See also Religious Watch Forum

STICKY:  ChiefCensor       
- Please no spam, libel, slander, etc
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
- Islamic and races issues should be debated in the Religious Forum

 freeworld    {22458.   Posted 16-May-2008 Fri 12:13}       
MichaelG [22457. Posted 16-May-2008 Fri 11:43]

Indeed-

"I only know what I believe."

-Anthony CL Blair

This was from the delusional danger man thought by a lot of people as fit to govern the UK for 10 years. Think about it-for any rational person it should be the other way round. But to Blair and his kind their "belief" creates the reality, reality doesn`t matter, they impose their belief in place of reality. So you have the "belief", not evidence, that Iraq has WMDs and evil intentions towards Britain, which leads to war and criminal occupation of a foreign nation. The "belief" dangerous picture cause criminal behaviour.

We will not look at these matters objectively-we will compile documents which only have the purpose of bolstering our belief, of confirming us in what we already "know" by our "belief".

 MichaelG    {22457.   Posted 16-May-2008 Fri 11:43}       
Re: Twilight World of Unreality...

"Ann Oakes-Odger told a panel of `experts` in Birmingham led by former Prime Minister`s wife Cherie Blair that she believed over-exposure to such images meant many young people lived in a "twilight world" between reality and unreality."

Well, at least they`re not alone. Notice that word `believe` cropping up again. It`s not a fact; proven or otherwise. It`s a belief, a hypothesis, a notion, and nothing more. Moreover, it`s a belief of someone who, once again, hasn`t the slightest idea what she`s talking about, nothing in the way of evidence to support her case, and, on top of all that, absolutely no involvement in or experience of the industry she seeks to condemn. Please, just do everyone a favour and fuck off...

"It has been proven through studies that throughout our adult years our minds are still capable of being malleable to information"

Er... exactly WHICH studies are these? We`re all dying to know...

Are we ever going to hear the end of these fucking ludicrous arguments?

 dano    {22456.   Posted 16-May-2008 Fri 09:32}       
Mum blames video games and soap operas for youth violence. I notice she works with young people to warn them of the dangers of knife crime.
Well why doesn`t she spend more time trying to tackle the route causes of youth crime instead of pissing on about fucking video games and soap operas.
And maybe she should tell the government to build more youth centres for kids to hang out and then they won`t be at home playing video games and watching soaps all day will they?

Oh and has anyone noticed a bunch of Tory MPs and Mediawatch UK whipping up a political agenda against Ofcom, the 9pm watershed and the BBC. Let`s keep the watershed away from political interference lest those prissy Tory politicians and John Beyer start dictating what we can and cannot watch even after 9pm!

 phantom    {22455.   Posted 15-May-2008 Thu 10:48}       
AlabastyrGlyttr [22454. Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 14:22]
It would be nice to think that one could somehow hold to account government when it screws up so spectacularly.
But the fact is, power still talks the loudest. Our democratic institutions are not all they are made out to be.
He who holds power still gets away pretty much scot free. Government is effectively bound to abide by procedure for which it alone is the arbiter.
So when they produce a consultation so biased, manipulate the consultation process to their advantage and then lie about the results there is, as we all saw, nothing one can do about it.

The only greater influence which could have in any way swayed this issue. is the press. Yet they are not intrested at all in technicalities.
Anything that needs two columns to explain is deemed to convoluted and is hence avoided. Government of course know this all too well and hence feel free to abuse the processes of government to their heart`s content.

All in all we`re simply witnessing a failure of parliamentary and democratic process against which we, the great unwashed, can do nothing.

The press will not report, the opposition not oppose. Are we really expecting government to stay on teh straight and narrow in such circumstances?

 AlabastyrGlyttr    {22454.   Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 14:22}       
Seeing as we are all against these plans couldn`t we push for some sort of inquiry into how this law was passed without proper scrutiny and all the other reasons that this law shouldn`t have been passed.

 IanG    {22453.   Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 08:42}       
phantom, it came from the judge`s remark here

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/nw.htm#Nude_Mother_India

 phantom    {22452.   Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 02:52}       
Shaun [22451. Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 01:54]
Well, when it comes to ministerial responses regardign the DPA you could fill a book with the sheer comedic potential.
While you were inquiring about `lavatorial practices`, I asked about rape.

After all, we had politicians galore at the time telling us how people were being raped in videos, etc. The BBC was swallowing it whole, reporting violent rape videos to be banned, etc.

