letter from Vernon
phantom, 26 Sep 2006 11:56:33
Hi all,
ok, just got another letter back from Home Office, signed 'Vernon'...
well, it was sent to my MP, who's passed it on to me... :)
my main point was to seek confirmation that that the currently defined threshold would exempt depictions of bdsm, spanking, bondage - even rape - from the new offence, as none of these are life threatening...
The first point of interest is:
'The government's response to the consultation states that the proposed new offence would have to meet two threshholds.
First it would apply only to pornographic (underlined) material, by which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced to for the purpose of sexual arousal. This we believe would eliminate works of art, news and documentary programmes and works classified by the BBFC (other than R18, etc...). This would be an objective test for the jury.
The second would be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm.'
then it goes on to say;
'By serious violence we mean violence which appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious disabling injury. The threshhold level is necessary since the intention is to target material which is already illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.'
What follows is an interesting line:
it states that I mentioned BDSM, spanking, bondage adn rape material in particular.
'This covers a very broad range of activity and while not specifically mentioned in the Government response, such material will fall under the new offence only if it falls within the threshold I have outlined above. '
Next:
'The detail is still being considered but it is likely that some depictions of rape will be covered; material featuring spanking is unlikely to be caught, unless the injuries caused are life threatening.'
Next it acknowledges that I wish to know exactly what is prohibited and goes on to say:
'The government accepts the importance of achieving clarity with regard to the types of material which are to be covered by the legislation and we will consider giving non-statutory guidance on the type of activity or injury which we consider would fall within these categories. This will be developed alongside the proposals for legislation.'
Now all this seems to suggest shifting ground... Coaker speaks of a threshold defined by two points, pornography and serious violence. What happened to 'explicit'?
my next worry is in this sentence 'conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm'... this seems outside of the threshold of pornographic, explicit and seriously violent...
once again we get the quotation that what is sought to be banned is already outlawed by the OPA... my latest letter challenged this, it will be interesting to see waht reply I receive...
anyhow, we have - at least to some degree - a ministerial sentence which states that bdsm, bondage and spanking material only is effected if it falls within the threshold (pornographic and seriously violent).
But when it coems to rape, he chickens out. Here things are still being considered and it is likely to result in a ban. So somethign substantial will still be changing in the legislation. (This must be challenged!) At current definition rape would have to be deemed legal. If Coaker wishes to bring rape within the ban, then he will be introducing pieces he has neither consulted on nor mentioned in his government response.
Last, note the idea od non-statutory guidance is only 'considered'.. so that is hardly a commitment on their part... it may well be that, by the time they present a bill to parliament, they have considered and rejected the idea...
guess I'll now have to start writing another letter...
Regards,
phantom
tiana, 26 Sep 2006 14:19:45
[ Attachment Removed: ]
Graham Marsden, 26 Sep 2006 14:53:31
Hi there,
I know you've covered some of these points, but here's my comments in
response to that letter...
franco@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> my main point was to seek confirmation that that the currently
> defined threshold would exempt depictions of bdsm, spanking,
> bondage - even rape - from the new offence, as none of these are
> life threatening...
Good move :-) We need to weaken their case as much as we can.
> The first point of interest is:
> 'The government's response to the consultation states that the proposed
> new offence would have to meet two threshholds.
> First it would apply only to pornographic (underlined) material, by
> which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced to
> for the purpose of sexual arousal.
In other words, "we've got an anti-porn agenda, but we're not going to
be honest and admit it."
> This we believe would eliminate works of art, news and documentary
> programmes
And video clips of Iraqi hostages being beheaded...
> and works classified by the BBFC (other than R18, etc...).
Oh look, it's that anti-porn agenda again.
> This would be an objective test for the jury.
Err, no, it will be entirely *subjective*. An image or film clip can
easily be taken out of context to "demonstrate" that something is
"pornographic".
> The second would be an objective test for the jury in respect of
> actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts.
No, if they're asking if the jury think something "appears" to be a
"real act" this is, once again, a purely *subjective* test.
> We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves
> little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised.
ie stuff we don't want to look at.
> By actual scenes or depictions which appear to real acts, we intend
> to catch material which is genuinely violent
You mean like "Happy Slapping" videos?
> or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm.'
Oh, like every horror/ slasher movie out there?
> 'By serious violence we mean violence which appears to be life
> threatening or likely to result in serious disabling injury. The
> threshhold level is necessary since the intention is to target
> material which is already illegal to publish under the Obscene
> Publications Act 1959.'
Is it, though? cf recent information presented by Mr Lucky on what is
actually classed as illegal under the OPA.
> What follows is an interesting line:
> it states that I mentioned BDSM, spanking, bondage adn rape material
> in particular.
> 'This covers a very broad range of activity and while not specifically
> mentioned in the Government response, such material will fall under
> the new offence only if it falls within the threshold I have outlined
> above. '
ie based on a purely subjective decision.
