Two points
JnJ, 05 Sep 2006 21:35:20
I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if I'm wasting peoples time. I mean well.
Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings act involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the nastiest bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced together. It did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some of the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of those hard to come by 1959 videos
Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office as the secret of good comedy is timing.
rovacs, 06 Sep 2006 01:31:58
When he was granted his Appeal by the Law Lords,his Barrister was Mr.Edward Fitzgerald QC. He looks a top man-interestingly,he is very hot on human rights. I can't think that he hasn't thought of it already,but if he is still Coutt's lawyer,he should be contacted. All the skinny on Mr. Fitzgerald is here at his Chambers.
//www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/edward_fitzgerald_qc.cfm
You might have hit a nerve with that Appeal business-undoubtedly if Longhurst trails around tv studios on the issues talking about a "murder" and all the publicity around any legislation coming into being via the Coutts "murder" that largely inspired this and Longhurst is being given a law on the basis of this one case. This will be a very high profile Appeal. I don't really know how these things work,but contacting Coutt's lawyer would be the first step-I don't know if a judge could stick an injunction on any legislation until Coutts Appeal is over-a reveral of Coutts murder convition might kill it (give the Govt. a chance to wriggle out of legislation they were lumbered with)dunno if there should be worry about Coutt's appeal being rejected strenghthening it,as the barstewards are just carrying on now anyway.
Author wrote:
> I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if I'm wasting peoples time. I mean well.
> Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings act involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the nastiest bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced together. It did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some of the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of those hard to come by 1959 videos
> Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office as the secret of good comedy is timing.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 06 Sep 2006 01:41:35 ***
Teddy, 06 Sep 2006 01:55:37
My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice take it's course. I would doubt very much that his barrister would appreciate being contacted by any campaigning body whilst the appeal is on-going.
T.
Author wrote:
> When he was granted his Appeal by the Law Lords,his Barrister was Mr.Edward Fitzgerald QC. He looks a top man-interestingly,he is very hot on human rights. I can't think that he hasn't thought of it already,but if he is still Coutt's lawyer,he should be contacted. All the skinny on Mr. Fitzgerald is here at his Chambers.
> //www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/edward_fitzgerald_qc.cfm
> You might have hit a nerve with that Appeal business-undoubtedly if Longhurst trails around tv studios on the issues talking about a "murder" and all the publicity around any legislation coming into being via the Coutts "murder" that largely inspired this and Longhurst is being given a law on the basis of this one case. This will be a very high profile Appeal. I don't really know how these things work,but contacting Coutt's lawyer would be the first step-I don't know if a judge could stick an injunction on any legislation until Coutts Appeal is over-a reveral of Coutts murder convition might kill it (give the Govt. a chance to wriggle out of legislation they were lumbered with)dunno if there should be worry about Coutt's appeal being rejected strenghthening it,as the barstewards are just carrying on now anyway.
> Author wrote:
> > I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if I'm wasting peoples time. I mean well.
> > Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings act involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the nastiest bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced together. It did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some of the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of those hard to come by 1959 videos
> > Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office as the secret of good comedy is timing.
Graham Marsden, 06 Sep 2006 02:14:40
Hi there,
Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice
> take it's course.
I'd concur with that, although we can, of course, mention it if at any
time someone mentions the "murder" of JL and point out that "that
verdict is currently under appeal and could be reduced to manslaughter
so it is inappropriate to refer to it in that way".
Cheers,
Graham.
rovacs, 06 Sep 2006 13:22:54
Hmm-I have rethought this and found it a notty one. Perhaps the favored "Consultation response"-do nothing! Publicity on Coutts involving hold ups to legislation tie the case even further in with this individuals legal fate-great if cleared,not so great if sentence confirmed The lawyer may or may not act further unilaterally on this. However,it may be pertinent to know if any guess is around as to when the Appeal is to be heard. If Mr.Coutts is cleared of murder before much has happened with legislation it cuts the ground under it in a big way. Unfortunately confirming his existing sentence strengthens it. Like it or not this horrible law rests a lot on this case-we may feel it's wrong and shouldn't but it does. A quashing of the conviction helps on human rights grounds considerably. And the human rights grounds are very good to start with.
