Melon Farmers

 Melon Farmers

Adult DVDs
Internet Video
Store Reviews
Online Shops
Adult Mags
Gay Shops
New + Latest

 Censorship Forum

  Home  UK   Film Cuts  
  Index  World    Nutters  
  Links  Media   Liberty  
  Forum  US   Info   Shopping
Sex News  
Sex Shops List  

Note that this page does not refresh

Personal Details
Non-Dynamic Messages
Last  40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
All Messages
Today's Messages
Yesterday's Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
 2      3      4    
 5      6      7    
 8      9      10    
Days Ago:
Message Number:
Dynamic Pages

Therumbler    [30027.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 15:27]

More evidence that Oxford is run by idiots.

freeworld    [30026.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 10:50]
  Harvey {30016. Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 09:35}
Things like the DPA and its extension can`t really "address" that anyway. Such laws do not reduce the availability of material, or make it harder for "the children" at issue to view it by the existence of such legislation. Thus, if those are principal stated objectives justifying such laws, those laws have their basis in a fundamental irrationality - "magical thinking" - the proffered solutions can`t logically meet the objectives given. Actually the "porn etc" filters may be a slightly more rational way of addressing this perceived problem,- though it seems probable they are easy enough for most minors to circumvent.

In the end, in a reasonably free society, the more thoroughgoing control of the kind they, to a greater extent, could once exercise in the pre internet and pre satellite age, is not possible. The days when a British film censor`s cuts, movie certificates, and confiscating DeSade and DH Lawrence at customs, would be adequate to keep the land safe from contagion, are over. And so are the days when passing a national criminal law was the answer to any and all perceived social and cultural ills (they were always only at times effective "solutions" in any case - a law like the Labouchere amendment criminalizing private homosexual goings on didn`t end the practice, just made a lot of new criminals, stuffed the prisons with men who mainly didn`t belong there in a non totalitarian state - as they were mostly no active threat to anyone, and could not be "reformed" by punishment - a very DPA type law ).

If governments don`t accept that the genie is out of the bottle and the internet is a development on par with printing 500 years ago; that it can`t be countered/censored by any non totalitarian government, then they will have only one answer - to become totalitarian governments. And as such, mete out savage levels of punishment to all those who look at what they don`t want people to look at - terrify the population into obedience and conformity. This requiring hugely increasing levels of surveillance on the general population.

As they discover their DPAs and filters don`t really work as they want them to, and the perceived problems remain significant in their eyes, my guess is that, knowing the political class we now have, their approach will be to lash out more and more savagely at the general population. After all, that is the only thing that the DPA can actually do - it can`t reduce availability, limit substantially ease of access, it can`t actually realistically "censor" anything.

In the short term at least, I can`t see the clods in office thinking "out of the box". Will they accept a society where some nasty stuff, what many may regard as "objectionable" ideas etc, circulate fairly freely? See it as an unfortunate but inevitable part of not living in a China style police state? Or instead dangerously conclude that it`s infinitely preferable not to have a free society at all if it means such stuff can be about, pretty much out of their control? Thus view it as far better to have an Orwellian totalitarian construct, one which dedicates much of its energy and resources to spying on and punishing its citizens? Maybe, as part of this they could attempt to cut us off from the modern world and its horrors by "banning" the internet itself?

A major object of government often now seems to be to turn as many people as possible into potential criminals - "Laboucherism", as the end objective is simply to punish over largely imaginary "problems" which are not based in evidence of harm, but in personal subjective opinions. Words like "normalize" and "gateway" are coined and marshalled to back up those opinions, though they are actually no more than subjective opinions put into highfaluting verbiage - language as deception. Their "answer", I`m afraid to say, will probably be to try to catch more people, to jail more people, to put them away for longer, for a growing list of thought/opinion/speech/belief/interest/sexuality crimes.

I`m afraid the precedents for ramping up the totalitarian repression are already there in our good old " liberal democracy" - the building blocks for worse to come - thought, speech, and "look" crimes (things which many "liberals" regarded as actually a good idea, being too short sighted in a lot of cases about where crossing that dangerous Rubicon will invariably lead to), filters with an ever expanding remit.....the words of the late Mr Goggins "No place in our society", like "normalize" and "gateway" can be used to speciously "justify" action (usually action irrelevant to the stated objectives) against almost anything the puritan/ prohibitionist doesn`t care for, without the tiresome requirement for evidence to be shown of real harm - firmly grounded necessity. The "treat e-cigarette`s the same as tobacco" issue is a perfect example of this at the moment - evidence being bypassed/trumped by opinion, as opinion is coming from the influential (NOT the correct).

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30025.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 06:12]
  Pooch, Harvey

The Cutting Edge videos usually invoke a copyright challenge from the film producers. Being US based, Gavin claims fair use and this is accepted as valid. Presumably the level of fair use is ok in the US bit not for the UK, for at least the British film Woman in Black.

Pooch    [30024.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 05:50]
  @Dave [30022] - Thanks for the Vimeo link.

@Harvey [30023] - It`s probably not censorship at all, but an annoying copyright issue. A shame, because all of Gav`s other Cutting Edge vids are accessible in the UK.

Harvey    [30023.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 18:26]
  Pooch [30020]

"A bizarre occurrence of censorship"

Are you sure it`s a censorship issue? It could be a question of copyright.

Whatever it is, I can confirm that the YouTube version which is not available in the UK, is available in Germany though. Could be different interpretations of `fair use` apply? Would be interesting to know what Salkeld says.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30022.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 09:01]
  Pooch re Woman in Black

Here is the Cutting Edge Episode on Vimeo

Gavin runs this Facebook Page for the series, so this is the best bet for contacts etc

Pooch    [30021.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 06:07]
  Addendum: My local Library, here in Norfolk (England) has now banned the Daily Mail website from its internet service on the grounds of "Gore, News, Web Content, Clothing & Accessories, Music, Real estate and Property"! Ha, ha, ha, ha! Genius!

Pooch    [30020.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 05:34]
  FAO Dave - Can someone kindly let Gav Salkeld know that his YouTube video "Cutting Edge: Episode 2 - The Woman In Black" is not viewable in the United Kingdom, please? A bizarre occurrence of censorship, or just YouTube screwing things up as usual? ;-) I can`t seem to find any other way of getting in touch with him, hence this posting. Thanks folks!

phantom    [30019.   Posted 15-Apr-2014 Tue 04:06]
  Harvey [30018]
I`m not sure it`s entirely irrelevant, Harvey.
Whether call-me-Dave is still at the top or not, the UK government still will be, irrespective of its immediate leader or the ruling party.
Otherwise, strictly speaking, it would have been irrelevant whether we won WWII, because in all likeliness Churchill would not have been in charge by the end. In that regard wars are policy too. (as proved with the glorious triumphs that were Iraq and Afghanistan)

But the fact that thirty years after `Yes, Minister` there are still no failure standards in sight, is rather telling, isn`t it? Especially in areas of law, like these.

I remember plenty of people proposing a sunset clause for the DPA. It was effectively the suggestion of a failure standard. Naturally, that was never implemented. Otherwise one would have had to reassess the law once its promised use of about 12 `extreme` cases per year had escalated to a thousand per annum.

As for `Yes, Minister`. That sadly would never get made today. For one, Rory Bremner was on Newsnight recently (20th anniversary of the end of Spitting Image) and told that the BBC and other broadcasters won`t touch real political satire with a barge pole these days, as they`re simply too afraid. Meanwhile, some of the funniest episodes or lines in `Yes, Minister` would never get past the Beeb`s censors these days.
Remember Freddy Laker`s `Mumbo Jumbo`? Or the booze-up at the soiree in Arabia? None of that would ever make it to air if it were shot today, for fear of causing `offence`.

Harvey    [30018.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 16:32]
  phantom [30017]

"How will we know whether it ever worked or not?"

Not relevant. By the time a judgement can be made (on whatever theoretical basis) Cameron will not have a hand on the tiller.

"Or are you merely intending to hail it a success, no matter what?"

The `success` is getting the law change he wants and the Daily Mail leader column he needs. That is what he will be able to crow about.

You see, I watched `Yes, Prime Minister` too. So I do know how this works.

Defining a target or outcome by which the success or failure of their policy can be judged! Ye gods, man, you`ll be expecting them to keep their election promises next. What kind of crazy world do you live in?

phantom    [30017.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 14:06]
  Harvey [30016]
Forgive me, Harvey. You know it was hardly too serious a post of mine.

We know they will always move the goal posts.
But I had only just seen that episode of `Yes, Minister` and its `failure standards` and it tickled me.

After all, `failure standards` are strictly parameters which ought to be applied to any public project. But they never are. Because politicians always want `wiggle room`, in case things don`t turn out as they thought.

We all know of their claims of normalisation of sexual violence and all that nonsense, whenever they`re put on the spot. But it doesn`t change the fact that they have actually linked their shiny new law with real rape.

So I think it`s only write to evoke the spirit of Dr Cartwright in `Yes, Minister` and say Actually Mr Cameron, what will be the measure of this policy? How will we know whether it ever worked or not? Or are you merely intending to hail it a success, no matter what? Surely it must be possible to define the success or failure of a policy. So, if the law is to prevent the enticement to rape, then it follows that rape numbers must fall.

Go on, call-me-Dave. Make our day.... :)

Harvey    [30016.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 09:35]
  MF Dave [30015]

The same argument has been made for some time now; that if there was a causal link between the availability of porn and the rate of sexual and/or violent crime, the data would show it by now.

There still remains the argument that by being available to children, porn has the capacity to change their sexual attitudes in ways that needn`t result in crimes being committed, but are nevertheless detrimental to children`s development. Broadly along the same line of argument which says that u18s should not be allowed to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

So while, I have no hesitation in saying that the claim that porn causes rape is baseless, I remain to be convinced that the availability of porn to children is not a problem requiring a solution.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30015.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 07:35]
  Phantom, a piece on porn and rape

As the above article suggests, we have had 15 years of general access to free porn, whether it be vanilla, extreme or even accessed by kids. Surely we can work out things out from this dramatic upsurge in uptake and hence be able to work backwards to estimate the effect of taking away things.

However I guess that such an analysis would predict an increase in rapes, hardly what the lawmakers would want to hear (or be willing to listen to).

Rex Borsky    [30014.   Posted 13-Apr-2014 Sun 12:23]
  More reportage that mixes child porn with extreme porn and then throws in anime and the old "snuff movie" chestnut for good measure.

Apparently the Judge in this case thinks that an on-screen murder took place, but he clearly can`t be bothered to check the facts on what one would assume to be a vital point of evidence.

The new extreme porn amendments are only going to further confuse these matters, as out-of-touch judges sit in judgement on fetish sites and underground horror genres, and lump the whole lot together with kiddie porn for maximum aberrant effect! What a sorry mess........

phantom    [30013.   Posted 13-Apr-2014 Sun 07:47]
  Here`s a thought.
The extension to the DPA is currently being brought through parliament because MPs believe this type of pornography encourages rape, right?
(well, that`s the official line)

Is anyone around here familiar with the series `Yes, Minister`?
There`s the episode in which the minister hears of the concept of `failure standards`. In short: parameters must be set to a public project in advance according to which the project has failed if it overruns its budget by a set amount or fails to achieve certain performance targets. They must thus set out right from the start what would mean a success or a failure. Before the project beings. Like that success or failure become measurable.

So here`s the nub. If this type of porn is to be banned in order to reduce rape, then by how much must the rape statistics fall to justify the policy as a success? After all, the policy will have a measurable cost. Thus, should there be a measurable benefit? and if there is no measurable benefit when compaired to a definite cost, wouldn`t that mean the policy has failed?

If I`m not mistaken then the trend for sex crimes is already down anyway (the police explain a recent jump as the Jimmy Savil effect on reporting of old cases).
Thus we can envisage the trend to continue and sex crime and reported rape to drop - even without this change in the law.

By how much more than expected must therefore the rape rate drop for this policy to be deemed a success?
Are there any figures? And if not, why not?
In the impact assessment were there any projections as to by how much rape is to be reduced by this policy?

And yes, we all know I don`t think there is any sensible answers to these questions from our parliamentary lords and masters. But I just felt like asking. :)

braintree    [30012.   Posted 11-Apr-2014 Fri 14:50]
  I suspect the Bluray of Bridget Jones is an "error" . I expect Universals general non use of region locking Blurays is to allow them to use the same discs worldwide with only labelling and packaging differences . Unfortunately there are various instances of some companies simply not bothering to release titles in the UK where they can`t just use the same disc as the rest of Europe. Soldier Blue is one of quite a few titles that`s been released in Europe but ignored here where it would require cuts to horsefalls even though the violence may no longer be an issue.

phantom    [30011.   Posted 11-Apr-2014 Fri 07:39]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) {30010}
"How about `complainers are always right, whatever the cost to liberty and livelihood` as the adage of our age"

Actually, I think that particular phenomenon, which is most certainly one of the cancers of our time, is best dubbed `the right not to be offended`.

It has - following the reign of St Blair - become more important than the right for freedom of expression.
In short: we now live in a country in which you are perfectly free to express anything - as long as it does not offend anyone.

The political class hereby are trying to turn Britain from a outspoken, liberal and somewhat raucous country to a conformist nation which dares not object, lest it cause someone to get upset.

`I am offended` has become the bully`s rallying cry. No better way is there to silence anyone than to feign offence. Tellingly , it is often some of the most contrary, aggressive and opinionated people who claim to have been offended.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30010.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 23:27]
  Re normalise as the verb of the age.

How about `complainers are always right, whatever the cost to liberty and livelihood` as the adage of our age

Here`s a good story summing up the patheticness of modern life. Trivia about a background image of Hitler on German mugs

Re Bridget Jones`s Diary

Interesting that the commentary track censor cut has been undone for Blu-ray. Surely one of those complete waste of money censorship issues of modern Britain. The cut would surely no longer be required, yet the distributors have to either mess around reworking Blu-rays (which isn`t cheap) or resubmit the Blu-ray and commentary to the BBFC for a couple of grand to get the official confirmation. Or perhaps there was a 3rd way, forget the edit and hope nobody notices, or at least nobody that complains to the authorities

braintree    [30009.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 14:21]
  Contrary to the item on the site today , the C word is all present and correct on the commentary track of the UK Blu of Bridget Jones although it remains dubbed over by the word COW on the film soundtrack

phantom    [30008.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 12:30]
  freeworld {30007}
Yes, `normalise` is definitely the verb of our age.
Anything could be said to normalise something.
So it is the ideal `argument` for those seeking to ban - well - anything.

What I miss greatly in all this desire to ban, forbid and censor is reluctance. Yes, reluctance.
In my world, that is the measure of a government`s sincerity.

Prohibition is there for things that must be done. Our governments surely ought to wish to see us live as free and unhindered lives as possible.
Thus any limitations they lay upon us surely should be introduced reluctantly. Because they simply must do so.

But - and this is very telling - the politicians are far from reluctant. They are in fact eager to ban things. They go out of their way to tell us about how disgusting things are and how unacceptable, etc.
In short; far from being reluctant, they in fact desire to ban things.

Thus, the laws we receive are not those reluctantly handed down to us from parliament for the common good, but instead are created because people in parliament desire to see them passed.

Every fable, every legend or fairy tale which describes us the `good king` gives us a man who is wise and reluctant to accept and exercise his power.
This is for good reason. Power is best used in the hands of those who wish not to impose on their fellow citizens.
The ideal leader does not in fact desire to impose and enforce things.
He does so, because he must - reluctantly.

Pray, where is the reluctance with the current generation of politicians?
What is most frightening about them is that they want to see things done away with, banned, exorcised, prohibited and proscribed.
Not because they must. Simply because they wish it.

Churchill wrote a famous memo to his cabinet when he let many of the German internees go in 1942. In it he explained that at the height of the crisis the nation may have been forgiven for interning people who had by all accounts done nothing wrong, except for being refugees from Germany. But once this crisis no longer existed he could not in all conscience deny them their freedom.

The greatness in Churchill`s explanation lies not merely in the principle of freedom which he defended so avidly, but in his evident reluctance in having to deny freedom in the first place. Reluctance.

Just as the sense of honour in politicians has long gone, whereby if they were found out, they actually resigned, the reluctance of politicians to impose on their fellow countrymen has vanished.

They actually want to make us less free. Eagerly.
They want to `improve` us and the country by banning and punishing.
It is this lack of reluctance which makes them almost inhuman - and most certainly inhumane.

They are the polar opposite of the `good king`.
They are the literal Anti-Cincinnatus.

freeworld    [30007.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 08:31]
  phantom {30006. Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 05:20}
And the Labour led supercouncil that exists in Wales will include ecigs in the public places smoking ban because they supposedly "normalize" smoking - for the children. You know, all those "children" who go into bars and clubs in the evening. Of course, since the banstibatorsrs got their indoor ban "the children" see more people smoking than ever - as they can only do it outside in "public places".

Look out for the word "normalize" - the banstibators will be making a lot of use of that one all over. There is little to no actual evidence the under age, or anyone else, are taking up e-cigs (as opposed to regular smokers) or finding them a "gateway" to tobacco use. But "gateway", like "normalize" is an evidence free weasel word used to condemn and ban - merely an opinion being given a jargon name to make it sound like more than mere subjective opinion ( even opinion, as here, contradicted by the evidence). In fact words like these have been adopted specifically because they negate the need for concrete evidence. Especially useful when you can`t even produce dodgy evidence which can be twisted (passive smoking is a major health hazard, porn creates sex offenders etc) In fact on e-cigs the evidence is overwhelmingly that they are a "gateway" out of tobacco use, not into it, and "children" aren`t interested in e-cigs. Even if they were, they`re much better with them than real fags.

This issue is one of those times where the banstibators are not just annoying, or threatening to the liberty of HM`s subjects, but are actually very very dangerous indeed. Their puritanical righteous obsessions manipulated into public policy can stop the replacement of tobacco on a massive scale by harmless nicotine use via vaping - these meddling, sanctimonious prigs are set on a course to kill people - lots of them; many will also get diseases they would not have got if the banstibators had left e-cigs alone. The same for "criminalizing" buying sex - it will cause a rise in sex crime and make sex workers far more unsafe.

Ban water drinking - it looks like vodka and encourages the children to become alcoholics.

I`ve just seen a sawn off shot gun on a tv series - I have the irresistible urge to turn into Raoul Moat...

Ban the banstibators -damn the lot of them to the lowest depth of Hell - which is still better than they merit

phantom    [30006.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 05:20]
  IanG [30005]
I just see it as a continuation of the lie, Ian.
They are determined to ram home the message that a visual stimulus can render us zombies.

If we see the wrong thing on telly we will turn into monsters, if we see the wrong thing in a music video will turn into sex maniacs - and if we see a cigarette packet in shiny colours we will not be able to resist the urge to buy it.

They simply ascribe to us no competency whatsoever and thus deem our consent meaningless (where have I heard that one before?).
I am thus deemed not suitably competent to decide whether I want to smoke or not, because - if I were exposed to the packets - I would not be able to resist them.

An entire doctrine is being established, which is spanning many different areas of government, and simply holds that we are slaves to visual stimuli and must thus be protected from them.

The truth is, however, that I am not a mindless drone. More so I resent some idiots in government passing laws on the basis of my being one.

IanG    [30005.   Posted 9-Apr-2014 Wed 07:07]
  phantom, I suppose this `generification` of cigarette packaging will only affect those who are seduced by brand-name marketing. However, without mass media marketing of cigarette brands, which was of course banned many years ago, such people are already well protected from the advertising gurus` mind tricks.

Indeed, the only people who will actually benefit from this bullshit are the cigarette counterfeiters, who will no longer have to print expensive branded look-a-like packaging - a ubiquitous and cheap plain white box will cunningly disguise their killer brand of fake fags.

As a smoker of many years, I am perhaps better placed to explain why I smoke the brands I do. It`s a simple equation really of cost vs. flavour. I choose my brand based on taste and cost, NOT on the design on the packet, NOT on the name on the front. I`m sure the same principles apply to people who buy breakfast cereals or baked beans - you either like the cheaper supermarket brand or you fork out for the big brand name. The name and picture on the box just confirms you picked up the brand you prefer at a price you`re willing to pay.

phantom    [30004.   Posted 3-Apr-2014 Thu 14:29]
  You are what you see, Part 40317

Interesting how the establishment view of people as mindless drones who cannot but help act on uncontrollable urges if they see something `bad` seems at home in so many different spheres.

Today the government has just announced future rules for `plain` cigarette packaging. Because of course we are what we see.

Am I with the tobacco lobby? No. Furthermore, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. Odd, given that during my childhood McLarren formula one cars were Marlboro packets with wheels, whereas Lotus represented John Player Special, and so on.

But according to current government thinking we cannot resist the temptation of cigarette packaging. It`s just too bright and shiny. So it must be changed. For our own good.

Frighteningly, we have the usual consensus on such matters. Everyone agrees. Labour merely disagrees, because the government `hasn`t acted soon enough`.
So once again it looks very much like a political stitch up. Democracy is not functioning, because no variety of opinion is represented.
Everyone agrees that is must be. Thus, it will.

Some pseudo-scientific nonsense is then trotted out, trying to claim that plain packaging will `prevent` a given number of children (will no one think of the children!) from taking up smoking.
I ask you does anyone believe this sort of `science` anymore?

Sure, I believe smoking is harmful. I`m hardly here to make a plea for the tobacco industry. But the branded packaging turns us into mindless drones?

Just as the wrong kind of porn turns all men into rapists, and the wrong kind of violence in films turns us all into serial killers. (thank God for the BBFC!!!)

All women are rendered miserable for life by photos in lads mags or pretty singers in music videos and all teenage boys are programmed to be terrorist super killers by playing computer games.
It`s just fact. Because they say so.

Therefore follows: see a cigarette packet and you`re hooked.

This is phoney. And I don`t care whether Dave Cameron and Harriet Harman both declare me the mouthpiece of the evil tobacco lobby.

Banning cigarette packaging is the proliferation of a deceit. They are spreading this pernicious lie into ever more aspects of our lives.
We are to believe that we are helpless to visual stimuli. We must be protected from them. They will do so. Responsibly. For our own good.

Harvey    [30003.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 16:55]
  phantom [30002]

I wasn`t pulling you up. Just expanding on your point about the circular argument - The only way we can protect our rights is by throwing them away when necessary or when they apply to people who are not one of "us".

I know Raab is actually a very clever lawyer - which is why I`m not prepared to forgive him his amendment. He knows very well that the HRA doesn`t prevent the UK from deporting people on the grounds of article 8.

He`s very welcome to join the human race at any time. Doesn`t mean he has to agree with my views, just that he should be honest when promoting his own.

phantom    [30002.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 14:31]
  Harvey {30001}

It`s not often we agree on the fine print of a principle. But here we do. So I`m not too sure what I`m actually being pulled up for. ;)

Anyhow, regards Dominic Raab. There are two sides to dear Dominic. How can I put this? One part of him is the right wing politico who `doesn`t like Europe`. A sort of Nigel Farage `light`.
But the other half of him does seem to be drifting into that wishy-washy liberal tendency of a common human being, asking what on earth the state is up to right now and why it is acquiring ever more powers against the individual citizen.

So, who knows. Several Tory grandees have eventually had their road to Damascus moment. David Davis, even Michael Portillo realised at one point he could join the species. And Jonathan Aitken benefited from a `short sharp shock. (there`s irony for you)

So it`s possible that Dominic Raab is undergoing a transformation in stages. Yes, he may be braying like a good pukka anti-European. But underneath it all, he is asking some good questions of the UK government.

Maybe, just maybe the caterpillar may turn into a butterfly one day.

Harvey    [30001.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 03:42]
  freeworld [29998]

OK, I`ll bite.

You ask; "How many criminals have gone on to offend again after they served their time for one offense?" and of course the answer is that a significant number of criminals re-offend after serving their sentence. And though they are overwhelmingly not murderers or rapists, they are also overwhelmingly not foreign nationals, either. The truth is, there are plenty of home grown criminals which our CJ system fails to protect "us" from. Of course it`s a nice distraction to point to "foreigners" as though if they were all removed, everything in the CJ world would be sweetness and light and further to point to the HRA and Article 8 in particular as the reason for the dangerous foreigners being able to "live among us".

So... Cite the cases where; A) the authorities tried and failed to deport someone because of the application of Article 8 and B) that person went on to commit a violent, sexual or other serious offence.

If it has happened - many times - it shouldn`t be difficult to produce a list.

phantom [29999]

"Largely this deportation malarky seems to be a circular argument, wailing at the moon about `what if they rape again???`
But really the issue just seem to circulate around the two individuals, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and not this or that unknown foreign national."

Circular or not, it`s a dishonest argument.

Abu Hamza did take his case (one of extradition to the USA, not deportation) to the ECtHR and the extradition was delayed until the court was satisfied he would not be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment (Article 3, not Article 8) But he was extradited. If the UK stood by its stated opposition to torture and inhumane treatment it would have sought assurances from the USA itself, rather than having to be forced to by the ECtHR.

Abu Qatada`s case was about deportation, as that was the legal process, though he was wanted to stand trial in Jordan. Again he took his case to the ECtHR and again his deportation was delayed until the UK government got the assurances from Jordan that he wouldn`t be tried using evidence obtained by torture (Article 6). He was deported once the UK had done what it should have done originally rather than simply ship someone off to an unknown fate while paying lip service to the "highest standards/beacon of fairness/defender of freedom" precipice it so tenuously clings to.

Even if there was a good argument, supported by actual cases, that adhering to Article 8 has resulted in dangerous foreign criminals being able to "live among us", we should still be ultra wary of the calls for tampering with Article 8, because we are all very familiar with the process - Create a precedent, then discover the "loopholes`.

So, first the UK would write it`s own law, amending the HRA and requiring the UK courts not to consider Article 8 in respect of deportation cases. I wager it would not be long after freeworld had finished dancing in the street before the first loophole would be recognised, a conflict with the ECHR cited and the UK would derrogate further, extend the non-application of the HRA beyond deportation to all kinds of other legal processes and eventually leave the ECHR entirely.

Yes, it`s annoying for Home Secretaries not to be able to deport just whoever they want, whenever they want and for whatever reason they want, by having to comply with the ECHR. Sometimes the individuals they want to deport are those which most people would agree shouldn`t be allowed to remain in the UK. But the fact is, in those cases where there is a good reason to deport someone, the ECHR is no bar to doing so.

Dominic Raab MP has been vocal on the evils of Article 8 and it was his amendment which sought to remove any Article 8 considerations from deportation cases.

He argues as though the UK is continually being thwarted in the deportation of dangerous foreigners because of Article 8, but the only case he ever cites is that of Akinshipe, a Nigerian convicted of the rape of a 13 year old.

So some facts about the Akinshipe case.

Firstly, Akinshipe`s deportation wasn`t blocked as a result of article 8 being considered in the UK. He lost his appeals to the UK tribunals and took his case to Strasbourg, where he won. So it isn`t even an example of the UK courts being hamstrung by the HRA that Raab suggests. Raab should at least be honest and say that because he thinks the ECtHR shouldn`t be able to block deportations, the UK should leave the ECHR.

Secondly, though it was the case that Akinshipe was convicted of raping a 13yr old, he was 15yrs old himself and therefore a juvenile at the time (and a child himself, in the eyes of the law). By all accounts (and the case he put to the court in Strasbourg wasn`t challenged in this regard) he has rehabilitated, has the support of his mother and sisters who live in the UK, he has gone to college, obtained A-levels, studied for a degree with the intention of getting a good job and has committed no other crime since he was released. Yet he is painted as a predatory paedo, rapist and a danger to the public.

You only have to Google to find numerous cases where despite appealing on the grounds of Article 8, foreign nationals have been deported, so it`s nothing resembling the block to deportation that Raab claims. The right to a family life is certainly not an unqualified one, but the government has to show that to deprive someone of that right is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. Strasbourg ruled that in Akinshipe`s case, all the facts suggested that deporting him was neither necessary, given his rehabilitation, nor proportionate, given his family ties to the UK where he has been since the age of 13 and lack of any such close ties to Nigeria.

Having looked at the facts, I tend to agree with the Strasbourg court. Surely if a young offender can be rehabilitated, it`s something to be pleased about and to be encouraged, rather than rewarded with a deportation order and removal to another country? Raab would disagree. He would say that in order to satisfy the xenophobic tendency, the only facts that matter are that Akinshipe is foreign and has committed a offence, that no regard should be given to anything else. It`s having to actually make the case that deportation is necessary and proportionate which Raab finds so disgusting and unacceptable.

sergio    [30000.   Posted 30-Mar-2014 Sun 07:54]
  So, the government wants to `follow the money`? Bitcoin, virtual currency should disinfect this particular harm?

phantom    [29999.   Posted 28-Mar-2014 Fri 17:07]
  freeworld {29998}

"But one group can, at least, be removed to somewhere else, so they can`t represent any future threat to the British public. They are not "ours" in the first place. When they go, they become the problem of the country they came from, the country of which they are a citizen. We must address the problem caused by "our own" criminals - why on earth should we put up with those individuals who aren`t even ours? I really see nothing particularly objectionable about removing British nationality from a former foreign national who has then gone on on to break the criminal law of the country which gave him/her that privilege."