When I pointed out to the HO that nowhere in their definitions of illegal material was rape included they tried every which way not to answer. The wriggling was spectacular. I kept on at it, until they finally concluded that `some rape` was included.

That would be the rape which was so violent that the violence per se carried it into the definitions (i.e. life threatening, serious injury, etc). Meanwhile depicting the act itself remained perfectly legal in their draft. But they simply refused to say it.
After this, the cry of `rape` suddenly started dying down and they started instead to target other `perversions` with their poisonous tongues.

I find it hilarious how they`ve come unstuck over the ten pence tax rate. The public seems shocked how they can get it so wrong and then just make up a solution as they go a long in a desperate bid to dig themselves out of a self-made hole.

But I honestly think that anyone who witnessed the progress of the DPA from start to finish isn`t remotely surprised.
They are perfectly skilled at the political task of forcing things through the house - without anyone casting an even remotely critical eye upon it. But their actual grasp of the content of an act and the vast differences of supposed content in the presentation to the public are truly unbelievable.

Piss up and brewery spring to mind...

 Shaun    {22451.   Posted 14-May-2008 Wed 01:54}       
In fact when all this started, I (out of pure interest) asked the relevant person at the Home Office if films containing "lavatorial practices" (to quote an expression coined by the Late James Ferman), were to be banned from simple possession.

The answer was no.

 phantom    {22450.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 16:22}       
IanG {22449. Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 15:45}
I like the expression `pre-rennaissance`. :)
Or should we start referring to them as `pre-Raphaelite Labour`? Lol.

 IanG    {22449.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 15:45}       
sergio, I think Dave is right again. What the UK refers to as `hardcore` porn is actually better described simply as explicit sex. True `hardcore` porn contains pissing, fisting, gagging, shitting etc. plus other supposed `extreme` fetishes in which the participants are fully consenting and do not get seriously hurt but, needless to say, much of which will get you slung in jail for possession from Jan 2009, such is the irrational `pre-Renaissance` phobia the British Establishment have for pornographic imagery and their obsessive-compulsive reliance on the deranged opinons of grey haired religious dingbats.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {22448.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 08:59}       
Sergio

I would guess that 30% of films made feature rougn sex. Bog standard Vivid vanilla porn is rarely cut. Also UK production companies are aware of the some of the censorship nonsense so should naturally be less prone to cuts.

I would guess that near 100% of Rocco flms are cut and near 100% of Vivid films are uncut. The 30% reflects the mix of releases between these 2 camps

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {22447.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 08:54}       
Re obscenely long sentences

I also remember listening to a debate in Parliament re drugs. The sentencing guidelines for posession suggested a max of 5 years and 7 years for small dealing. They didnt want to change the sentences being handed out but they upped the max sentence to 7 years for possession.

The thinking was that it was hard to prove dealing but easy to prove possession. If someone was suspected of dealing they would award 7 years for possession...no difficult proof required. Injustice or what?

 sergio    {22446.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 08:03}       
R18 cuts for April 08
Number of items= 98
No. Cuts=30
Cuts ratio=30%

I don`t understand it.

January: 23 R18s cut out of 71 (32%)
February: 28 R18s cut out of 90 (31%)
March: 29 R18s cut out of 97 (30%)

This is not a random event. Does anyone have any theory as to why the cuts rate seems to be over 30% for over 4 months?
Why not 100% of the R18s being cut? Or 0%?
Has there ever been 0% of cuts at R18?

 IanG    {22445.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 07:38}       
Dave, the logic behind what you say points toward the truth of it. As we know from `braintree` a couple of years ago, he was offered a minimum sentence if he pleaded guilty - not for his benefit of course, but to ensure that the CPS didn`t have to convince a modern jury the material in question (self-fisting from what I recall) was still considered `obscene` by current standards - which I bet would be NOT be so, as fisting is generally accepted as a staple in most Euro porn (and has been for decades) and is also begining to feature regularly in US-made porn.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {22444.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 05:57}       
Re obscenely long sentences

I think long max sentences have other meanings other than just the length of sentences dished out.

They are used to intimidate and for plea bargaining. Eg the authorities dont like to let juries challenge their obscenity definitions. They get people to plead guilty to lesser offences. Making it 5 years rather than 3 adds to the climate of intimidation.

Also max sentences seem to qualify offences for other criteria. Eg 5 years may make obscentity a `serious` crime and it may therefore qualify for proceeds of crime forfeiture. (Just guessing for an example)

Does the 5 years max also affect things like sex offender registration. Perhaps it now qualifies obscenity in extradition treaties etc.

