Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
tonyinengland [29767. Posted 1-Dec-2013 Sun 13:36]
Thanks guys for you interesting input. The horror channel ( AKA Zone horror )on SKY TV. They were showing Driller Killer and Wolf creek last night and I recorded it for later. Some scarey stuff on it, I mean SM and some really gross stuff, one girl`s life seriously in danger and I wont quote the injury seen to her xxxxx.... hope the cops are monitoring me. I mean they must have an audidance of 100`s of thousands. Even High street supermarkets advertise on their channel, just when the film is getting interesting !!
phantom [29766. Posted 1-Dec-2013 Sun 12:06]
Oh, trust me. I quietly despair at times at the nonsense that is the supposed majesty of English law.
To claim it is not up to the CPS is a bit of a half truth.
It is true that is not theirs to decide on guilt or innocence.
But by the time it gets to a jury the accused`s life is already ruined anyhow. After all, just ask Simon Walsh.
So, given that their accusation alone is ruinous, considerable importance rests with their definitions.
And with the DPA the CPS seems to be engaged in an attempt to create as great a chilling effect as possible - by refusing to shed any light on what might prompt them to ruin someone`s life.
Thus, they merely tell us that `likely` means more than `possible`.
These laws are wielded like weapons. and the CPS desire to keep their weapons sharp, not excluding any uses they may later wish to apply.
Let us not forget that it is the CPS who stand behind the Spanner case, deeming their prosecution `in the public interest`.
The extreme porn prosecution of the Frosties tiger clips, or the prosecution for obscenity of the Girls Aloud fiction - at both presenting no evidence - display a clear intention to bully.
These are not the actions of an unbiased organisation. Thus having proved themselves to be perfectly vindictive, I understand them as an institution with an agenda. - A sort of BBFC on steroids.
Given the sheer power to destroy lives they wield over individuals here, their refusal to provide any meaningful guidance is frankly sinister.
Thus we find ourselves with a sinister law applied sinisterly. It`s far from ideal - especially as - and I think neither of us is in much doubt here - this law is very likely to be expanded over time. (which is where the fear by some arises that Cameron will include `rape porn` next.)
And none of us know what Dacre`s next moral panic might deem `extreme`.
As was already alluded to at the Simon Walsh trial, anal sex can lead to injury. So two partners having anal sex, one penetrating the other, sees injury as `possible` (aka `a risk`).
But what if the receiver is penetrated by two partners in succession? The chances of injury now rise to twice the probability of before. So it follows that a video featuring two folks penetrating someone anally has already passed the CPS threshold of being `more than a risk`.
Pray, to how many porn films would this apply these days? Frankly, it`s laughable.
The above illustrates quite simply how ridiculous the CPS guidelines are. And given their near hysterical argumentation at the Walsh trial, the example of anal sex here seems to be far from mere speculation.