The Bliar made a speech yesterday in which he says we no longer persecute people over their sexuality. He is quite deranged you know! I will get the quote exactly-more ammo from their own mouths against them.
Author wrote:
> Hi there,
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice
> > take it's course.
> I'd concur with that, although we can, of course, mention it if at any
> time someone mentions the "murder" of JL and point out that "that
> verdict is currently under appeal and could be reduced to manslaughter
> so it is inappropriate to refer to it in that way".
> Cheers,
> Graham.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 06 Sep 2006 13:19:23 ***
Paul Tavener, 06 Sep 2006 17:33:11
The whole Coutts case is a seriously dangerous loose cannon. If the charge is reduced to manslaughter, then this might still be used as justification to introduce new laws. If he wasn't guilty of murder then he needs to be guilty of something else, that something else is the extreme porn law.
Author wrote:
> Hmm-I have rethought this and found it a notty one. Perhaps the favored "Consultation response"-do nothing! Publicity on Coutts involving hold ups to legislation tie the case even further in with this individuals legal fate-great if cleared,not so great if sentence confirmed The lawyer may or may not act further unilaterally on this. However,it may be pertinent to know if any guess is around as to when the Appeal is to be heard. If Mr.Coutts is cleared of murder before much has happened with legislation it cuts the ground under it in a big way. Unfortunately confirming his existing sentence strengthens it. Like it or not this horrible law rests a lot on this case-we may feel it's wrong and shouldn't but it does. A quashing of the conviction helps on human rights grounds considerably. And the human rights grounds are very good to start with.
> The Bliar made a speech yesterday in which he says we no longer persecute people over their sexuality. He is quite deranged you know! I will get the quote exactly-more ammo from their own mouths against them.
> Author wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > > My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice
> > > take it's course.
> > I'd concur with that, although we can, of course, mention it if at any
> > time someone mentions the "murder" of JL and point out that "that
> > verdict is currently under appeal and could be reduced to manslaughter
> > so it is inappropriate to refer to it in that way".
> > Cheers,
> > Graham.
deno, 10 Sep 2006 01:36:35
In a message dated 05/09/2006 21:28:35 GMT Standard Time,
johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net writes:
>I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if I'm
wasting peoples time. I mean well.
Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings act
involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the nastiest
bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced together. It
did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some of
the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of those
hard to come by 1959 videos
Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now
prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office as the secret
of good comedy is timing<
Hi
Am not sure if any of us have experience of this sort of thing so we have to
fly by the seat of our pants and think of the best ways to oppose the
puritans.
Your Point 1 - Very interesting, and what you would expect from those
blighters. Maybe we could expose their spin by showing the real thing.
Point 2 - This crossed my mind as it looks like Coutts will have a retrial.
His legal team
could probably serve a Writ which would shelve HO machinations until after
the trial.
With all this publicity his team (QC and all?) could plead unfair trial and
he is freed on technicalities. His is the third murder conviction quashed in
the last two years so lawyers can work wonders! Can only reiterate that we
need legal advice at this time, as it would be tragic if we were locked up
while Coutts walked free!
deno posted 5 Sept
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Marie Harrington, 10 Sep 2006 12:07:23
I agree with this. If what happened WAS a consensual session that went wrong, they will use it to say that BDSM practitioners need to be protected against themselves and therefore shouldn't be encouraged or inspired by 'violent' images.
admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote: The whole Coutts case is a seriously dangerous loose cannon. If the charge is reduced to manslaughter, then this might still be used as justification to introduce new laws. If he wasn't guilty of murder then he needs to be guilty of something else, that something else is the extreme porn law.
Author wrote:
> Hmm-I have rethought this and found it a notty one. Perhaps the favored "Consultation response"-do nothing! Publicity on Coutts involving hold ups to legislation tie the case even further in with this individuals legal fate-great if cleared,not so great if sentence confirmed The lawyer may or may not act further unilaterally on this. However,it may be pertinent to know if any guess is around as to when the Appeal is to be heard. If Mr.Coutts is cleared of murder before much has happened with legislation it cuts the ground under it in a big way. Unfortunately confirming his existing sentence strengthens it. Like it or not this horrible law rests a lot on this case-we may feel it's wrong and shouldn't but it does. A quashing of the conviction helps on human rights grounds considerably. And the human rights grounds are very good to start with.