 IanG    {22443.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 04:35}       
phantom, I know what you mean. A fundamental pillar to the definition of `Justice` is that the "punishment fits the crime".

You will likely get less than 5 years for committing a rape.
You can get as little as two years for raping and murdering a child.

So what crime has taken place when possessing a picture for your personal use that `deserves` 3 years behind bars? Who else is going to see it?

How can merely `causing offence` to the hyper-sensitive sensibilities of religiously deluded infantile prudes (aka NUTTERS) `deserve` 5 years in prison? They are the one`s that need their heads examining.

Where`s the Justice? Where indeed is the victim? The victim in all this is the accused! - the real crime was passing the DPA and OPA into law, and the criminals are clearly `our` Parliamentary `representatives`.

 phantom    {22442.   Posted 13-May-2008 Tue 03:39}       
I find it interesting that the increase of the maximum sentence for obscene publication from 3 years to 5 years seems to have drawn very little attention.
Tough I believe it went through with the bill as it passed.

From what I understand the increase was a perverse reaction by the government to having pointed out that their DPA would create a penalty for possession that was as long as publication.

Naturally this had been intended as an argument for the proposed sentencing for the DPA to be shortened. But hey, who at the Ho and the MoJ follows logic?
So instead one proposed a lengthening of the publication sentence in tandem with the creation of the possession law.

Obviously, given the outrage of the DPA, the creation of greater severity within the OPA went virtually unchallenged.
Nonetheless, we face the nonsensical situation whereby at a time when more and more people are engaging in what is effectively ‘publishing’ on the internet, via blogs and user generated content, we are making the punishment more severe.
Not merely are you now to show extreme care of what you watch, but the consequences for making an error of judgment when uploading to a user generated content site have just become more severe.

In essence the chill factor is being deliberately increased. The people of Britain are to fear taking part in any activity involving pictures on the net. Five years in prison. Think of it, folks. What possibly would warrant five years in prison?
Do not mention child porn, as that is not covered by the OPA at all and is dealt with under separate laws. This merely concerns pictures of adults for adults.

Five years. There are pretty severe crimes you can commit to be given five years in jail.
But I think anything obscene by now is deemed a severe crime under Labour.
I cannot for the life of me imagine just what obscenity warrants five years.

But I’m sure Harriet Harman and John Beyer ‘know’... and that worries me a great deal.

Hail Brown!

 MichaelG    {22441.   Posted 10-May-2008 Sat 04:46}       
freeworld [22439]:

You may well be right. Despite newspapers probably not wishing to blow a fanfare of delight from the rooftops over this draconian horseshit legislation, publishing a photo of this gurning, sycophantic cretin wallowing in his own self-importance and sporting an outfit which would make your average Big Issue salesman look well-heeled by comparison probably wouldn`t do much for their circulation either, I fear. Christ, you could let a blind person select your wardrobe from the nearest Oxfam shop AND let them cut your hair and you`d probably still scrub up better than this fucking tramp.

As you can probably tell, Salter is not very high on my Christmas card list!

 AlabastyrGlyttr    {22440.   Posted 10-May-2008 Sat 04:26}       
What angers me is that Liz Longhurst decided to use her daughters murder as an excuse to campaign for this law. She is clearly the sort of person who takes advantage of any circumstance to fulfil her own selfish drives.
And she lives in Berkshire (where all the rich people live) so she`s used to having her way and like most rich people has no proper life experience whatsoever.

 freeworld    {22439.   Posted 10-May-2008 Sat 03:45}       
Did any of the national papers feature Salter`s photo opportunity? I never saw it-if the press liked this law they probably would have splashed it-and showered it with glowing editorials. Mr Saltmines may be a tad disappointed his attempt at publicising himself with his loathsome law did not have the papers drooling approval. The silence from the fourth estate on the DPA is deafening, especially as its a heaven sent issue for prurient tabloids..To me, I sense hints that NL are trying to downplay the DPA and hide it.

 MichaelG    {22438.   Posted 10-May-2008 Sat 02:41}       
Thanks for correcting me on that one freeworld. Perhaps I`m just getting mixed up with my desire to see him locked in a cabinet and pushed over a nice, high cliff...

 freeworld    {22437.   Posted 10-May-2008 Sat 02:34}       
MichaelG [22436. Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 23:25]

Mr Saltmines is not in the cabinet, Michael, though as an ugly totalitarian creep he has the right entry qualifications.Mr Salter and many others like Lepper will be almost certainly out of their seats in 2010-bring it on!

