Government tied in knots by bondage protest "Forget the whips and chains: it's actually a lot more serious than that". This was the view of Consenting Adult Action Network Spokesperson and disability activist Clair Lewis, as she joined fashion photographer Ben Westwood and a bevy of bound and gagged models in a demonstration against what they believe to be the latest …
Translation of "Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government" becomes "Any excuse for a database and witch-hunt. McCarthy would be proud!"
If there is such a low prospect of prosecutions, why can't they be done under existing laws? Can it really be that hard? Or is this just another slim excuse for further prying into everyone's life's for more control and making employers do the dirty work for them?
So its wrong to go after Homosexuals, other races and those with different religeous views...
But just fine to come into our bedrooms and tell us what to do and descriminate against those who like a little 'slap and tickle'.
Through loud minorities acting in the face of the majority I've lost more than enough rights thanks to this government. Twice I've lost the right to do the things I enjoy in knee jerk reactions that had no effect whatsoever. So whats next? These people consent to it, they get off on it and tbh, those that dont get a lot of fun at their expense. The law as it stands is very very fuzzy and like most of the recent additions it'll be used to get inconvienient people out of the way or destroy them.
Ban birdwatching, those binocs could be turned on a school, or maybe sunbathing in public, or maybe....
For the record I'm not Homophobic or Racist and have no issues with religion.
Has this labour govt got nothing better to do than victimise consenting adults in their own homes.
What kind of idiot thinks we need to legislate that you can be put on the sex offenders register for taking a picture of a mark on someones arse that they consented to having done. It's OK to spank your partner but you will be up their with peodos etc if you take a photo.
They need to get a grip and get it fast before peoples lives are ruined by puritancal no lives.
Its family fun to watch old James Bond blow up baddies, its sex offender time for photographing your consenting partner in handcuffs.
"There is evidence already, from individuals who have spoken to us, that some employers are beginning to quiz would-be employees about the nature of the material they use for sexual titillation – which puts individuals in the highly difficult position of having to decide between being honest and not getting a job, or lying at interview and risk losing the job later."
It shouldn't be a bar at all - prospective employers have no right whatsoever (unless they're in the porn business) to ask such questions and if you are refused a job or sacked because of it, you'll have a nice Employment Tribunal againts them plus you could possibly take them to court for discrimination and, oh, maybe throw in ECHR as well. What I do in the privacy of my own home is, provided it is not illegal, is no-ones business but mine so they can fuck off and get a life.
It's not like they can vote... how about safeguarding the personal freedoms of adults from this evil, diminutive minority that seem to be hell-bent on flushing all our personal freedoms down the pan.
What's that? It's the paedo-hunter general and his army of mentalists clamping down on behalf of the munhckins? Somebody asked them to? Oh - I see - you can't be bothered to raise your own children properly and want the state to be your nanny at the expense of the rest of the adult population... thanks for that.
Terrorists and children, the two greatest threats to (or excuses for unecessarily restricting) personal freedom.
"According to them, the extreme porn clauses of the Criminal Justice Act (s. 63-66) were about catching material that originated outside the UK that could not at present be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959."
I.e., "other countries like the USA don't share the UK's prudish views on what adults should be allowed to see, so we need to put them in prison for their own good". Right.
Note that the law itself has no requirement that the material be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act - the Government specifically refused to add this clause. Elsewhere, they say "we believe" that it would only cover illegal to publish material ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7682319.stm ) - i.e., they think, but they can't be sure. Since they wrote the damn law, why not make it explicit rather than having to rely on "we believe"?
And even if it is illegal under the OPA, why are we still worried about this Victorian law? If an adult consents to making or viewing a fictional image in the privacy of their own home, why should that be illegal because others deem it to be "obscene"?
Extending publication laws to possession is a huge step. It's one thing to put extra burden upon a publisher when publishing material - it's quite another thing to put a burden upon anyone browsing the Internet, for every image they might stumble across! A publisher can seek legal advice, or submit the work to the BBFC. Do we now need legal advice to browse the Internet? Should people's private videos that they make of their own acts for their own amusement need to be submitted to the BBFC?
Another problem is that if possession is illegal, you are committing a crime as soon as the image is made. So you can't consult the BBFC even if you wanted to, because you'd already have broken the law if the image came under the law!
There is also the point that if a country temporarily has draconian laws against publication, that simply means the material can't be published for the duration. But draconian laws against possession means that the material can't exist at all - it has to be destroyed. So even temporary laws on possession have a permanent effect.