Well, if he`s a British national who`s previously been a foreign national, then - by being British - he is `our criminal`, whether he once was foreign or not.

Secondly, even some of those foreign nationals are in fact `our criminals`.
Take some of the `yardies` we sent back to Jamaica. that state complained vehemently about what we were doing. And rightly so. Our society was allowing that yardie culture to turn those folks into seriously dangerous gangsters. and then, once we were done - we sent them `back` to Jamaica, where the forces of law and order were simply not equipped to deal with this sort of criminal violence. Eventually it seriously de-stabilised the place. We did that. By what we did. By hypocritically labeling them `their problem` and deporting them.

Largely this deportation malarky seems to be a circular argument, wailing at the moon about `what if they rape again???`
But really the issue just seem to circulate around the two individuals, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and not this or that unknown foreign national.

The hyperbole employed by the government in those cases. So we`re really just looking at politicians wanting to make law to fit a particular case or two. - In order to look `strong` in the media.
I struggle to muster too much sympathy for Cruella deVil and her plight.

freeworld    [29998.   Posted 28-Mar-2014 Fri 06:13]
  Harvey {29995. Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 07:56}
It`s "represented that way" because it has happened that way - many times; it`s not just some factoid existing only in the minds of those who automatically side with authority and are especially down on Johnny Foreigner. I`m one of "those opponents" and I certainly don`t want people to have "no human rights considerations at all". That statement is surely an unfair stereotyping of anyone who doesn`t care much for the act we now have. Many dislike it as they view it as essentially bogus, providing no sound guarantee at all, in practice, of the liberties of the population. I`m an opponent of the HRA principally because its provisions mean little when the state wishes to deprive us of basic human rights by legislation. The wide and subjective discretionary clauses mean a determined executive, set on a certain course of action, can, it would appear, still do whatever they want - and hang that specious "guarantor" of our freedoms, the HRA; a law graciously granted to us by the very bunch who then went on to give us the DPA and much more. However, we also see there are numerous cases where the same legislation seems to cease to work in a like manner in the courts. A fair and just law would only have "conditional" provisions opertating when there has been proven harm - such as when an individual does material harm, enough to get a custodial prison sentence. Right now, the law`s provisions encompass generalizations and the purely subjective - eg "public morals". But some judges and the politicians might be dealing with quite different legislation in their respective fields.

At present, we can`t "deport" a British national, get rid of them, for the obvious reason - but there is somewhere to deport a foreign one to. And good riddance to them. Both UK and foreign people released from prison may still represent a real danger in future. It`s not a matter of someone who comes out of jail being presented with a metaphorical certificate as "safe to live among us", it`s simply that they have served out the period of punishment for whatever crime they committed. How many criminals have gone on to offend again after they served their time for one offense? How many have even murdered again? That situation must remain as it is until the death penalty is restored for murder (then a murderer certainly doesn`t show any recidivist tendencies - but personally, I don`t support the DP myself), or the state, as a matter of course, locks up sane people on the basis of "what they might do" (I guess we have gone that way in some instances already, given justifications central to totalitarian legislation like the DPA and "hate" speech laws) rather than what they have done. But one group can, at least, be removed to somewhere else, so they can`t represent any future threat to the British public. They are not "ours" in the first place. When they go, they become the problem of the country they came from, the country of which they are a citizen. We must address the problem caused by "our own" criminals - why on earth should we put up with those individuals who aren`t even ours? I really see nothing particularly objectionable about removing British nationality from a former foreign national who has then gone on on to break the criminal law of the country which gave him/her that privilege.

phantom    [29997.   Posted 27-Mar-2014 Thu 13:10]
  re: Government supports amendment to increase the penalties for internet insults

Seriously? Harsher sentences? For saying something?

Now wasn`t the chief priority of this government to reduce the deficit?
Err... Pray, how much does it cost to lock up a prisoner? Isn`t that rather expensive? Should not any government keen on saving money try to lock up fewer people, rather than more? Especially for trivial matters?
But apparently, no.
Huzzah! The deficit is solved! We can start spending money again. On locking up people for the political luxury of feeling better about it...

phantom    [29996.   Posted 26-Mar-2014 Wed 09:04]
Harvey {29995}

"[* Not for much longer - Schemes to give the Secretary of State the power to rescind the UK citizenship of those born outside the UK are just around the corner. Human rights or no human rights.]"

Oh, brilliant. All we need. More power for Cruella deVil.

Harvey    [29995.   Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 07:56]
  freeworld [29987]

"legislation designed to supposedly protect against persecution being invoked successfully to allow very dangerous criminals to live among us"

The effect of Article 8 is constantly represented in this way by its opponents. Those opponents would prefer there were no human rights considerations at all.

The fact is; violent crimes are committed by UK citizens as well as foreign nationals, so you have to ask why those UK citizens are deemed "safe to live among us" once they`ve served their sentence, and it`s only the foreign nationals who are dangerous and need to be deported.*

Another fact is; it`s not just foreign nationals convicted of violent or sexual offences who are liable to be deported. The authorities use deportation or the threat of deportation as an additional non-judicial form of punishment and clearly the interpolation of rights such as Article 8 annoy them intensely when it means they can`t always deport who they like, whenever they like, for whatever reason they like.

The argument against Article 8 is routinely presented as one of public safety. If you took the time to look into individual cases, you`d find it hardly ever is.

[* Not for much longer - Schemes to give the Secretary of State the power to rescind the UK citizenship of those born outside the UK are just around the corner. Human rights or no human rights.]

MichaelG    [29994.   Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 00:20]
  Re: Update: An even more ludicrous attempt to conjure up some `outrage`...

Don`t know if it`s more the venue than the attire that got the Mail dribbling down their collective fronts as GAY is well-known for it`s kinky stage shows. The dress is sexy but it doesn`t automatically scream `dominatrix` at me when I look at it.

I`m beginning to think that the warped view on sexuality is beginning to take its toll on the journos at the Mail. It`s like all the copy was written by Robin Askwith. Nobody who is famous, female and good looking can just simply `wear` anything in the minds of the wretches who write this tripe - they have to be `flaunting their famous butt`, `showing off their bikini body`, `displaying their curves for all to see` etc etc.

And all this from the newspaper who want online porn automatically blocked...

phantom    [29993.   Posted 24-Mar-2014 Mon 14:52]
  Government these days speaks in grand terms about what is not tolerable in society today. It suggests this or that material ought not exist.
It then proposes law which expunges said material from existence. A sort legislative exorcism.

But there is a deceit at the heart of this. We are presented with a `choice` of what material we wish to permit or banish. All focus is put on whether something should exist or not.

However, we cannot assume that, by officially banning something, we actually make it go away.
After all, just consider narcotics.
So banning something clearly does not make it disappear.

Thus, making law on the basis of what we wish not to exist is both foolhardy and deceitful on behalf of those who suggest it.

In reality we must look at the making of law as the choice we face for what we wish to see people punished. For that is all state can do. Punish. Fine. Deprive of liberty.
A government cannot make something go away. Its only means is to punish.

So people ought not to be asked to choose what it is they wish to see put out of existence, but instead for what they wish to see other people punished.
For what must people suffer?
For what suffering which you created, do you wish to be held accountable when you reach the pearly gates?

After all, if you support this law or that, you in essence wish to see those people who fall foul of your statue to suffer the punishment of the state.
In effect, you wish to see people imprisoned. If therefore it is a law you support, their imprisonment is your responsibility.
So with what do you feel comfortable knowing that someone will be cuffed, taken and locked away?
So for what suffering on this earth do you wish to answer to the Almighty?

This ought to be the way politicians present these issues to the public.
Their choice instead is all about `what ought not exist`.

It is presentation. PR. Marketing. In short: deceit.

phantom    [29992.   Posted 24-Mar-2014 Mon 14:33]
  re: Kylie Minogue`s Sexercise...

"Vivienne Pattinson, of campaign group Mediawatch-UK, said:
It`s just reinforcing the idea that your worth is defined by your hotness rather than anything else you have to offer, and that can be really damaging for the self-esteem of young girls."

This is a very odd comment in my book.
It seems to take into consideration that - surely - every string in an artists bow adds to their appeal.
Thus, if a musician is `hot` then surely this is an added bonus. Thus it is flaunted. This doesn`t mean that it is the only string to the artist`s bow. It simply stands as an additional way of attracting attention to the work of the artist.

Why does Kylie Mynogue flaunt her body. Well, firstly, because she has something worth flaunting. But in essence her body is the equivalent of, say, Elton John`s outrageous spectacles and costumes.
Is thus Elton John`s worth solely defined by the brightness of his outfits?
No, nobody would say that.

It`s an audiovisual medium. If an artist is good looking then obviously he or she will use it to his or her advantage. Again, not as their sole virtue, but as an additional feather in their cap.

If thus an artist is `hot` surely they will show off. Elvis did. Freddie Mercury did. What is wrong with that?
Absolutely nobody is saying that what is in music videos is the standard by which all of us are measured.
That said, given the obesity epidemic we`re witnessing it might not be a bad thing...

If I have a criticism it`s that it`s a fairly uninspiring rip off of Eric Prydz` `Call on me`. And I dread to think what Vivienne Pattinson makes of that one.

sergio    [29991.   Posted 23-Mar-2014 Sun 04:29]
  `TESCO bosses have removed a horror film featuring extreme sexual violence from sale in all stores nationwide after being alerted to the content by the Citizen`

Who are these `Tesco bosses`?

So, let`s get this straight. A small local newspaper
(according to this
it sold 18,501 a day in the first half of 2012)
`Complains`/`alerts` `Tesco bosses`? How? Do they have a direct line to Tesco bosses?

Pooch: tesco employees also buy from tesco. So, yes, tesco employees can complain.

Pooch    [29990.   Posted 22-Mar-2014 Sat 06:43]
  Thanks Dave! There`s a small update too. On Saturday 22nd March, Tesco e-mailed me with a further response. This is the full contents of that e-mail, minus any personal information. (All errors have been retained!)

Dear ______ ,

Thank you for contacting us. The hospital was approved for general release and rated 18. However, on this occasion we’ve made the judgement to remove it from sale. We are always pleased to listen to feedback and remain focussed on offering the most popular titles to our customers. In regards to your comments on the content of our newspapers, as with all retailers we look to offer our customers a wide range of media titles. Please let me assure you that when selecting our magazine and newspaper range, we always keep at the front of mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any publication that we deem would be not suitable to our customers, including any adult titles. We’ve passed on your concerns to the relevant departments as customer feedback is very important to us. Thank you for contacting us.

Kind regards

Steven ______ , Tesco Customer Service

Tesco seem to be saying that they`ll only stock items that are "family friendly", but not "adult" titles, yet they are happy to stock most 15 and 18 rated films (and some Parental Advisory, Explicit Lyrics type CD`s too), but clearly if something doesn`t fit-in to their own, very narrow definition of what constitutes "family friendly", then they will happily remove it from sale - presumably after just one single complaint!

Ironically, they continue to sell THE SUN, the DAILY MAIL and the DAILY STAR newspapers, which aren`t "family friendly" (as per Tesco`s understanding of the term), so it seems that their decision is really down to randomness, rather than a concrete decision to protect the morals of children and families.

If they really wanted to be "family friendly", then they wouldn`t stock any films higher than a PG-rating, and the three newspapers I mentioned would also be removed from sale. Likewise, they`d remove most mens and women`s magazines, as well as titles like PRIVATE EYE magazine too, as they aren`t family-friendly either.

It seems hypocrisy and misinformation is very much the order of the day here! I don`t think Tesco knows what it`s actual policies are, and are making this all up as they go along. Hmmmm....

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29989.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 09:17]
  Good one Pooch

Isn`t it strange that one complaint is enough to cause havoc, yet it has to be the right kind of complaint, underpinned by unthinking outrage or offense, and it is totally irrelevant if this is obviously feigned or not. A well reasoned calm complaint carries absolutely no weight whatsoever.

Pooch    [29988.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 05:47]
  Just seen the story about Tesco removing the horror film HOSPITAL from all of their stores shelves, after just one complaint. You can all put a complaint in to Tesco`s, using their online complaints form at...

I have entered a complaint, and await their response, which I will post here, once I get it. I have also undertaken a Live Chat with a Tesco Customer Services member, and this is the entire transcript (with my personal details removed)...

TESCO: Hello, my name is David. Welcome to Tesco Chat. How can I help?

ME: Hi David. I`d like to know why Tesco has decided to pull the 18-certificate horror film DVD called HOSPITAL, from all of your store`s shelves, after just one complaint from a local journalist, as shown here...

DAVID: I can`t say that this was something we were aware of here, but I`d be happy to try and look into for you.

ME: Well, please look into it, because if it only takes one single complaint to get something removed from your stores, based on one single person`s own skewed viewpoint, then I`d like to ask that the DAILY MAIL is also removed from your store`s shelves, as that is as offensive to me, as the HOSPITAL film was to that journalilst!

DAVID: I`m just querying this with our Support Team now - sorry for any delay.

ME: No problem. I will wait. (A few minutes go past...)

DAVID: Okay, unfortunately, there`s not much more we can say here that wasn`t in the article already - namely, that a judgement was made to remove it from sale. However, having discussed with the colleagues sitting around me, I can tell you that we absolutely did receive multiple complaints about this product, including from members of staff in stores.

ME: So, in other words, your staff are able to dictate what you do and don`t sell in your stores?!

DAVID: No, absolutely not - my point was that both customers and staff were asking for this to be removed. However, I absolutely appreciate your frustration with this, and can make sure your comments here are reported back on our internal system which will, in time, be reviewed by all relevant departments, including our Head Office and Buying Teams. I do know that they will be taken into consideration for the future

ME: Hang on, you`re contradicting yourself. You`ve just said that you had complaints from members of staff in stores (as well as customers) and that was why the item was removed, and in the second sentence, you then say staff have no say in what is sold in your stores. So which is it?!

DAVID: I`m sorry, I didn`t actually say the latter part. I confirmed that we had multiple complaints, from both customers and staff members.

ME: I`m sorry, but you did. You wrote: "I can tell you that we absolutely did receive multiple complaints about this product, including from members of staff in stores." which suggests that staff do have a say in what Tesco stores stock.

DAVID: I`m sorry if you feel that`s what was suggested, but that wasn`t the intended meaning. I was trying to make it clear that concerns were being raised from multiple perspectives.

ME: Well, that`s what you said, so... Anyway, how can you remove an item, that had a legally-approved, 18 certificate from the BBFC? on it. You`re essentially saying that anything Tesco dislikes, can be removed! Does this mean that Tesco is now going to vet all 18 certificate films, and any it personally dislikes or disapproves of, will now be removed from stores and not be on sale?!

DAVID: Ultimately, we will choose to sell what we think is suitable for our customers.

ME: In that case then, you better remove all those sugary, fatty, processed foods you sell, as well as all alcohol, tobacco and sweeties too, as they are all "unsuitable" for Tesco Customers! I apologise if that sounds pedantic, but by withdrawing this one film, you have now effectively said that Tesco`s values, are more important than any other values, uncluding films with legally-approved certificates on them!

DAVID: The feedback we receive from our customers goes a long way to helping make those decisions. As I said earlier, your comments here will also be treated as feedback for future consideration. Having said that, there`s nothing further which we would be able to add to this conversation.

ME: Well, in that case, then please remove from sale all copies of THE DAILY MAIL newspaper, because I find them more offensive than any 18-certifcate horror film!

DAVID: I will record that suggestion. Is there any other matter which I would be able to help with today?

ME: Yes. Please let your team know that for Tesco to override an 18-certificate, legally-approved film, based on your own staff`s views, is not the way to run a business! If the film is legal, you should be selling it, otherwise you are opening yourself up to a minefield of people complaining about what you should and should not stock, based on a few complaints, and that`s wrong!

DAVID: Again, the decision to remove this film from sale was based on multiple complaints, from both customers and members of staff. Moreover, we are under no obligation to sell any product, though we will attempt to take all feedback into consideration, whether that is demand for a product or against. Is there something else I can help with?

ME: Again, as I said before, if Tesco is overriding what is a legal item that can be legally sold, and you are letting staff (and a very minority) of customers dictate what you sell, then that is completely unethical and morally wrong on every level!

DAVID: I`m sorry you feel that way.

ME: Well, it`s a shame that Tesco chooses to operate its stores in this manner, where the vocal few get to dictate what the majority can or cannot purchase!


I think that says everything we needed to hear. Tesco is more than happy to kowtow to whoever complains about something, even if the item is legal to sell, and has been legally-approved!

freeworld    [29987.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 04:05]
  phantom {29982. Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:11}
Sorry - another long `un!
Phantom, yes, too right! At the time the DPA began its sinister slide into law, the then LD party leader, Charles Kennedy, stated that they did not agree with such legislation. It was Lib Dem peers who led opposition to the bill in the Lords (with some sterling support from the conscientious, late lamented Tory hereditary, the Earl of Onslow). I suppose Clegg, facing possible wipe out of his party in the 2015 GE, has one eye on possible "Daily Mail" headlines painting him as the pornographers pal/ an "enemy to women" etc. Just as his block on the Snooper`s charter got such opposition plenty of predictable criticism in some quarters, like from Cruella de May, as being a help to terrorists/paedos etc. Silence on authoritarian legislation like the DPA extension seems to be the LD preferred option right now, probably for reasons of political expediency.

For quite a while this government was resisting default ISP filtering, but caved in under the relentless onslaught of Paul Dacre and his allies (Labour`s Harridan Harman giving the official Labour line in the "Mail", demanding default filters)."Call me Dave", swept up in the moral panic, caved in, as per usual, and just to spice up his credentials with the banstibators, to show how righteous and concerned he was, also announced, at the same time, the extension of the DPA, something which was being screeched for by the usual suspects - mainly the "women`s groups"/"charities"(called "spokesperson`s for.." in the uncritical media, though they actually "speak for" very few).

One interesting factor when considering the DPA is the human rights act. Article 8 seems to continually be being used by lawyers for foreign criminals, to stop their deportation, as they have fathered children, or otherwise made connections, in the UK. That often seems to be enough for a plea to not "abuse" his "right to family life" by deporting him. Yet Article 8 is about conditional, not absolute "rights". In these sorts of cases such a right can be void if it`s "necessary and proportionate" to "protect public safety" and "prevent crime". Yet in many of the cases judges seem to allow enormous leeway for some very dangerous criminals indeed to have their right to "family life" protected, apparently brushing aside questions of the real danger to the public these people represent. Government often express anger and frustration about this, and I feel frequently have good reason to - legislation designed to supposedly protect against persecution being invoked successfully to allow very dangerous criminals to live among us.

Now, we come to the DPA, which to many of us is legislation which cannot conform to the HRA. Article 8 does allow the state to bypass its provisions to "protect public morals", which is probably the basis on which Straw, with his alleged "legal advice" - still unavailable for public scrutiny - stamped the DPA as HRA compatible. But, to my possibly too simple mind, persecution and punishment via DPA is a lot less difficult to show up as unnecessary and disproportionate, abusive to human rights (the whole "public morals" condition seems hard to reconcile with a law impacting on private life; they would also have to show firm links between images and the committing of real crimes endangering the public) than a court concluding some violent foreign rapist should stay in the UK just because he`s fathered a child, or has had a UK girlfriend.

As far as I know, though I might be wrong, when the DPA has been the only count against a defendant in a jury trial, where the cases have not featured bestiality/necro, the CPS has failed to get a conviction. And few are getting to the stage of a jury trial when all the CPS have is such adult EVP - when it appears a jury tends to agree with the defense that there is enough in the evidential requirements written into the legislation to allow them to say they haven`t been met. The famous case of the gay lawyer who was cleared (though his life was still ruined just by the prosecution) cause Starmer, then DPP, to issue further guidelines on grounds for prosecution. It appears they were embarrassed by a high profile humiliating verdict, one which shone a bright light on this ugly legislation, which prefers to skulk in the dark, a law most of the public were still probably unaware of. The case raising, as it did, something of an outcry about the existence of such a law. The question is, if there finally is a conviction, purely over this sort of material, will a barrister - say Myles Jackman - be able to then bring in the HRA, and the DPA will finally have its HRA compatibility properly assessed? I`m not familiar enough with the way the law works to say how/if this would/could happen - but parliament passed the HRA, and subsequent to that it is required government does not implement legislation incompatible with the requirements of that HRA. Many think it did with the DPA, and that those responsible knew they did, otherwise the alleged "legal advice" on which compatibility was supposedly based would not be being kept secret and hidden from public scrutiny. Possibly the use of cautions and cases being dropped before prosecutions, is what is keeping the DPA in business. So its simply the DPAs existence, rather than its use as a tool for prosecution in court, which gives them what they want - a big stick to hold over people`s heads when policing private life, but one which doesn`t seem to be much use if they take the thing to a jury (and may possibly be dangerously exposed there as a measure breaching the human rights act if it is used more regularly in that way).

I think we can say that the DPA will never, in any foreseeable future, be "voluntarily" repealed, possibly not even even modified to make it less absurd and nasty, by the political class we now have. In the light of this, does the DPA therefore need to have a proper test legal case taken all the way, the only realistic means of getting rid of it, or having at least its most objectionable aspects reformed (such as removing the unreal, applying it only to real abuse)?

MichaelG    [29986.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 00:10]
  Re: Kylie Minogue`s `Sexercise`:

The vile rag that is the Daily Mail never ceases to amaze me. Although they seem to be sitting on the fence slightly more than usual, their leering report of Kylie`s raunchy new video has already given way to a more moralistic tone with this second article.

Nice to see they`ve left the sneak peek of the video in though so that we can still see what it is we are supposed to be disgusted by...

MichaelG    [29985.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 00:03]
  Re: phantom {29982}:

`But where are they? How come a government containing the LibDems starts banning things?`

Nothing really new here, my friend. Remember the extremely non-liberal and undemocratic David Alton, the Lib Dem MP who, in the wake of the James Bulger case, had us burning videos in the street (always a LibDem favourite pastime that one!) and was making noises about having all `18` rated videos banned.

I guess if anything can be gleaned from this it`s the fact that self-serving wankers who land themselves in jobs in politics are there purely to look after Number One, not the people who made it possible for them to be there in the first place and whom they are supposed to be representing/looking after. Consequently, you have a motley mix of religious zealots, feminazis, moralising twerps and folks with deep-rooted personal issues that they wish to force us all to share turning up across the entire political spectrum, in all parties. Admittedly, the likes of CommuNuLabour seem to hold the lions share of these fuckwits, but the overall rule of thumb for the general public seems to be simple... if someone has the acronym `MP` after their name, they are not to be trusted.

But then I think we`ve known that for a very long time...

phantom    [29984.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 19:13]
  Therumbler [29983]

Yep, here`s the key paragraph for me:

"Emma Carr, deputy director of Big Brother Watch, said: "It should not come as a surprise if companies concerned about maintaining their users` trust to hold their information start to move to countries with more rigorous oversight processes, particularly where courts oversee requests for information." Surveillance laws have a direct impact on our economy and Yahoo`s decision should be ring an alarm in Parliament that ignoring the serious questions about surveillance that are being debated around the world will only harm Britain`s digital economy.""

So what were the top priorities of this government again? The economy and the deficit? Hmmm, so it`s a choice between getting all those still from yahoo web chats, or the digital economy? Let me guess which of the two Cruella deVil will want....

Therumbler    [29983.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:53]

Yahoo goes to Ireland because of snooping in UK, Theresa May upset.

phantom    [29982.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:11]
  Err... can I ask. Where are actually the LibDems these days?
Officially, they are part of the government. Officially, they claim to be a brake on the Tory government.
But where are they? How come a government containing the LibDems starts banning things?
Has anyone heard a cogent argument made by the LibDems explaining how it is that they are putting their names to banning stuff?
Surely, this is the Conservatives (`family values`, `Christianity`, `taste and `decency`, yadda, yadda) wanting to ban.
And yes, in parliament they seem to be in an odd coalition with the Labour party on the subject of censorship.

But if I recall correctly the LibDems were essentially opposed to the introduction of the DPA. Now they are in government, they are signing off on its expansion.

We all know that you can`t get everything you want in a coalition government. But I fail to see anything the LibDems have got for their abject surrender on this subject.

Moreover where are they on this? They are utterly silent. How can they be a party of government, thus jointly responsible for the introduction of legislation of proscription, and then remain entirely silent about what it is they are doing?

Essentially, the LIBERAL Democrats are setting about BANNING things.

Is it just me?

sergio    [29981.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 03:41]
  Porno pressure cooker theory from Alan Moore

DarkAngel5    [29980.   Posted 19-Mar-2014 Wed 12:38]
  Seems that the "Exempt" category on video may be done away with shortly, meaning that companies like Nucleus, Arrow and other similar cult indie labels will no longer be able to afford to put out extras on their discs...

freeworld    [29979.   Posted 19-Mar-2014 Wed 12:16]
  phantom {29977. Posted 18-Mar-2014 Tue 16:20}
It`s depressing reading the minutes of the CJCB committee deliberations on the extension to the DPA. The only crumb of comfort for haters of totalitarian law is the government, from what Jeremy Wright the Justice minister was saying, seem determined that the definitions in the DPA extension remain "tight" (penetration, in and out, realistic etc), that it conform to the rules applying to the other material covered in the existing act, and there won`t be any category widening to catch even more types of material (he actually mentions the disquiet about the whole policy represented by this sort of law which was expressed in the original DPA consultation by many - though, naturally, he fails to mention the need for a new offence was rejected overwhelmingly by respondents). Tabled amendments 14, 28 and 29 would make the law very broad indeed. However, they are gone, for the moment, the amendments were withdrawn.

"I think that we are all conscious of the fact that in discussing the clause and the amendments, we must strike a delicate balance.... We are talking about the most extreme and disturbing images, but also those that, although distasteful to most, might not warrant the intervention of the criminal law. We must therefore be careful to balance our distaste, and in some cases disgust, against the personal sexual freedoms of consenting adults to behave as they wish without undue state interference" .

"The amendment would have the effect of bringing within the parameters of this tightly drawn offence the possession of extreme images that depict any non-consensual sexual activity...arguably capture relatively low-level sexual contact such as kissing and touching. Of course, we are not here to defend non-consensual sexual activity in any form, but I do not think it is appropriate to target the depiction of the broader this offence"


Wright gives the boot (for now) to the idea that if it won`t get into a classified film, then it should be illegal to possess - this point, inspired by Austin of the BBFC`s evidence, being used by certain committee members in their attempt to advocate a wider scope for the new offence.

Not much of Wright`s "balance", or a marked concern for "personal sexual freedoms" was in evidence when it came to the committee`s Champion and Jarvis; those Labour members were advocating the creation of a more comprehensive, broader based new offence. In the course of this, we see adult porn conflated with that involving the underage - a familiar strategy adopted by advocates of censorship trying to justify restrictions on adult material. Champion doesn`t appear adequately familiar with existing law on child images (or the DPA come to that), that separate legislation provides protection for unreal images of children, and the DPA is exclusively concerned with adult images, ones which allegedly look the real McCoy. So, we get this - -

"Would that cover animation? I do not really know anything about animation, but does the Minister think that animated images of a child would be covered?"

- Champion

This statement by Champion rather defeated me - what does it mean? -

"However, if there is a way in which the amendments can underline what is and what is not acceptable, instead of having these broad parameters, it would help people to understand what is and is not appropriate behaviour"

- Champion

But she has just quoted "Durham university" (the talking building)so maybe we can have a good idea -

“While those who view extreme pornography will not necessarily go on to commit sexual offences, their use of such materials sustains a culture in which a ‘no’ to sexual activity is not taken seriously; in which equality and dignity are not protected”.

So, the existing proposed extension is, to some critics, far too narrow, in which case I would have thought "narrow parameters" was the appropriate phrase. Thus they believe in a much more stringent, wider law, not necessarily just to address real life criminal abuse, but to create a "culture", to "protect" "equality and dignity". Such a situation requiring the sort of amendments tabled in committee, and incorporating some more of the "broadeners" ideas into it as well. This position needs some examination. We can see that in the minds of those expressing such views, all this is going much further than the state legislating to supposedly tackle a problem of "real life" sex criminality, it`s also to forward "correct thinking". So a DPA or DPA sort of law is a tool which should be used (in some minds) to exercise control in the private sphere over things that should be left alone by the state as matters of private taste etc, and none of its business. Either people behave with what some external arbiter defines as, "appropriate" when it comes to, let`s say "dignity and equality" in their private lives - or else.

