Government tied in knots by bondage protest

re: Mein Kampf misquotation

What an ironic combination of quotes... Hitler...and a Rabbi...

There are two kinds of people

Those who respond to violence with more violence and those who respond in other ways.

Some people seem confused which group is dangerous.

Better to have "Make love not war" hardcoded in your instincts if you ask me.

Masochists cannot be teachers?

I'm confused. Why would anyone else want to be teachers?

Maybe that's why we can't get them.

Mein Kampf again

Hitler was banging on again about racial purity with that one. Which is a shame as I preferred the curtailment of liberty version.

The time has now come..

to execute all politians from all parties as a threat to the citizens of the UK. Furthermore, all politicians that have been in office at any time over the last 15 years should be arested on the spot and formally charged with placing UK citizens at risk through bad laws and badly worded legislation.

Everytime I attend a public sector meeting it is dominated by tree hugging, risk averse, think of the children, are you compliant.........halfwit jobsworths who contribute very little.

Nice picture

sums it all up.

Where's

the Playmobil reconstruction?

@ AC 13:05

"They're practically mainstream these days." Almost, close, but not quite (at least here in America). Has the lifestyle gained more acceptance than it had twenty years ago? Certainly yes. However it's still considered abhorrent behavior by many and those of us who tend to dwell in the edgier parts of the lifestyle still need to be a little extra cautious.

However in comparison to the way the UK is going right now the road blocks that we still deal with over here seem very minor in comparison. Though I fear if McCain and his cronies end up in the white house we'll soon see protests just like this one forming on the streets of the U.S..

@Sir Runcible Spoon

> Now you can't take a photo of a politician in a kinky sex act (can you say oranges) and publish it in the news of the screws

Actually you can, because they can argue that it's "not for sexual arousal".

Unfortunately publishing anything on how to engage in asphyxiphilia (asphyxiation for sexual arousal, which is what Stephen Milligan MP was doing) with photographs about how to perform such acts more safely *will* be illegal, so the Government will actually be creating a greater risk to people's lives by denying them important and relevant information!

hypocrites

Fuc*ing hypocrites. Ask any dominatrix in London and they'll tell you the MPs, judges and lawyers are their biggest customers ( uh..I didn't mean big down there!).

Bunch of fuc**ng hypocrites.

For the last 20 friggin years I just can't figure out why the policitians in this country are so blind and can't see the few miles across the water over the English Channel to countries such as Germany and the Netherlands.

The politicans in this country have always had an opinion that porn, that sex is wrong.

Yet, in Europe, they're much more open about it, and have a different opinion.

Why do the politicans that run this country think their opinion is right?

Do we live in a democracy? Do we fuc*k. We live in a society where these tossers they call for an MP feel they have a right to impose upon us their moral beliefs, which they think are the 'right' ones to have. Clearly, the beliefs of the politicians in the countries of Germany and the Netherlands are different.

Total bunch of hypocrites.

In China, the former career of all 9 members of the Polit Bureau which run the country are engineers. In Britian, they're all bankers, accountants, lawyers.

Let's have some decent qualified, logical thinking, practical problem solving ( and sex starved) engineers running our useless f***ng country. I bet they could do a much better job than the current bunch.

Re: I am seriously confused

Firstly to add to my earlier comment - the "extreme porn" law has a clause specifically criminalise extracts from legally available films. So the Government's claim that this only covers illegal to publish material is clearly false.

scott:

"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??"

The law is rather confusing on this issue - technically, you can't consent to ABH except for some exceptions. However the number of exceptions is quite broad - sport as you suggest, but also body modifications (including a case where a man branded his wife's buttocks in private - see R v. Wilson). BDSM stands out as the one case that isn't an "exception", due to the Spanner case (R v. Brown) where consenting sadomasochists were sent to prison.

A branding is legal. But if you get off on it, the same branding is illegal.

However, more recently was the Mosley case - it was interesting that the Judge noted that although actual harm and possibly wounding was inflicted upon Mosley, the Judge ridiculed the idea that it was illegal, even though it was clearly S&M. His reasoning was that it wasn't as extreme as Spanner, so the precedent of R v. Brown didn't apply.

But back to the original claim: "There was no intention to attack conduct, so long as it was legal and did not cause harm to the individuals participating in it."

This is false anyway, since the law covers images of staged acts too (perhaps by "conduct" they mean "you can do it, but not take pictures", but this is still criminalising consenting adults for what they do - taking or viewing a picture is still "conduct", after all).