> The Bliar made a speech yesterday in which he says we no longer persecute people over their sexuality. He is quite deranged you know! I will get the quote exactly-more ammo from their own mouths against them.
> Author wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > > My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice
> > > take it's course.
> > I'd concur with that, although we can, of course, mention it if at any
> > time someone mentions the "murder" of JL and point out that "that
> > verdict is currently under appeal and could be reduced to manslaughter
> > so it is inappropriate to refer to it in that way".
> > 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%3D5642
---------------------------------
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
rovacs, 10 Sep 2006 13:01:14
Putting people in prison for years is an interesting approach to protecting them against themselves.
It's another example of how utterly stupid and human rights abusing this dozy proposition is. It also means in the Longhurst case,that Jane Longhurst might possibly have been imprisoned herself under her mother's abusive "tribute to Jane" law. There are a lot of ifs and suppositions here-but did Coutts claim in his argument that their activities were consensual say she had looked at such sites too-I wonder.
This is not to attack someone who may well have been atrociously murdered by a criminal,it is merely pointing to the complex ambiguities in such a case-which is being used in a disgraceful attempt by this deeply nasty Govt. to make child abuse level criminals out of those who had nothing at all to do with it and are utterly harmless.
Author wrote:
> I agree with this. If what happened WAS a consensual session that went wrong, they will use it to say that BDSM practitioners need to be protected against themselves and therefore shouldn't be encouraged or inspired by 'violent' images.
> admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote: The whole Coutts case is a seriously dangerous loose cannon. If the charge is reduced to manslaughter, then this might still be used as justification to introduce new laws. If he wasn't guilty of murder then he needs to be guilty of something else, that something else is the extreme porn law.
> Author wrote:
> > Hmm-I have rethought this and found it a notty one. Perhaps the favored "Consultation response"-do nothing! Publicity on Coutts involving hold ups to legislation tie the case even further in with this individuals legal fate-great if cleared,not so great if sentence confirmed The lawyer may or may not act further unilaterally on this. However,it may be pertinent to know if any guess is around as to when the Appeal is to be heard. If Mr.Coutts is cleared of murder before much has happened with legislation it cuts the ground under it in a big way. Unfortunately confirming his existing sentence strengthens it. Like it or not this horrible law rests a lot on this case-we may feel it's wrong and shouldn't but it does. A quashing of the conviction helps on human rights grounds considerably. And the human rights grounds are very good to start with.
> > The Bliar made a speech yesterday in which he says we no longer persecute people over their sexuality. He is quite deranged you know! I will get the quote exactly-more ammo from their own mouths against them.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > > Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > > > My view is we should stay clear of the Coutts case and let justice
> > > > take it's course.
> > > I'd concur with that, although we can, of course, mention it if at any
> > > time someone mentions the "murder" of JL and point out that "that
> > > verdict is currently under appeal and could be reduced to manslaughter
> > > so it is inappropriate to refer to it in that way".
> > > 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%3D5642
> ---------------------------------
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.
Paul Tavener, 10 Sep 2006 17:32:00
We should respond by focusing on what happened durring operation Ore especialy if the whole thing blows up in their face as now seems likely at some point.
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 05/09/2006 21:28:35 GMT Standard Time,
> johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net writes:
> >I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if I'm
> wasting peoples time. I mean well.
> Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings act
> involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the nastiest
> bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced together. It
> did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some of
> the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of those
> hard to come by 1959 videos
> Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now
> prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office as the secret
> of good comedy is timing<
> Hi
> Am not sure if any of us have experience of this sort of thing so we have to
> fly by the seat of our pants and think of the best ways to oppose the
> puritans.
> Your Point 1 - Very interesting, and what you would expect from those
> blighters. Maybe we could expose their spin by showing the real thing.
> Point 2 - This crossed my mind as it looks like Coutts will have a retrial.