In creating the DPA we can see the Rubicon was crossed; implementing such legislation can be used to justify government intrusions into a broad range of areas the state doesn`t go outside of totalitarian nations. This is one major reason many of us thought the DPA was such an appalling development from the beginning - out of concern for freedom, not any love of pornography. A law with no well proven established basis in actual harm, which coasts on justifications based on opinions/highly partial research, used exclusively to justify a pre-decided agenda; not evidence used properly, impartially, to see if there is a need for a law in the first place. The potential for mission creep possible once such totalitarian principles are deemed acceptable in one instance, are endless. One bad law interfering in private life can easily grow to encompass just about anything and everything else someone in power thinks "isn`t appropriate", which they disapprove of. We can argue about the practical merits of laws which exist concerning child protection, but we can`t deny that a large scale problem of abuse has been proved to exist, which makes is legitimate for the state to address the problem by law, even via invasions of privacy. The state which does this does not thereby abolish its legitimacy as a free and liberal one which respects private life. Despite the bogus drawing of parallels by many DPA advocates, no comparable situation to that which exists with children, was proved to also exist over adult material - thus the DPA has no justification in a free society, born as it was out of an understandable but ultimately hysterical reaction to a solitary criminal case, and justified by using opinions (and downright lies) masquerading as "proof" of harm.

Time and again in the UK in recent years what is felt by some to be socially undesirable or "not very nice", but is actually inevitably part of a free society, has been made subject to criminal sanction. That is totalitarianism. You can see from this debate where setting such precedents can lead to. On another tack, we have parliament currently mulling over whether to make private "psychological coercion and control etc" a criminal offence, rather than just physical violence. Needless to say, the self appointed "wimmin`s groups" are leading the charge for this legislation - it would be fascinating to see what sort of evidential criteria might be concocted to create an offence over this which has any chance of securing beyond reasonable doubt convictions.

Champion wants adult animated material included in the new offense as well (" there a way that we can incorporate it?"). Champion cites statistics she`s been given by lobbyists about the contents of "rape porn" imagery, but, in this day`s committee meeting, resorts to anecdotal generalizations and opinion when it comes to "evidence" of any harm, those alleged widespread detrimental effects that are going on as a result of all this stuff, including supposed desensitization of young men and the harm done to young women by it. The latter now seems to be a "given", accepted by everyone who mentioned the matter in the committee, despite the fact that the assertion is, to say the least, highly controversial, and there exists evidence to the contrary. Yet those who uncritically and automatically swallow this kind of thinking must, logically, believe films featuring murders invariably create hordes of killers, and vampire movies masses of cloaked blood suckers on every street corner. Pure moral panic, and no different in essence to the hysteria with which sanctimonious busybodies, censors through the ages, have reacted to books, films, tv etc which they believed would somehow "corrupt the masses". How the BBFC/Ofcom crowd have not turned into knife wielding, deranged, sex fiends is a mystery given their exposure to so much of this evil stuff day after day. Why are nations unblest with dangerous pictures acts (that is, every other one in the western world) not overrun by drooling sex criminals? We may rest assured such questions don`t intrude to disturb the cozy convivial back slapping consensus of UK legislators.

Some in committee seem to harbour the delusion that criminalizing possession makes something on the Internet unavailable, "a ban" - or that is how their statements read - are they really that stupid? Clearly the only ones they listen to are those who tell them what they want to hear, and chime with their own prejudices ( "following a recent campaign led by women’s groups"...Wright). I couldn`t see anything being said about the contributions from Backlash, CAAN, or other opponents to such legislation, apart from Wright`s references back to the old DPA consultation. Plenty of facts and statistics in there to challenge the claims from "wimmins groups". We have, in effect, governance by pressure group these days - self appointed "experts", aggressive and noisy minorities who claim to speak for far larger numbers than they actually do - who the politicians continually confuse/conflate with public opinion. I think we can be fairly certain of what will happen with all this if/when Labour are writing the laws from next year. Merely "tied up and whimpering" might well become a "criminal image" to possess, creating still more "sex criminals" out of harmless members of the general public. This current move will seem modest and limited in comparison.

Evidence led legislation; no unnecessary new laws, only ones where there is firm proof they are needed - Mr Cameron`s incoming government. One is reminded of the old saying that whenever all the politicians seem to be agreed on something, you can almost guarantee it will be wrong. We are a nation governed by idiots - in case you didn`t know. It`s our fault - "we" put them there.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29978.   Posted 19-Mar-2014 Wed 08:27]

Even more MPs falling over themselves to dream up censorial ideas today, select committee report to follow

phantom    [29977.   Posted 18-Mar-2014 Tue 16:20]
  re: Extreme Censors...

Ah yes, Labour at its best. Internet companies ought to treat `extreme porn` like child abuse.
And their favourite verb `to normalise` makes another appearance.

I wonder whether they can actually point to any other use of this very odd verb, outside of censorship.

phantom    [29976.   Posted 15-Mar-2014 Sat 13:51]
  Lol. You`re probably right there, Dave.

I wonder how many of those they chose to ask were elderly ladies with blue rinses, or parents accompanied by their offspring and vice versa. In contrast, how many do we think will have been folks wearing death metal t-shirts, with purple hair and a nose stud.

One would think it fair to say that one could heavily influence the outcome of this research by whom one approached `at random`. ;)

After all, `research` these days often tells you more about the researcher than the researched subject.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29975.   Posted 15-Mar-2014 Sat 12:11]

If I remember correctly, the BBFC `research` on sexual violence was to ask a couple of dozen people in the street what their views were, and then accept what they said as BBFC policy `backed by research`.

phantom    [29974.   Posted 15-Mar-2014 Sat 08:16]
  re: BBFC suggests further extensions to Dangerous Pictures...

David Austin : "That will align our standards on harm, which are based on research, with the standards applied by Atvod, the Authority for Television on Demand, which is the UK regulator of UK-hosted video on demand. That legislation would cover UK-hosted content that I have just described."

Another David Austin gem. "standards of harm, based on research"? Pray, what research is this, dear David? The great, wise book of opinion, authored by David Austin, per chance?

Worth pointing out that in agent Rome the position of `Censor` was a political office. Today censors prefer to call themselves `Experts`.
But this Mr Austin sure sounds like a politician to me...

phantom    [29973.   Posted 15-Mar-2014 Sat 08:10]
  re: BBFC suggests further extensions to Dangerous Pictures...

David Austin : "The fact that animated images can be harmful is already accepted by Parliament in the Coroners and Justice Act where pseudo images of children in sexual abuse situations are illegal."

A perfect example of the can-opener style use of a previously introduced law, illustrating how liberal forces have been blind-sided with child porn law.

A great deal of nonsense has been introduced under the guise of anti-child porn law, not protecting a single child, but instead laying the ground work for a move on legislation governing pornography per se.

Libertarians were outflanked by this, deeming it unwise to oppose bad child porn law in the face of hysteria in the media. - And because information on these hideous legislative moves was deliberately kept scarce.

But now unsavoury characters like Austin can point to parliamentary acceptance of certain ideas as they press on for their real goal; pornography proper.

MichaelG    [29972.   Posted 14-Mar-2014 Fri 12:52]
  Re: BBFC suggests further extensions to Dangerous Pictures...

Another moralising, talentless twerp trying to make a name for himself by the look of things, and doubtless this current `assistant director` at the BBFC has his eyes on the top job there. Heaven help us if he gets it.

So now suggestions are that the DPA should cover `abduction scenarios where individuals are shown bound, kidnapped, struggling with bonds, and whimpering -- shown as victims restrained against their will with no other context`. OK, so that`s anyone who has ever subscribed to top US porn fetish site in line for arrest then... and remember that has showcased hardcore scenes with some of the USA`s top pornstars including Jessie Rogers, Sasha Grey, Annika Allbright and Remy LaCroix, all of whom are shown happily chatting to the cameras and with their `abusers` following the shoot. All consensual and no-one actually harmed during filming, but the context is all that seems to be the focus now, reality be damned. I guess any of Bill Zebub`s hysterically bad, low budget horror movies could also be in the firing line if this becomes part of the DPA.

I`m beginning to wonder if the key to fighting this is having alternative sexual practices or sexuality officially recognised by and protected by the law in the way that homosexuality/lesbianism is.

This whole scenario is now in danger of getting so far out of hand that it`s like something out of a Lewis Carroll story.

"Off with his head!!!"

phantom    [29971.   Posted 14-Mar-2014 Fri 06:45]
  Harvey [29969]

Well, most likely they were waiting for the storm over police officers investigated for extreme porn possession to blow over. You know, stones. Glass houses. ;)

But on a more serious note, there may be more to it.
When I hear `extreme porn` these days, I too immediately wonder, what was the original cause for arrest? One virtually hears the scraping of the bottom of the accusation barrel.

But the first question one asks here is, how reliable is the reporter`s language?

"Three teachers have been arrested on suspicious of possessing extreme pornographic material AT two Birmingham schools."

Was the alleged possession at the schools; as in porn on school computers? Or are the accused merely teachers at said schools? Let`s say the language is ambiguous.

The BBC article sheds no further light on it.

But how do you come to investigate three teachers from two different schools simultaneously? On extreme porn of all things? For nearly a year?
One can`t help but at least suspect that `extreme porn` is being flourished to excuse the use of a year`s worth of police time which has otherwise would prove wasted.

Pooch    [29970.   Posted 14-Mar-2014 Fri 06:34]
  @phantom [29968]: You said: "If Dworkin, Greer and Harman are to be believed, women are the victims of society. [snip]" then asked "How come in the UK men are three times more likely to commit suicide?"

From your "food for thought" comment, the implication is that it`s really men that are the "victims of society", when in fact, we men have it far easier than women, in general. You only need to look at how far most men get in life, compared to the majority of women.

How many female Managing Directors of major global companies are there?

How many female MPs are there?

How many men are in part-time work, versus the number of women doing the same?

By your assertion, women don`t have it hard. The fact that more men commit suicide over women, can`t be directly linked, because there are no statistics that prove (or say) that the reason men in the UK are three-times more likely to kill themselves, than women, is due to X, Y or Z reasons.

Maybe the reason more men kill themselves, is because they`re all weak-willed morons, who just can`t hack life? Maybe it`s because they`re all sad, lonely losers who feel they don`t want to deal with the things that life throws them? Maybe it`s because they just want an easy solution to ending their lives? Or, possibly, it`s got absolutely nothing to do with the way women are perceived in society at all, and it`s just that most men have a different, inferior way of dealing with stuff, compared to most women.

I`m not suggesting at all, that anyone who commits suicide is weak, stupid, pathetic or a loser. They aren`t. To commit suicide, you must have got to a really crappy stage in your life, where you feel that ending it all is the best option. (I was also being deliberately facetious in the above paragraph.) But likewise, men who do commit suicide may not be doing it because of anything to do with women.

Maybe the fact that most women tend to have larger groups of friends than man, has something to do with it? Maybe women are more emotionally strong and resilient when it comes to dealing with life? Maybe women don`t feel killing themselves is a good or sensible option?

Maybe it`s got nothing to do with anything at all, and it`s merely a sad statistic, that happens not to favour men? Who knows? Maybe more women than men die in car accidents? Does that mean more women drive badly, or could the gender of the driver have absolutely nothing to with it whatsoever?

Desperately trying to link one thing directly to the other, is rather Daily Mail-ish in my view, and poor form from you, because I know you`re a much better, more intelligent person than that!

There`s likely to be no specific, scientifically-deduceable reason why men are more than three times likely to end their lives, than women. I suspect, it`s got nothing to do with the way women and men are treated or preceived in society, and much more to do with a lack of mental health services for people in general, and also, more to do with the fact many men don`t like and don`t want to talk to other people about what`s going-on in their lives and all of their emotions that arise from whatever is going-on in their lives too.

Food for thought?! Yes, I think it very much is!

Harvey    [29969.   Posted 14-Mar-2014 Fri 05:22]
  DPA Arrests.

"Three teachers have been arrested on suspicious of possessing extreme pornographic material at two Birmingham schools.

The men, aged 32, 36, and 37, were arrested at addresses in Birmingham and Wolverhampton following an investigation that began in April last year."

No suggestion that this involves images of children.

Arrested in March 2014 following an investigation which began in April 2013 - which makes these arrests puzzling. Are the police really undertaking year long investigations into the possession of "extreme" porn? Or was this an investigation into something else entirely and the police have made the arrests to somehow justify spending all that time chasing whatever it was?

I hope they are getting decent legal advice.

phantom    [29968.   Posted 13-Mar-2014 Thu 07:53]
  If Dworkin, Greer and Harman are to be believed, women are the victims of society. Exploited, exposed, trafficked and belittled.
The media is against them, they are surrounded by imagery which reduces their self esteem; not least in their own magazines and in music videos. In the workplace everything is stacked against them. They have to work twice as hard as men to get any credit. Their pay is dreadful. Cultural bias against women reigns supreme. Violence against them is encouraged in all fiction, especially film and TV drama. The police do not protect them against domestic violence. In rape courts the odds are stacked against them. And porn demeans them beyond measure, objectifying them to all and sundry.

So we are told.

How come in the UK men are three times more likely to commit suicide?

Food for thought.

sergio    [29967.   Posted 9-Mar-2014 Sun 13:24]
  Great R18 titles in Jan 2014
For February it`s a toss up between

phantom    [29966.   Posted 8-Mar-2014 Sat 20:09]
  braintree [29965]
"I wasn`t implying that he actually was a member of DS or that DS features negative comments about this forum ."

No one said that you were implying anything, Braintree. Ftmsafc is doing the implying here.

Just check out his post. It consists of three lines.

"Have I just read that some folk on here are sticking up for peados?"

So, a) he has just read that people on here... That implies he`s read it somewhere else. He suggests that someone somewhere has posted that we`re `sticking up for paedophiles` and that he`s come here to check. That is the implication.

"I hope I got the wrong end of the stick here? Unreal if true."

Thus b) I hope you will declare this a misunderstanding and you`ll explain yourselves, publicly reaffirming the received wisdom (aka my view), to reassure me that you`re pukka people, lest it otherwise be "unreal".

Now sure, it`s all inference. But it appears impossible to infer anything else.

It is a classic piece of phoney outrage.
One deliberately fails to understand the brevity of an argument in order to express outrage and disgust over what one chooses to understand in order to dismiss the perfectly cogent argument out of hand.

It is these histrionics which have replaced rational argument when it comes to policy areas such as narcotics, terrorism, prostitution, porn, paedophiles, rape, etc.
e.g. `will not someone think of the children!`, `if it saves only one life!`
As though an excess in emotion somehow adds strength to an argument.

It is the reason why in those areas of politics nonsense prevails.

Society once ascribed to people a certain credence who played Beatles records backwards and assured us `scientifically` that these LPs contained hidden subliminal messages, encouraging us to have sex, worship Satan or smoke marihuana.
But then, in a rare outbreak of widespread enlightenment, we decided to dismiss these people as emotive, overly imaginative nuts who simply wished for there to be a conspiracy for them to fight. The world saw it for what it was; histrionic nonsense.

But this was before the cult of victimhood took hold in politics.
Don`t believe there is such a cult?
Then lets check out the full title of Damian Green MP, shall we?

"Minister of State for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims"

Yes, victims now have their own minister. So too have women, children and families. Men, adults and single people don`t have a minister. Rather telling, no?
And let`s not forget Karen Bradley MP:
"Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime"
Yes, even slaves have a minister now. :)

Histrionics and victimhood create the perfect political blend. Not least as it calls on the government to provide `protection`. And protection in political terms always equates with severity.
And governments love severity. They believe it makes them look firm and decisive.

And why else have we a Home Secretary who looks like Cruella deVil...? :)

braintree    [29965.   Posted 8-Mar-2014 Sat 17:01]

I wasn`t implying that he actually was a member of DS or that DS features negative comments about this forum .
During the short time I was a member of DS I did once add a link to this site and someone wrote the entire site off because there is a section called "bollox Britain".
My mentions of DS are to indicate my contempt for the majority of the forum members on their GD forum where it`s hard not to laugh at the comments often posted.
Its the kind of place where if you disagree with someone you`ll be accused of trolling.
I can almost guarantee that if the post from earlier that suggested similarities to being gay and being a paedophile ( similar only in being unable to choose what turns you on of course) was posted on DS it would either be removed by mods or that you would be accused of being a troll in less than a page of comments as most members over there don`t have the brains to go beyond tabloid headline thinking- present company excepted

Therumbler    [29964.   Posted 8-Mar-2014 Sat 16:35]
  Given that ftmsafc has previously posted on here, it may be a simply case of trolling. I did an additional search of other forums and found no negative reference to melonfarmers in the past three months.

MichaelG    [29963.   Posted 8-Mar-2014 Sat 11:36]
  Well, if we are being watched or listened to I truly don`t give a fuck. We are expressing opinions, nothing more, and even between The Ed Miller Band`s lot and the Con-Dems they haven`t outlawed that... yet!

But just in case ftmsafc thinks he`s got us on the back foot because he`s got the capability to snoop or eavesdrop, and thus intimidate members of forums such as this one whilst he hides behind a pseudonym, and that he`s some kind of digital detective, secretly righting wrongdoers on forums such as this for expressing opinions which he misinterprets to suit his own ends, try this for size...

ftmsafc is a football-themed acronym (of sorts) for `Fuck The Mags Sunderland Association Football Club`, the Mags in this case being `The Magpies`/AKA Newcastle United Football Club. So, we can now deduce that a) he`s a football fan and likely the worst kind of such; b) he more than likely lives in Sunderland, in the north-east of England; and c) he`s really not very bright.

OK ftmsafc, your turn. Do you know that much about any of us? I doubt it. Now jog on and play somewhere else while the grown ups have a chat, will you? There`s a good lad...

phantom    [29962.   Posted 7-Mar-2014 Fri 17:25]
  Well, I`ve no idea whether ftmsafc is a DS member. I`m not sure I care.
But there is a certain implied menace to someone coming along and dropping a line to let us know that unnamed `others` are aware of our talking here and don`t approve of what has or has not been said.
An especially interesting approach to take on the Melonfarmers `censorship forum`, no? :)
One implies that we are being talked about somewhere and that we ought to justify ourselves to this unknown group.

Therumbler    [29961.   Posted 7-Mar-2014 Fri 17:12]
  I`m a DS member. Just did a search on those forums and this place has only been mentioned once in the past month.

braintree    [29960.   Posted 7-Mar-2014 Fri 14:23]
  The Digital Spy invasion has begun. FTMSAFC exhibits all the traits of being a DS member . Not very bright.
Edit- which is a shame as at least one of his previous posts actually talks sense about the Labour Loons we suffered for far too long

MichaelG    [29959.   Posted 7-Mar-2014 Fri 13:44]
  Re: ftmsafc [29956]

Come back when you`ve grown a brain and learned how to read.

phantom    [29958.   Posted 7-Mar-2014 Fri 06:59]
  Re: Governments are spying on our sexual lives. Will we tolerate it?

This is a real oddity.
Not merely because the authorities have been storing webcam snaps.
But more so because one can but wonder what they were actually hoping to find.
I mean what possible use to anti terror efforts could it be to store millions of randomly snapped freeze frames of webcam conversations?
Surely the results of any such trawl are going to be worthless by default.
So why store them? Moreover, why hold on to them?
How come it took four years of phishing for such imagery (2008-2012) until they realised there was just no point? Were they looking for Bin Laden? (killed 2011)

Just how much did this cost? Has anyone accounted for the money wasted on this pointless venture?
Has anyone been fired? If not for the breech of civil liberties, simply for the irresponsible squandering of public funds.

The most staggering aspect is simply the utter uselessness and futility of their operation. That is, unless they are lying to us about their actual aims.
But what possible information could a picture from a web conversation be? Even if the conversation is in fact criminal or terrorism related? You don`t have the conversation, only a picture. You can`t possibly discern what was said from a picture.
Or are the geniuses at GCHQ under the impression that all webcam conversations of wanna-be terrorists will look like terrorist `martyr videos`, complete with Kalashnikov on lap and al-Qaeda flag draped in the background?

What is perfectly clear however is that the governments of the `five eyes` countries have given up any pretence about caring for the rights of their own citizenry. Moreover they know there is nothing their own citizens can do about it. And they intend to keep it that way.
(Meanwhile, they criticise Putin for being an `autocrat`.)

There is of course a supreme irony in the fact that the government which bans certain types of pornography has acquired one of the largest collections of pornography in the world, including no doubt the very types of porn it says nobody else should be entitled to own.
So possibly the biggest collection of `extreme porn` in the UK is now in the hands of the Home Secretary. Moreover not a single one of these pics was obtained consensually. Food for thought.

phantom    [29957.   Posted 6-Mar-2014 Thu 18:09]
  ftmsafc [29956]
What precisely does "sticking up for peados {sic}" mean in your book?

ftmsafc    [29956.   Posted 6-Mar-2014 Thu 17:39]
  Have I just read that some folk on here are sticking up for peados? I hope I got the wrong end of the stick here? Unreal if true.

freeworld    [29955.   Posted 5-Mar-2014 Wed 12:42]
  phantom {29954. Posted 5-Mar-2014 Wed 06:53} I`m of the age where I can understand the guy, whoever it was, who wrote - first half of my life things were getting freer, the second half the opposite.

The e-cig, which has the potential to save millions of people, is evil in the eyes of many of the "righteous" not because it`s harmful in itself (though they have fibbed about physical harm - opinion masquerading as evidence, as usual), but because it "looks like smoking". Our EU "friends" have already decreed new restrictions, including strength bans and a total tobacco style promotion ban from 2016 - they have connived in creating untold numbers of needless deaths.

Ideology/panic comes first, then spurious "evidence" is created later to back it up - whether it be porn harm, e-cigs, the perils of prostitution etc. Part of the problem here is the sheer number of existence justifying quangos Bliar and co created, along with a yellow media which is easily manipulated by axe grinders, and sensationalizes to attract more readers/watchers/listeners; plus an ever growing political class, far bigger than is actually needed which - well, the Devil makes work for idle hands.

It`s the sheer flying in the face of all rationality that is so striking these days. All the stuff a few years ago from Cameron and co about only "proper evidence based laws" seems very hollow now. The smug arrogance of thinking you can "end prostitution" by more laws (though many of us would say prostitution is not necessarily something that needs "ending" anyway); that the DPA is a rational riposte to (non existent) snuff films made in Guatemala, that sex criminals like paedos will stop looking at drawn porn if there`s a law against it. Elderly slebs dragged into expensive court cases over possibly (or possibly not, who the hell can say for sure after so many years) feeling a woman`s leg when Heath was prime minister. It all parallels the resoundingly successful big state crusades like the "war on drugs", which followed the equally smashing triumph of US national alcohol prohibition. In the case of the last 2, the law of unintended consequence soon clicked in, making problems far worse than they had been/new ones develop as a result.

“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air—that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. . . .In any dispute between a citizen and the government, it is my instinct to side with the citizen . . . I am against all efforts to make men virtuous by law.”

― H.L. Mencken

The present era politicians answer to everything is another law or regulation.

phantom    [29954.   Posted 5-Mar-2014 Wed 06:53]
  freeworld    [29953]

Seems Tim Worstall in his Adam Smith Institute article has also spotted the `leniency` lie about prostitutes `only` getting ASBOs.
Vaz and Mactaggart are not the types who go easy on people.
`Punish, punish, punish,` is rather their motto.
So I think it`s fairly clear that the proposed policy of handing out ASBOs is in fact a convenient way of really turning the screw on prostitutes – but without it figuring in any statistics.

But for the ban on prostitution as a whole, of course it is a lunacy.
It has always been so, but mankind has been trying for ages. With zero success.
Prostitution is part of the human condition. It is. It will be.

I`m not sure I agree with Tim Worstall that the idea of trafficked women forced into the sex trade does not exist at all. I think it is reasonable to believe that it does exist.
However, where reason goes out the window tends to be when claims are made that it`s an epidemic and thousands, if not tens of thousands of women are suffering such fates.
The truth is there is nothing to substantiate any claims of such scale. It is pure imagination.

But we live in the age of the phantom threat. We are told we are in peril from invisible threats which only `experts` can tell us about. After all, how many terrorists have you ever met?

And it is anti terrorist thinking more than anything else which colours our times. For it is primarily an area of pure imagination. For if we can imagine an atrocity, surely someone will commit it. Right?
I recall a TV interview with a White House advisor who resigned when he realised that the apparent reality of a threat didn`t matter any more. Those who could make up the most terrifying scenarios were those who won the president`s ear.

We live in this age. The age of the worst imaginable scenario.

Thus if something can be imagined, we must take steps to prevent it. Whether anyone is actually doing it or not.

It is a societal delusion.

But most of all it is a delusion of the powerful. It is a delusion born of fear. A fear that they might be held responsible for something that could happen/might be happening. So evidence be damned. Something must be done. To allay their fear. Or at least to hold them free of blame.

Thus we enter into a world of neurotic and sexual phobias. Reason has left this party long ago.
History will look back on this era with disbelief. We have entered another crazed period of severity and autocracy driven by fear. The sort of state of irrational panic doomsayers and demagogues like senator McCarthy or Noel Pemberton Billing MP thrive on.

Drugs policy flies in the face of anything that makes sense. Yesterday there was even someone on Newsnight demanding e-cigarettes get banned. Just because. The law on prostitution is risible and set to get worse. Porn laws have become a running joke. Censors are running riot. Even music videos now are suspect. What of the world`s cultural output soon will not be above suspicion? The punitive scale is out of all proportion and set only to get more severe. But we must be protected. We need protecting! Everything is a threat to us, our children, our morals, our health, our sanity. We are the most threatened people of all time. - Or the most timorous and paranoid.

Welcome to the Mad Hatter`s tea party.

freeworld    [29953.   Posted 5-Mar-2014 Wed 02:17]
  Oscar did "use" female prostitutes at times, I was actually referring to them when I wrote "prostitutes", though the young men he "used" could probably be classed as prostitutes, most had other full time occupations. Servicing well off gay gents being a lucrative sideline. Initially Wilde was seemingly completely heterosexual, he did marry and had 2 children too. So he was bisexual, though the homo side became predominant with time. He last had hetero sex with prostitutes not long before he died in French exile, when he went with the heterosexual poet Ernest Dowson to a brothel - he didn`t enjoy it.The land Oscar escaped to, leaving "censorious Victorian Britain" for France in 1897, is currently in the process of making buying sex illegal under Hollande`s government. So if Wilde committed that act of going with female prostitutes in France in modern times, he would be treated in France as a criminal, like he was treated in the UK back in the "dark ages" of 1895 for his homosexual crimes. So dies "more enlightened" France. Even Wilde`s relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas might fall foul of a "buying sex" law, as he gave Douglas gifts and money. Thus a modern Wilde would possibly go to jail for a number of reasons under a "buying sex" prohibition, just as he did over his sexual activities in 1895.; so much for all the hypocritical tut tutting about how much better we are these days than in the stupid "bigoted" past, when people were condemned and criminalized over private consensual sexuality. Wilde did everything the MacTaggart tendency dislike and condemn; any sanctification of Wilde, or any other figure from history who suffered over their sexuality and used paid for partners (Brian Epstein etc) by those who wish to criminalize buying sex, is gross hypocrisy.

At the core of the feminist extremist`s belief is one that heterosexual sex is simply ideologically wrong, as it is "unequal" - ie one is asserted to be "dominant" over the other(invariably said to be the male). Where participants are of the same sex, then things must be much more "equal". Thus if heterosexual sex is to be permitted at all, it`s only with stringent controls and with state intervention hanging over it. It`s crazy, sure. The religious fanatics beliefs are different, being to do with the sinful nature of sex out of marriage and when it`s not purely for procreation. And they are often highly intolerant of any homosexual activities. Said beliefs being derived from the "holy writings" of scribes from obscure little desert tribes in the ancient world. But the 2 are allies in the case of heterosexual sex, in that they both share the same objective - greater criminalization and state surveillance of heterosexual sexuality.

I`m afraid it`s certain to happen if Miliband takes office - and I wouldn`t bet on Dave not looking favourably on it if he felt there was any mileage politically to gain - I think his "principles" are pretty elastic, he blows with the wind. On the "Mail" article I saw only one isolated commentator cheer for the proposals - most were heavily against - but the public haven`t yet been softened up by propaganda.

The only good thing in all this is one may foresee a number of the slimy hypocrites pushing for such a law fall foul of it themselves.

Adam Smith institute article criticizes sex purchase proposals -

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29948.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 17:58]
  braintree Re Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide 2

I don`t think the release date has been announced yet. It definitely will be released though. There`s a placeholder page with a 12 quid price tag on the Nucleus website:

braintree    [29947.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 15:34]
  Not sure if this is the right place to ask , but regarding the Video Nasties Draconian Days documentary plugged several times on this site - anyone know when / if there will be a dvd release ?

phantom    [29946.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 07:16]
  freeworld {29940}
"One reason why the dangerous drawings act was probably counter productive, is in that it makes illegal a way these often dangerous people can be rendered less harmful to society. Sadly we can`t expect calm rationality from this political class, just sanctimony and jerking knees."

Creating the DDA was a strange inversion of the reason we have laws to prevent child abuse.

