughton and Theresa May's response to the Consultation on behalf of the Conservative Party is anything to go by.
They said:
"We agree that the unacceptability of this material should be treated no differently from the possession and procurement of pornographic pictures of children."
budgie
Teddy, 12 Oct 2006 01:59:32
Hi Budgie,
Can you maybe link to this response, as I'm sure many would be interested to read it?
We've been over these arguments a thousand times on here, but how does a term like "unacceptability" come into the criminal law? Child porn is illegal because criminal acts are intrinsically involved, not because it is disliked by people.
T.
Author wrote:
> Just joined this group and have been reading back over some of the older threads.
> With regard to the Conservative's position, it is not looking good, if Tim Loughton and Theresa May's response to the Consultation on behalf of the Conservative Party is anything to go by.
> They said:
> "We agree that the unacceptability of this material should be treated no differently from the possession and procurement of pornographic pictures of children."
> budgie
budgiebird, 12 Oct 2006 02:45:30
Hi Teddy,
I'm afraid there is no link on the internet that I am aware of yet. I got this from the CD of responses sent to me by the CLPU.
I tried to cut and paste the while thing, but the format won't allow me to do that.
I have, however, managed to save it as a file and will email it to you direct. Maybe someone more technically minded than me, can reproduce it so it can be read on here.
budgie
Author wrote:
> Hi Budgie,
> Can you maybe link to this response, as I'm sure many would be interested to read it?
> We've been over these arguments a thousand times on here, but how does a term like "unacceptability" come into the criminal law? Child porn is illegal because criminal acts are intrinsically involved, not because it is disliked by people.
> T.
Teddy, 12 Oct 2006 03:02:18
If it's a pdf file, maybe you might be able to upload it to the "files" section.
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi Teddy,
> I'm afraid there is no link on the internet that I am aware of yet. I got this from the CD of responses sent to me by the CLPU.
> I tried to cut and paste the while thing, but the format won't allow me to do that.
> I have, however, managed to save it as a file and will email it to you direct. Maybe someone more technically minded than me, can reproduce it so it can be read on here.
> budgie
> Author wrote:
> > Hi Budgie,
> > Can you maybe link to this response, as I'm sure many would be interested to read it?
> > We've been over these arguments a thousand times on here, but how does a term like "unacceptability" come into the criminal law? Child porn is illegal because criminal acts are intrinsically involved, not because it is disliked by people.
> > T.
Graham Marsden, 12 Oct 2006 04:31:13
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> If it's a pdf file, maybe you might be able to upload it to the "files" section.
There are four main "books", ranging from 20 to 30 megabytes...!
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul C. Dickie, 12 Oct 2006 05:04:11
In message <3654650.1160611361858.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, budgiebird.peter@googlemail.com wrote:
>With regard to the Conservative's position, it is not looking good, if Tim
>Loughton and Theresa May's response to the Consultation on behalf of the
>Conservative Party is anything to go by.
>
>They said:
>
>"We agree that the unacceptability of this material should be treated no
>differently from the possession and procurement of pornographic pictures of
>children."
That is because Theresa May is an unreconstructed Thatcherite and still
thinks she belongs to the Nasty Party. in other words, she's an
authoritarian twit who seems to have the idea that the primary task of a
politician is to pass more and more, and ever sillier laws.
Still, such are the joys of the British system of parliamentary
oligarchy.
--
< Paul >
Graham Marsden, 12 Oct 2006 05:53:55
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Can you maybe link to this response, as I'm sure many would be
> interested to read it?
> We've been over these arguments a thousand times on here, but
> how does a term like "unacceptability" come into the criminal law?
> Child porn is illegal because criminal acts are intrinsically
> involved, not because it is disliked by people.
I've just had a quick look through the CD of responses I got back from
the Home Office and found the Tory response (it's number 262).