 MichaelG    {22436.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 23:25}       
Well, that`s it then. Part of me still can`t believe that this has happened in a supposed democracy, but there you have it.

Notice they`ve let Beyer out of his box again just to provide a celebratory soundbite or two. And, surprise, surprise, he`s come across like a self-important walking contradiction yet again...

"It is important for there to be clear divide between what is legal and what is not. People need to know."

OK John, being that you can see the `clarity` within these measures that no-one else seems to be able to, can you explain the finer points to the BDSM Community AND fans of horror movies? I`m sure they need to know. I think we all know the kind of `clear divide` that Beyer wishes to impose on us. Now that this has been passed, perhaps we`re closer to a ban on ALL porn than we think.

"But there may be a need for an amnesty, during which the public are able to hand in any material that could be considered a crime to possess."

Sure... perhaps there`ll be a helpdesk or information point set up where a representative from the Home Orofice or a cheery policeman can offer clear and helpful advice as to whether your porn/horror movie collection is still legal. A `Dangerous Pictures` amnesty? Fucking ludicrous...

"The last thing anybody would want is for the police to be raiding people`s homes."

Oh really? Seems that`s exactly what you`ve been after for the last three years, you fucking sanctimonious creep. Oh, but a dawn raid isn`t enough, is it? Neither is the 3 years` potential stretch at Her Majesty`s that this foul new legislation can earn you... remember folks, John Beyer is the man who thought that this heinous crime should be punished by up to FIVE years in prison!! Beyer wants you to go to jail... but the last thing he wants is for the police to be raiding people`s homes. If there`s anyone out there who can possibly explain this lunacy to me, please feel free.

Re: Legacy for Jane...

Now who would have thought that pig-ignorant, fawning tosser Martin Salter would try to capitalise on his unholy `achievements` by indluging in a grotesque, thinly-veiled act of self promotion by appearing in a nice, smiley photoshoot with Liz Longhurst? You`d have thought he might have made a bit more of an effort in the wardrobe department... ditch the Barbour and get your fucking hair cut, you scruffy twat. Christ, Gordon must be disgusted that certain members of the SS... sorry, cabinet, are so lax in their attention to their appearance. Perhaps some kind of uniform would improve things... you know, with lots of nice, smart black (everyone looks good in black, perhaps even Salter might), with highly-polished boots and buttons and rounded off with a nice peaked hat and armband...

Heil Brown!!!

I`m really losing patience with Liz Longhurst though - if we never see her in the news again it will be too soon.

"I am really very delighted it is due to be passed, but I don’t think it is a magic bullet."

No, I don`t think anyone believes it`s a `magic bullet` either; perhaps I can find a more suitable ballistic or explosive analogy which will convey the nature of the destructive force we`re now all faced with... let me see... `blindly-fired sawn-off shotgun`? `Randomly-detonated Claymore mine`? `Malfunctioned nuclear warhead`? Yes, that`s better.

"The law is the start of good things..."

Now that REALLY fucking scares me.

"...but I think it will be difficult to enforce."

No shit.

"But I WANT the legislation on the books even though it might be difficult to enforce."

Yes, it`s all about you and what you want... the millions who could inadvertantly fall foul of this vicious, needless, ill-conceived load of rubbish don`t even come into it, do they?

"If someone else is murdered and it can be shown the murder is due to extreme violent internet pornography, I think the police will take a strong interest."

They`ll be taking a strong interest (and strong-arm approach) all right, even in cases of people who`ve committed no other crime than to enjoy an `alternative` sexual lifestyle - you know, the the `weird people` whom Salter has personal issues with (perhaps he once visited a dominatrix who flogged him a bit too hard and it`s left him a bit... `damaged`). As it happens, even in the case of Coutts, it cannot be said that the murder was `due` to extreme violent internet pornography. It was a factor in the case, but not the cause.

"I think the law probably is censorship, but you have to think of the greater good."

Once again, that chills me to the bone.

"Far be it for me to deprive people of what they see as harmless fun, but any site which can encourage a person to commit murder or GBH is bad."