The logic behind the ban on child porn has always been that it protects children from being abused in the making of child porn. It was not because of some vague belief that looking at child porn pictures `makes` paedophiles.

Drawings cannot possibly have seen children abused in their making, so the overriding reason for the ban simply doesn`t exist here.

Thus, the DDA was simply created on the belief widely held in parliament that looking at pictures can turn people into paedophiles. Looking at more pictures can turn them yet more paedophile.

The DDA was thus created not to protect children directly, but to prevent the creation of paedophiles, or the reinforcement of paedophilia within `budding paedophiles`.

The main reason for the creation of anti child porn law was politely dropped; namely the prevention of child abuse in the creation of the pictures.

Naturally none of this makes even the slightest sense. But then nobody ever said it did.

If you were to propose that looking at gay porn can turn people gay, or turn men inclined to gayness into full gays, you may well wind yourself at the end of a charge on gay hate crime.

But if you state this about pedos, that`s fine. It might not make sense, but it`s state-approved nonsense. :)

phantom    [29945.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 07:01]
  freeworld [29940]

""Martyred by the Victorian bigots" Oscar Wilde (something of a NuLab icon, though he probably would have despised them) would not go to jail now because he was a practicing gay; but in our day he would be on trial and maybe go to jail as well, if the political class make all "paying for sex" illegal. The sainted Oscar was a user of prostitutes; he gave money and expensive gifts to his favourite rent boys,treated them to pricey meals; he was a "sex tourist" too "exploiting" impoverished vulnerable youths in foreign climes."

Actually, I would not at all be surprised if male prostitution was exempt from any proposals which eventually come to parliament. I have not heard a word about male prostitution from the paragons of virtue what are our back bench expenses fiddlers.

The presence of all those feminist groups in support of this legislation again suggests that only females are `victims` here.
Add to that the maniacal don`t-do-anything-to-upset-the-gay-lobby doctrine and my guess is that male prostitution will be completely disregarded by any legal attempt on prostitution.

The fact that the principle per se would be disregarded in doing so doesn`t really matter. Politicians are very adept at passing law which violates the principle it is supposed to uphold.

phantom    [29944.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 06:53]
  re: Selfish Moralists...

Interesting line here:
"Prostitutes who are caught loitering on streets plying their trade should be given anti-social behaviour orders rather than being prosecuted, the group will say."

One might think that this suggests our religious friends wish to go easier on prostitutes, instead concentrating on the men who hire them.

BUT as someone familiar with newspeak I notice a little manoeuvering room Keith Vaz and friends have left themselves in order to do what they like doing most - to punish.
Namely this; prostitutes are unlikely to retire due to being given an ASBO.

But the elegance of the Blairite ASBO monstrosity was that you no longer got punished for any particular offence but for the breech of the ASBO.
So if you hit prostitutes with ASBOs your potential scope for punishing a secondary offence suddenly becomes gynormous. Because you no longer punish them for `prostitution` but for breech of the parameters placed upon them by the ASBO.

So far from going easy on prostitutes, this presents the powers-that-be with a hidden potential to go much, much harder on them. Yet by sounding softly, softly.

For someone like me, who doesn`t trust anyone in the political set further than he can through them, this little loophole may mean that their apparent leniency toward the `prostitute victim` in their new offence landscape may in fact be a complete pretence.

The ASBO tactic may in fact only disguise an intention to clamp down much harder, but to disguise the statistics in the ASBO section of the criminal justice system - thus rendering the punishment of prostitutes invisible (and thereby much more possible!).

And what chance that - once this new ASBO branch would be successfully up and running - that it wouldn`t be widened to prostitution per se, rather than street prostitution? I think in the minds of people like Keith Vaz or Fiona Mactaggart that would rank pretty high on the agenda.

freeworld    [29943.   Posted 4-Mar-2014 Tue 02:29]
  phantom {29942. Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 18:36}
Well, medieval history buffs might also relish the irony of a 21st century "Jon Gaunt" being on the same side as a "Jack Straw"!

phantom    [29942.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 18:36]
  Ah yes, Mr Gaunt.
Is is only me who sees the irony in that name? :P

freeworld    [29941.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 17:56]
  phantom {29939. Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 15:59}
Jon Gaunt?
Gaunt is fat and was on Talksport. He kept Liberty`s support for his "free speech" stance, but not the court`s.

I believe Gaunt has joined UKIP - but if he`s a DPA supporter, that doesn`t do much for any claim they have to be a libertarian party - which is something they`ve said they are. I recall UKIP was, at the time, against the DPA.

freeworld    [29940.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 17:28]
  Yes - I agree with pretty much all of that. One reason why the dangerous drawings act was probably counter productive, is in that it makes illegal a way these often dangerous people can be rendered less harmful to society. Sadly we can`t expect calm rationality from this political class, just sanctimony and jerking knees.

As to Hitler - "the buck stops here", the sign President Truman used to have on his desk. Hitler was head of state, all the rest were under him - Hitler`s devoted lap dog Heinrich Himmler would never have dared initiate a massive policy of genocide (very very disruptive to the actual war, an enormous reallocation of resources) without it coming from the boss (nor Goebbels initiate himself the enormously damaging - to the regime`s reputation abroad and the economy - "night of broken glass", in 1938). Goering passed the word to the SS that the "evacuation" of all jews was to take place in an industrially organized manner, to replace the unsatisfactory mass "action group" shootings in the east. Even at the Wansee conference of 1942, where it was planned, physical extermination doesn`t appear in the minutes, but they all knew what they were up to there - and that is why those big extermination camps in Poland were created by Himmler and Heydrich (who chaired the conference). I`ve come across the "well there was no Hitler name on any document we`ve found" thing before in relation to the sort of accusations being discussed here. I really don`t think its a very apt parallel to draw (sorry!). In the Fuhrer state that was Nazi Germany, especially in the middle of a world war, the idea that Hitler didn`t know and didn`t himself initiate the massive programme of genocide undertaken by his regime, is impossible to credit. There was quite enough to hang Hitler for mass murder if he`d lived to face trial (though the Nuremberg tribunal had questionable legal foundations).

The colossal fact of the Nazi extermination scenario was it certainly did happen, despite the deniers nonsense. There is a veritable ocean of proof these events took place, and, because of his position as Fuhrer in the Nazi state, Hitler`s responsibility/guilt for those events can be confidently asserted as a fact. The case is very different to anonymous, probably uninvestigated claims, where no concrete evidence exists to establish they ever happened, based on the words of anonymous accusers years after the alleged crimes took place. And let`s remember, there never seems to have been enough to mount a prosecution of Savile while he lived. I`ve no idea about what Savile got up to, but I`ve read enough history to know that many, even hundreds, are capable of making accusations which lack substance and the authorities can encourage it and gild the lily. Right now they are crying out for people to come to them with tales of historic abuse - and the "charities" and pressure groups are right behind - or indeed, in front of them. At least one police spokesman has said publicly that these stories will be "believed". Savile`s accusers are routinely "victims", not alleged ones in most of the media and in common public discourse. Once a ball starts rolling others, for various reasons, join in - they`ve been given plenty of encouragement.

I can remember other recent British major "witch hunts" - involving alleged "experts" - where in some cases those in authority seem to have twisted the realities in order to foster a bogus abuse "epidemic" - Orkney, Cleveland (121 supposed cases of "abuse" - children removed from parents and put into "care" - which, I think were all found wanting by the courts). Thank goodness for the courts I say, which at least can presently challenge the power of officialdom where it misuses its power. I think we should be very concerned about what Starmer (a member of the NuLab charmed circle of apparatchiks) has been saying about giving "victims" more help in court cases (they have the might of the state and all its resources in their corner, Keir, creating a case for them)- which sounds like a shot across the bows. Every unbalanced person committing suicide after an acquittal will be "used" as propaganda for a campaign to weight the system even further in favour of the Crown in order to get more - possibly unsafe - convictions in this area of the law. "Waving the bloody shirt" is a tried and tested winner when it comes to justifying new and bad legislation, right up there with "will no one think of the children?"

"Martyred by the Victorian bigots" Oscar Wilde (something of a NuLab icon, though he probably would have despised them) would not go to jail now because he was a practicing gay; but in our day he would be on trial and maybe go to jail as well, if the political class make all "paying for sex" illegal. The sainted Oscar was a user of prostitutes; he gave money and expensive gifts to his favourite rent boys,treated them to pricey meals; he was a "sex tourist" too "exploiting" impoverished vulnerable youths in foreign climes. Really hardly the sort of man who would be approved of by characters like Ms MacTaggart. In fact,if such legislation had existed in their "less enlightened" day, many historically revered figures might have been famous jail birds as well - including lots of the Queen`s own royal ancestors.

"Forgive me for the intelligence of my argument, I`d forgotten you were a member of parliament"

- Wilde

A good book which deals with hysterias(though not covering sex abuse matters) is Charles MacKays "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" - still in print - written back in the 1850s.

braintree {29937. Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 14:28}
We can`t control what turns us on - no. But, sensibly , I think, civilized societies see consent to sex as the major issue. A rapist lacks the consent of the victim. The child, society says, cannot consent legally. Of course, "child" is a subjective term rather than an objective one, and ages of consent vary across the world, and has varied here too. It was 13 before the 1885 act which raised it to 16. Richard II married his second wife when she was about 6 in the 1390s. Both Edgar Allan Poe and Jerry Lee Lewis married their 13 year old cousins - quite legal where they did it.

Of course, one possible consequence of clamping down hard on prostitution by whatever means adopted, is a rise in rape rates as frustrated men no longer are able to find a paid partner they want. Thus draconian state action over prostitution can put more none consenting women in danger of being victims of sex crime. This is the law of unintended consequences, and the pathetic political class are renowned for ignoring it.

phantom    [29939.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 15:59]
  braintree [29937]

Oh, trust me, I`ve met my fair share of unbearable people on online fora.
So I really don`t need to go looking for them.
I think the best I ever came across was that fat radio presenter whose name I`ve forgotten (was on talksport) who disagreed with my views on the DPA.

Not least as I started turning a hostile crowd around by gradually explaining to the baying mob why the DPA was such a monstrosity.
I put it to him that he ought to challenge Cameron (then the leader of the opposition) on the Tory position on the proposed DPA. Others started agreeing that this was a subject Cameron ought to be embarrassed about on air. (i.e. forced into taking a position publicly)
Folks really started understanding what my opposition to the DPA was all about and the hostility eased.

Said fat radio presenter however then got me banned from the board for - wait for this - `grooming people to my view`.
Yes, I was `grooming` adults to a particular view he happened not to like.
`Grooming` is an interesting choice of verb, isn`t it? :)

And yes, it is that same fat radio presenter who later went running to Liberty demanding his human rights be protected when he got fired from his radio show for calling someone a Nazi on air. (the poor, poor man...)
You can`t really make it up.

So yes, sorry I don`t remember his name. But I do remember he was repulsively fat. :D

braintree    [29937.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 14:28]

Your post is the kind of logic that society has been taught to ignore . I think similar things could be said regarding SOME rapists . What turns us on is not really something we consciously decide . Whether by birth or upbringing we`re stuck with it .
Just for a laugh I`d love to see you post on Digital Spy . The simple use of "gay" and "paedophile" in the same sentence would bring the morons from that site to the surface quicker than you could imagine .
Enlightened or intelligent are not words that can generally be used to describe DS users on their GD forum

phantom    [29936.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 07:36]
   freeworld    {29935}       

Well, I am hardly one of the `hang-em-higher` crowd. And when it comes to paedophilia I have stated repeatedly that I think that the nation`s leaders have lost their marbles.

Paedophiles are painted as `evil`, `vicious` and `devious` by default.
Whereas clearly, if anything, they are subject to unwanted urges.

Society has come to accept that homosexuality is something you can`t change. Just as a leopard can`t change his spots, so you cannot suddenly stop being gay.
But paedophilia we still regard as some sort of lifestyle choice. As though anyone would willingly choose to be society`s pariah.
The truth is some paedophiles are known to have been driven to suicide by the inner conflict their own urges create. They didn`t want to be what they were.
These hardly sound like the workings of an `evil, debauched, sadistic` mind to me.

Thus, my position regards paedophiles has always been rather ambivalent. Society needs protecting from them. But at the same time, exacting severity against them too seems very harsh.

It seems that the powers-that-be have resolved this conundrum by speaking of them in terms which the Nazis used for the Jews. It is little more than an attempt to pretend that there is in fact no conundrum. They just are `evil`. Whether by choice, or birth; no matter.
It is a formula it seems everyone nowadays feels obliged to parrot, no matter what.

This of course leads to the Spanish inquisition style witch hunt you describe. Because it allows the nation`s human attack dogs to run riot against a perceived `universal evil`.
This in turn leads to all sorts of excesses, both in public statements, vigilantism and legislation.
After all, when fighting Satan what can possibly be too much?

But, do I have an answer? No, I don`t. And I am very well aware of that.
There doesn`t seem to be an easy way of equitably dealing with a group of people who are, through no fault of their own, a danger to society. Yet clearly they must be tackled somehow.

What however is clear is that we are witnessing a colossal over reaction. The language has simply become completely unreasonable. To listen to some sources one would think we`d soon be shipping off any suspected paedophiles to Auschwitz.

Clearly the paedophile problem – and it undoubtedly is a problem – needs to be managed somehow. But the current policy is clearly not the solution. Institutionalised, state sponsored hatred is never the solution. It is also not healthy.


Meanwhile, when we come to Savile I`d say it does seem fairly clear that something happened and that it happened on a large scale. Not because he was `a weirdo`. Not because the authorities say so. But simply because of a mountain of what seem credible allegations.

As I said in an earlier post, we are no longer dealing with the judicial requirements for a conviction here. After death, history takes over. History operates to its own rules.
Show me the documents Hitler signed for the Krystallnacht, or for the Final Solution. If there are no such documents does that mean there is doubt? Or do we really all know, simply because some things are self evident.

When it comes to Savile, things do seem pretty plain.

freeworld    [29935.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 05:15]
  phantom {29925. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 15:10}
The claims that the Macca we have had since the 60s is really a doppelganger have little creditable evidence to support them. The Duncroft allegations, which launched the post mortem Savile frenzy, have been analysed by some independent investigators and this has tended to make some of it look rather more dubious than we have been led to believe by those in authority and the MSM. Anybody can claim something happened to them long ago when there were no other witnesses. I know if I went into the police station and said I was hit hard on the arm in 1969 by some bloke in an alley outside a bar, some bloke on the telly - and declared that though I never reported it at the time (as I thought I would not be believed) the experience had certainly ruined my whole life since - they`d almost certainly laugh and tell me to get lost - and quite rightly.
We live now in a climate where if there are enough allegations made, even the biggest police force in the country seemingly feel it`s quite correct to drop the word "alleged" when referring to accusations, untested in court, from "victims". Over the years the justice system has allowed what seems to me a highly dangerous principle to become established as a worthy one in evidence - lots of similar claims mean allegations are more likely to be true, even where there is a lack of concrete evidence for any of them. We are now seeing that idea very publicly played out in the courts, in the press, and in official reports by the authorities.

This is all something like the witch hunts of the seventeenth century. Then - a practice seen as abhorrent leads to people denouncing each other, the authorities prosecute where no real evidence exists, apart from "their word against mine" (maybe a bit of torture has extracted a highly reliable "confession"). Of course, the most famous (but far from the most appalling) witch hunt was in Salem in America in the 1690s, where it was children denouncing neighbours as witches - men and women were tried and then hung or, in some cases, expired in jail. The madness only stopped when the children started to accuse the wife of a person of great political importance - can`t have that!

Unfortunately, paedos, unlike witches in the 17th century view of them, do really exist. When people stopped believing in witchcraft of that kind, the persecutions ended. That can`t happen with paedophilia or other sexual "deviations" - they are real enough, unlike witches curses, animal "familiars" and cavortings with old Nick at Sabbats. So with "sex" there is much more scope for continuing any hysteria based mainly on fantasies -especially as the "victim" mentality is cultivated by the media, the obsessive sexual repressors like the gender extremists, and politicians on the make. So the current situation could very well get even worse. Communist spies and agents existed in the USA in the last century (actually we now know the extent was far greater than has been held in received wisdom), but the development of a climate of fear, an anti red "mania" led to some who were not communist agents at all being condemned simply on the basis of personal political beliefs and legal affiliations, in some cases suffering from state and employment/social sanctions - in the same way as those actually guilty of illegal activities. In the old days those who doubted the guilt of witches, or even their existence, often got the charge of being a witch flung at them too. How often has one seen precisely this happen when doubts expressed about Savile`s alleged activities lead to attacks labeling said doubters "paedos" themselves. In the end, not only do lots of innocent people suffer needlessly by being caught up in the hysteria, but the real problems, where they exist, often get lost in the forest of accusations - and, in the case of child abuse, rape etc, many real victims are in consequence worse off as spurious/trivial matters get attention they don`t deserve. Eventually a climate of public disbelief develops - due process of the law(thanks to juries, which Starmer and co may possibly have in their sights for cases of this sort)casting doubt on the veracity of many of the allegations being made. These claims can be ones the authorities pursue for reasons of political agendas and public relations, rather than because they have merit and are in the public interest.
Essentially we can see things don`t change, its just the things that give "justification" for hysteria based action do over the years.

braintree [29933. Posted 28-Feb-2014 Fri 14:46]
The state has a system of compensation for crimes. I believe with the alleged sex crimes there is a time limit over how far back you can go to get paid for what happened.I don`t think its very long.

Harvey [29929. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 19:09]
I doubt there would be any distinctions when it came to a UK law about paying for sex. No more than the DPA distinguishes between the real and fantasy - both are, idiotically, seen as the same, equally fiendish, and thus are illegal. From the Mail article "no distinction" seems to be the message of the "all party committee" - sex with a willing, free agent, "paid for escort girl" would be illegal, just like paying for sex with a cowering trafficked teen victim (though the penalties might differ). In their broad brush legislation "closing loopholes" is the name of the game - what they condemn as so called "loopholes" in law are often actually there because rational legislators saw "broad brushing" laws as dangerously totalitarian, sweeping up what should be illegal along with practices which should be none of the state`s damn business.

freeworld    [29934.   Posted 3-Mar-2014 Mon 04:07]
  It never ends. Criminalizing all customers, but not the ones selling. Please, those young enough - go into politics. End the reign of this aging generation of control freaks we now have everywhere.

In this coalition`s new legislative programme for 20014/15 - seems doubtful? Miliband government with a decent majority post 2015 election - seems highly probable?

braintree    [29933.   Posted 28-Feb-2014 Fri 14:46]
  I wouldn`t say I vote not guilty . I already said I believe Savile took advantage of his position and it`s quite likely that some of his conquests would have been under 16 . However , what I doubt is the scale of the number of victims or that Savile was as predatory as they are trying to say .
The notion that the number of alleged victims is accurate with all having remained silent until cash was on offer is clearly complete nonsense. As unfortunate as the case is, the basic standards of British Justice have been brushed aside . "Roll up roll up , the weird guy has died -anyone out there with a funny story to tell about him ? There`s cash waiting" There is zero proof , not even any sort of tabloid proof in that he may have done it once so he obviously did it repeatedly . Regardless of the numbers who have come forward making claims the Savile estate should not pay out a single penny. At least the crap that was trotted out when all this started about wanting Justice has been shown up for the rhetoric it was . And the Savile case is not alone in this . Look at the variety of historic sex abuse claims that have now popped up and they all have one thing in common . Justice can be served with a single cash sum . I expect the number of recipients and what they receive from the Bank of Savile will be well and truly kept hidden

phantom    [29932.   Posted 28-Feb-2014 Fri 14:15]
  Harvey {29928

"Whether you concur or not, is neither here nor there, phantom.
braintree votes `not guilty`."

And if he was on a jury that would matter, Harvey. But he isn`t, is he? :)
Moreover the accused in question is somewhat dead.

Albeit that I am fully aware of the point you are making, one only gets there by considerable semantic vicissitude. ;)

And before you say it, Harvey. Yes, I`m sure if Braintree had his way I`d have a `K` branded on my forehead by now.

sergio    [29931.   Posted 28-Feb-2014 Fri 03:49]
  Compare and contrast:
`The Daily Mail is a vile, fascist,hypocritical rag`
Owen Jones is a vile, fascist,hypocritical fag.

sergio    [29930.   Posted 28-Feb-2014 Fri 03:45]
  The conegate story

Harvey    [29929.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 19:09]
  freeworld [29920]

"And does anyone believe the organized, vicious, genuinely abusive practices towards the vulnerable will be addressed at all by criminalizing all sex purchasers with a fine, and subsequently a line in the local free paper? "

That hasn`t been the case in Sweden. Groups who try to monitor the health and welfare of sex workers there (well Göteborg was the city I saw studied) say that women sex workers have been pushed into even more vulnerable situations. Punters demanding sex w/o a condom, operating on street rather than in hotels or flats.

The reason the Nordic model can be deemed a success in Sweden is that the headline numbers of sex workers and even more pronounced, the number of foreign sex workers has apparently reduced. But of course simply reducing numbers wasn`t the intended objective. It was reducing exploitation, and providing pathways out of prostitution. On those criteria, not a great success.

I think Honeyball recognises this, which is why the legalisation model isn`t dismissed out of hand and while being recommended the Nordic model comes not just as a Swede style law, but with a whole host of other bolt-on requirements.

Harvey    [29928.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 18:49]
  phantom [29925]

"I`m sorry Braintree, but I cannot concur."

Whether you concur or not, is neither here nor there, phantom.

braintree votes `not guilty`.

phantom    [29927.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 18:14]
  I want to take this opportunity to say hello to our friends at GCHQ!!!
Welcome to the forum. Feel free to introduce yourselves.
You seem to be watching everything else. So you`re bound to be reading this.

So when is Edward Snowden getting his knighthood for all this?
Oh? You mean, he`s the bad guy???

Therumbler    [29926.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 17:20]

phantom    [29925.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 15:10]
  braintree [29924]
I`m sorry Braintree, but I cannot concur.
Like you, I too saw it that way for a long time while the scandal was growing. I thought it unfair to be accusing a man who could not defend himself, abusing the fact that he was `a bit weird`. Especially a national icon who had done so much for charity.
So my initial reaction to these claims was entirely hostile.

But eventually it simply became undeniable.
Some of the statements I have seen on television seem highly credible.
These people are not all fantasists and money chasers.

As for some folks debunking `myths`. I`m sure there will be such controversy claims regarding Savile.
Recently I saw a clip which provided `evidence` that Paul McCartney died in the 1960s. So I have no doubt that there will be some out there `proving` how anyone making allegations against Savile is a loon.

I like a good conspiracy theory like the next man, but with Savile we really seemed to have moved beyond that.

braintree    [29924.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 14:53]

The idea that Savile was able to keep all his victims quiet for 50 years is preposterous. While there could be some logic to the notion that his knighthood and national treasure charity fund raiser status may have made allegations against him liable to being ignored , the offences he is supposed to have committed are meant to have started many many years before his status was anything other than just another DJ presenter. There have been reports that the police were interested in him several times over the years but the idea they could not get credible evidence at the time off anyone until the DJ was no longer able to deny them is difficult to believe to say the least . I have seen online reports that debunk the allegations made by the girls in ITV`s first documentary and claim the girls are fantasists. Not hard to believe when the reason they were at these places to start with is because they were disturbed in some way . Of course the cynic would say that`s why Savile selected these places in particular. I`ve not followed all reports but I`ve yet to see anything from those that knew him that amount to anything other than suspicions .
However - I guess this is all water under the bridge now . We all knew at the time that money was the real target for many of these people and it seems the current climate has allowed them to get what they want . I have no doubt that Savile had sex with many groupies , some of whom were likely to be under 16 - however I`m dubious that any of it was non consensual .

Therumbler    [29923.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 14:37]
  "The Tax Reform Act of 2014—a would-be GOP overhaul of the U.S. Tax Code—explicitly states that the new tax code would prevent "makers of violent video games from qualifying for the R&D tax credit."

phantom    [29922.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:38]
  freeworld {29920}
""Trafficking", yes indeed, that is their buzz word - for a very good reason. It`s the one which will be at the forefront of the propaganda when the not unlikely Miliband government (deputy PM one H Harman?) prepare the ground for legislation criminalizing all "buying of sex"."

Trafficking is an example of the politicians` adopting successful tactics from another area of politics.

Just consider the Bush/Blair anti-terrorism industry. It is gynormous.
Surveillance has gone stratospheric and liberties have been greatly reduced.
But have we any way of verifying what they`re up to? Can we possibly know that anything is true? No. It`s all top secret, national security, very hush hush.

And trafficking? All secret. Reliable numbers not available and the hyped estimates definitely not verifiable. (Just like the `hundreds` of terror plots being planned at any time in Britain.)

Trafficking is another invisible threat which is claimed to be of a certain size and a certain menace. But all relies on `intelligence`.

So yes, the phantom menace is out there. ;) We must do something about it.
We are telling you it`s there. We provide the solution. We get the powers. You pay for it and you lose liberties. Fair`s fair, right?

phantom    [29921.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:26]
  Harvey [29916]
Well, my guiding view is always that the citizen is the vulnerable party. The state has available to it vast powers and resources. And be it that it purports to have `the victim` at heart`, the state needs no help at all. Meanwhile, the accused citizen requires every bit of help he can to fight the gigantic machine arrayed against him.

We have a predatory CPS and an ever-swelling prison population (thus, more and more `guilty` verdicts).
I shudder to think what the prison population might have been back in 1970s compared to today`s. So making things harder in my view is merely a way of leveling the playing field.

And as for the K for kalumniator, if I`m not mistaken the Romans didn`t bother with another trial. If you led the case for the accusation and you were found wanting, then that was your trial. Out came the branding iron. They didn`t much like lawyers, those Romans. Especially not accusatory ones. Guess they knew why. :)

freeworld    [29920.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 13:23]
  Harvey [29919. Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 01:33] "Trafficking", yes indeed, that is their buzz word - for a very good reason. It`s the one which will be at the forefront of the propaganda when the not unlikely Miliband government (deputy PM one H Harman?) prepare the ground for legislation criminalizing all "buying of sex".Said trafficking/exploitation facilitated in a large part by the the lack of any adequate controls over the huge levels of immigration into the UK; a policy brought about by members of a political class, some of whom are fulminating about the evils of sex trafficking and subtly equating it invariably with any and all "paying for sex". That is to say, any such widespread abuses brought into the UK (primarily England) owe a great deal to the "come on in entire world" policies of the party of the Honeyball herself (which Dave Snooty didn`t create, but has done next to nothing to address so far).

And does anyone believe the organized, vicious, genuinely abusive practices towards the vulnerable will be addressed at all by criminalizing all sex purchasers with a fine, and subsequently a line in the local free paper? The criminal traffickers and vile serial exploiters of young women (and men) would laugh their heads off. It might make John Respectable think twice about his liaison with a classy escort girl though - but John is not actually exploiting anybody, just intending taking part in an entirely consensual transaction, which should, in a free society, be no business of the state to interfere with using criminal sanctions. But the zealots are interested in using the situations they`ve in some cases helped make themselves, along with large dollops of polemic and partial "research", to forward a totalitarian control ideology which has more to do with "sending messages" about behaviour the extremists don`t happen to agree with, than righting appalling wrongs like abuse of the vulnerable. We may look forward to a well slanted and partial "consultation" document, for which Mr Goggins is unfortunately no longer available, and tours of the broadcasting organizations by sanctimonious MPs regaling the populace with shuddery tales - the equivalent of the fabled Guatemalan snuff victims of yore.

The ideology at work here has been adopted by a generation of suggestible wimmin, mainly indoctrinated during their higher education years, many of whom now hold highly influential positions through which they can agitate for, and maybe get implemented, policies based in dangerous repressive precepts. This vile ideology is, in its most extreme form, deranged enough to view all men as rapists, who in most cases simply haven`t been caught yet (we might even see paying for consensual sex becoming classed as "rape" at some point under legislation). Hopefully a younger generation replacing the cohort of aging sex warriors may be less inclined to swallow the misandry peddled by the Dworkin sisterhood.

I hope it doesn`t happen. But I fear it`s quite possible, even likely, depending on the election (the Tories might even do it if it became a noisy barnstorming "Daily Mail" campaign - which presently seems doubtful)
Presumably a woman who buys sex is, in the Honeyball mindset, a woman who treats a man`s body as a "commodity" too? Maybe women are congenitally incapable of actually purchasing sex?

Harvey    [29919.   Posted 27-Feb-2014 Thu 01:33]

As campaigners go, Honeyball seems to be low on the strident moralising scale. I can actually agree with quite a lot of her report. I don`t think it`s clear cut that the Nordic model is a success, though - it depends how you measure "success" - but to be fair while the report says this is their preferred approach it`s not hectoring towards those who have followed a different route. The main aims seem to be reducing vulnerable women`s reliance on prostitution, their exploitation, their physical and psychological health and providing routes out of the profession. The really tough stance is on criminalising the exploitation of young women, under 21yrs.