Unfortunately the responses are saved as .pdf images, not text, so I've
cut and pasted them into a couple of .jpg images here:
http://www.affordable-leather.co.uk/Tory%20Response-1.jpg
http://www.affordable-leather.co.uk/Tory%20Response-2.jpg
Some comments I'd like to make:
They refer to R vs Perrin and say that it "set a useful precedent
whereby an offence is committed if it can be shown that vulnerable
people (children or impressionable adults) would be likely to see these
images" but if these people are "vulnerable", why aren't their parents
or care givers preventing them from this "likelihood" of them accessing
it? (Or, for that matter, being held responsible for *their* failure of
"duty of care"?!)
They say "Clearly it should be an offence for people to knowingly
download and store for future reference material of this kind", but it's
not clear *why* it's "clear", apart from the fact that they, obviously,
don't like it.
They also propose that if anyone convicted of procuring such material
should be disqualified from having a credit card since "invariably this
is the only way to purchase such material" which rather neatly
demonstrates their complete ignorance of Usenet, P2P and IRC file
sharing and other such systems!
Not only that, however, they are of the opinion that ISPs should be
required to police material that passes through their servers! How Big
Brother is supposed to watch the trillions of bytes of information
involved, they don't say...
Another suggestion is that Police should be allowed to progress
prosecutions based on a "sample" of images, rather than "trawl through
many thousands", meaning that any claim of "proportionality" goes out of
the window, since it would only be necessary for them to find a couple
of images to haul someone up in front of the courts! (Of course, again,
they don't say *how* these images will be found.)
They also introduce a couple of juicy red herrings including proposing
bans on sites which "contain blatant guidance on how to commit rape
without leaving a trace" claiming that these "should be regarded as
constituting an incitement to commit illegal sexual acts, be with with
adults or children." Hmm, so if I read a book that contains information
on how to build a bomb, that is "incitement to terrorism"?
The other red herring is sites that give information on how to commit
suicide including "a special site for under 13's" and think that these
sites should be included in this legislation because "incitement to
suicide is a criminal offence"!
Basically, IMO, their arguments are nonsense and they're just using them
as justifications for banning something they don't like with phony
claims about how this material "incites" people to do things that others
wouldn't.
Cheers,
Graham.
budgiebird, 12 Oct 2006 11:27:43
Thanks Graham, for putting this response up on your web space. Saved my little birdie brain from a lot of headache!
You're quite correct in what you say in your post, it would seem that the Conservative Party have (willingly) fallen into the trap that the Consultation document set, of linking child porn inextricably with the new proposals.
One of their main justifications for these new laws is that it would save children from coming into contact with this type of material (it won't). Therefore, if that is really their worry, they should scrap these proposals and create a new law to make parents legally responsible for what their children access on the internet.
Teddy, 12 Oct 2006 12:44:33
Unmittigated nonsense! They appear not to even understand the issues involved. The bit about police using a "sample of images" to expedite prosecutions is unbelievable; why bother with evidence and proof at all at that rate!?
T.
Author wrote:
> Thanks Graham, for putting this response up on your web space. Saved my little birdie brain from a lot of headache!
> You're quite correct in what you say in your post, it would seem that the Conservative Party have (willingly) fallen into the trap that the Consultation document set, of linking child porn inextricably with the new proposals.
> One of their main justifications for these new laws is that it would save children from coming into contact with this type of material (it won't). Therefore, if that is really their worry, they should scrap these proposals and create a new law to make parents legally responsible for what their children access on the internet.
kinkiminx, 12 Oct 2006 16:37:56
Hi there,
Its important people can see the responses of those who wished them to be made public:
I have plenty of free space online, and would be quite happy to host the files as long as there is no legal problem with displaying consultation responses. (If anyone knows the answer to this, please let me know, otherwise I'll enquire.)
If you can send them by email, I should be able to upload them as soon as they arrive, or if the ISPs dislike the large files get in touch and I'll give you my postal address.
Its a shame the Conservative Party response was so badly weighed and lacked the consideration to discuss both sides of the proposals, or address any possible problems or validity of potential oposing opinion before drawing conclusions.