@Scott, @RW

@Scott:

> Boxing and martial arts doesn't involve sex (mostly).

Apart from women's topless boxing, female on female "submission" wrestling and a few NSFW others...!

> if someone makes a video of himself and his wife dressed in bondage gear, and engage in some mutual slap n tickle - but *don't* have sex on tape, then it's OK?

No, because the offence is having *possession* of that video and, in someone else's entirely *subjective* opinion, it fits the criteria for "risking harm" and you had it for "sexual arousal".

There is a "defence" in the CJIA that says you *are* allowed to own it if you can prove you were a "direct participant" in the acts shown, but that means that if you were videoing two other people you wouldn't have been a "direct" participant and even if it was you in it, were you to be dressed in head to toe leather/ rubber etc, how would you "prove" it was you? (Oh, and, of course, Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says you have the right to be presumed innocent, ie you do not have to *prove* your innocence, but when did this Government ever let trivialities like that get in the way of a Moral Crusade?

@RW

> has this kind of nonsense been going on since before Precious Jacqui got her grubby little mitts on the levers of power?

Oh yes, it started under the reign of David "I'm blind, but I'll ban things I can't see" Blunkett, then was followed by Charles "ID Cards are good for you" Clark, followed by John "Jackboots" Reid. Wacky Jacqui is only the latest in a line of Home Secretaries to decide that we can't be trusted to look at pictures they don't like.

Them and Us

Labour has to be the most divisive ballot stuffing, electoral border shifting, government this country has ever had the displeasure to have foisted on them.

I am not sure they represent anyone apart from themselves at this point.

Who in their right mind is going to vote labour come the next general election, there cannot be a group they have not pissed off.

Brown has lead this country into economic ruin, both as chancellor and PM unelected. We are the laughing stock of the western world.

The banks have pulled out, research has been cut, small business left to shoulder the debts of the mismanaged corporations who are laying people off left right and centre, pensions linked to the market are shot to shit, and we are stuck in two foreign wars where we get nothing, and it is all Labour's fault.

Quite incredible, demonstration of complete incompetence and corruption. These Labour people should be hanging their heads in shame, and not doing another thing apart from resigning and allowing a general election to be called as soon as possible, everything they touch turns to crap.

@Graham Marsden

"Unfortunately publishing anything on how to engage in asphyxiphilia (asphyxiation for sexual arousal, which is what Stephen Milligan MP was doing) with photographs about how to perform such acts more safely *will* be illegal"

Will it though? As I read the law these instructions will not be used for sexual arousal in themselves but rather for safety in acts you were going to perform anyway.

Whiskey tango foxtrot, over.

There is a lot of stuff that I know better than to try doing for real. What can be an enjoyable fantasy is often a real-life disaster in the making.

Clearly, I am overqualified for a career in politics.

@ Adrian

"Amazing how many AC there are posting - embrassed about something ?"

If it's good enough for 'a government spokesman',and 'a source close to the minister' then it's just fine and dandy for everyone else. Not embarrassed, Adrian, simply following procedure.

.

It wasn't the politicos

It wasn't the politicians. They weren't told about the way the MoJ fixed their REA "report" which conveniently left much information out of the picture. The politicians weren't told about the police enforcement of the OPA act and what the CJ&Ip5 lets them get away with... There was much that the MoJ didn't tell the politicians ... I honestly thought that the houses thought they were doing what was actually for the best. You want criminals and conspiritors in this, then look no further than the MoJ, the Police and Customs and Excise that was. Those poor Labour MP's that supported Liz whassername didn't have a clue that they've been used.

my 2 cents (presuming it is not devaluded)

this law is never intended to be inforced it is there to scare pepol the definations are so vage that everybaody will stick to the defently safe white arears and not stray into the dubius gray arears thsi law craetes at risk of 5o years at a labor camp.

to look at similar laws

Viloent crime reduction act. that bans the sale and import of repiclar imation fire arms (fimilar to touse of us that play airsoft) there have been 0 arests

hunting with hounds . 0 arests

need I say more?

actulry I think I do when this law comes into force can the reg be done for this pic?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/16/moderatrix_boudoir/

nuff said

Children & B&D

I note part of the reason for excluding any B&D is that children might be exposed. What about children who are naturally disposed and find out that this behavior is quite normal? A case in point, the poet Swinburne was caned at school and his reaction was such that the principal didn't know what to do and contacted the parents.