Just my own take on it, but seems to me the buzzword is "trafficking".

Whatever the disagreements on crminalising the transaction, everyone seems to see trafficking as the big problem, so if there is any EU-wide action it will probably be addressing that.

Typical story in the German news of measures taken in Saarland on the border with France. A big new brothel is planned to open in Saarbrueken to coincide with the imposition of the new French law. Understandably the state government is fearful of what will happen. They have reacted by bringing in new zoning rules for street prostitution and the introduction of a regulation making the use of condoms mandatory for paid for sex, following the local law in Bavaria. Not the slightest suggestion that they will follow France down the path of criminalization. But clearly with such a patchwork of different national laws, trafficking, or workers simply relocating to the new hotspots will cause problems. (In German)

Compare and contrast with the Mail`s coverage of the same story.

MichaelG    [29918.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 23:05]
  A bit more info on Honeyball`s antics here:

MichaelG    [29917.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 23:03]
  Re: Harvey {29909}:

Thanks for clearing that one up Harvey. I guess what this now means is that by sneaking this through the back door in Brussels, it makes it easier for those in this country who have pushed for so long to criminalise the purchase of sex to realise their goal. Harman, Denis McShane, Fiona McTaggart etc. did try this a few years back in Britain but the idea was rejected - I think scuppered largely by law enforcement agencies who considered it unworkable. Honeyball has obviously been tasked with getting this matter raised in EU Parliament, likely by the same wretches who tried it on a few years back, knowing full well that approval over there would lend weight to the ongoing campaign for criminalisation in the UK.

The whole idea that you can have something which is legal to sell but illegal to buy is utterly farcical though - take that concept, transplant it onto the illegal drug trade and you`ll see clearly what a total nonsense this is.

I`m pissed off more than anything else largely because of the implications for free speech and the fact that we moan so much about pointless laws coming out of Brussels and affecting Britain, yet when you get something as pointless yet far-reaching as this, who is responsible? That`s right, a fucking BRITISH LABOUR MEP. This is, even for a politician, a hugely underhanded way to manipulate legislation just to fit the personal agendas of a handful of like-minded (yet also out-of-their-minds) individuals.

I frequently think that politicians have already sunk to the lowest levels possible, but I`m constantly being surprised...

Harvey    [29916.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 19:40]

"To my mind, if you make an accusation, you better have an argument."

I agree with that. Which is why it makes me angry that so many cases (way more in number than the few which result in a retrial) are dismissed out of hand. With either the prosecution offering no evidence or the judge ordering there is no case to answer.

Where we differ is on the terms of who gets to decide whether there is an argument or not. You say just 1 juror can veto the verdict of the other 11.

To be fair to you, you don`t claim this would represent justice, but because the CPS has the audacity to make accusations you think they should have no right to be making.

Again, I agree regarding the CPS, but whereas I would put a judicial check valve of an evidence test into the process *before* anyone could even be *charged*, you would throw the random rogue juror into the mix. Not because you know that 1 juror will come to the right decision when the 11 others are wrong, but just because it would make the process of getting someone convicted more difficult.

Why not just roll dice?

"K for Kalumniator"

Cool! But have you thought this through?

Before he could be branded, the wicked accuser has to be found guilty of making an accusation in bad faith. And would it not be the case in Phantomworld that just one of the jurors in his trial could cast the vote which would secure his acquittal?

phantom    [29915.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 18:31]
  K for Kalumniator (calumniator)

phantom    [29914.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 18:24]
  Harvey [29912. Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 16:58]

I think you know I`d prefer giving one of my lengthy responses, but I guess I best try to keep it a little briefer, as we`ve exercised this one pretty one all the way through and our positions are quite clear.
So let`s just summarise my position with this.

"But essentially the CPS has failed to make a case. Whatever the perspective, it cannot be argued any other way."
"Of course it can. The defendant has failed to convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt."

So a defendant who, say, chose to remain silent, in your mind would have as much failed to convince, as the CPS - with all the apparatus of the state behind it? To my mind, if you make an accusation, you better have an argument. The CPS are in the business of making accusations.
If you fail to make your mud stick, you shouldn`t be granted another chance.

Therumbler    [29913.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 17:17]

A little update on that French book about nudity:

"His comments backfired, sending the book racing to the top of bestseller lists in France, according to Le Monde, and drawing widespread condemnation, with minister for education Vincent Peillon calling Copé a "spokesperson for extremist groups", the French press reported.

The most eye-catching response, however, came from a group of French booksellers and publishers, who decided to pose nude, apart from strategically placed books, in protest at Copé`s remarks. "Tous à poil contre la censure!", or "everyone naked against censorship", they said as they revealed their pose. "Naked to show our support for authors and books which have been unjustly attacked.""

Harvey    [29912.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 16:58]

"That`s if a retrial would convict."

No. Simply if occasionally, a retrial might convict. A point which you later concede, yourself.

"But essentially the CPS has failed to make a case. Whatever the perspective, it cannot be argued any other way."

Of course it can. The defendant has failed to convince the jury that there is reasonable doubt.

"Was every jury corrupt up to the 1960s? As in, what actually was the urgent reason for this change?"

No. But you could equally see the change in 1970, to allow majority verdicts, as making it easier for a *defendant* to be *acquitted* on a majority verdict as opposed to requiring a majority. It`s a change which makes it easier to get either result, not just a guilty one. I think the need for the change was not to tilt the balance one way or the other but to reduce the necessity for retrials. Personally I would prefer to have retained majority verdicts, but I`d have to accept the consequence, which would be of more people such as Travis having to endure a second trial.

It`s when you adopt the plan you suggests where it takes 12 votes out of 12 to convict, but only 1 vote out of 12 to acquit, that you`d have fundamentally unjust system. Juries would no longer have to agree and the abilty of any one of the 12 to have the power of acquittal would change the nature of trials.

There`s nothing wrong with the principle of a jury trail and the requirement for a jury to be sure of guilt beyond reasonable doubt before convicting a defendant.

phantom    [29911.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 16:26]
  braintree {29908}
"And I guess we really are expected to believe that not only was Savile Britains most prolific sex offender but somehow he was also able to ensure that all his hundreds of victims didn`t say a word for 50 years .Incredible"

Actually, Braintree, I think we are.
It seems fairly obvious by now that Savile was a serial abuser. And yes, it also seems that he had a way of bullying his way out of trouble.
So, albeit that he was never convicted of anything, it does seem fairly clear by now. Insisting on evidence seems a bit futile in the light of the mountain of credible statements which have emerged.

phantom    [29910.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 16:20]
  Harvey [29906]

"Firstly, the basis on which a jury reaches a verdict. I`m quite happy to accept that there should be a unanimous verdict rather than at best a 10-2 majority. But requiring 12 people to agree rather than just 10 of them, as is currently the case, would mean it would be MORE DIFICULT to prove guilt."

I agree entirely. It would be more difficult. It once was.

"Secondly, the consequence of having a "hung" jury - one unable to come to a unanimous verdict, or a 10-2 majority verdict. If the defendant was to be acquitted, rather than have a retrial, as is now the case, it would be MORE DIFFICULT to prove guilt."

That`s if a retrial would convict.
But essentially the CPS has failed to make a case. Whatever the perspective, it cannot be argued any other way.
Primarily this measure would merely lead to the

So yes, it would make it more difficult to prove guilt, by eliminating their option for retrial.

But - on semantic inversion - I still insist. Saying that I wish to it see it made harder to convict is not perfectly fair. I criticise principally the having made it easier to convict.

As for the making it more difficult, by barring the German`s right to ask for a second penalty, I plead guilty as charged. It would make it more difficult. But I very much doubt this would make much of a dent in numbers when it comes to `found guilty by retrial`.

"Perhaps you are hopeful that every juror would always use their new found power for good?"

Was every jury corrupt up to the 1960s? :)
As in, what actually was the urgent reason for this change?

The `greater priority`, mebbe?

Harvey    [29909.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 16:17]
  MichaelG [29907]

Lots of words here:

Behind the headlines, what was voted on and approved was a clutch of statements, requests and opinions. It by no means obliges anyone to create domestic legislation. Neither is it the basis for any new EU laws.

It probably aids people in those countries like the UK, where attitudes to prostitution are such that there would be some support for a so-called Nordic model. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands will be able to point to other aspects of the report and go their separate way. It`s a significant turn of the screw but of the machine which will eventually have two separate and competing models of prostitution, both of which the report acknowledges, though it clearly favours one.

braintree    [29908.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 15:22]
  At last the sorry saga seems to be coming to a conclusion. But why is nobody questioning the distribution of £4 million to "victims" who can basically make up any crap they want ? I`m surprised that those in charge of Saviles estate have given in so easily . Can I ask where one signs up to this free cash? Coupons in the Radio Times maybe ? Who gets to decide on who gets how much ? Can any of these people prove they ever met Savile let alone had any physical contact with him ? And I guess we really are expected to believe that not only was Savile Britains most prolific sex offender but somehow he was also able to ensure that all his hundreds of victims didn`t say a word for 50 years .Incredible

MichaelG    [29907.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 14:29]
  Just heard that Mary Honeyball won her vote today on criminalising the purchase of sex across Europe. Not sure what this actually means in terms of a law being passed as it`s just her recommendation (I think). Anyone know any more about this?

Harvey    [29906.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 10:31]
  There are two separate, but connected issues here.

Firstly, the basis on which a jury reaches a verdict. I`m quite happy to accept that there should be a unanimous verdict rather than at best a 10-2 majority. But requiring 12 people to agree rather than just 10 of them, as is currently the case, would mean it would be MORE DIFICULT to prove guilt.

Secondly, the consequence of having a "hung" jury - one unable to come to a unanimous verdict, or a 10-2 majority verdict. If the defendant was to be acquitted, rather than have a retrial, as is now the case, it would be MORE DIFFICULT to prove guilt.

There is no symantic inversion, as you put it. What was done previously to make it less difficult, doesn`t change the fact that both your suggestions taken either separately, or together would make it more difficult.

I`m glad you see the point that the consequence of your suggestion would be to hand each juror the individual power to acquit a defendant, something which now takes at least 10 jurors (and if it`s unanimity you want, 12) to agree on.

Perhaps you are hopeful that every juror would always use their new found power for good?

I`m pretty much in agreement with you regarding the arbitrary and only vaguely accountable decision making by the CPS. My suggestion of introducing a barrier to their unfettered right to request a retrial wouldn`t deal with the bigger problem which is their unfettered right to decide who and when and on what basis to prosecute anybody they like.

The problem isn`t the small minority of cases where a jury is "hung" but with the much larger number of no hope cases which the CPS proceeds with. I get particularly angry when they decide to prosecute but then at the day of the trial, offer no evidence or judges throwing cases out of court because their evidence is so thin or their understanding of the law so hopeless.

To fix that problem, I would introduce a judicial process to determine whether there was a prima facie prosecution case *before* any charges were made. I think if that had been done in some of the cases you describe, they would never have proceeded at all.

phantom    [29905.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 09:15]
  Harvey {29904]

"There are pros and cons, but let`s accept that Tabak should not have been found guilty in that trial."

Which would be an assumption, right? :)

"We`d still have to decide what to do in such a "hung" situation."

Isn`t `hung` a someone weighted term for `not unanimous`?

"Under the present rules the prosecution have the option to ask for a retrial. Under your suggested rules, the defendant would be acquitted."


"You say that would be a good thing, but the situation you would have created would be one where just one juror has the absolute power of acquittal in his hands."


"I`m saying you can`t ignore the effect that would have on the perception of, and trust in, the CJ system."

That is, aside from those among us who have no trust in the justice system because of, among other things, the absence of the principle of unanimous verdicts.

"I don`t think you uphold that principle simply by making it more difficult to prove guilt."

But that is a semantic inversion. The principle did exist until the 1970s. It was thus MADE easier. Portraying criticism of the fact that they CHANGED the law as a wish to make it more difficult is really inverting the issue. I bemoan their having MADE it easier to convict people.


Forgive this aside, Harvey. It just came to mind.
I witnessed a similar such semantic inversion when I confronted my MP over the DPA.
He was determined to invert. Why was I MAKING such a fuss about this porn? Surely it was not that important. (The inference being: unless of course I was `one of those perverts`.)
When I pointed out that it was in fact he who was MAKING a fuss about it, as he wanted the change, I merely opposed it, he chose not to understand me. Well, I say chose. He was a famous imbecile, so maybe he wasn`t even pretending.


Anyhow, back to `hung` juries.

"The CPS knowing "the score" may influence their choice in not prolonging a process where there was no realistic prospect of achieving a conviction."

What CPS is this, Harvey? The CPS which accused Darryn Walker in the Girls Aloud story trial and presented no evidence? Or the CPS which accused Andrew Holland in the Frosties Tiger extreme porn trial and presented no evidence?
Or merely the CPS which is taking Dave Lee Travis to a retrial after being roundly spanked in court?

I`m just trying to envisage which CPS it is you mean which would not wring it out to the last drop.

"You might even choose to establish this on a statutory basis by saying that the option of a retrial should only apply if the jury in the first trial had an unqualified majority in favour of conviction. The danger would be in making "the score" public, as you would be moving away from the sacred principle of guilty vs innocent and establishing the basis for how guilty or innocent someone was."

My argument would simply be that we managed until the 1970s and this country was not Sodom and Gomorra.
If I would introduce any new statutory tool to curb the excesses of the CPS it would be that of introducing an element of risk to the calumniating prosecutor. If the CPS is to be accountable (as they merely claim to be) there must be a price to pay when they get it willfully wrong - as in such cases as Darryn walker, Andrew Holland Simon Walsh or Colin Stagg. A publicly verifiable price.
In short, we need protecting from these legal predators. The only thing which is ever going to make them hold off is if they fear for their own careers. Otherwise they will continue phishing.
I know. A beautiful dream....

As for the `hung` jury.
Sure, we can point to this case or that. I`m sure there are individual cases where the majority verdict will have provided the right outcome. But as a whole I can`t see that the country was really made that much better by the greater opportunity to lock up people. And that is all the majority verdict accomplished. Easier guilt. Bigger numbers. `Better` home secretaries.

As said, the `greater priority`.

Harvey    [29904.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 07:24]
  phantom [29902]

In the trial of Vincent Tabak of the murder of Joanna Yeates, the jury could only decide on a majority verdict and found him guilty by 10-2.

Now... you could argue that he should not have been found guilty except by a unanimous verdict. There are pros and cons, but let`s accept that Tabak should not have been found guilty in that trial. We`d still have to decide what to do in such a "hung" situation.

Under the present rules the prosecution have the option to ask for a retrial. Under your suggested rules, the defendant would be acquitted.

You say that would be a good thing, but the situation you would have created would be one where just one juror has the absolute power of acquittal in his hands. I`m saying you can`t ignore the effect that would have on the perception of, and trust in, the CJ system.

I agree with what you say about the principle of `innocent unless and until proven guilty`. I don`t think you uphold that principle simply by making it more difficult to prove guilt.

What I do think is that it would be useful if the CPS knew how badly hung the jury was. At the moment I think the trial judge might be told by the jury themselves, when they report that they cannot agree even on the basis of a 10-2 majority, but he`s not allowed to disclose whether they are at 9-3 one way, 9-3 the other, or anywhere in between. The CPS knowing "the score" may influence their choice in not prolonging a process where there was no realistic prospect of achieving a conviction.

You might even choose to establish this on a statutory basis by saying that the option of a retrial should only apply if the jury in the first trial had an unqualified majority in favour of conviction. The danger would be in making "the score" public, as you would be moving away from the sacred principle of guilty vs innocent and establishing the basis for how guilty or innocent someone was.

phantom    [29903.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 06:15]
  Harvey [29902]

"The benefit of requiring unanimity or at the very least a qualified majority to come to *either* a guilty *or* a not guilty verdict is that the case is decided positively and that`s greatly to the benefit of a defendant who is acquitted. He can point to the fact that he has been found definitively "not guilty", rather than merely not being found guilty."

But this `benefit` in Travis` case simply means another trial. This even though they`ve already had one and couldn`t find him guilty. Thus, the CPS is simply being given a second try. Because, let`s face it, it`s hardly another chance for him to convince the world he`s not guilty. That would be straining semantics to breaking point.
It`s simply giving the Germans another penalty, after they missed one.

And if people want to speculate about `the score` if a jury`s inability to determine `not guilty` means innocent by default, I really couldn`t give a damn.
Guilt was once determined unanimously (and I think in the public psyche most people think it still is). Somehow I don`t recall history being littered with endless retrials following various juries` inability to make up their minds...

Surely in a society in which the principle of `innocent until proven guilty` is supposed to hold, all that matters is that the jury can`t find you guilty. Who cares if the Daily Mail then gets its knickers in a twist over `the score`?

The truth is the introduction of the majority verdict simply introduced a convenient element of inflation into the justice system. Whereas once you needed to convince twelve men, good and true, of another`s guilt, now ten will do. Whichever way you turn it, it became easier for the CPS.

After all, we can`t afford that much scrutiny if we have a `greater priority`, can we?

Or is there really anyone here who thinks we`ve got over eighty thousand folks in prison at any time these days because we`ve all suddenly become more criminal on this island?

Or might it have more to do with having had home secretaries eager to achieve greater physical resemblance with Heinrich Himmler? ;)

Harvey    [29902.   Posted 26-Feb-2014 Wed 02:14]

"Well, I don`t agree that removing the unanimity was ever a good idea."

There are arguments both ways and of course it is not automatically the case that a majority verdict will be accepted.

"unanimity on guilt clearly got in the way of the `greater priority`"

But it cuts both ways. Prior to 1974 it was also required that there was unanimity to find a defendant not guilty.

"a `can`t agree` should be a not guilty by default"

I don`t think I`m being too literal. The benefit of requiring unanimity or at the very least a qualified majority to come to *either* a guilty *or* a not guilty verdict is that the case is decided positively and that`s greatly to the benefit of a defendant who is acquitted. He can point to the fact that he has been found definitively "not guilty", rather than merely not being found guilty.

It might seem superficially attractive to say; "unless the jury can agree you are guilty, you`re free to go", but I suspect it would just lead to even more people distrusting the system of justice and considering anyone acquitted as being "probably guilty", rather than definitively "not guilty". It would not really help someone in Travis` position to be acquitted, when the press and public could point to the fact that 11 out of 12 jurors could have thought him guilty and he only "got off" because 1 juror couldn`t agree, which is what your suggestion would imply. Or would we then have speculation of whether "the score" was 9-3 or 1-11?

"My view remains that retrying Travis is a bitter injustice."

Any injustice occurs because of the CPS`s decision whether to have a retrial, not the inability of the jury to find a definitive verdict. It`s really no different from any injustice which arises from their decision to prosecute in the first place and I think there are questions about whether their decisions are always taken objectively on the basis of evidence or whether they are playing to public opinion. Equally there will be cases where a decision not to prosecute will be seen as unjust from the point of view of the alleged victims, which is exactly the situation we have with Savile where he was investigated but never charged with anything.

If Travis and others are now being prosecuted simply because of the failure to prosecute Savile, it`s certainly unfair on him, but no more or less fair than it is on anyone who is prosecuted simply to satisfy public opinion, rather than the needs for justice.

phantom    [29901.   Posted 25-Feb-2014 Tue 18:36]
  Harvey {29895}
Well, I don`t agree that removing the unanimity was ever a good idea.
But in a country bent on locking up as many people as possible, unanimity on guilt clearly got in the way of the `greater priority`.
So my answer to your earlier question to Braintree would be if the three can`t agree then screw what the nine thought.

And as for what I said, I think you know you`re being a little too literal on the subject. My meaning was I believe quite clear. Namely that a `can`t agree` should be a not guilty by default. Whether by the court itself, or the CPS backing off and accepting matters.
I believe it once did.

But nowadays, there`s the `greater priority`. We must be seen to be locking up people. Else our head of the CPS and our home secretary are `weak`. And we can`t possibly have that. (Did anyone notice has Jack Straw`s glasses became ever smaller and rounder as he held that office, until he resembled Heinrich Himmler? I bet he thought that made him look stern... sorry... `strong`.)

My view remains that retrying Travis is a bitter injustice.
Sure, I`m not going as far as Braintree, but it is completely unacceptable that `the system` can do this to people.
So much so have the politicians fallen in love with their own slogans about `putting victims first` etc, that they have screwed up everything.

I repeat my oft vented claim that the only way of being safe is not to be accused these days. For once you`re in that quagmire, innocent or not, you might as well flip a coin to determine what will become of you.

phantom    [29900.   Posted 25-Feb-2014 Tue 18:19]
  MichaelG {29896}
Although it may be good news to see Harman damaged politically, one can`t really see it as a good thing that she is being backed into a corner over pedomania.
The less of that we have in this country the better.
We are nowhere near having an adult debate on this issue politically. And the more of these tabloid carpet bombing attacks we have on this subject, the less likely we are ever going to reach a point when we can have a serious debate about what to do.

sergio    [29899.   Posted 25-Feb-2014 Tue 16:09]
  And just for fun, what is the best 18 rated film you can whack off to?

Pooch    [29898.   Posted 25-Feb-2014 Tue 05:14]
  Hi Dave,

Just wanted to let you know, that I saw both parts of Lars Von Trier`s NYMPHOMANIAC at the weekend, at one of the 70-plus Picturehouse ONE NIGHT STAND screenings, and having seen it, I can see why the BBFC passed this uncut at 18. There`s actually very little problematic material in the film`s 4-hour duration. I`d make an educated guess that there`s around 20 minutes of sexual material, but it`s not even as contentious or controversial as THE IDIOTS or ANTICHRIST, so I can see why the BBFC were happy to pass it uncut, for both cinema and home viewing formats.

With that said, if people are going to see or rent this, in the vague hope of seeing something verbotten, then I`m afraid, they`re going to be extremely disappointed. Likewise, if they want to try jerking-off to it. This really is a film that doesn`t warrant the controversy from the press/media. There are some moments of strong sexual content, but it`s nothing that can`t be easily fitted within the 18-certificate guidelines with ease. As such, I can see this film being released onto DVD/Blu-Ray without much fuss.

Harvey    [29897.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 23:28]

The allegations against Harman and Hewitt aren`t new, but when they`ve been made in the past they haven`t had the Daily Mail in a full on rant.

Harman found herself obliged to say something, yesterday. All that will do is guarantee her place on the Mail`s front page for a few more days.

MichaelG    [29896.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 23:08]
  Now then, could could this finally be some good news? Looks like history may be catching up with a certain someone:

I doubt much will come of it, but we can hope...

Harvey    [29895.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 21:57]
  phantom [29893]

"Surely the fact that the jury `couldn`t reach a decision` means that they could not find him guilty, which should mean he is innocent by default.
Sadly it seems, that such is not the way English law works anymore these days."

It never has worked that way. The jury must agree on one of two verdicts; guilty or not guilty. Actually, it used to be the case that the jury had to agree unanimously. Nowadays they can agree by a majority of 10-2, if the judge allows it. It has never been the case that a jury`s inability to reach a verdict resulted in an acquittal.

What it is right to say, is that the jury not having reached a verdict, Travis remains innocent of the charges against him. The prosecution need not request a retrial, but in this case, for some reason (Savile) they have decided they must.

braintree [29892]

"The jury were unable to decide whether he was guilty or not so by default that clarifies there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty so the charges should be dropped."

Logic fail.

The jury had to decide by a majority of at least 10-2. So all we can deduce is that at least 3 but not more than 9 jurors thought the evidence proved Travis guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That would leave as many as 9, but not less than 3, who thought there was at least reasonable doubt.

What does your logic say? That if 9 out of 12 jurors are sure he`s guilty, and only 3 are unsure, he should be acquitted?

If so, why accept a majority 10-2 to convict a murderer? After all, 2 jurors could not be sure. Does the doubt in their minds negate the certainty in the minds of the other 10?

phantom    [29894.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 18:51]
  re: Passed 15 for moderate scariness

"-15 rated films will contain the full range of strong language, previously some films were rated 18 just for strong language.
-Some films may be rated 15 instead of 12 just for being scary, even when the low level of violence does not really require a 15.
-R18 films may now contain `moderate` BDSM`. Previously this was limited to `mild` BDSM"

Wow. Are the BBFC completely sarcasm-impared?

So hang on, some films were 18 purely for strong language? So one word could change the rating of a film? What was the word I wonder. Bounder? Blackguard? Rapscallion? Buffoon? Cad?

And something can be just too scary? Even though everything else may be age specific to 12 year olds it might just be too scary? Hmm, I think the tales of the Brothers Grimm might just be in trouble...
But I`m glad they`ve made that clear. Because `too scary` is very, very definite, isn`t it?

But they saved the best for last.
Whereas previously `only mild BDSM` was permitted, now they`re allowing `moderate BDSM`. Wow. Tremendous. Talk about permissive.
What in God`s name is the difference? Moreover, who will define what is `mild`, `moderate` and `beyond moderate`? I would dare say someone who practised BDSM would most likely have an entirely different order of magnitude than, say, someone who joined the BBFC because they had a degree in psychology and a prudish bent. But the former type will be the producer of material and the latter type will be the adjudicator, no?
For a long time I believe the BBFC - much like in the days of the unilateral nun-chak ban - categorically refused to allow gags in any BDSM material. Evidently the prude psychology graduate type deemed gags `beyond mild`. But would they register as `moderate` yet, or are they still too `extreme`? Lol.
All that, keeping in mind that they could be depicted in `Pulp Fiction` twenty years ago. Yes, two decades ago.
So what have twenty years of cultural influence by the internet achieved? We`ve moved from `mild` to `moderate`. Well, I say `we`.... Lol.

But I would hazard a guess that nun-chaks... er, sorry... gags will still remain banned, m`lud.
After all, we may be moving with the times (just like Russia with its ban on the promotion of homosexuality, in fact) but it doesn`t mean we`ll be permitting Sodom and Gomorra.

So anyway, let`s produce a film with `moderate` BDSM in it, with lots of bad language, but not `too scary`! Who`s with me? Lol.

phantom    [29893.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 16:38]
  braintree [29892]
Well, as for Dave Lee Travis; when hearing that he is to be retried, I had a little rant myself.
Surely the fact that the jury `couldn`t reach a decision` means that they could not find him guilty, which should mean he is innocent by default.
Sadly it seems, that such is not the way English law works anymore these days.
But yes, at its heart this decision by the CPS is nothing short of a perversion of justice. It is an outrage what is happening to Travis and yes, if I had my way, the head of the CPS should be in the dock for it - literally.
But as I have said time and again, the CPS are a law unto themselves these days and accountable to no one.

As for Savile, I don`t think one can really continue to argue that Savile was never found guilty of a crime and thus his name should remain untarnished. For a long while, as the scandal built, I too took that line.
But at some point one must admit that numbers do tell.
You see, at some point a historical perspective takes over.
To explain: Was Hitler ever convicted by a court of law of ordering the `Krystallnacht`? No. So does that mean he wasn`t guilty of it? Surely not.
History judges in the end.
It is something that many a living politician should bear in mind. Throughout your lifetime the ploy of `you can prove nothing` may hold. But once you are dead the world will make up its own mind. And if something is blatantly obvious, then proof beyond reasonable doubt isn`t the required standard for history. And not even England`s kangaroo libel laws allow for libel after death.
In that same way it is reasonable to conclude by now that Savile was indeed a paedophile. Simply because the sheer mountain of statements cannot otherwise be explained.

Regarding his estate paying out damages, I too would not be sure that would be possible. Mind I`m not sure I would go as far as tarring all the claimants as `parasites` the way you do, as quite a few of them might in fact be real victims.

braintree    [29892.   Posted 24-Feb-2014 Mon 13:52]
  What is it with Justice in this country ?
DLT gets cleared of 12 out of 14 similar offences so logic would say it`s quite likely he`s not guilty of the others either.
The jury were unable to decide whether he was guilty or not so by default that clarifies there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty so the charges should be dropped. But no - the CPS didn`t get the decision they wanted so they can have a second crack at it and waste more public money on another 2 week trial.
Are they so desperate after Le Vell , Roache and the earlier Corrie case all got found not guilty that they want to get one guilty verdict in the bag to try and justify the witch hunt against celebs in the wake of Savile.
And despite not even being arrested , let alone charged or convicted Savile is referred to on the BBC text today as a " prolific serial sex offender".
But the story finally gets to the crux of what its all been about as we hear that 140 "victims" are lining up for a slice of Saviles estate which was frozen by the bank.
Now based on the fact that there cannot possibly be one single shred of evidence to prove either way any of Saviles "offences" how can there be any justification for paying a single penny to these parasites ?

DarkAngel5    [29891.   Posted 23-Feb-2014 Sun 04:10]
  Hi there

Haven`t visited in a little while, so not sure if this has already been mentioned. But has anyone seen this..