Yes, we can`t be seen to be depriving people of `harmless fun`, but that`s exactly what Liz and her ridiculously-barnetted glove puppet have done, simply because the pair of them can`t differentiate between violent sexual assault and harmless sexual fetishism. Although I fear Salter CAN differentiate, going from his past comments, but owing to personal prejudices, chooses not to. `What they see as harmless fun`? OK, it`s either harmful, as in the case of Coutts, or it isn`t, as in the cases of thousands of BDSM practitioners or fetishists up and down the country. The expression `what they see as` is redundant in this case - if you`re talking harm, you can`t be lumping consensual sexual fantasy in with non-consensual violent sexual assault, rape and murder. One is harmful, the other isn`t. And it`s high time SOMEBODY started to actually think about this...

But let`s not forget slimy Salter, who wants us to remember that he`s also doing this for the benefit of the participants in `violent porn`.

"It is also important we protect the women who are in these videos."

Exactly HOW is he doing that then?

The thought of this pair of gormless, meddling miscreants guffawing and massaging each other`s egos over their "slap-up" meal at the House of Commons makes me want to retch. "Slap-up"? Someone needs fucking slapped all over the place over this one...

 phantom    {22435.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 18:43}       
IanG [22434. Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 16:33]
Ian,
couldn`t agree more.
It`s infuriating to think that there was a major party in parliament opposed to this and they chose not to say a peep.
Labour must have been well aware of this which is why they were so damn cockey.

But yes, we have one party introducing moronic law and the other not opposing it even though they disagreed.
As far as the Tories are concerned they`re no doubt saying to themselves that there`s no votes to win by opposing this. And those who object to the law will blame Labour, so there`s nothing to lose for the Tories by letting it pass. Not least as the next election seems a foregone conclusion anyhow... so why take a risk at annoying the tabloids?

So yes, the political process simply isn`t working. One side is creating law according to what God tells them to do. Meanwhile the other side of the house is deciding what to oppose, by what they deem will make them look good.
The good of the nation can go stuff.

What is especially galling is that at the report stage in the Lords, Labour would not have had the numbers present to get the law through, had the Tories turned out. As said, their policy was one of abstention. So the opportunity was missed. Had the opposition opposed, there now would now be no law. (!)

That`s not to say that Labour aren`t primarily to blame for creating this monster. For they certainly are.

But any hope of the Tories removing this law once in power should definitely be abandoned. If they couldn`t be asked to oppose it when they were in opposition, they sure as hell won`t touch it when they`re in power.

As far as I`m concerned it was a doen deal right from the start. The committe stages were a mere charade. I can`t else explain how committees tore this thing to shreds, yet voted it through. Clearly we were watching a pageant, staged merely to provide us with the impression of some sort of scrutinising process. Yet it was all an act. After all, you don`t trash something an then give it your vote....

Meanwhile we shouldn`t forget our dear LibDems either. Sure they at least opposed this beasty with some degree of vigour. Yet they too voted things through in committee which they supposedly opposed.
And they conveniently withdrew the two amendments more likely to succeed at the report stage in the Lords, amendments they apparently couln`t reintroduce again at the final reading... (which is, as I understand it, why the `liberty defence` didn`t figure as an amendment in the final reading). Very smooth.

So yes, I`m utterly hacked off at what`s been going on.
There`s been a lot of hot air. But as such I think it`s been pure political theatre with been watching. The result was never in doubt.

 IanG    {22434.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 16:33}       
phantom, we might as well rely on the Eurovision Song Contest for policy making then - if its all purely a popularity contest - appealing to one side of the debate and appeasing the other, just to maintain votes. There`s little wonder the policies of recent years don`t make any fucking sense. This isn`t government, this is grovelling, fawning, `how to make friends and piss-off level-headed people`, follow-me-vote-winner - its not Leadership, its not Government.

I doubt we`d have beaten the Nazis if Winny had been this type of spineless `poputician`.

As I`ve said about 100 times before, if this is how `Government` operates then its no wonder this cuntry and the whole world is in the mess it is.

And of course it really does not help to allow people with paranoid delusions based on their infantile `religious` beliefs using the press and public sympathy to force bollox legislation onto the statute.

We need politicians with a bit more backbone, a lot more common sense, at least SOME integrity, with real human perspectives, practical ideas and, values we ALL share and believe in, rather than those spouted by the paranoid schizophrenics who think the Spagetti Monster is gonna burn them in hell if they do `wrong` or don`t punish the `wicked`.

 DarkAngel5    {22433.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 14:00}       
Yo Spiderschwein

Please do NOT feed the trolls.

I doubt he actually means anything he says, he is simply trying to stir up a flamewar.