> Next:
> 'The detail is still being considered but it is likely that some
> depictions of rape will be covered; material featuring spanking is
> unlikely to be caught, unless the injuries caused are life
> threatening.'
"are life threatening"? I thought it was "appears to be"??
> Next it acknowledges that I wish to know exactly what is prohibited
> and goes on to say:
> 'The government accepts the importance of achieving clarity with
> regard to the types of material which are to be covered by the
> legislation and we will consider giving non-statutory guidance on
> the type of activity or injury which we consider would fall within
> these categories. This will be developed alongside the proposals
> for legislation.'
"Consider giving"? "Non-statutory guidance"? Hmm, that sounds like a
weasel to me!
And, as you point out, non-statutory guidance is hardly the most
definitive information available.
> Now all this seems to suggest shifting ground...
Or serious back-pedalling :-)
> Coaker speaks of a threshold defined by two points, pornography and
> serious violence. What happened to 'explicit'?
I think he realised there was no chance of getting that through.
> my next worry is in this sentence 'conveys a realistic impression of
> fear, violence and harm'... this seems outside of the threshold of
> pornographic, explicit and seriously violent...
Again it's a purely subjective opinion based on what they don't like.
> once again we get the quotation that what is sought to be banned is
> already outlawed by the OPA... my latest letter challenged this, it
> will be interesting to see waht reply I receive...
Do let us know :-)
> anyhow, we have - at least to some degree - a ministerial sentence
> which states that bdsm, bondage and spanking material only is effected
> if it falls within the threshold (pornographic and seriously
> violent).
Which is good news as far as it goes, but it's not enough, yet.
> But when it coems to rape, he chickens out. Here things are still
> being considered and it is likely to result in a ban. So somethign
> substantial will still be changing in the legislation. (This must
> be challenged!) At current definition rape would have to be deemed
> legal. If Coaker wishes to bring rape within the ban, then he will
> be introducing pieces he has neither consulted on nor mentioned in
> his government response.
A good point, although he'll probably weasel and claim it's "serious
sexual violence" or "promoting violence against women" and, as such,
even though it wasn't originally considered, comes under the remit.
> Last, note the idea od non-statutory guidance is only 'considered'..
> so that is hardly a commitment on their part... it may well be
> that, by the time they present a bill to parliament, they have
> considered and rejected the idea...
Yep, sounds like another weasel to me.
> guess I'll now have to start writing another letter...
Go for it! :-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Roel, 26 Sep 2006 19:04:38
franco@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> First it would apply only to pornographic (underlined) material, by
> which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced to
> for the purpose of sexual arousal. This we believe would eliminate
> works of art, news and documentary programmes and works classified by
> the BBFC (other than R18, etc...). This would be an objective test
> for the jury.
There is nothing objective about the question what constitutes art.
Let's not forget that for instance books like lady chatterly's lover
were ones considered obscene, not works of art. To me Japanese bondage
is a form of art in which (eastern) easthetics are very important. Can
you trust a jury to see beyond a naked-tied-up-girl? I would not
recommend agreeing to such a formulation without a very detailed
specification of what is considered art.
Roel
--
http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
Teddy, 26 Sep 2006 20:42:20
I'm surprised if a minister can keep a straight face trying to defend such blatantly ludicrous and inconsistent proposals. He certainly didn't sound too assured on R4, whilst spinning his lies, the other week. Go to hell Croaker...
T.
Author wrote:
> Hi all,
> ok, just got another letter back from Home Office, signed 'Vernon'...
> well, it was sent to my MP, who's passed it on to me... :)
> my main point was to seek confirmation that that the currently defined threshold would exempt depictions of bdsm, spanking, bondage - even rape - from the new offence, as none of these are life threatening...
> The first point of interest is:
> 'The government's response to the consultation states that the proposed new offence would have to meet two threshholds.
> First it would apply only to pornographic (underlined) material, by which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced to for the purpose of sexual arousal. This we believe would eliminate works of art, news and documentary programmes and works classified by the BBFC (other than R18, etc...). This would be an objective test for the jury.
> The second would be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm.'
> then it goes on to say;
> 'By serious violence we mean violence which appears to be life threatening or likely to result in serious disabling injury. The threshhold level is necessary since the intention is to target material which is already illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.'
> What follows is an interesting line:
> it states that I mentioned BDSM, spanking, bondage adn rape material in particular.
> 'This covers a very broad range of activity and while not specifically mentioned in the Government response, such material will fall under the new offence only if it falls within the threshold I have outlined above. '
> Next:
> 'The detail is still being considered but it is likely that some depictions of rape will be covered; material featuring spanking is unlikely to be caught, unless the injuries caused are life threatening.'
> Next it acknowledges that I wish to know exactly what is prohibited and goes on to say:
> 'The government accepts the importance of achieving clarity with regard to the types of material which are to be covered by the legislation and we will consider giving non-statutory guidance on the type of activity or injury which we consider would fall within these categories. This will be developed alongside the proposals for legislation.'