Anyway, if anyone would like to take up my offer to host the files, please feel free to send them over.
Renata
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > If it's a pdf file, maybe you might be able to upload it to the "files" section.
> There are four main "books", ranging from 20 to 30 megabytes...!
> Cheers,
> Graham.
adrian, 12 Oct 2006 19:03:58
Hi Renata
We have 3 or 4 offers of hosting now! The limiting factor is
bandwidth, a few dozen people each downloading the full 108MB would
quickly eat up your allocation.
Anyway, it's in hand, I'm just waiting for upload confirmation and the
file URLs, and I'll post the links here - and on the NEW forum and
wiki as just posted about by Dem Red.
Adrian
On 12/10/06, kinkiminx@btinternet.com wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Its important people can see the responses of those who wished them to be made public:
>
> I have plenty of free space online, and would be quite happy to host the files as long as there is no legal problem with displaying consultation responses. (If anyone knows the answer to this, please let me know, otherwise I'll enquire.)
>
> If you can send them by email, I should be able to upload them as soon as they arrive, or if the ISPs dislike the large files get in touch and I'll give you my postal address.
>
> Its a shame the Conservative Party response was so badly weighed and lacked the consideration to discuss both sides of the proposals, or address any possible problems or validity of potential oposing opinion before drawing conclusions.
>
> Anyway, if anyone would like to take up my offer to host the files, please feel free to send them over.
>
> Renata
>
> Author wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > > If it's a pdf file, maybe you might be able to upload it to the "files" section.
> > There are four main "books", ranging from 20 to 30 megabytes...!
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5988
>
Graham Marsden, 12 Oct 2006 20:47:59
Hi there,
kinkiminx@btinternet.com wrote:
> Its important people can see the responses of those who wished
> them to be made public
Well, at least the ones we're allowed to see!
Following what I'd been told I was expecting a few responses to not be
included, but it seems that no less than *ninety one* have been "removed
for legal reasons"!
What exactly is this information which is so important that it must be
"removed for legal reasons", presumably since it would prejudice Graham
Coutts' Appeal yet almost a quarter of the respondants are, presumably,
aware of??
Cheers,
Graham.
adrian, 12 Oct 2006 23:46:48
Someone suggested the 'legal reasons' would include those who wanted
the whole response kept anonymous, not just their personal details.
This seems likely as many more of the totally anonymous ones (names
not given at all) are missing.
Renata, OCR would be tedious but easier than copytyping. As far as I
can see even the e-mail responses have been printed out and rescanned
(as they're askew). Some of the responses scanned from hard copy are
completely askew and would have to be corrected to OCR. Each image
would need to be grabbed in good quality page by page unless there's
some way to automate the process.
phantom, 13 Oct 2006 00:49:17
interesting that the responses should be removed for mentioning the
Longhurst/Coutts case... if I recall what made more play of that case than
anything else was in fact the government's own original consultation
document...
phantom
-----Original Message-----
graham [mailto:graham@affordable-leather.co.uk], 13 Oct 2006 00:49:17
Sent: 12 October 2006 20:44
Hi there,
kinkiminx@btinternet.com wrote:
> Its important people can see the responses of those who wished
> them to be made public
Well, at least the ones we're allowed to see!
Following what I'd been told I was expecting a few responses to not be
included, but it seems that no less than *ninety one* have been "removed
for legal reasons"!
What exactly is this information which is so important that it must be
"removed for legal reasons", presumably since it would prejudice Graham
Coutts' Appeal yet almost a quarter of the respondants are, presumably,
aware of??
Cheers,
Graham.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5992
adrian, 13 Oct 2006 23:19:26
Well, the person who originally offered to host is not responding.
But in the meantime the official Backlash site turns out to have enough bandwidth after all.