They were discussing it on The Big Questions this morning.

phantom    [29890.   Posted 22-Feb-2014 Sat 11:22]
  Oh, the increasingly insane world of politically correct politics is more and more resembling the court of the Queen of Hearts in Alice`s Wonderland.
We all subscribe to the same publicly prescribed faith, or else it`s `off with their heads!`
The notion that a free country is home to many, often contradictory views has been utterly abandoned.
We are to believe what the polit-bureau says is right. Anything which runs counter to these edicts will be proscribed by means of `anti-hatred` laws.
Moreover, as you rightly say, the baying mob of the `right thinking` quangocracies will decry anyone who falls foul of the official doctrine as a heretic.

But I discover much more than just political correctness in the line the media takes. There seems to be a reluctance to tell the truth when the government prefers us to remain ignorant – or worse – prefers to lie to us.
I`ve been around a few years now and I can honestly say that I have never seen such a biased media coverage of international news before.
When listening to the BBC report on Syria it is much like listening to John Motson`s commentary during an England football match.
Albeit that we can all appreciate the temptation for a certain amount of flag waving where British troops are involved, the media bias seems simply always to side with the official UK government output - even when the government`s statements are blatantly phoney.

So why, when it is evident that our own government is telling porkies, does nobody point it out?

Well, after the example having been made of Gilligan, Dyke and Davies it would seem fairly obvious. And let`s not forget Kelly. (Whether they actually killed him or just drove him to suicide is really academic.)
The answer is fear.
The British media is simply afraid of what the government might do, should they cross them.
Who would forget the tamest Newsnight interview Jeremy Paxman ever gave? It was right after the all round `resignations` of everyone after the Gilligan saga. Whom was he interviewing? Alistair Campbell. That was not a signal to the UK media?
If we can get rid of the hierarchy of the BBC and we can neuter Paxo, think what we might do to you.

But yes, they`ll never admit they have been intimidated. For that would be to admit there was a problem. And there is no problem. Repeat after me, `there... is.... no...`

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29889.   Posted 22-Feb-2014 Sat 08:20]
  Yes Phantom,

Censorship via collective pressure does seem to vanquished old fashioned concepts such as truth, facts and evidence.

One can make up any old unevidenced bollox in support of morality accepted as politically correct, eg men enjoying sexual entertainment and becoming monsters. Yet when it comes to actual unpleasant characteristics of any group championed by the politically correct, then lightning bolts descend as soon as anyone even alludes to truth.

Yet everyone more or less accepts the situation, One quietly reads BBC propaganda and reads between the lines to fill in the gaps where the elephant in the room has been carefully airbrushed out.

Political correctness is now the new religion. It is founded on bollox, self appointed grandees get to define the new morality, and it is enforced by aggressive shouts of `blasphemy! should anyone step out of line.

phantom    [29888.   Posted 21-Feb-2014 Fri 14:33]
  re: Twenty five years on from Rushdie...

Very interesting article by Nick Cohen on the `self-congratulatory media` in relation to Islamist threats. And yes, one doesn`t want to admit one is afraid.

But I would argue, is it only in relation to Islamist nutters that the media is cowardly?

Who in the media had the guts to challenge the powers that be on the increasingly disproportionate measures in `child protection`?
Who spoke out about the DPA, demanding to know what the law was actually banning?
Was the unanimous silence in those matters really a reflection of widespread agreement with government, or of naked fear for the consequences of sticking one`s head above the parapet?

At the beginning of the Iraq War what happened to the media, when it dared to challenge the official version?
Do the names Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies still mean anything?
A BBC journalist, the director-general of he BBC and the chairman of the BBC.
All three ended out of a job. Oh, of course it was all completely above board. The Hutton Inquiry, yadda, yadda, yadda. It still doesn`t change the fact that the government effectively deposed the BBC hierarchy for daring to go against the grain.
And what happened to their chief witness again, one Dr Kelly? Hmmm. Ah but that`s all a silly conspiracy theory, isn`t it? (Well, just as he, prior to his death, was a Walter Mitty figure, who was merely attention seeking, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

In the light of the above we might want to ask ourselves if the climate of unspoken fear in the media really only exists in relation to out-of-control Islamists.

When is the last time a large scale media outlet has challenged the official version of anything? Hmm?
So are the UK media wholly in agreement with everything the government are getting up to these days? Or are they – just as with the Islamists – omitting to tell us that they are in fact too afraid to speak out?

Why was there no concerted challenge of UK policy regards Libya, Syria or Afghanistan? I do not raise these three issues as they are particular hobby horses of mine. But the discrepancy between reality and the official version was plain to see, yet remained apparently `unmentionable`.
In Libya we were bombing Tripolis in order to `protect` the people of Bengazi. In Syria we were supplying Islamist rebels with equipment. And in Afghanistan the Taliban dominate the ground, some of our military tactics were insane and in Helmand there were entire towns under official Taliban control while we were `in charge` of said province.

But why was none of the above ever the headline on the BBC ten o`clock news? Why never on the front page of the Sun? Or the Independent? Or the Guardian?

The truth seems to be that the press, though a feral beast when confronted with a story like Max Moseley, has been rendered a neutered lapdog when challenging UK policy.
The public denigration of Gilligan, Dyke and Davies (and Kelly) saw to that.
But the fact that the media stays quiet about their fear is as significant as the silence itself.
The fourth estate has in fact been silenced. That is the true Blair legacy.

In a strange time-warp we are resembling a former eastern European communist state, whereby the government can pump out obvious lies and nobody dares challenge them.

phantom    [29887.   Posted 20-Feb-2014 Thu 20:07]
  I can honestly say that I detest the proposed `regulation` of music videos.

Not only are the powers that be acting ever more flagrantly in their desires to censor, but the choice of the BBFC as the arbiter of taste in this regard is breathtaking.
The BBFC must be one of the most self-serving quangos of them all. And one that I believe has a particularly pernicious, corrupting influence upon the nation.
But most of all it is demonstrably incompetent, unable to show any semblance of consistency in its rulings. However it is the foremost standard bearer of the forces of censorship in this country.

Not enough that it already holds a monopoly over one aspect of audiovisual art. They are now handing it yet another. Having thus a stranglehold on film and music video, the latter being the increasingly dominant expression of music, the BBFC is becoming a leech on national cultural output and international cultural influences.

What do we want to hand them next?
Should the controversies over some photographic art mean we hand them the keys to the art galleries as well, so they can adjudicate on what photo or canvas is beyond the pale? If not, why not? After all, they`re the experts, right?

The fact that a front has now been opened on a new area of censorship which is clearly not porn and is in fact part of the mainstream motherlode signals the beginning of an entirely new assault by the forces of censorship.

This isn`t porn. Sure there is the usual cry of `will no one think about the children!`
But this is mainstream material. And in Britain moving in on pop music videos could not be any more symbolic.

Of course the forces of censorship will only ever claim to be asking for the very minimum, simply for necessity`s sake. But there could not be any clearer sign of their attempting a power grab. Music videos is clearly only a first step. But it is a confident and decisive step into the mainstream media. With their right to interfere established, where will they head next?

In Ed Vazey the forces of censorship obviously have a powerful ally who is ideally placed to enact their will.

With the liberal coalition voices having been completely silenced in the cabinet (Let`s face it, where are the LibDems on the recent spate of censorship? There is nothing but silence.) we may be in danger of ever more significant shifts toward further curtailment of expression.

How the much more censorious Labour Party would exploit these recent gains for the forces of censorship, should they come to power at the next general election, one can but wonder.
Let us not forget that not too long ago David Blunkett was calling for curbs on satire.

What is clear is that freedom of expression is running into ever more serious trouble in this country.

sergio    [29886.   Posted 19-Feb-2014 Wed 02:47]
`both operated from the U.K`

What does that mean? Does google `operate` in the UK?
Some further info: the site seems to be registered (the domain name) in London.
But, is that the person who is `operating` the site?

Therumbler    [29885.   Posted 18-Feb-2014 Tue 17:01]


phantom    [29884.   Posted 18-Feb-2014 Tue 08:20]
   Harvey    {29880}        

“I think you`ll find that where other countries` laws cover publication/distribution, etc they work in the same was UK laws do.”

And I`m not saying that some countries don`t, Harvey. I know that the Times got in trouble with France once for the same reason. And the Germans are going to extremes in trying to prove what pukka non-Nazis they are nowadays. (As for the Saudis, let`s not even go there!)
That still doesn`t make it right.

It remains an idiotic position for any country to hold.
If you write something on the net in San Francisco, then you have not done it in England, whether you are later found to be living there, or even passing through Heathrow, or not.
English law is off its head in interpreting internet publication in this way. For it is not how any reasonable thinking person on earth understands the concept of publication to work.
Listing examples of countries that are equally stupid doesn`t really make it any less so.

“Libel tourism is a separate issue, really. It`s a consequence of the "no win, no fee" arrangements, which made using UK libel law so attractive to foreigners.“

Actually, no. It`s the nature of libel law itself in England which draws folks to the English courts (combined with the idiotic `everything is published in England` notion). Libel is much easier to establish in English law. In most other countries – including Ukraine, I hazard to guess, people would be told to grow a pair.
There is a reason many countries have exempted themselves from enforcing fines imposed by English courts.
The fact is, we are by now seen as the judicial equivalent of the scrapings at the bottom of the barrel.
In short, English law has become an embarrassment.

“ATVOD might say that what is available on foreign servers is covered by their remit if it can be viewed in the UK. “

Server domesticity is a question in anything regarding publication, including the OPA. I believe it was in fact the Perrin case which established the use of the `everything is published in England` concept in regards to the OPA and adult material.
And the Perrin case was rather telling in many ways regarding issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction. And I maintain it was utterly daft.

The simple truth is that the `everything is published in England` view of law flies in the face of justice. I understand that the location of a server may not necessarily be the defining issue as to the location of publication. There is room for debate there. But surely a decision must be made at least between author/upload location OR server location as the defining criteria.
To simply state that anything in the world is now published in England is tantamount to a virtual land grab. It is to state that we no longer accept the jurisdictions of others and hold ourselves supreme overlords of the world.

The way I see it, issues of jurisdiction began to get watered down when laws were being introduced, first in Scandinavia, to prosecute paedophiles who acted outside one`s jurisdiction. These were laws effectively targeted at sex tourism to Thailand. But it, - as people warned at the time, - diluted the issue of jurisdiction. Countries like England felt emboldened to push further. Others did too. Nowadays we have a position where matters of jurisdiction have suddenly changed from being a clearly defined matter, to being a grey area.

Not least because one still wants to continue banning. After all, if it weren`t for just about the entire developed world having more liberal laws in terms of publication, why would we possibly take such a ludicrous position? It is our idiotic attempt at maintaining our `all-nipples-are-evil` view of law.
The Germans use their interpretation against neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers. The French use it regarding French privacy laws. The Saudis, well, I don`t really care what they use it for. I am sure other countries will also be in on the act.
But the English are demonstrably insane, attempting the pretence that their puerile porn laws and the he-said-something-bad-about-me libel paragraphs are now `world law` enforced from London.

Therumbler    [29883.   Posted 17-Feb-2014 Mon 15:44]

Might be of interest to some here. I found the treatment of individuals by the police particularly interesting.

Harvey    [29882.   Posted 17-Feb-2014 Mon 12:34]

In the JessicaPressley case, the key quote is; "ATVOD said that and both operated from the U.K" Therefore the company involved, JP Media, came under UK jurisdiction.

Is the webite you`re referring to run by a company or individual who is in the UK, or does business in the UK? If so, I an well imagine they would be wary of making hardcore images freely available within the UK even if their servers were outside the UK. A redirect of UK clients` browsers, is one way of doing it. He/they could also provide some kind of adults only subscription.

On the other hand, if the company wasn`t registered or doing business in the UK and the servers were outside the UK as well, it`s hard to see how any court order could be enforced, so bothering about whether folks in the UK could access your site might not be a significant consideration.

Lady Howe`s Bill envisaged that Ofcom could do exactly what ATVOD did in the JP Media case, but on a rather wider remit. It ignores the fact that most of the internet isn`t owned or operated by people or companies within UK jurisdiction, so while Ofcom could spend ages categorizing websites and could complain and cajole, they couldn`t rely on court orders or criminal prosecutions to enforce anything. The best they could do is have some CleanFeed style URL blocking list, but that list would be huge and simply maintaining and deploying it would be a mammoth task.

If you want to view the site, get a proxy connection. Plenty of very reliable very fast VPN proxy connections available which can make the interweb think you are in Houston or San Francisco or Hamburg, or wherever...

sergio    [29881.   Posted 17-Feb-2014 Mon 06:41]
`On the other hand, they have no powers to act outside the UK to prevent that on demand content being available.`

Some context. I still not sure I understand but a webmaster has posted some links that have hardcore images. The links actually redirect to the original site, the images are not available because I am in the UK. Anyone in the uk cannot see the images (because the url redirects). I talked to the webmaster and he gave me the answers as ATVOD. He also gave me a link to the jessicapressley case -

I still don`t know if the content that had was on foreign servers. So, it seems to me like the threat of fines has closed it. The people `operated` in the UK.

Harvey    [29880.   Posted 16-Feb-2014 Sun 19:56]
  "Our law applies to all countries now."

I think you`ll find that where other countries` laws cover publication/distribution, etc they work in the same was UK laws do. So Suadi law could consider an article written and hosted on a server in France to be blasphemy under their laws. If the author visited Saudi, they`d be liable to be prosecuted. German law regarding holocaust denial, similarly.

Libel tourism is a separate issue, really. It`s a consequence of the "no win, no fee" arrangements, which made using UK libel law so attractive to foreigners. In the case you put forward, the complainant would still have to show that they had been defamed in the UK, rather than simply that the article had been published here as a consequence of being available on the internet. Also, damages would probably be limited to the damage caused to to their reputation in the UK.

ATVOD might say that what is available on foreign servers is covered by their remit if it can be viewed in the UK. On the other hand, they have no powers to act outside the UK to prevent that on demand content being available. This is why Lady Howe`s Bill, was so utterly stupid. Apart from being vague as to what constituted "adult content" or how having "filtered" it, children could be prevented from viewing such stuff, there was no suggestion as to how any content could be controlled, worldwide. It was supposing Ofcom would be the enforcer of the availability of "adult content", rather than ATVOD, though.

phantom    [29879.   Posted 16-Feb-2014 Sun 14:20]
  sergio [29878]

The law doesn`t care where a server is located.
The law merely cares where it can be downloaded.
Thus, if it can be downloaded in England, it is published in England.

It is this insanity that has led to the spectacle of Ukranian billionaires suing Ukranian newspapers for articles written in Ukranian in English libel courts.

Anything that is published on the net anywhere, no matter where the server or the author at the time of publication is published in England.

Yes. We rule the world. Our law applies to all countries now.

Does it make sense? No. But then since when has English law got anything to do with making sense?
Lets just call it a bout of post-imperial megalomania.

We rule the world. Our law applies to everyone on earth. Because Harriet Harman and her friends don`t want to give up the idea that one day they might be able to outlaw internet porn. And were they to accept national jurisdiction boundaries, that dream would die. So it must be so.

Thank you, Harriet.

sergio    [29878.   Posted 16-Feb-2014 Sun 02:33]
  If the content is on foreign servers is it bound by the `rules` of ATVOD?

What is the boundary of the authority of ATVOD?

Therumbler    [29877.   Posted 15-Feb-2014 Sat 19:46]

Pooch    [29876.   Posted 15-Feb-2014 Sat 06:11]
  @Sergio [29872] and Phantom [29875]: I think that the Law changes the definition of the word "Illegal" to suit whatever meaning they want it to mean, depending on the situation/case under prosecution. Thus, if they want "illegal" to mean banned, they`ll use that definition, rather than the dictionary interpretation of the word that the rest of the world uses.

phantom    [29875.   Posted 14-Feb-2014 Fri 16:02]
  sergio {29872}

I would amend that assertion, sergio.
To `EVERYTHING is illegal in the UK.`
It is however in the gift of the powers that be whether they selectively choose to prosecute any breech or not.

Spiderschwein    [29874.   Posted 14-Feb-2014 Fri 15:12]
  Bad news, people. The Lodge gentlemen`s club in Oxford has failed at the Court of Appeal to get its licence renewed and will probably close.

I wonder if Oxford Feminist Network and their fellow foamers are proud of the women they`ve just thrown on the dole.

Harvey    [29873.   Posted 14-Feb-2014 Fri 11:01]

What does that mean?

Does it mean it is an offence to possess?

To produce? To distribute?

To talk about....?

This is all presupposing we understand what "HARDCORE" means.

sergio    [29872.   Posted 14-Feb-2014 Fri 08:57]
  Can anyone validate or deny the truth of this assertion
`all freely available hardcore porn is illegal in the UK.`

Pooch    [29871.   Posted 14-Feb-2014 Fri 06:13]

Some more news on Lars Von Trier`s NYMPHOMANIAC.

1) Rumour has it, that the USA has had Part 1 of the two-part epic, allegedly cut by 30-minutes, for its Video-On-Demand release. Cinemas should be playing it uncut (at 118 minutes), but that`s still to be confirmed through any official channels.

2) Von Trier`s fabled five-and-a-half-hour Cannes cut is unlikely to be shown outside of Cannes itself. However, he has authorised this extended, and uncut "hardcore" version to be released on home-viewing formats, as a 2.5-hour cut of Part 1, and a 3-hour cut of Part 2. Whether UK fans will get this, has still to be confirmed. At the moment, Artificial Eye (the film`s UK distributors) aren`t saying any more on the subject.

Therumbler    [29870.   Posted 13-Feb-2014 Thu 11:02]

phantom    [29869.   Posted 13-Feb-2014 Thu 08:16]
  freeworld {29867}

"The Berlin wall didn`t fall, it just moved west."

Actually, I think the fall of the wall has had a profound effect on the west.
The Eastern Block functioned very much as something against which to contrast ourselves. With the Eastern Block gone, the literal warning on our front door disappeared.

I recall how one of the downsides of East Germany - as taught in the Swiss school I went to - was how childcare was very much a matter of the state, as mothers were expected to get back to work as quickly as possible in the socialist system. Compare and contrast that with matters in this very country today.

But aside from such social issues, the warning from the Warsaw Pact was most likely also what prevented earlier governments from going ape over the `terrorist threat`. After all, how easy would it have been to announce that `the game had changed` after, say, the attack on the Brighton Tory Conference.
But the west was not in a position where it could possibly admit that `Honnecker and Breshniev are not all bad.`
Clamping down for reasons of internal security was something totalitarian communist states did. In fact I`m sure, if asked they would have spoken about the rights of the proletariat to be protected, as opposed to the rights of individuals to threaten their security.

Oh, and irony of ironies. I bet no bad news from Afghanistan was ever broadcast by Soviet media. I bet they too just won and won and won. Before they left.

sergio    [29868.   Posted 12-Feb-2014 Wed 11:00]
  If I film someone talking on their mobile phone while driving a car what would the BBFC certify it as?

freeworld    [29867.   Posted 12-Feb-2014 Wed 02:56]
  The state here can jail people over looking at fictional pictures in private homes. You can potentially be arrested for possessing what is defined as "extreme" socio - political material in your home library (surely something which potentially criminalizes anyone who has - freely available to buy or get from a library - a copy of "Mein Kampf"). You can be arrested over saying, or communicating by other means, something someone finds "offensive", or anyone at all, even a person who hears of it 3rd hand, might choose to regard as "racist" (another Straw master stroke).

The concept has been created that people need to be protected against even looking at things which can, or some believe can, cause harm - cigarette packs are one (this principal even being used to damn harmless e-cigarettes - "they look like tobacco" and thus "normalize" smoking), but the DPA is surely just such a law as well.

Mere accusation of a serious crime, even one allegedly committed in the very distant past, for which no objective evidence can possibly exist, is enough for the state to mount a prosecution, in an echo of the murderous Stalin show trials of the 30s. The state has decided that the jury system can be unsatisfactory for some kinds of criminal cases, a precept which can stretch to other alleged offenses where the juries have a habit of not doing what the authorities and political class want.

I see it as inevitable that all "pornography" will, in time, be subject to further state assaults, which will make Cameron`s voluntary internet filters look very mild indeed. Already attempts have been made in parliament to apply the stipulations of the DPA to the written word. The mild "sexy" covers of lads mags are under attack by the "think of the children" forces, but also, more sinister, by those who hold that any attraction to the external features of a person is socially and politically unacceptable ("body fascism" was the term they coined a few years ago, now largely replaced by a cleverer parroted phrase "objectification" - the censors being really the ones using the collectivist and statist precepts of fascism, championing not just censorshp, but the Orwellian concept of unacceptable thought). "Sex crime" has been stretched and stretched, and can now encompass just about anything - (a while ago a man was on trial over allegedly looking a female bottoms in public) so that anybody can potentially end up a convicted "sex criminal", as certain celebrities have been finding out the hard way.

The government has attempted to apply the ASBO system to any public behaviour which someone might find annoying - the bill sailing through the house of elected muppets, the Lords being the only place where some concept of individual liberty and the perils of excessive statism seems to survive in any strength, blocked the proposed IPNAs - for now.

So, we have in place all the right stuff for totalitarianism - in a corrupted law, stuffed already with totalitarian concepts and precepts; a sanctimonious and megalomaniac political class which dominates all the major parties; a huge, highly influential allied quangocracy/ fake charity establishment, made up of obsessive busybody social engineers; plus a supine media (which the Establishment and its creatures are attempting to control more) - the oligarchy working within a basically publicly unaccountable political system, where the power of the state has no actual limits over its capacity to remove a citizen`s rights and freedoms.

Totalitarians don`t destroy freedom because oppression, for them, is a good in itself, but because they have a mission, a core ideology, that being to improve the human race by statist social engineering.

The Berlin wall didn`t fall, it just moved west.

phantom    [29866.   Posted 11-Feb-2014 Tue 14:55]
  On another note there is one subject which I feel has been censored out of existence in this country: War.

We have had troops in Afghanistan for nigh on 13 years now.
And just about every report we`ve heard has been about how our brave lads are kicking ass and have the Taliban on the run.
I figure that with all the running the Taliban have been doing they ought to be in Australia by now.
Meanwhile our troops have been so profoundly victorious for over a dozen years now, I`m sure it must be about time to start erecting red telephone boxes and introducing double decker buses.

That is to say, we`ve had a fantastical load of propaganda, but any meaningful information has been pretty much suppressed.

In Iraq it was much the same we were winning throughout, winning hearts and minds all the way to India it seemed. Except for some unknown reason our troops ended up hunkered down at the airbase, well out of the way of Basra.

Now before people go ape, claiming this a criticism of any squaddies out there, doing their thing.
But it just seems obvious that the stuff we`ve been fed has been well and truly filtered.

Folks were getting better information about the first and second world war in their day, than we ever have received in this `information age`.

The media may be free to scandalise any politician who`s caught with his pants down, but when it comes to war the government has got an iron grip on things and the freedom of the press disappears very swiftly.

Seems to me that sometimes censorship is not merely about nipples.

phantom    [29865.   Posted 11-Feb-2014 Tue 14:43]
  re: Government jihad against extremist videos...

Ah, yes! The jihad against the Jihadis.
Or to coin a phrase: the `good` Jihad!

Once more one wonders. Just what is extremist material?
And that`s not to say that the irony of spinning the word `extreme` has gone undetected here. `extreme` porn, `extremist` material... yeah, right.
I think the guys who created those terms either are one and the same person, or they went to the same seminar.

But is the output of the Westboro Baptist Church extremist material? Or only that of Asian men with beards?

Any talk of `extremism` is largely a twisted and hypocritical exercise anyhow. Especially when it comes from a government which locks people up on `moral` grounds. The words `pot`, `kettle` and `black` spring to mind for some reason.

phantom    [29864.   Posted 11-Feb-2014 Tue 07:56]
  freeworld {29862}

"Didn`t "tiger pron" get dropped before it went to court?"

Nah, `tiger porn` went to court - where the prosecution presented no evidence. Their excuse was that they had hitherto not listened to the clip with the sound on. So yes, a really professional outfit, that lot.

Clearly theirs was an excuse. The idea that they simply omitted to play the track without sound is risible.
But admitting to leaving it to the date of the court case in order to pile as much pressure as possible onto the defendant in the hope that he might cave, is not something they are likely to do, is it?

And yes, government ministers who don`t go:
Who could forget Justine Greening? Her department screwed up the Westcoast Mainline contract. (The one Richard Branson appealed.) One or two days before the department had to admit to its disastrous mistake, `Tony` Cameron decided to move his pal Justine onto another department: Overseas development.
To stand on the steps of shame and admit the error to the press was then left to the new Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin. I`m assuming he`s not a pal of Cameron`s...
How much did the whole Westcoast Mainline fiasco cost? £40m.
Justine Greening is still Overseas Development Secretary.
So yes, that`s how our lords and masters play the game. And no, they don`t resign.

Pooch    [29863.   Posted 11-Feb-2014 Tue 04:58]

@Phantom [29861] - Thanks for the comments. I agree. Isn`t it great that if it was any one of us caught with such imagery, we`d be plastered to the four corners of the highest court in the land, but if you`re a member of the police or the government, you get a slap on the wrist (if that), and then get to walk away scott-free? :(

Likewise, many government ministers. They won`t get sacked for being incompetent, but will be "relocated" into another job on the same pay as before, or just allowed to resign, and given a nice sum of cash as a parting-gift.

God, this double-standards bullshit hacks me off so much! :(

freeworld    [29862.   Posted 10-Feb-2014 Mon 09:19]
  phantom {29857. Posted 9-Feb-2014 Sun 14:15}
phantom {29861. Posted 10-Feb-2014 Mon 06:38}
Yes. The defense bit only applies to "participants" anyway. It`s the same as the rest of the DPA in that respect. Not Cameron`s idea - that defense was put in at a late stage of the original New Labour bill, I think when the Lords were giving them trouble over the thing. "Explicit" "realistic", and the"obscene", "disgusting", stuff, which narrowed the DPA`s scope - possibly quite a lot - was also put in thanks to the Lords, I think. This is legislation which is deranged enough to treat the real and the unreal as exactly the same. It`s like prosecuting an actor for murder over a scene in a fictional movie or tv show. Totally mad law is inevitable in creating victimless crimes. The DPA is schizoid - it convicts over non existent injuries and deaths, and now "rapes" which never happened

However, because a "prosecutable" image of an act must involve er...going in and coming out, as it were, if I`ve got it right, then an image would have to cover all that "process" to be potentially illegal . A film clip/ series of individual pics, maybe, but not a solitary image.

For the purposes of subsection (7A)—(a)
penetration is a continuing act from entry to

So, three of the the police officers are not going to be charged over EP, and the CPS is "considering" the case of the fourth. Well, is it EP or not? If the police and CPS don`t actually know what is and is not an illegal image, how can such a law, which interferes with private life, be compatible with the HRA/ECHR; how on earth can an ordinary person know if they are acting in breach of this law? Perhaps we should ask Straw, who stamped it as HR compatible? This is not a matter which necessarily can be an issue with every kind of legislation, even legislation with highly subjective criteria as its primary evidential basis, like this one has - but, this is a law which represents state interference and criminal sanctions over an area covered by stipulations in the HRA/ECHR.

I concur over what you say about them avoiding any potentially high profile DPA cases. And a rich person could possibly get the position of the legislation looked at on the grounds of HR compatibility. Starmer actually mentioned this HR issue in the guidance that was put out after the gay prosecution gave the DPA a lot of unwelcome publicity.

Didn`t "tiger pron" get dropped before it went to court?

We not only have police forces which pronounce guilt on the basis of hearsay; we are lucky enough to have officers who can read minds too. Thus of Savile -

"He spent every minute of every waking day thinking about it (assaulting youngsters that is)..."

phantom    [29861.   Posted 10-Feb-2014 Mon 06:38]
  Pooch [29860]

The way I see it, Pooch, the prosecution guard the arrows in their quiver carefully.
They know fullwell that a public scandal surrounding a group of police officers would draw lots of media scrutiny. Not least scrutiny of the law in question. And this law doesn`t withstand scrutiny.
So the CPS are not interested in having one of their weapons scrutinised in that way.

These laws tend to get introduced under the radar, without letting the public know too much detail. The authorities like to keep things that way.
This because everyone knows that, if the public is told about it, then it will turn against this sort of authoritarian nonsense - and in turn the law will be lost.

Thus the CPS operate on a simple basis. They use their weapon unless there is danger of the edge being blunted. So they`re unlikely to use it against multimillionaires who can hire expensive lawyers and kick up a fight, and they`re not going to use it in cases which draw too much attention to the detail.

Hence the CPS` decision on whether it`s in a the public interest to prosecute can easily become one based on whether it is in the CPS` interest to prosecute. The CPS` interest then becomes the `public interest`.

Anything which possibly damages their future ability to prosecute others is thus not in their interest. So it gets dropped.

So one doesn`t take on Elton John about controversial art, once police have kicked up a ridiculous fuss in an art gallery. And one doesn`t take on a bunch of police officers who might draw on public sympathy for being victimised by a stupid law.