Ignore them, they loose interest and go away. Keep trying to reply to their inflammatory posts will only spur them on further.

 phantom    {22432.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 12:59}       
IanG [22431. Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 07:28]
Ian, it hardly is straingin at the bounds of human imagination to suggest that fear of the right wing press (and the the moral faction within) made the Tories abstain from the whole thing.
According to one of the insiders at Backlash the Tories effectively conceded that the whole law was rubbish at a meeting, yet made it clear that they were not going to be taking any position.
Not so much a free vote, as an enforced silence on the issue.

Sure, by all means say I`m jumping to conclusions. But if the official opposition chooses not to opose something they actually disagree with, then one must wonder why.

To my mind the law is so bad, opposing it hardly ranks as `controversial`.

The conscous choice not to oppose was hence a matter of political positioning.

We`ve jsut seen Labour perform a similar trick on marihuana. The move made no sense, was against expert advice, but disabled the Tory claim of their being `weak on drugs` which invariably played well in the right wing press.

Had the Tories opposed the DPA Labour would have been crowing that they were permissive on filth and porn adn the charge invariably would have found its way into the right wing newspapers, chiefest of which is the Daily Mail.

It`s a hideous game. Yet it is fairly simple.

Sadly though it means that there is no political process by which to prevent bad or excessive legislation if one side fears they`ll be called names for opposing it...

 IanG    {22431.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 07:28}       
phantom, from what I read on the DM website reader comments, there was no support for this NL control freakery or the criminalisation of `extreme` consensual adult porn.

What motives the Conservatives have for allowing this dreadful piece of shite into law is anyone`s guess. We`ll have to assume they`re all of a similar deluded opinion and barely sentient intelligance as our friend cleetus.

I`m sure we`re all aware that the first step on the path to wisdom is to recognise that we know nothing. It must be nice to believe everything is black and white, but those of true wisdom know the world has many shades and hues - and all life benefits from such diversity.

What distinguishes humankind from all other animals is our ability to imagine. It is our imagination that allows us to invent novel solutions to problems of survival - and this is why no prohibition has ever achieved its goals, why no oppressor has ever stood the test of time. At the heart of every human being is an animal that cries out for freedom. Those who are of a mind to control and oppress attempt to make the gullible and weak-minded fear true freedom - "if you do that you will burn in hell", "if you look at that you will go to prison" etc. etc.

Those who did not oppose the DPA were assured that "people have to go hunting for this type of material" - that is simply UNTRUE, and I`ll prove it right now!

In internatioal news 20th April, Dave posted an article about a new censor free blogsite BayWords, which included mention of BayIMG - a censor free image host. I went to BayIMG, on the front page it asks that people don`t post porn there but instead use ImageFAP. So, I then went to ImageFAP. I found this gallery by searching for `breast`:

(Warning!: if you visit the link below you must delete your browser cache before Jan 2009 or risk 3 years in jail!)

http://www.imagefap.com/gallery.php?pgid=&gid=1047943&page=0

The `chilling effect` is self-evident. Who in the UK could now dare to search for something as innocuous as `boobs` or `nails` on any adult image hosting site, or indeed, anywhere on the entire Internet?

(You see, `cleetus` (good choice of nick BTW ;) even YOU might be on `that path` (whatever the fuck it is) - `clarity` eh?, `wisdom` eh? `balanced`? - I don`t think so...!).

 phantom    {22430.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 05:09}       
freeworld [22428. Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 18:12]

Well Free,
Let’s look at what I actually said, shall we?

‘But political reality means that the fear of the Daily Mail has a greater overall effect here than the will of the majority or the weight of argument.’

Now let’s translate it into the political reality I speak of.

Where were the Tories?
Do you know that, had the Tories voted in the Lords on the removal of the DPA from the bill, there would now be no law?

Now, tell me. Why did the Tories not oppose this law?
The law is patently bad. You needn’t be a legal expert to see this.
At heart it is unjust and in general it is very badly drafted.

So why would one not oppose it?

I’d say it was fear. Fear of whom? You already know what I think...

 Spiderschwein    {22429.   Posted 9-May-2008 Fri 03:40}       
Cleetus.

"do you not think this new law is aimed at types that inhabit the internet for years on end, proclaiming such material as moral & `cooking` up plots to promote it!"

Morality has nothing to do with it. When the bill was in the House of Lords there were several Lords who specifically said that they found porn in general to be morally objectionable, but they still opposed this ban on the grounds that there was no concrete need for it - no evidence that "extreme porn" actually caused such a serious threat to the public that justified locking up those who looked at it for three years.

"By the way who the fuck was that idiot with his `burning books stunt`, AKA muslim tactics?"