> Now all this seems to suggest shifting ground... Coaker speaks of a threshold defined by two points, pornography and serious violence. What happened to 'explicit'?
> my next worry is in this sentence 'conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm'... this seems outside of the threshold of pornographic, explicit and seriously violent...
> once again we get the quotation that what is sought to be banned is already outlawed by the OPA... my latest letter challenged this, it will be interesting to see waht reply I receive...
> anyhow, we have - at least to some degree - a ministerial sentence which states that bdsm, bondage and spanking material only is effected if it falls within the threshold (pornographic and seriously violent).
> But when it coems to rape, he chickens out. Here things are still being considered and it is likely to result in a ban. So somethign substantial will still be changing in the legislation. (This must be challenged!) At current definition rape would have to be deemed legal. If Coaker wishes to bring rape within the ban, then he will be introducing pieces he has neither consulted on nor mentioned in his government response.
> Last, note the idea od non-statutory guidance is only 'considered'.. so that is hardly a commitment on their part... it may well be that, by the time they present a bill to parliament, they have considered and rejected the idea...
> guess I'll now have to start writing another letter...
> Regards,
> phantom
Bill Burman, 27 Sep 2006 15:54:39
This is interesting. So an 18 classification (as opposed to R18), would be ok.
So my DVD of Basie Moi that I bought from HMV in Aberdeen is oki-dokie. For
anyone who doesn't know what Baise Moi is like, it has the most violent gang
rape scene I've ever imagined, let alone seen on screen. And it's not
simulated sex, the actresses are porn stars doing the scene for real, with
one being beaten to a bloody pulp while this goes on.
But that's ok, because the BBFC gave it an 18 rating. And it wasn't produced
primarily for sexual arousal, it's art dahlink...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baise_moi
On Tuesday 26 Sep 2006 11:48, franco@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> 'The government's response to the consultation states that the proposed new
> offence would have to meet two threshholds. First it would apply only to
> pornographic (underlined) material, by which we mean material that has been
> solely or primarily produced to for the purpose of sexual arousal. This we
> believe would eliminate works of art, news and documentary programmes and
> works classified by the BBFC (other than R18, etc...).
David Thomson, 27 Sep 2006 17:06:13
Chatterly publishers were prosecuted and cleared in 1960 under the OPA. Readers were never prosecuted for looking at porn or "objectionable" stuff-we had to wait for Phony Bliar for that madness in this country.
Author wrote:
> franco@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
> > First it would apply only to pornographic (underlined) material, by
> > which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced to
> > for the purpose of sexual arousal. This we believe would eliminate
> > works of art, news and documentary programmes and works classified by
> > the BBFC (other than R18, etc...). This would be an objective test
> > for the jury.
> There is nothing objective about the question what constitutes art.
> Let's not forget that for instance books like lady chatterly's lover
> were ones considered obscene, not works of art. To me Japanese bondage
> is a form of art in which (eastern) easthetics are very important. Can
> you trust a jury to see beyond a naked-tied-up-girl? I would not
> recommend agreeing to such a formulation without a very detailed
> specification of what is considered art.
> Roel
> --
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/ - bondage website (Dutch & English)
> http://www.touwtjes.tk/yahoo - Bondage forum & community (Dutch)
demolitionred, 29 Sep 2006 15:47:28
phantom:
could you please send a complete copy of the letter to demolitionred@yahoo.com?
with the comments from your MP.
thanks.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 29 Sep 2006 18:10:23 ***
SnowdropExplodes, 01 Oct 2006 09:52:41
Just one small point to add: "explicit" appears to be covered by the description, "clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised".
Also, the line "objective test for the jury" is directly from the consultation report, and one that I directly challenged in my letter to my MP. I literally asked what the 'objective' test would be.
I imagine them saying either, x % of the footage involves nudity/display of genitals; or throughout the footage at least x % of skin is shown. The trick with either test being that something can easily be pornographic and still not qualify under either test (and some mainstream 18 certificate movies or movie trailers might qualify under one or both tests).
I suppose on "pornographic", the true objective test for a jury would be, did it give a majority of the (male) jurors a hard-on? Did a majority of the female jurors get wet pussies?
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
graham wrote:
> This would be an objective test for the jury.
Err, no, it will be entirely *subjective*. An image or film clip can
easily be taken out of context to "demonstrate" that something is
"pornographic".
> The second would be an objective test for the jury in respect of
> actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts.
No, if they're asking if the jury think something "appears" to be a
"real act" this is, once again, a purely *subjective* test.
> We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves
> little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised.
ie stuff we don't want to look at.
> Coaker speaks of a threshold defined by two points, pornography and
> serious violence. What happened to 'explicit'?
I think he realised there was no chance of getting that through.
> my next worry is in this sentence 'conveys a realistic impression of
> fear, violence and harm'... this seems outside of the threshold of
> pornographic, explicit and seriously violent...
Again it's a purely subjective opinion based on what they don't like.
---------------------------------
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)