So, the law is used against anyone, unless it`s deemed in the CPS` interest not to prosecute, for fear of the public finding out too much.

Pooch    [29860.   Posted 10-Feb-2014 Mon 05:04]
  Hi Folks,

So, can anyone clarify WHY the police officers who had "extreme pornographic material" (whatever that might be) on their phones, were let-off and won`t now face ANY criminal proceedings, yet if it were any one of us (e.g. us ordinary members of the public), we would have been put through the law courts at the earliest opportunity possible, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?!

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

phantom    [29859.   Posted 9-Feb-2014 Sun 17:28]
  Therumbler [29858]
ah yes, well spotted!
It`s the "and" at the end of the lines,

So you need to show you were in it AND doesn`t involve non-consensual harm AND it`s not a real rape, (or) it`s not a real corpse. (c is quite comical!)

So fictional rape is ok, if it involves you as one of the protagonists... but not someone else.

So according to Mr Cameron (and let`s not forget, this is his baby) playing rape and filming it is fine. Watching someone else do the same is criminal.

Eton sure produces geniuses these days, doesn`t it. lol

Therumbler    [29858.   Posted 9-Feb-2014 Sun 16:27]
  You have to prove all four parts of A2 to defend yourself. I imagine that the many cases will depend on whether the jury believes it is realistic or not.

phantom    [29857.   Posted 9-Feb-2014 Sun 14:15]
  re: More Dangerous Porn...

err, it it me???

"(A2): It is a defence for D to prove---

(b): that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and
(d): if the image portrays an act within section 63(7A), that what is portrayed as non-consensual penetration was in fact consensual."

Wouldn`t the above exemption mean that only real rape is actually covered by this law? Well, true - you would need to prove yourself innocent (welcome to the new Britain), but effectively if something that is `portrayed as rape` is in fact consensual or doesn`t include the `infliction of non consensual harm`, it is exempt.

So in essence, the law doesn`t ban fictional `rape porn`. It merely bans real `rape porn`.

Now true the defendant might have to do the impossible and prove himself innocent by showing that a clip he downloaded from a Japanese website was in fact consensually produced.

But the law is actually geared at films of real rape. It merely aims at ruining people`s lives who have consensually filmed rough sex or fictional rape scenes on their computer or phone, by making them prove where they got them from in a public court.

Have I got that right? Opinions please...

phantom    [29856.   Posted 8-Feb-2014 Sat 16:55]
  braintree {29855}
"Re: Colin Stagg etc - there will always be errors made in the Justice system and some are discovered too late for the wrongfully jailed but this witch hunt for sex offences in the wake of Savile...."

I`m sorry Braintree, but Colin Stagg et alia do not represent inevitable errors in the justice system which can be explained.
They are monuments to the justice system simply not working anymore.

If you wonder how - with the age of the victim not even being clear - a charge of underage sex could even be considered against Roache, then ask yourself how Craig Charles can be accused of rape by a serial accuser, or how Colin Stagg can get accused for coming forward as a witness, following the requests for witness statements by police.

Ask yourself how Perrin, on buying an adult company in the US and getting legal advice regarding its legality then found himself locked up in Britain once moving over here. And that blatant injustice is nowadays a legal precedent with which to beat people with. As is the infamous Spanner case.

How is it possible that a joke clip ever got to court for a tiger giving blow jobs? How come anyone ever thought that a text describing the fictional murder of a girl band should be banned as obscene - if not even the prosecution presented evidence in court?

One can easily excuse these as isolated cases - as the authorities do - and then concentrate on the one case which interests one personally; in your case the Roache case.
But the simple truth is, these cases are going to keep happening because the system`s bust.

The victims of Operation Ore are still waiting to be cleared - and unlike Roache - they weren`t cleared and then lauded by the tabloids.
Roache is really not the lowest point of English law. Trust me, his case isn`t by a long shot.

I agree in principle. It`s disgraceful what happened to him. But the prosecution of this country is predatory and the system allows them to get away with driving people into suicide.

Roache shouldn`t open people`s eyes to the madness surrounding the Savile witch hunt. Far more, Roache ought to open people`s eyes to the fact that the system regularly pulverises perfectly harmless people for no reason whatsoever.

The CPS is acting with impunity like some medieval inquisition, flinging vile accusations at people. Not merely regards Savile and Operation Yewtree. No, the entire system these days is geared to allow them to do as they please.
The only defence people have is not to be accused. And that`s a pretty serious state of affairs, Roache or no Roache.

braintree    [29855.   Posted 8-Feb-2014 Sat 14:46]
  Re: Colin Stagg etc - there will always be errors made in the Justice system and some are discovered too late for the wrongfully jailed but this witch hunt for sex offences in the wake of Savile should be stopped and dismissed for what it is . Now I don`t know what "evidence" was presented in court against Roache but does it really take much to work out that there`s very unlikely to be any that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt an offence that`s nearly 50 years old . Even before the court case the CPS were unable to give the age of one of the "victims" other than saying she was "14 or 15". Surely if the age of the victim and year of the offence cannot be clarified that should be enough for the whole thing to be laughed out of court. That Roache and his family had to endure such a court case is shameful and Roache should sue the CPS although I`m doubtful he would.
As someone points out , apparently Savile is the most prolific sex offender ever yet he was never charged let alone convicted . It would appear that once you`re dead it`s a free for all . I`m sure the bank freezing his estate in case of compo claims had nothing to do with hundreds of people coming out of the woodwork to stake their claim . Savile was a weird character - there`s no doubt of that but are we really expected to believe the not very inconspicuous man with the shock of white hair was not only able to abuse hundreds of victims but that he was also able to keep them all quiet for 50 years ? Personally I have no doubt that Savile took advantage of groupies like many other pop stars and radio DJ`s of the era would have done and he most likely ended up in bed with some girls that were under 16 but the idea that he was a predatory paedophile who successfully sated a thirst for pre -teens for 50 years without being caught seems a bit far fetched. The Savile guilt is based purely on the basis that there are so many claims then surely it must be true . But that`s not really a basis for real law although the CPS seem quite happy to use it as their tool in these historic cases for which there cannot possibly be any tangible evidence. Even more disturbing than these cases is why aren`t there people in positions of authority saying "hang on a minute" in relation to these cases that should never even be in court .
DLT is yet another example . Hopefully when his not guilty verdict comes in someone somewhere might start to take notice and ask the CPS exactly what their game is

phantom    [29854.   Posted 8-Feb-2014 Sat 09:42]
  freeworld {29853}

I completely agree with your views on double jeopardy.
I was dead set against that change at the time. Leaving the authorities to have a go until they succeed is madness.

Personally, I would quite like to see public censure – even punishment – of prosecutors. To hold them accountable for the outrageous injustices they force upon the people they innocently accuse.
For there is a difference between simply losing a case and some of the blatant legal phishing exercises whereby they simply hope for the accused to cave in.
Who knows, it might make them think twice before having a go at someone.
It surely would mean that cases with no prospect whatsoever would not be left hanging over defendants until the date of trial, only for the prosecution not to produce any evidence.
For those cases, I feel very strongly, prosecutors should have to be publicly answerable.
In short there needs to be a sense of balance. Both sides need to have something to lose.
It would at least instil a sense of caution in the accusers.

I would also like to see the police become a silent arm of the law again. For one I don`t want policemen given press statements and tv interviews on the steps of court houses, whether they`ve won or not.
Also I do not want the police lobbying for laws to be introduced. Whenever I hear a minister argue that the police support the introduction of a law, I cringe. The police enforce law. They are not here to issue forth wish lists of what laws they would like to enforce.

Moreover it would be nice if some sort of rule would apply by which law is not there to socially engineer what ministers believe to be acceptable behaviour.
Most of all, officially designated offences – for which people actually go to prison - actually need to have victims. People who have done no one any harm – but for acting against the opinions of ministers – do not belong in prison.

I guess what is required is a parliamentary cap on legislation.
Parliament should get only to pass a very restricted number of offences within any calendar year. This would make them assign priorities and it would furthermore grant them time to actually debate and revise any law before it is passed. In short, quality not quantity.

In fact, I do recall that Roman republican politicians took office on winning an election for one year, which effectively only granted them the power to introduce the laws they`d campaigned on. Sure, if a crisis arose the consuls could act on their own initiative. But essentially they were only there to introduce their manifesto – and then go.
The beauty of this system is clear. Let`s face it, who voted for DPA+? What possibly mandate does `Tony` Cameron have for this? The truth is, none. A Roman consul could never have done this as no one had elected him to do so. In many regards the ancients were well ahead of us.

Yes, I know all of the above is a pipe dream. But I guess at least my point is clear. The Roache trial does not embarrass English law. It`s already a broken toy. A system of law in which remaining silent can be used against you in court is not worth much.

Meanwhile, I`m not sure about your choice of David Davis for leader of the Tories. Yes, he has some liberal views regarding some aspects of civil liberties. Something he has publicised to great effect. But on very many other issues he is in fact a right wing hardliner. Thus, I`m not sure how much joy you would really get with him as prime minister.

freeworld    [29853.   Posted 8-Feb-2014 Sat 03:41]
  phantom {29852. Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 19:05}
On radio 5 this morning - apparently some police officers have been caught with alleged extreme pron on mobile phones; a file is being sent to the DPP/CPS. If proceeded with, that`s the sort of case which would put the DPA in the public spotlight - and inform thousands who probably don`t know it even exists, of just what might get them into serious trouble.

A gay man, some sort of aid to the London mayor, I think, was cleared of a DPA based charge a while ago - and, being somebody of some degree of importance, and gay to boot, it caused quite a public rumpus about the authorities "persecuting gays" using a dubious new law. One wonders if there would be such a response if such a heterosexual man was cleared after a trial. The case led to a change in DPP`S DPA guidance for what should be prosecutable. I continue to hold the view the DPA is not HRA/ECHR compliant, and its high time it was challenged on that basis.

We effectively lost the centuries old protection provided by "double jeopardy" under New Labour/Blunkett. Apparently that was fine and dandy, as it principally arose out of an attempt to "get" the Stephen Lawrence murder`s "racist" suspects ( how many others have been cleared after trial over the years about whom a strong suspicion of guilt remains, but that has been the end of it, no fundamental change in the legal system being made to "get" them with further trials over the same alleged crime?). Straw, I think it was, who passed legislation to allow for jury-less trials in cases where bribery of juries had supposedly taken place, and in some fraud trials (I see this sort of thing as "Trojan horse" law, a useful foundation for mission creep). So, we could have moves to have double jeopardy removed for all crimes, not just the very serious ones (it includes crimes other than murder now - it also covers manslaughter, armed robbery, some drug offenses... and rape - so any being found not guilty by juries in rape trials could potentially face the same ordeal again over the same allegations in future). My view is that DJ should always apply, as an essential safety feature for the citizen, especially as its removal invites the authorities to keep after those they want to "get", and encourages the corrupt "manufacturing" of evidence for further trials. As to taking away the right of a jury trial for some alleged crimes, you can just hear the ptb saying that is "necessary to increase conviction rates - and stop rapists getting away with it". Imagine a "Daily Mail" headline - "At last! Government change law to jail more rapists - victory for Betty`s law campaigners..."

Jimmy Savile has been declared a major sex offender ("Britain`s most prolific paedo") by all and sundry. In their report even the Metropolitan police talk about victims, not alleged victims of Savile - translating allegations into "official" guilt, though none of these claims have ever been tested in court - and when evidence was looked at while Savile was alive, there was apparently not enough there to proceed to prosecution with. I`ve no idea if there is real substance to one or more of the allegations made against Savile, but look at all the cases which have led to highly publicized celebrity arrests which have been quietly dropped, presumably as unsafe to take further (including Savile`s on the road producer Ted Beston. It will be interesting to see what happens in the DLT case and the upcoming Harris trial); look at the evidence used to make up the counts to try Mr Roache - all in the light of a pervasive supposition that celebrity Savile was wrongly allowed to "get away with" serious crimes while he was alive.

Apparently the lawyers at the CPS thought there was enough to merit taking the hapless Mr.Roache to court with a reasonable chance it would be adequate for a conviction. Now we`ve had a chance to know more about some of the supposed evidence they used, their decision looks pretty dubious, to say the least - and the non legal professionals on the jury took that view. You can imagine the sorts of "expert" legal professionals who would end up judging such trials without juries, and what they would possibly convict over. After all, the Straw MOJ didn`t exactly choose independent "experts" without axes to grind to write the official government report supposedly justifying the DPA to parliament. "Tory Blair" hasn`t even bothered to justify extending the existing law in the same manner - he`s simply knee jerkingly reacted to the lobbying of special interest groups and bolted another section onto the DPA in a new "Xmas tree" bill.

I agree with everything you say about what has happened and is happening. The situation is worsened because in 2005 the Tories chose a Blair clone over a man of principle, David Davis. The hypocrisy of UK`s leaders lecturing other countries over bad human rights records and censorship becomes more and more evident. Of course, as parliament`s legislative power has been increasingly handed over to the EU, there is less and less of substance the muppets can do independently in Westmonster to justify their existence. This has increased the tendency to interfere more in those areas where they still exercise some national autonomy. And a great deal of the problem is also down to organized lobbying by special pleaders, who go on and on with the pressure and polemic until they get their way. They are listened to by the media, anxious for sensational headlines, however dubious the substance is, and by the politicians - far more than their numbers or soundness of their views rationally justify - whether it`s wimmins groups, anti smokers, or "motoring safety" organizations. They play the media with great skill as their propaganda arm, and the popularity courting politicians - both being all too ready to translate minority campaign group views into "public opinion".

Like you, I`m pessimistic, but the celebs in these new cases are bigger names than Craig Charles, and the likes of Colin Stagg weren`t famous at all. So who knows? The press are obviously piling in with the "why oh why" stuff in the aftermath of Roache. The results of the Travis and Harris cases may prove important in continuing, or potentially stifling, any trend to question the kind of legislation and prosecution system which has been created in England. Travesties of justice and evil laws aren`t new, of course - look at how they fitted up Stephen Ward in 1963, which drove him to his death; the anti gay law was only repealed in 1967. But with more new "subjective"/"thought"/"speech"/offense" crimes than ever, and a legal system becoming even more biased in favour of the authorities, the potential for more lives being destroyed unjustly is probably greater now than it has been for a long time.

phantom    [29852.   Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 19:05]
  braintree {29851}

Well, the Roache trial has not made a laughing stock of English law, because English law is already a laughing stock.
Tell me that the above is is a vote of confidence by the world`s leading democracy in English law.
The truth is we like to still believe we are a leading nation in matters of law, that we are a bright shining light of western liberal values.
It`s a sort of national comfort blanket.
But the reality looks a little different.
It`s not a matter of whether you disagree with this law or that, the whole edifice is in a mess.
The media, especially the `campaigning newspapers`, has not been helpful.
But the chief culprit is parliament.
For the past decades is has been seized by a fervent need for hyperactivity. But no heed has been paid to a proper punitive scale or what any other countries are doing. Thus we`ve become an insular banana republic. Our courts have become somewhat of a joke and the police a politicised entity of its own with its own agenda.

Populist pandering and a bizarre bidding war by the two major parties for the tough-on-crime crown has skewed the penal code out of any proportion.
In what other country than Britain would Jack Straw stand up in parliament and proclaim that he is proud announce that Britain`s prison capacity, thanks to his efforts, will swell to 92`500. He did. No, really.
In any other society, with the exception maybe of the USA, the need for ever greater prison figures surely would be seen as an abject failure. Not here.

We have created myriad new offences where there previously were none, for no apparent reason. Moreover, we have created truly victimless crimes.
Well, just look at this proposal by `Tony` Cameron. Who in people viewing `rape porn` is supposed to be the victim? Society? The `big society`? :)

We held `terror suspects` in prison without trial for ages under Blair, - without even telling them what the charges were.
Is there actually a better way of publicly pissing on Magna Carta?
Moreover, the Blair one even sulked when the Law Lords told him he could not do that.

We`ve (somehow) shot an unarmed terror suspect in his own home and then charged him with possession of child porn.
We`ve charged a man with possession of a clip in which another man gets a (realistic?) blowjob from a tiger.

We have played fast and loose with international law when we attacked Iraq. But have we learnt anything from it? Well, just look at what we did in Lybia - in order to `protect the population`.

Britain`s relationship with the law has become - well - fraught.

A nation of law bows to the law, no matter the circumstances. It doesn`t bend the law, or circumvent it if it doesn`t prove politically convenient.
It doesn`t adulterate the principals of law with crap to gain votes, or for purposes of political positioning - to `send a message to society`.
Britain however does these things these days.

Thus Britain`s justice system is already a laughing stock. With or without the Roache case.

After all, the Roache case is nothing new. Just take Craig Charles, Simon Walsh, or Colin Stag! Or the age old injustice of the victims of the Spanner case.
The Roache case will change nothing, because none of these did.

What we need is a set of politicians who are willing to clear up the mess, have a moratorium on new legislation and instead devote themselves to bringing existing law into some sort of line - including a massive cull of completely pointless statute.
But we will not get that, as everyone well knows. So the situation is just going to get worse.

So who knows, perhaps European Human Rights Law, for all its apparent flaws, is a good thing. It may not be politically accountable and thus be suspect, but the absence of politicians in it may be the very saviour of us one day.

braintree    [29851.   Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 15:19]
  Why hasn`t the Roache trial made a laughing stock of the British Justice system? Their own definition that guilt needs to be proven "beyond reasonable doubt" means this case should never have come to court . If women come forward with claims how on earth after almost 50 years are incidents proven beyond reasonable doubt? It`s a joke . I assume Roache will want to forget it and move on but personally I`d like him to sue the CPS for sheer stupidity . The CPS themselves admitted that its almost impossible to get guilt proven in these cases so why bother ? Hopefully if DLT is cleared the CPS will stop trying to make up for the fact they can`t do anything about Savile .
If rape porn is to be outlawed I guess my dvd of Sex Wish must go in the rubbish bin.
Hasn`t this stupid Government learnt from the Dangerous Pictures nonsense that these laws do nothing in reality except get convictions for ordinary people who happen to have one or two dodgy pix on their computer or phone. The laws certainly go no way whatsoever into stopping what they were intended to stop and new laws will be equally ineffective. But I guess the Government need something to distract the population from the important issues

phantom    [29850.   Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 14:23]
  freeworld [29849]

yes, the ceaseless drip, drip, drip is quite depressing.

I believe this bill also contains measures to have those convicted in English kangaroo courts pay for some of the court`s costs.
One may see this as a measure to make criminals pay for the cases they cause, rather than the `hard working taxpayer`, yadda, yadda. That is, if one were minded to see things the government`s way.

But I see it more as a case of making it harder for those caught in the net to kick against ludicrous convictions on ludicrous laws. What better way to make people more compliant than to burden them with costs and debt, threatening to increase them yet further if they dare to question things?

A book I read recently (`I fought the law` by Dan Kieran) suggested that much of our society suffers from that very malaise. People with large debts and mortgages are less likely to take to the streets and demonstrate against unfair laws, if arrest and criminalisation may mean loss of job and thus financial ruin.
Kieran in particularly focused on Blair`s law banning demonstrations outside parliament. But essentially the lesson can be learned in any walk of life.
Our financial dependency on the system has rendered us unable to whole the system to account.

Increasing the financial burden on anyone willing to put up a fight may thus be little more than the threat of a bully who is truly untouchable. And perfectly suits laws such as the DPA and `Tony` Cameron`s DPA+.

freeworld    [29849.   Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 08:43]
  phantom {29848. Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 07:11}
Phantom -
The most apt name for this coalition is Continuity New Labour. Good old "call me Dave"; he promised us only "evidence led legislation" - same as he promised a "great repeal" and a "cast iron" guarantee of an EU constitution referendum etc. LibLabCon - the illusion of choice. Three heads, same hydra.

How can "rough" consensual sex be invariably differentiated from "rape" in images?

But.... has the DPA been a law, of itself, which has led to significant convictions? I`m not referring to where its provisions have been used as add ons in trials of alleged paedos. Have a jury ever convicted a defendant who pleaded not guilty on adult "extreme" images alone? I ask, because I don`t know, but I suspect not.

As seen with the Roache trial, I believe juries/the public can be far more rational and in touch with reality than the CPS and, indeed, the odious political class. Garnier was right, I think, about such laws as the DPA bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. Recently Keir Starmer, the former DPP (appointed by New Labour) among others, have been making ominous noises about "putting victims" - not "alleged" victims note - "first" in the criminal justice system. Such comments don`t come out of a vacuum - they smell of a plan already prepared, an agenda. The comments came on the back of 1 or 2 cases where juries have found rape defendants not guilty and their alleged victims committed suicide. We saw how the DPA criminalized thousands potentially from specious justifications drawn from just one sensational case. I`m sure many of the repressors/ prohibitionists would love to replace juries by "legal professionals" in these sorts of cases. The only way the wimmins group conviction quotas might be met. You can never and should never appease the extremists among these lobbyists - they seem to genuinely believe any man accused of a sex crime involving a woman is inevitably guilty, and all men are rapists, just some haven`t been caught yet. You can`t find rationality in a fanatic`s mind.

So, I fear the ptb are using the media to soften us up for another political assault on the legal system to get more (unsafe, dubious...) convictions involving certain alleged offenses. Rape cases must be high on the agenda - and who knows, maybe all alleged "sex offenses" might end up jury free, saying the great unwashed clearly can`t grasp their complexities, which really should be left to "experts", you know. We can`t say it won`t happen. Like the DPA, the very useful precedents for mission creep have been put into our law by New Labour.

AS to some of your other points. Please, don`t give the banstibators any more ideas.

Won`t somebody think of the adults?

phantom    [29848.   Posted 7-Feb-2014 Fri 07:11]
  Ah yes, here we are.
Cheers for that, Freeworld. I didn`t know.

So `Tony` Cameron is going ahead with his threat.
Another full scale attack on the realm of sexual fantasy, especially on the BSDM community. (BDSM is the new sodomy, it seems)

Of course talking to him or any back bencher will be pointless. This is being done to please the wimmins groups. (the `campaigners` which get a mention in the links above) You see, both of the two major parties are desperate to appear `women friendly` as they are convinced this will win them the next election. So this is a part of the political positioning prior to the general election and not even a war would persuade `Tony` Cameron to shift that position now. Not if it`s part of the election strategy.

Personally, I feel it is a grave price being asked of society, but there you go. Because the consensus on rape and pornography is becoming ever more pronounced. And it is the polar opposite of what `Tony` Cameron and his `campaigners` suggest.
Thus, more women will likely get raped in the real world for the sake of the two main parties appearing more `female friendly`.
It`s an odd friendliness that possibly increases the rape rate.

That is aside from the very sticky subject of proscribing a particular fiction. For all the war on drugs, nobody has thus far proposed banning the fiction of using drugs. In fiction everything is permitted. You can even rape, as long as it`s in writing.
I remember Flashman rapes a women in the first novel.
Apparently this does not promote rape. But film the same and it does. So says `Tony` Cameron.
Moreover you can film murder to your heart`s delight. In the Saw films you can twist people to death. It isn`t deemed promotion of either murder or twisting people to death.
Tellingly, murder has always been deemed the more capital crime than rape.
But let`s just call that an anomaly, shall we....

At least this time the government are not proposing that they`re banning real rape on film. We all remember the cringe-worthy claims of victims of violent porn in Nicaragua when Labour introduced the DPA.

The impact assessment is as good as non existent. Essentially it`s not measurable, so nothing can be quantified. Except of course that all will be lovely if we ban this vile stuff....

(On a related tangent I`d just like to point out what a farce the supposedly separate jurisdictions of Scotland and England is. I`ve always felt it laughable. Either side amends their law sooner or later to match the changes introduced in the other. Thus having these two separate bodies of law seems an exercise in nationalist semantics.)

Oh, and why `Tony` Cameron?
Well, the DPA was announced as one of Tony Blair`s `legacy laws`.
So it seems Mr Cameron is now so enamoured with Mr Blair`s political views he`s now building on his `legacy` upon them.
Better still, he`s expanding possibly the worst law introduced in decades.
Edward Garnier QC (Con) who sat on the original committee stated that the DPA had the potential to bring the law itself into disrepute.
So to expand such a law can of course only be a good thing.....

But please people, don`t be too hard on `Tony` Cameron.
He`s really an open minded politician in the tradition of western liberal democracy. After all, he likes gays just as he does anyone else. He says so. Repeatedly. We all ought to be very liberal towards them.
Oddly we ought only be authoritarian, prescriptive and proscriptive towards anyone else. But don`t read too much into that. He`s really a nice guy. Honest.

I say, vote Monster Raving Loony. These days, they`re the sane option.

freeworld    [29847.   Posted 6-Feb-2014 Thu 06:44]
  Currently trundling through parliament is the Criminal justice and courts bill, which criminalizes "rape porn". The PM had announced this one at the same time he caved in to the pressure groups etc over the "default on" porn filter.This offense was already in the Scottish version of the DPA, and essentially they are just extending Labour`s 2008 CJIA to encompass rape images - the usual subjective stipulations - must look real, be "obscene, disgusting" etc. Taking a "rape clip" out of a certificated movie might be prosecutable, while possessing the movie as a whole would be okay. They have also fiddled about a bit with permissible defenses, but only for "participants" facing possible prosecution. It might be interesting to see if there`s any objections in the Lords - they caused a lot of fuss over the original DPA. It`s a pity an opportunity in the Lords couldn`t be taken to alter the original legislation as part of this bill - amending to remove all provably consensual / fictional images from potential criminalization. But the current atmosphere of censorship driven by hysteria, encompassing an almost constant political pandering to the special pleading by pressure groups, bogus charities, and newspapers, makes this very unlikely.

The Daily Mail/Mail on line reports Grayling burbling on about his new crime - their on line commentators so far are mainly critical.

As long as governments only listen to pressure groups and take their noise as representing "public opinion", we will continue down totalitarian street.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29846.   Posted 4-Feb-2014 Tue 19:24]
  Melon Farmers updates will be a bit sporadic over the next few days due to travel

sergio    [29845.   Posted 4-Feb-2014 Tue 09:44]
  `Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.`

What legal reasons (re Hitchen`s diatribe/opinion column)?

mediasnoops2    [29844.   Posted 31-Jan-2014 Fri 17:53]
  So I see the lap dancing debate has come up again. At least The Guardian gave time for someone opposing the censorious and authoritarian Annna Van Hesswijk from Object.

Edie Lamort does a great job on Moron Watch debunking the lies peddled by middle class "feminists" about strip clubs. More voices like her`s are needed and it`s vital the campaign against the banning of strip clubs is lead by the strippers to counter the "poor women oppressed and exploited by men" narrative of the antis.

Pooch    [29843.   Posted 31-Jan-2014 Fri 06:20]
  Lars Von Trier`s NYMPHOMANIAC (Volumes 1 and 2) passed uncut and uncensored yesterday (30th Jan) by the BBFC. Artificial Eye have said they submitted the full, uncut, hardcore versions of both parts of the film - with running times of 118 minutes and 124 minutes respectively - and not one single frame or edit has been made, to gain an uncut 18 certificate for each part.

The 2-Part work is also due out on UK DVD and Blu-Ray (with each part coming on seperate discs, for both formats) on 5th May 2014.

No news, however, on whether UK fans will get to see Von Trier`s Cannes Festival cut, which will run to about five-and-a-half-hours, as one, massive epic, either in cinemas or on home-viewing formats.

phantom    [29842.   Posted 31-Jan-2014 Fri 05:44]
  Yes, blocking lists....

It all goes back to the UK establishment belief that one needs to and can somehow `manage` reality as well as fiction.

Naturally it reveals a crazed lust for power at the heart of it.
The powers that be feel the need to not merely have power in this world. But so too insist that they must have power in Alice`s Wonderland.

Government`s supposed pragmatism and sensibility ought then apply to the world of cyborgs, buxom pornstars and cenobites. It is thus to rein in fantasy, to make it `reasonable`.

The advocates of censorship will deny this of course. But it is hard to see what else censorship of fiction is.
Their main argument (well, their only argument) tends to be that there is or maybe some `vulnerable people` in society who might be corrupted if exposed to these fictions.
So their argument- whether they admit to it or not – is that “others fantasy (i.e. fiction) can corrupt some, so others fantasy must be curtailed.”
In short, they believe to have been elected to govern both the world we inhabit – and the world of fantasy. Whether they care to admit to it or not is really quite irrelevant. It is self-evidently so.

Now blocking lists are hardly fiction. They are not a fantasy.
But they have one thing in common. They inhabit the world of the virtual.
They are rules and regulations created by the authorities of the three dimensional, physical UK to supervise and govern an ephemeral world.

One is reminded of the Roman emperor Diocletian.
He decided that enough was enough. The greed of the merchant class was ruining Rome with everlastingly increasing prices over the centuries. Why was he having to pay his troops more than Hadrian had? It just wasn`t right. So he decided. A list was created of acceptable maximum prices for all goods across the entire empire. There. Problem solved.