Don`t be a cunt.

"Does he not realise that the Police would be filiming such activity and any scapegoats/`make an exmaple ofs` would be caught on film & probably have their doors kicked in at silly o`clock!"

Which goes a long way to explaining why we`re so overrun with violent crime in this country. I mean, my local paper (the South London Press, if you`re interested) doesn`t go a week without yet more tales of some youth being beaten or stabbed on the streets of Southwark. Yet all the police care about is harrassing people on political grounds. Go catch some real criminals you useless earslings, you know, real criminals who perform actual crimes with actual victims that cause actual affronts to the liberty of people in Britain.

"Fuck me"

No thank you. I find it a bit too close to bestiality to go to bed with Sun readers.

"get a real lass & life ya daft bazzas, it`s really not worth this silly goings on."

I have a real lass and a real life you knuckle-scraping dimbulb, and it`s precisely what I and my real lass sometimes like to do (and, for that matter, film for later private edification) in the sack that makes these silly goings on worth it.

"Incedently how many of you burkes voted for Labour last election, or any past election for that matter? What fuckin irony it has to be said :_)"

Not me. It was because of their control freakery, spin, and creeping deconstruction of our civil liberties that I avoided them at any election where they`ve been up.

"Treat me as the voice of wisdom/clarity"

The only clarity you have is visible if you look in one ear and out the other.

"most of you lot are so far down `the path` you`re not looking at things in a balanced way, are you now?"

What, the path of, I don`t know, thinking for oneself? You should try it sometimes. Though I fear that for you, conceiving an original idea may be to risk a brain haemorrhage.

 freeworld    {22428.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 18:12}       
phantom [22427. Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 17:34]

Hang about-let`s not blame the "Mail" for the DPA. They have never called for people possessing pictures to be imprisoned-nor has any other national daily-though one raggy red top-"Snuff it out!"-was alone in hailing Coaker`s announcement in 2006. Wonder if we will see any support whatever in the press for it this week? Bet the Home office was very disappointed NL`s war on "pervs" wasn`t praised to the skies in the street of shame in 2006.

We have enough powerful opponents before blaming those who had nothing to do with the DPA for it, and maybe needlesly alienating them. One may take a certain moral stance, disapprove of things, but it is classic New Labour to create totalitarian laws out of that-good grief, even the Longhurst campaign didn`t ask for this sort of totalitarian law-though its leaders were happy to get what was produced by NL for them (I suspect some of them have little idea what the law is, and what it can and can`t do. Even Salter seems not to understand aspects of it).

Agree with some of the rest Phantom, but only if NL remain in power- unlikely-they may be able to bang a few more nasty laws onto the books while they crash and burn; but it seems probable that the EU may have put the kybosh for now on NL`s internet copyright plot.

It is a government of Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Harman, Clarke etc which does these fascistic things-because they are, and always have been, fascists of the hard left. They are not democrats, they are not in any way liberal or libertarian-they think state punishment should be used to control anything and everything they don`t like-and the more fascistic and Draconian the more they like it (listen to Smith on about harassing kids by the NL goon squad on the front of yesterday`s "Guardian"-Phantom, they are dangerously deranged, they can`t comprehend that real law and order in a liberal democracy cannot contain Asbos, control order, endless detention without charge, punishment without due process, confiscation of private property, thought crime, making expressing opinions a crime, spying on citizens....) You are probably too young to remember the likes of Straw, Clarke and Blunkett in their younger days-I do, that`s why I shuddered when they got into office via NL. I knew what they would do-and they have done it. Remove them and their ilk and the bully state will suffer a body blow, curb its relentless march and its ferocity.

As to the post by Cletus-I can`t comprehend a lot of it, what is he on about? "Proclaiming such material as moral...."

Cleetus, I would rather have put my head in a meat grinder than ever vote New Labour-especially as Bliar, England`s gravedigger got his evil, now bloodsoaked paws on the party. Old Labour was different, just as John Major wasn`t Mrs T.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"-Edmund Burke

Rarely more so than now, Eddie!

 phantom    {22427.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 17:34}       
I think what rattles the cage of several people here is that Cleetus represents both the verbatim attitude and the intellectual equivalent of those most in favour of this legislation.

First off is the attitude that those who get it in the teeth somehow ‘had it coming’.

This point of course reveals the inherent moral bias. One hates those who are not of the norm and hence sees nothing wrong in seeing them victimized. That attitude of course is what largely permits the random persecution of minorities throughout the ages.