So the responses are now available at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/responses/
If people can help with creating 'finding tools' that would be good. We could do with a text version of the indexes of all the 'books', at least for the named respondents.
adrian, 13 Oct 2006 23:36:18
Whoever started it and whatever the rights and wrongs of doing so, the
legal reasons for removal re Coutts are the risk of prejudicing his
appeal. That decision ought to be legal not political.
On 13/10/06, Franco Cavazzi wrote:
> interesting that the responses should be removed for mentioning the
> Longhurst/Coutts case... if I recall what made more play of that case than
> anything else was in fact the government's own original consultation
> document...
>
> phantom
kinkiminx, 14 Oct 2006 06:59:21
Glad to hear backlash has enough bandwidth; and good to see the
responses online so promptly!
-I don't have any bandwidth problems in the sense of limits, but keeping
files online which attract a huge bandwidth could have cost me a lot!
If it does turn out there are problems with bandwidth,
I couldn't think of any way of automating rotating files, as if scanned
in by hand, they'll all be at slightly different angles.
If they are at the same angle, creating a modification filter in
Photoshop would be a good way to rotate them all by the same angle,
taking only about 5 seconds per file on a fast machine.
Speeding up OCR could be done in some programs by placing the image
files in a queue to be done all at once whilst leaving the computer to
it, but they would still have to be checked for errors.
-----Original Message-----
adrianhb@googlemail.com [mailto:adrianhb@googlemail.com], 14 Oct 2006 06:59:21
Sent: 13 October 2006 23:11
Well, the person who originally offered to host is not responding.
But in the meantime the official Backlash site turns out to have enough
bandwidth after all.
So the responses are now available at
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/responses/
If people can help with creating 'finding tools' that would be good. We
could do with a text version of the indexes of all the 'books', at least
for the named respondents.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5998
adrian, 14 Oct 2006 12:33:01
Most images are straight enough. Only one of the e-mailed ones was visibly skew and not enough to worry OCR. A few of the hard copy scans are 15-20 degrees off. If we could automate the process we could just put them all through and worry about the ones that failed later.
Main problem is extracting the images. The ordinary Acro reader will extract each page to clipboard but there are hundreds per file. Trying to find third-party tools to help.
Author wrote:
> Glad to hear backlash has enough bandwidth; and good to see the
> responses online so promptly!
> -I don't have any bandwidth problems in the sense of limits, but keeping
> files online which attract a huge bandwidth could have cost me a lot!
> If it does turn out there are problems with bandwidth,
> I couldn't think of any way of automating rotating files, as if scanned
> in by hand, they'll all be at slightly different angles.
> If they are at the same angle, creating a modification filter in
> Photoshop would be a good way to rotate them all by the same angle,
> taking only about 5 seconds per file on a fast machine.
> Speeding up OCR could be done in some programs by placing the image
> files in a queue to be done all at once whilst leaving the computer to
> it, but they would still have to be checked for errors.
> -----Original Message-----
: adrianhb@googlemail.com [mailto:adrianhb@googlemail.com], 14 Oct 2006 12:33:01
> Sent: 13 October 2006 23:11
> Subject: RE: [backlash] RE: CONSERVATIVES/LIB DEMS
> Well, the person who originally offered to host is not responding.
> But in the meantime the official Backlash site turns out to have enough
> bandwidth after all.
> So the responses are now available at
> http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/responses/
> If people can help with creating 'finding tools' that would be good. We
> could do with a text version of the indexes of all the 'books', at least
> for the named respondents.
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D5998
snowflake, 15 Oct 2006 20:18:19
On 14/10/06, adrianhb@googlemail.com wrote:
> Most images are straight enough. Only one of the e-mailed ones was visibly skew and not enough to worry OCR. A few of the hard copy scans are 15-20 degrees off. If we could automate the process we could just put them all through and worry about the ones that failed later.
I'm just running book one through my OCR software (Omnipage Pro 12 so
not exactly the most up-to-date software around) and it seems to be
scanning through nicely. According to its dictionary most respondants
can't spell for toffee but aside from that there aren't any problems
coming up so far.
Zoë