Accept of course, inflation is a natural effect within an economy. Whether the ancient Romans were able to understand that or not. And price differentials based on location will always exist.
But Diocletian wasn`t the thinking type. It goes without saying, it was a disaster.
And so his list has become immortal. A folly to deal with a problem which couldn`t be solved and which perhaps was not a problem in the first place. An attempt to govern something which government cannot govern and should not even attempt.

Who knows, perhaps published fantasy too is subject to inflation. After all there is no point in rewriting the story of Robinson Crusoe again and again. Nor filming it over and over. In black and white. Without sound.

Perhaps thus `video nasties` blacklists and blocking lists et alia will all one day be seen in much the same light as Diocletian`s foolhardy effort. I think so.

fedupwithuk    [29841.   Posted 30-Jan-2014 Thu 16:11]
  re the blocking list, you might notice that remote access is allowed for "adults" but the loons can`t even get that right

fedupwithuk    [29840.   Posted 30-Jan-2014 Thu 16:09]
  Dear users of Melonfarmers
The dangerous "blocking obsession" spreading the UK has damaged my ability to earn a living now
I use a website called "logmein" to access my clients records if I`m not able to be on site. Recently and unknown to me the local council have introduced a new filter "Smoothwall" into the library I use. Now I can`t use the service, or any similar, so cannot do my work.
You might be interested to read their blocking list

As predicted on the forum mission creep and unintended consequences are starting to run amok
I dispair
I`m waiting for the first newspaper to reveal which MPs have unfiltered access on their home connection
Keep up the good work

Therumbler    [29839.   Posted 28-Jan-2014 Tue 16:35]
  Update on Howe`s amendment:

Division on Amendment 53ZAAB

Contents 118; Not-Contents 153.

Amendment 53ZAAB disagreed.

Therumbler    [29838.   Posted 28-Jan-2014 Tue 10:50]
  Sex Establishments (Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Children: Online Safety


Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29837.   Posted 27-Jan-2014 Mon 08:10]
  Thanks Pooch.

Always appreciated to fix broken links. I think the BBFC must have moved the file since the initial announcement

Harvey    [29836.   Posted 27-Jan-2014 Mon 07:09]
  MichaelG [29832]

Lady Howe is just one member of the House. She doesn`t get to make a new law all on her own.

I agree it`s not democratic to have unelected peers voting on laws. On the other hand it was unelected peers who succeeded in (slightly) watering down the Dangerous Pictures Act by forcing the government to make changes to it.

Pooch    [29835.   Posted 27-Jan-2014 Mon 04:54]
  FAO Dave - In the MelonFarmers article at...

... there`s a link to the BBFC 2014 Guideline Changes. The link at...

is invalid, as it`s trying to link to a missing file.

Just thought you should know.

sergio    [29834.   Posted 26-Jan-2014 Sun 11:02]
  Who owns the copyright to `Miss Bohrloch`?

phantom    [29833.   Posted 26-Jan-2014 Sun 09:30]
The BBFC have decided that they were wrong again in the things they believed in last week.
So from now `moderate BDSM` will be permissible.
In short, last week `moderate BDSM` was not permissible and the BBFC were wrong to think so.

Sadly, the BFBC fail to tell us why they were wrong.
Naturally, they`re having been wrong meant that people`s active and passive freedom of expression (a human right, remember?) was being violated at the time.

But there you go. It`s important to keep in mind that the BBFC engage in much self-promoting propaganda.
So a `change in policy` really just means an admission of failure.
They were wrong.

But now - of course - they are not wrong anymore. With their latest changes they have become perfect. At long last. And everything that is now banned under their regime is so, because it must be.
The fact that they only just admitted to being wrong last week, doesn`t mean that they might be wrong now. No. Now they are absolutely right.
Right enough in fact for people to be punished who cross their standards.

Ah, Britain... Land of the free!

MichaelG    [29832.   Posted 25-Jan-2014 Sat 23:14]
  In trying to ensure that I got a little background on our latest enemy, I found this, which actually makes me even more angry (which I didn`t think possible after first reading about Howe`s plans:,_Baroness_Howe_of_Idlicote

I don`t know where to start... a `British Crossbencher life peer`. Great. So nobody`s elected her, she`s spent her whole, privileged, upper-class-twit life doing whatever she wants, marries a politician and subsequently parachutes effortlessly into a series of highly-paid, high profile non-jobs like deputy chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission (I`m beginning to see where she got her fucked-up ideas from now) and Chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Then, without achieving anything at all that was down to hard graft or genuine talent and not purely down to fucking nepotism or who she was married to, she winds up with a CBE and a life peerage, granting her a seat in the house of Lords.

So now we have a shape-shifting (a Crossbencher seems to indicate that she can give her allegiance to any political party, on any matter, as she sees fit), unelected, pea-brained fuckwit wreaking havoc with the legislative process and pissing our already dwindling freedom up the wall without the first fucking idea or care about what she`s doing, how it`s going to work or whom it`s going to effect. And to cap it all off she seems free to go about her nefarious work without having to answer to anyone.

Surely, in a purportedly democratic society, there should be some degree of control over the Lords to prevent this sort of thing?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29831.   Posted 25-Jan-2014 Sat 11:43]

The last time Howe was in parliament to debate her internet wrecking idea, the lords queued up to take turns in 2 hours of congratulation for her bill, and not one of them mentioned that their might be a few practical problems with the idea. It really showed why we end up with crap laws not fit for purpose.

MichaelG    [29830.   Posted 25-Jan-2014 Sat 10:26]
  Oh for fucks sake!!!!!!


"adult content" means material which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of persons under the age of eighteen`

And who`s going to be the judge of that then?

A depiction of normal sexual activity between two adults may impair the physical (how, exactly!?), mental or moral (nicely intangible, that one) development of persons under 18... seriously, what fucking alternate dimension are these people from?

and if the current system doesn`t work, how are they going to get this to work without glitches?

I fucking give up. It`s every other week some cunt with less than half a brain dreams up some fucking nonsense like this which we don`t seem to have any say in nor ability to stop if we don`t agree with it. We might as well be living in fucking China...

Therumbler    [29829.   Posted 20-Jan-2014 Mon 16:21]
  The internet filters strike again:

MichaelG    [29828.   Posted 20-Jan-2014 Mon 07:08]
  Haven`t you seen `Monty Python`s Meaning of Life` sergio? ;)

sergio    [29827.   Posted 20-Jan-2014 Mon 05:46]
  This must be a stupid question but, what exactly do they do in sex education classes?

MichaelG    [29826.   Posted 20-Jan-2014 Mon 05:01]
  Doubtless another specially commissioned report from a fake charity which leads us down the inevitable path towards more online censorship. Won`t someone think of the children?:

`And almost a quarter of youngsters questioned said their relationships with their peers had been harmed after viewing online porn, according to the poll.`

Er... just a thought, but online porn is available on the WORLD WIDE WEB... so how is this a problem that is being touted as worse in the UK than anywhere else (Jesus, the way this lot are going on you`d think online porn was EXCLUSIVE to the UK)?

Perhaps if we had better sex education (that wasn`t blocked by badly-conceived porn filters, Dave) and a less fucked-up attitude towards all things sexual then kids wouldn`t be looking up porn on the web so much...

Therumbler    [29825.   Posted 19-Jan-2014 Sun 16:23]
  An interesting read of how the recent crackdowns on brothels in the UK have endangered prostitute`s lives.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29824.   Posted 16-Jan-2014 Thu 10:58]
  Re censorship

Perhaps a definition along the lines of "imposing one`s morality on others" may sort out the censorship of the Morning Star for moral reasons as compared with commercial reasons that no one is likely to buy a copy

DarkAngel5    [29823.   Posted 16-Jan-2014 Thu 10:19]
  Thanks for the replies.

Some interesting points raised. As Sergio, rightly points out, they`re not "suppressing" the Sun as such. However, there is a difference between not stocking something for commercial reasons (ie not selling enough) and not stocking something for political reasons (ie, you don`t agree with it).

But then, would you class refusing to stock the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers as censorship, because shop owners don`t want to be assossiated with such "political" publications?

I think Phantom has summed up my feelings on this best when he said "If you are refusing to sell something which under normal circumstances you would, then you are effectively censoring on your premises"

phantom    [29822.   Posted 16-Jan-2014 Thu 09:07]
  Hmmm, interesting. What is the line which defines censorship?
Well, I`d say refusing to stock it in a shop is censorship.

A `boycott` is a refusal by clients to buy material which is on sale.
But a deliberate refusal to sell a legitimate product in a place in which it has hitherto been expected to be available is a denial of a willing client`s ability to buy and thus - in my view - it is censorship.
More so, as the decision is driven by a moral dogma.

To argue that one can still purchase the good elsewhere is not really a valid point I feel.
For else one can argue that, albeit that much porn is denied the viewer by the official channels in Britain, it is perfectly accessible through the net and thus not censored.

The open-mindedness of others, be they countries or retailers, does not in itself excuse the closed mindedness of those who ban.
Banning something from sale is proscription. Whether it is universally or locally applied.

So if you are refusing to sell something which under normal circumstances you would, then you are effectively censoring this good on your premises.

sergio    [29821.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 16:24]
  Things that you don`t stock are censored? Students can buy it elsewhere. Restricted maybe. They aren`t `suppressing` the bun.

DarkAngel5    [29820.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 12:22]
  So, opinions on this please.

A number of university student unions are now refusing to stock the Sun in their campus shops, in support of the No More Page 3 campaign.

Am I correct in likening this to a form of censorship? It seems I have provoked the ire of a number of so-called feminists by doing so on one of the many FB pages I frequent.

They have been arguing quite vehemently that it is a "boycott" and not censorship in any way, shape or form. However, whilst I admit that it doesn`t technically constitute censorship in the strict sense of the word, what they are doing is the next worst thing.

So, can these political actions be likened to censorship? I think so, but it seems our "feminist" friends disagree (probably because calling it a boycott sounds so much nicer).

freeworld    [29819.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 06:45]
  MichaelG {29809.
Interesting how blissfully unaware many of the Guardian`s public commentators seem to be about their friendly Labour party`s far more repressive and statist approach to filters - it`s all down simply to "right wingers", the Daily Mail, UKIP (as far as I know UKIP have not asked for porn filters) and "Dave" having gone to Eton blah blah. Or much awareness that that the "feminist" extremists are right there at the front screeching for porn bans and criminalizing "buying sex", come to that.

The illusion many hold dear that the Labour party somehow represents liberty these days, instead of nanny state bullying, seems still to flourish despite the Blunkett/Straw years of laws on dangerous pictures/drawings, double jeopardy repeal, RIPA, ID cards, strict liability legislation....

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29818.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 04:47]
  Oops nearly forgot, The Wit and wisdom of Mary Whitehouse has started up as promised at

However it looks like someone has censored all the `wit`

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29817.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 04:42]

Sounds likely that they haven`t changed, no doubt they reflect the wishes of the CPS rather than the great consulted public. I`ll look how much the other guidelines have changed shortly

sergio    [29816.   Posted 15-Jan-2014 Wed 02:32]
  I`ve skimmed the R18 (new) guidelines and they don`t seem to have changed - it that correct?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29815.   Posted 14-Jan-2014 Tue 07:53]
  Hi McOz

The BBFC don`t need lawyers and consultants to write the R18 guidelines, they are provided directly by the police (well the crown prosecution service anyway)

`Experts` are a bargain for the BBFC. Once an `expert` pronounces on an issue then it is signed, sealed, and incontrovertible forever

McOz    [29814.   Posted 14-Jan-2014 Tue 04:50]
  How many lawyers and private consultants worked on the `new` BBFC classification guidelines, reviewed them, signed-off on them, and what did it cost?

The qualifications for 18 and R18 classifications are notable. You can show extreme shit as long as it`s well-meaning and well-intensioned extreme shit?

Therumbler    [29813.   Posted 13-Jan-2014 Mon 17:01]
  A typical Mail frontpage, with a quote from Christian organisation Safermedia.

phantom    [29812.   Posted 13-Jan-2014 Mon 14:48]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [29810]

Lol. Is it me?
I wonder which PR guru came up with their motto.
`Age ratings you trust`
Do I? Lol!
It`s remarkable that even in their motto they seem to think they need to do the thinking for me... and then to tell me what I think...
You really couldn`t make it up.
It is truly the motto ideally suited to them.
For it truly tells you everything you need to know about them. Though rather unwittingly, I imagine.

sergio    [29811.   Posted 13-Jan-2014 Mon 06:13]
  BBFC R18 cuts for December 2013
Number of items=40
No. Cuts=7
Cuts ratio=17.5%

Cuts of interest:
Julia Ann, Jay Taylor, Phoenix Marie, Maddy O`Reilly
Directed by Dana Vespoli
Cut required to remove sight of vaginal penetration with all five toes beyond the last visible joint. Cut made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

R18 stats for 2013
total items=520
average cuts=15%
Disclaimer: these are not guaranteed to be accurate. Stock prices can go up as well as down.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29810.   Posted 13-Jan-2014 Mon 04:51]
  The BBFC have published new classification guidelines

MichaelG    [29809.   Posted 12-Jan-2014 Sun 02:57]
  Re: Not fit for purpose:

Helen Goodman, Labour`s media spokesman, said:

`It is important our children are protected from 18-rated material. That should not include gay helplines or normal sex education websites but if anything the initial problems strengthen my belief that we need one unified standard and filtering system.`

Labour has pledged to bring in mandatory filters if the coalition`s voluntary approach is found to have failed. The party wants all filters to abide by British Board of Film Classification ratings.

Oh, no surprises there then! CommuNuLabour show in no uncertain terms that they`re still getting their policy ideas from China and have set out EXACTLY what we can expect should they get back into power. Thing is, knowing what we now now about how unworkable this is in its present incarnation and how perfectly innocent sites are blocked because hastily-devised load of bollox filters are rushed into place without proper thought or testing, all we`ll get from CommuNuLabour is the same badly-conceived, disfunctional tripe, but... no chance at all to opt out of it! Typical nanny-state bullshit from the folks who do it better than anyone else. But how, pray tell, if the top telecommunications companies in the country can`t devise a filter that accurately blocks out porn without accidentally stopping access to sex education websites and even Claire Perry`s own site, are they possibly going to be able to create a mandatory filter that abides by the frequently contradictory, nonsensical policies of the BBFC and follow decisions which still have to be made objectively (or what passes for objectively) by a group of people sitting around a table who may not always agree on what needs to be cut/censored and what doesn`t? If they think Cameron`s current attempt is unworkable, wait till they try and implement something like this.

Still, they know what`s best for us, don`t they?

phantom    [29808.   Posted 6-Jan-2014 Mon 18:49]
  sergio [29807]

Lol. Now that is funny.
What the author however forgets is that there is no need for the liberal, anti-censorship fraternity to take up arms and sue the living daylights out of ISPs.
No, the pro-censorship, evil-is-everywhere folks are going to do that no sooner than they realise they can. After all, how long before they are `offended` and feel the need to take someone to court?
Somehow I feel this might just be fun to watch... :)

sergio    [29807.   Posted 6-Jan-2014 Mon 12:34]
  Sue your local ISP?

phantom    [29806.   Posted 5-Jan-2014 Sun 08:33]
  My, it must be a quiet news period.
The BBC have actually put some interesting, not cravenly pc articles on the web...

McOz    [29805.   Posted 4-Jan-2014 Sat 15:36]
  Here`s Steven Pinker on the decline of violence over the centuries, largely due to the prevalence of reasoned thinking...

MichaelG    [29804.   Posted 30-Dec-2013 Mon 07:56]
  Re: Twats Blocked as Promised...

Hahaha!! Seeing this crusading cockpuppet hoisted on her own petard has quite literally made my year.

Now all we need is a filter which blocks politicians in real life...

phantom    [29803.   Posted 28-Dec-2013 Sat 20:01]
  Ah, but it`s wrong, Harvey.
Jesus said so. And Andrea Dworkin.

Harvey    [29802.   Posted 28-Dec-2013 Sat 18:50]
  sergio Re: peddlers of porn [29800]

According to the British Crime Survey incidents of domestic violence fell from 1.2 million in 1993 to 308,000 in 2011/2. A fall of 74% during the period in which internet porn has grown from a few photos on newsgroups to terabytes of hi-def videos available for streaming on demand.

phantom    [29801.   Posted 28-Dec-2013 Sat 07:30]
  Harvey {29799}

`The campaigners have claimed ISP level, opt out filters as a great victory. But they are already working on the next stage of their campaign which will roll out as soon as filtering is shown to be a dismal failure.`

Precisely. Giving in to zealots is never a good idea. Having their demands met never shuts them up. They simply follow up with more demands.

sergio    [29800.   Posted 28-Dec-2013 Sat 06:36]

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass:
`Is it any wonder that over recent years there has been a noticeable recorded increase in domestic violence if we leave the peddlers of porn unchallenged?`

Where did get that from? He noticed it? How?

Harvey    [29799.   Posted 28-Dec-2013 Sat 04:10]
  McOZ [29798]

"Scanning text is a ridiculous way to block websites. It wouldn`t be hard to make a list of 1000 key porn sites and just block those."

Are you assuming that an ISP level filter actually is an honest attempt to protect children from viewing porn?

Because nobody who sits down and thinks about it for 5 minutes believes it can actually work (i.e. protect children). The campaigners have claimed ISP level, opt out filters as a great victory. But they are already working on the next stage of their campaign which will roll out as soon as filtering is shown to be a dismal failure.

McOz    [29798.   Posted 27-Dec-2013 Fri 22:23]
  One thing that came out of the various ISP filtering TV debates here was the the Comms minister Stephen Conroy had to answer the standard censorship questions on camera, e.g. What is offensive? Who decides what is offensive? What makes something refused classification? Why can`t adults see what they want to see?

These questions were asked by members of the public, and as well all know, censorship is a political does not stand up to logical analysis. This was made clear for all to see when Conroy struggled to provide adequate answers.

Scanning text is a ridiculous way to block websites. It wouldn`t be hard to make a list of 1000 key porn sites and just block those. They are not going to change their URLs for the UK.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29797.   Posted 27-Dec-2013 Fri 21:49]
  Hi McOz

Yes it is a bit of a disaster, the ISPs are are trying to use old child protection lists that block everything. Really the blocking lists need to be reworked if they need to be a compromise for the whole family.

I reckon that of they actually implemented a filter that only blocked actual porn, ie porn pictures and videos then it would be a useful compromise that would be used by many. But blocking sites because of a little textual strong language is simply negligent.

I see Canada is sniffing round the idea so perhaps other countries will follow. But really the government needs to initiate a better way to choose what to block.

McOz    [29796.   Posted 27-Dec-2013 Fri 21:06]
  Hi all. McOz here from Media Censorship in Australia on Facebook.

Am reading with interest about how your UK porn filters are running (or not) lately. We dodged this bullet a few years ago, but it will return no doubt.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29795.   Posted 24-Dec-2013 Tue 18:30]
  Merry Christmas everybody

Sabreman64    [29794.   Posted 20-Dec-2013 Fri 12:58]
  Lincoln students vote to keep page 3 on campus

Good for the student union at Lincoln University for not falling into line with their pro-censorship chums at other student unions.

Therumbler    [29793.   Posted 18-Dec-2013 Wed 16:03]

"Pornography filters used by major internet service providers are blocking websites offering sex education and advice on sexual health and porn addiction, the BBC has learned.


But BBC`s Newsnight has discovered all the major ISPs that have launched full default filters are also failing to block hardcore porn-hosting sites.


Among the sites TalkTalk blocked as "pornographic" was, an award-winning British sex education site, which receives more than a million visits each year.


Justin Hancock runs BishUK and was not aware his site was being blocked by some filters until he was alerted by Newsnight.

He said: "It`s really frustrating because I`m trying to provide a sex education site for young people and it`s hard enough directing young people to good quality information on the internet.
Over-blocking problem

"They might fix my site in the short-term but what about all the other sites that are out there for young people, not just sex education sites… who are TalkTalk to say what is allowed and isn`t?""

And "Councils could be banned from using the phrase “bedroom tax” under moves to give Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, the power to veto contentious language in local authority newsletters, leaflets and online publicity, critics claimed on Wednesday night."

sergio    [29792.   Posted 18-Dec-2013 Wed 13:42]
  ` rules apply not just to adverts but to the wider remit of `marketing communications``

What - even for items on a server in the US? Or just about anywhere?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29791.   Posted 18-Dec-2013 Wed 10:34]

The ASA sleight of hand is that their rules apply not just to adverts but to the wider remit of `marketing communications`. The picture of the mug used at the point of sale is not really an advert but it is a `marketing communication`.

Zazzle is a Silicon Valley company, presumably it has a front end for a bit of local tailoring eg to put prices in pounds and to make Brits feel at home.

sergio    [29790.   Posted 18-Dec-2013 Wed 09:11]
  Can someone clarify the story about the zazzle mug?

ASA bans US website from selling a mug with a bad taste joke on grounds of offence

Was there an actual `advertisement`? Not just a product listing on the actual site? For a personalised mug?

A US site with domain name?

sergio    [29789.   Posted 18-Dec-2013 Wed 02:54]
  Has the word `fuck` been changed from category 1 level offence to category 2 level offending? Those, oh so creative guys called `comedians` seem to have `fuck` as a shorthand for `hey laugh you bastards, I`m an aggro comedian`.

phantom    [29788.   Posted 17-Dec-2013 Tue 17:07]

So, how should we punish Mr Atkinson?
Hanging? Or will several years in jail suffice?

sergio    [29787.   Posted 16-Dec-2013 Mon 02:28]
  BBFC R18 cuts for November 2013
Number of items=42
No. Cuts=8
Cuts ratio=19%

Cuts of interest:
Shame about this one, it`s got some nice Brit babes.
Cuts required to remove dialogue encouraging gagging during sexual activity and to remove penetration of the vagina with the whole hand. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984, and in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29786.   Posted 15-Dec-2013 Sun 20:17]
  Re BBFC music ratings

There must be some smart literary statement of the law of censorship that says that the less effect a censorship target actually has, then the more extreme censorship will become. (because whatever censorship is implemented, it has no effect and so the campaigners counter this by calling for more extreme censorship, never accepting that they could simply be wrong)

Re ATVOD and banks

I suspect that the calls for legislation are a bit of delaying or perhaps even a way of saying no. The banks must know that if they cede to this request with creating some sort of difficult hurdle to jump over (getting legislation created) then everyone and their dogs will be calling on the banks to support their moral crusades.

I disagree with Therumbler on one point. It would in fact be a massive deal for internet companies to lose UK custom, simply because it would soon spur campaigners and politicians in other countries to call for the same payment prohibitions for their countries too.

Therumbler    [29785.   Posted 15-Dec-2013 Sun 10:32]
  ATVOD`s thinking is that those tube sites value British custom over global custom and would change their entire website to comply to British laws/regulation. I doubt British custom is worth that much to them, though.

I`m not sure why they need to lobby the government to change laws, though, as to my knowledge such companies have always had the right to deny transactions at will.

MichaelG    [29784.   Posted 14-Dec-2013 Sat 13:21]
  Re: Bitcoin anyone?

`Visa, MasterCard and PayPal have agreed to help to lobby the Government for laws that would allow them to refuse to process card payments to websites that do not have age restrictions, Peter Johnson, chief executive of the Authority for Television on Demand , said last night.

The VOD censor, ATVOD, has been arguing that the law would be a significant step in stopping children being able freely to access porn.`

Er... is it just me or has no-one else stopped to think that you need to be over 18 to apply for, own and use a credit card?

phantom    [29783.   Posted 14-Dec-2013 Sat 08:32]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [29780]

Well, I just think that the naysayers never rest. and right now, they are in the ascendancy. i.e. the powers that be are seeking to placate them.

Given them certification of music will not be enough. (Nothing ever is enough.)

So no sooner that videos need bbfc certification for sale, the argument will be raised that screening matter which needs bbfc certification for sale is a loophole that needs closing.

I know this discrepancy is already the case for movies et alia on tv. But with the mothers union, mumsnet, feministas and the various other lobbies in full swing, what is likely going to happen about the `outrage` regarding Miley Cyrus` arse?

One will simply be used as an argument for the other.
i.e. `you`ve conceded it`s dangerous by making it subject to regulation on dvd. why are you allowing the exposure of our kids to this disgusting corruption on tv and on the net?`

And as the prime minister and his pal ed vazey have given in to one, why would they not give in to the other?

Remember what Harvey said about the fatal sections in the child porn laws which in turn were extended into extreme porn, etc?

Once the principle is established. It is open to expansion.

With the requirement for bbfc certification the principle is being established. What follows on is the expansion.

phantom    [29782.   Posted 14-Dec-2013 Sat 08:23]
  feast your eyes, my fellow incorrigible rogues.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29781.   Posted 14-Dec-2013 Sat 00:32]
  Dark Angel

Yes I just read the piece. Its the sort of thing that can be quite persuasive because it confirms what is already believed. But in a world where it is more or less the norm to be consumers of porn, video games or violent films then it doesn`t mean much statistically.

I always think the counter is to ask those proposing the censorship how much they can guarantee a drop in such violent crimes. And whether they expect this will make any difference in crime stats whatsoever. And in retrospect, do they think that society would be substantially improved if we had of banned Natural Born Killers and Crash.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29780.   Posted 14-Dec-2013 Sat 00:20]

Yes I tend to agree that music will get caught up and generally have to get submitted to the BBFC. Is suspect that the money, time and effort will end up meaning there will be loads of music videos that now will go unreleased on DVD. They`ll just stick with an online release.

However for the bigger bands and bigger companies that stick with DVD releases will find that the BBFC ratings will be low and won`t cause them much grief.

I guess that the censorship will just end up significantly reducing the market for such DVDs, and no one will notice much.

I`m not so sure that the certificates will feed back into online music videos. The BBFC certificated DVDs tend to be an hour of music and this doesn`t really map well onto ratings for the individual tracks that tend to end up on YouTube.

DarkAngel5    [29779.   Posted 13-Dec-2013 Fri 15:30]
  Anyone read todays article in the Daily Mail?

Extreme porn to blame for all societies ills!

phantom    [29778.   Posted 13-Dec-2013 Fri 06:25]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [29777]

Just read David Flint`s piece.
Not sure` if I`m as optimistic as dear Mr Flint.

For one I think the requirement for BBFC certification will be used to argue that screenings on tv and internet represent a `loophole`.
Also I believe that the rules seem not at all as non-inclusive as Flint suggest.

So for example, George Michael in 1987 singing `I want your sex`, would surely fall under `(j) it includes words or images intended or likely to convey a sexual message`.

Or how about Salt & Pepper `Push it!`
Is that suggestive enough? Then there`s Frankie goes to Hollywood`s `Relax`.
I know these will not fall under the law as they were marketted prior to 2014. But it means that any equivalent work would not stand a chance.

How about Duran Duran`s `Wild Boys`. Remember the video?
(b) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals;
Couldn`t it be argued the singer was being tortured?

Or how about Radiohead`s `No surprises` video?

Then there`s Queens` `Breakthrough`. Would Mercury`s performance fall foul?

And as for `(n) it includes swearing (ignoring any mild bad language)`
Where do you even start??

Regarding (i)... errr, how about Ice T`s `Cop killer`?

`(i) it depicts techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences or, through its depiction of criminal activity, promotes the commission of offences;`

Or would even the Prodigy`s `Firestarter` fall under it?

And as for promoting alcohol use... er, how many songs are there about booze or boozing? Blues music, anyone? Jazz?

I mean, Frank Sinatra sung `One for my baby and one for the road`.
So if some sort of Michael Buble character rerecords that American jazz staple, it`ll need to be certified?

And surely the last paragraph catches everything.

`(o) it includes words or images that are intended or likely (to any extent) to cause offence, whether on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief or sexual orientation, or otherwise.`

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29777.   Posted 12-Dec-2013 Thu 06:22]

David Flint did a good write up on the music video nonsense.

I am quite keen to see if the moralists get pissed off when all their pet hates qualify for a 12 rather then the expected 18

phantom    [29776.   Posted 11-Dec-2013 Wed 11:34]
  Update: More Expensive Sexy Music DVDs...

Oh, for haven`s sake! More censorship?
Really? That`s what the nation needs?

One things for sure after the great repeal act debacle
and this little number. The Liberal Democrats might as well
abolish themselves.

Therumbler    [29775.   Posted 10-Dec-2013 Tue 18:16]
  YouTube Is Suddenly Flagging A LOT Of Videos For Copyright Claims

According to this article (below) it appears in-game music and sound effects are triggering the claims.

Therumbler    [29774.   Posted 10-Dec-2013 Tue 15:31]

Huffington Post now demands that your account by "verified" with a Facebook account so you can post.

sergio    [29773.   Posted 10-Dec-2013 Tue 02:09]
  Are you offended by meat markets?


Forum Software.  contact or visit