There are among the opponents to this law people who are not interested in the material per se. Yet there doesn’t seem to be among the supporters of the law any who do not despise the material per se. The above is why the majority of people engaged on the subject are opposed to the law. The opposition owns the middle ground so to speak. The consultation result clearly bore this out, as we all know.
But political reality means that the fear of the Daily Mail has a greater overall effect here than the will of the majority or the weight of argument.

Next is that gem that ‘it’s really not worth this silly goings on’.

This of course is such a wonderful inversion of logic. If it’s not worth bothering about, why is someone straining a muscle to get it banned? After all, opposition is merely a reaction.
Once someone deems a cause worth fighting, it’s odd if he seeks to counter opposition on the basis of it not being worth the bother…

So much for the voice of wisdom and clarity, ey? :)
But then humility has never been the strength of those seeking to enforce their personal moral values over others...

But the greater worry must be that of consequence. I know I bang on about this a lot. But something substantial has just happened with the passing of this law.
The government has established the argument that – if it cannot control foreign publication - it is entitled to prohibit possession of intellectual property.

So far this principle has remained corralled within the realsm of child porn.
There has been some contextual application of prohibition of possession in anti-terrorism legislation, but again always under the proviso that it was deemed a temporary necessity to combat terrorism.

However, with this law this principle has gone mainstream.
In essence the government has granted itself the right to ban the possession of extracts from BBFC certified mainstream movies. How more mainstream can you become?

I don’t think anybody believes that this will end here.
There will be further demands to ban other bothersome material.
Now that the government has established the notion that if the control of publication is `not possible` it is legitimate to ban possession the door has swung wide open.

Looking at it like this, the law suddenly is no longer a trifling matter.

As I have repeated frequently, the culture and media committee are already investigating what it calls ‘harmful content’.

Is there anyone who believes it will advise to do nothing? If it does demand action, what is most likely to happen - especially now that a new methodology has been established, whereby the prohibition of possession is justifiable?

It appears to me that Gordon Brown has opened the censorial gates of hell. The specific damage this law will do may indeed pale into utter insignificance compared to what subsequent legislation it has effectively enabled.

 cleetus    {22426.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 16:26}       
Incedently how many of you burkes voted for Labour last election, or any past election for that matter? What fuckin irony it has to be said :_)

Treat me as the voice of wisdom/clarity, most of you lot are so far down `the path` you`re not looking at things in a balanced way, are you now?

 cleetus    {22425.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 16:19}       
freeworld, Spiderschwein , Teddy...do you not think this new law is aimed at types that inhabit the internet for years on end, proclaiming such material as moral & `cooking` up plots to promote it! By the way who the fuck was that idiot with his `burning books stunt`, AKA muslim tactics? Does he not realise that the Police would be filiming such activity and any scapegoats/`make an exmaple ofs` would be caught on film & probably have their doors kicked in at silly o`clock! Fuck me get a real lass & life ya daft bazzas, it`s really not worth this silly goings on.

 freeworld    {22424.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 14:28}       
sergio [22423. Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 13:34]
Gordon Brownshirt-Nazional Socialist party.
Scotland`s revenge on England for Culloden.
"Go back to Kirkaldy-stop imposing laws on England that the constituents who elected you are spared from, you f.. b......!"

 sergio    {22423.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 13:34}       
Haven`t I seen that man before?
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6857/200pxgordonbrown2004mossw0.jpg

even better
The brown shirt
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7315/200pxgordonbrown2004mosri5.gif

 DarkAngel5    {22422.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 10:23}       
Cleetus

It is obvious you are merely here to wind-up the already irate members of this forum, kindly go and troll someplace else and I would advise others not to waste their time replying to this imbecile.

 freeworld    {22421.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 08:39}       
cleetus [22418. Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 07:36]

Cleetus better watch out, he may find one day his own little private interests lead to a Martin Salter/Gordon Brown witchhunting him and getting him put in prison for what he "posssses" at home/ says/writes/thinks.

If you live in England you inhabit a fascist country now thanks to NL Cleetus, and such states, where freedoms have been destroyed and the principles of justice warped can devour anyone, including those who presently crow when those they disapprove of are its victims.

 Spiderschwein    {22420.   Posted 8-May-2008 Thu 08:21}       
Cleetus.

It`s people like you that are responsible for the ongoing nonsense that forms the basis of this Government`s policy.

Haven`t you got a back issue of the Sun to read, you mouth breathing tosswipe?