Far greater consideration and evidence must be require for any laws on possession - and for "extreme" adult material, supporters of the law have presented none.
"Safeguarding children"
What do children have to do with this? The law is about private possession, not publication.
This law is yet more interference from a deceitful regime that just LOVES to meddle and micro-manage wherever and whenever it can. The law was brought in against the wishes of the majority of individual consulted - thereby making the "consultation exercise" just a waste of taxpayers' money - as the culmination of the campaign by Liz Longhurst started by the murder of her daughter Jane by Graham Coutts.
She claimed that Coutts had been looking at "extreme pornography" shortly before he killed Jane Longhurst. What neither Liz Longhurst nor her supporters cared to add was that Coutts was obsessed with "breath play" and strangulation fantasies for years before he even got a computer. He doodled nooses on images of women in clothing catalogues so, by the same hysterical "logic", possession of clothing catalogues should also be banned or the sale of ball-point pens should be strictly controlled.
One of the Parliamentary supporters of that law even claimed during the debate on the second reading that it would combat snuff films or images of necrophilia hosted on a server in Guatemala. (http://tinyurl.com/5pm2j4) Needless to say, there was probably more evidence for the existence of WMD in Iraq.
This regime is not fit to govern even a third-rate banana republic, let alone the UK. It has lied, cheated and bamboozled Parliament time and time again. The sooner they are out so that they can be impeached and their repressive laws repealed, the better we all shall be,
I've vaguely followed this on El Reg. One thing that baffles me is this:
"There was no intention to attack conduct, so long as it was legal and did not cause harm to the individuals participating in it."
I do remember reading somewhere else that it is illegal to do harm, even if it's consenting. Where the f*ck does that leave boxing and all but the fluffiest of martial arts??
Those giving and receiving the damage in boxing and martial arts are consenting. Is it the fact they aren't perceived to be getting sexual gratification out of it mean it's OK - but if it was BDSM it would be illegal?
Or is it purely the making of pictures and video of said violence (and jacking off to it) that's illegal?
Does watching a rerun of the Lewis/Tyson fight and getting aroused now break the law?? (Not that it does for me - but I'm sure there are those out there who would; it's a big world etc..).
Surely we're into the "thought crime" realm yet again?
(Yes, I know I've posted comments on this before, but *still* there has been no response or "guidance" from the MoJ with only two months to go before they introduce this law...!)
Here are some questions which the MoJ need to supply answers to in order to give us *any* clue as to what this law will *actually* affect...
http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803
My arse. I am trying to get CRB stuff sorted out now and it is a flaming joke.
It does *nothing* to protect children, it is just make-work to get more people off benefits and make the figures look good. Children still get abused and mistreated everyday (usually by their parents/relatives) and all the MPs do is crow about how much effort they've put it.
It's enough to make you sick.
"Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government and the child has been put at the heart of our reforms and we are determined to maintain a relentless focus on children’s safety."
My niece once walked away in a supermarket from her mother (my sister). My sister threw a hysterical fit, shouting and screaming that her child had been taken. My niece had just walked into the supermarket ahead of us of course.
In my sisters mind the place was full of child kidnappers who would murder her baby at the first possibility, and she imagined I guess that the decapitated corpse of her kid was in Isle 3 next to the baked beans. My sister watches too much TV and can't correctly asses risk. She sees something on TV, imagines that something happening to a kid she knows, if she knows 20 kids to her there is a 1 in 20 chance of it happening to her child. At least that's what she thinks, but as I said she has a problem with the real world.
She is a nutter, and her children would have grown up to be nutters too, if I wasn't there to stabilize them. For a while they were afraid to go out, she'd got them so scared. They would hide in the flat and run away when someone knocked the door.
My sister is in a mental institution now, Jacqui Smith is in the Home Office.
Typical of this Government to once again hide behind 'child protection' to sneak in yet more ill-defined 'moral' legislation. Kids and terrorists: this government's best friends and allies in the war on civil freedom. Everytime a Government minister (of whatever colour) tries to justify some new, patently flawed legislation designed to spy, snoop, eavesdrop, curtail, limit or criminalise our private lives listen for the moment they evoke the 'children & terrorists' card.
Pathetic.