> His legal team
> could probably serve a Writ which would shelve HO machinations until after
> the trial.
> With all this publicity his team (QC and all?) could plead unfair trial and
> he is freed on technicalities. His is the third murder conviction quashed in
> the last two years so lawyers can work wonders! Can only reiterate that we
> need legal advice at this time, as it would be tragic if we were locked up
> while Coutts walked free!
> deno posted 5 Sept
phantom, 10 Sep 2006 18:25:45
Hi,
That might be a problem...
If this campaign focuses heavily on operation ore we make the connection to
child pornography for the government... it would invariably link us with
that subject and that is precisely what I believe we should avoid at all
cost...
government has made rather tedious attempts at linking the two, trying to
associate extreme adult pornography with child porn... now we all know that
connection doesn't exist... but we might help further solidify a connection
in the eyes of the public if we keep banging on about Operation Ore...
we all know that the authorities are bending the truth on how 'successful'
that disaster apparently was...
but we must make sure that it is clear to the public that the connection
made between this proposed law and child porn is an entirely false one...
therefore any temptation on concentrating on operation ore might invariably
help drag us back onto the ground government feels comfortable debating
on...
if operation ore, as you say, blows up in their face, prior to this bill
going to parliament, then indeed there may be some capital to be gained...
but unless ore presents itself in such a way, I think it ought to be avoided
when debating the possession of 'extreme' pornography proposals...
the suggested law is already idiotic enough to offer plenty an angle of
attack, without us needing to tread such risky ground...
after all, they say; 'politics is perception'... and if what the public will
generally see as 'the supporters of extreme adult pornography' are seen
attacking a highly publicized operation against child porn, we might be
digging our own political grave...
Regards,
Phantom
-----Original Message-----
admin@ofwatch.org.uk [mailto:admin@ofwatch.org.uk], 10 Sep 2006 18:25:45
Sent: 10 September 2006 17:24
We should respond by focusing on what happened durring operation Ore
especialy if the whole thing blows up in their face as now seems likely at
some point.
Author wrote:
> In a message dated 05/09/2006 21:28:35 GMT Standard Time,
> johnnigel.johnson@virgin.net writes:
> >I just don't have the experience of this sort of thing so apologise if
I'm
> wasting peoples time. I mean well.
> Point 1 - Tactics used during the implementation of the video recordings
act
> involved the NVaLA lobbying Mps at their conferences with all the
nastiest
> bits they could find from the so called video nasties all spliced
together. It
> did the trick for mPs not familiar with gory horror movies. Expect some
of
> the same from the Bay(er)ing mob and they might even include some of
those
> hard to come by 1959 videos
> Point 2 - Isn't the proposed introduction of this legislation now
> prejudicial to Coutts appeal. If it is I would compliment the home office
as the secret
> of good comedy is timing<
> Hi
> Am not sure if any of us have experience of this sort of thing so we have
to
> fly by the seat of our pants and think of the best ways to oppose the
> puritans.
> Your Point 1 - Very interesting, and what you would expect from those
> blighters. Maybe we could expose their spin by showing the real thing.
> Point 2 - This crossed my mind as it looks like Coutts will have a
retrial.
> His legal team
> could probably serve a Writ which would shelve HO machinations until after
> the trial.
> With all this publicity his team (QC and all?) could plead unfair trial
and
> he is freed on technicalities. His is the third murder conviction quashed
in
> the last two years so lawyers can work wonders! Can only reiterate that
we
> need legal advice at this time, as it would be tragic if we were locked
up
> while Coutts walked free!
> deno posted 5 Sept
--
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%3D5764
Graham Marsden, 11 Sep 2006 13:12:53
Hi there,
Marie Des Loups wrote:
> I agree with this. If what happened WAS a consensual session that went
> wrong, they will use it to say that BDSM practitioners need to be
> protected against themselves and therefore shouldn't be encouraged or
> inspired by 'violent' images.
We already have the stipulation about leaving marks which are no more
than "trifling and transitory" (whatever that means) so it could be
argued that this would cover ligatures etc.
I'd hate to see any more restrictions on what we can do which would most
probably go well beyond breathplay.
Cheers,
Graham.