The general thrust has been, for quite some time, to control individual behaviour and association with others through both employers and through strict monitoring of travel and communications. Some of the enabling mechanisms used to achieve this control include "threats" from sexual deviancy, terrorism, digital piracy and illegal immigration - mostly things we've all managed to live with in the past without draconian new laws. I'm not saying that there aren't rapists or real violent extremists out there - there are - but the existing laws were always enough to deal with those situations to an acceptable level of effectiveness. Nevertheless, they are used daily as leverage.
If you want to see the big picture, you have to think like them.
A NuLab appointed judge stated that the pictures of Max Moseley taking part in "prison camp guard" sexual roleplay printed in the NoW were not in the public interest and that people have the right to privacy in such cases, now the MoJ states being accused of such acts is a dismissable and imprisonable offence for the general public. Funny that Moseley has lots of money & F1 gave £1million to NuLab wheras most people object to giving their taxes to this extremist government. Draw your own conclusions. BTW under this law wouldn't an accusation of participating in extreme sex result in MPs being sacked or is this sort of behaviour a prereqisit to be an MP.
Anonymous as my normal reply to unanswerable questions is "beats me" & I don't want arresting.
1) Thought police (aka Extreme porn laws)
2) ID cards
3) Wacky Jackie's uber snooping database
4) ... actually anything she has said or done
5) The farcical "war on terror"
6) That t#@t Hoone
7) The U-turn on cannabis - against recommendations
8) The neglect of the science and technology sector
9) enhanced” CRB check (i.e. guilty without proof)
10) Prolonged Detention without charge or trial
I could go on...
Is there anyone in the country they haven't pissed off yet? I can only assume they want an embarrassing defeat at the polls.
Safeguard the children... for what? So they can grow up, safe, sound and cosseted.
Then, in turn, as adults they can be subject to these same repressive measures themselves.
The rights of existing adults are the future rights of children.
Doesn't anybody ever consider *that*?
i have been helping to campain on this since it was first consulted about, i have donated a large sum of money to the backlash campain and all for nothing, in a few months i am going to be a criminal for doing nothing more than the things i enjoy with my partner (who btw is devilish with a singletail) and filming it. we dont publish our material, we dont have children (or want any) this is just another law that is designed to turn me into a criminal, and given where i work as soon as i get a criminal record i am out of the job so would have to claim the dole just to try and make ends meet. and of course once i am a criminal i wont be able to get another job because im a criminal.
i am proud to be kinky and proud to display the marks my loving partner inflicts on me (at my own request) i would rather be a criminal than give up being myself just because the gov tells me im a naughty boy...
fuck them!
@ Sammi - they can't teach arithmetic nor speling :) why would you think they could teach parenting?
As Pierre Elliot Trudeau said in 1968 "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", and "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".
(Minister of Justice at the time, later Prime Minister of Canada)
Paris, cause she knows what a bedroom is for.
"Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government and the child has been put at the heart of our reforms and we are determined to maintain a relentless focus on children’s safety." - Department for Children, Schools and Families
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
There is no suitable icon.
They're practically mainstream these days. The concern I have is for those of us (*cough*) with less well known and less widely accepted quirks, we're the communities who are going to come under Orwellian scrutiny...
I jumped Blighty's shores for America about 6 months ago. I'm starting to feel like I got out just in time.
(AC because...)
There is no "kids" angle here. Its /already/ very illegal to show sexual material to children and there's no need for new law to cover this - so this law has b*gger all to do with child protection.
The govt dept who brought this up either
a) have no clue what the act is about; or
b) are conniving to get it introduced; or
c) were asked a leading question by a disingenuous reporter.
My money is on a but c is a close second.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
Thank you, Ken. I was not aware of that quote. It says it all.
"clauses of the Criminal Justice Act (s. 63-66) were about catching material that originated outside the UK"
About time they did something to keep the foreign smut out of the country! Unfair competition from the bronzed models! Time to go local, get it from where the sun don't shine.
Too much fun on that island, get back into character.
Given previous reassurances about some of the draconian terror laws and how they would only be used against bad guys, can we ever trust the government not to misuse laws? Far better to write them properly in the first place rather than have something vague with accompanying handwaving to reassure us that it'll be OK. We've had recent proof that this is patently false.
.. I guess that's what they were REALLY after (i.e. just jealous).
Thank God the Tories are about to be voted in, they had so many incidents involving, umm, "creative" approaches to sex they would think twice about putting any more laws in place :-)
Mine's the one with the chains and handcuffs, thanks.
Re: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
Only the first sentence is from Mein Kampf. The second seems to be by a Rabbi. http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
