|
pbr [27174. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 12:41] View Near Messages
Following on from Sergio`s comment...
"as it does suggest you can easily drug and anally rape a child"
...this may come as a surprise........... pbr [27172. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 23:51] View Near Messages
@Cappy - can`t say I`m entirely sure what you`re trying to express there... if you`re trying to suggest that the previous ruling clique had a healthy respect for the ideals of liberty (and I hold no dillusions that the Tory belief in it goes any further than crass NIMBYism, but frankly, that`s a step up from where we were...) then... well... let me just say we`ll be in disagreement on that :)
Oh yea... as Tony has come out of his crypt... you may all enjoy this particular little documentary:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-britain-went-to-war/4od
I recommend you watch the whole thing, it`s about the Miners Strike, but if you`ve not got the time, skip straight to 47:00 to get the background, and then at 48:41 someone will appear and he will speak words, words which will bring you the most sardonic smile you`ve ever had... pbr [27168. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 05:39] View Near Messages
I see your Daily Hate and I raise you MichaelG!
While looking for any news on the Freedom/Repeal Bill I found this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291007/Nick-Clegg-launches-Freedom-Bill-cut-red-tape-reduce-nanny-state.html
And the comments are... delightful... my pick is this one:
I know, people fought for freedom of expression so that they could talk about things in an open discussion without fear and all we have left is the DM
- John Alex, London, 03/7/2010 01:49
...I can only hope that the poster`s comment has the meaning I think it does and that the Hate`s moderators aren`t as sharp as they think they are... pbr [27166. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 10:32] View Near Messages
@ Hartfordshire conviction....
"Sergeant Dey said: We are the first officers in the county to make use of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – possession of extreme pornographic images – and it was only possible by the fantastic support from FACT and BPI."
...FACT and the BPI are protecting their beastiality catalogue? O_o
"The investigation into him took nearly a year."
...your taxes at work... pbr [27156. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 10:37] View Near Messages
@Cartoon Banners...
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tuna Empire work isn`t being displayed for its porn quality... Tuna Empire satirised Bin Laden... and this is Denmark... pbr [27155. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 00:21] View Near Messages
*amused aside*
...Dentist in sadomasochistic shocker...
*rollseyes* pbr [27151. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 14:48] View Near Messages
When I first saw the headline play as the taliban I though "damn that`s brave"... but what it actually means is that in multiplayer, someone has to be on the other team...
=/ Do they really need a gamer to explain that when you`ve got competative play and only 2 teams... someone has to be on the other team?
I mean... come on now... shall we ban all WW2 games in case someone plays as an axis power? What about going back further... is that Napoleon: Total War on my shelf an insult to those that died at Waterloo?
I mean good grief... pbr [27149. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 04:25] View Near Messages
Yet another surreal story out of Kent... there`s something awry with that force... pbr [27144. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 14:20] View Near Messages
I`m very much aware of the value of the double jeopardy rule, consider though... in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?
If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result... there should be a mechanism to retry the offence... the question is how you determine what`s compelling and how many bites or rather, in what circumstances can the cherry be bitten again... pbr [27142. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 12:05] View Near Messages
Double jeopardy is a double edged sword... it`s pro preventing the state from trying you over and over and over and over ad infinitum has to be balanced against the shitstorm that is... say... being acquitted then writing a book about how you did it... if you did it... *rolls eyes*
I think it`s something which needs considerable care... but... an unbending rule regardless of the facts... that`s dangerous too... on balance... double jeopardy is something which can be sacrificed - if there are the proper gatekeepers and penalties for abusing its absence...
There haven`t been that many egregious cases of abuse since we lost it this side of the border... though... 2 `wobbly` shall we say... ones come to mind... pbr [27140. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 10:13] View Near Messages
RE: Consent to prosecute
I was looking for some statistics... didn`t find what I was looking for, did drop by and get some details on consent to prosecute though:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/consent_to_prosecute/#a06
"Where the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings is required, this may be given by a Crown Prosecutor by virtue of section 1(7) Prosecution of Offences Act (the 1985 Act)."
So... everyone above caseworker and associate prosecutor is able to consent :) and I`m making the assumption that AP`s can`t I don`t know for sure... my understanding is that AP`s are non-qualified (as in they`re not solicitors/barristers) staff... that`s what I`m basing the assumption on... and a sliver of hope... pbr [27138. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 03:13] View Near Messages
@ Harvey
I`m sure the most -noticeable and reported- trouble will be with the prisons, but it`s always easier to bellow rhetoric on cutting "admin" rather than "the front line"... pbr [27136. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:17] View Near Messages
@ Harvey
lol, I chuckled when I saw the met chief (granted, different budget) saying he "rather likes sending villians to jail"... I see ground work for a scuffle between the hang-em and flog-em wing of the Clarke & the Treasury coming... and I can guess which side the foaming at the mouth sections of the media are going to bay for...
But in all seriousness... Courts have this awful habit of getting terribly backlogged... if you take 15,000 people out of the MoJ and the only bodies it runs I can think of with real numbers are HMPS, HMCS and HMTS... and yea... legal aid has become something of a target of choice...
...could be all kinds of trouble...
In other news... I was most amused by The Sun`s new campaign to shop benefit frauds... talk about biting the hand that feeds you... pbr [27134. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:46] View Near Messages
@ Cappy
Marriage is 16 with parental consent...
Legally 16-18 is a weird place... even weirder following the age of neo-labour, naturally...
@ Harvey
I wasn`t really commenting on the case, more thinking outloud on the legal aid and fair hearings... looking forward to how the butchery at the MoJ will bear out on Art 6... not just legal aid... but the actual ability of the Court office just to push the paper necessary! pbr [27131. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 11:37] View Near Messages
RE: McLibel etc...
I`ve got nothing to do with any kind of legal aid work... but... if I recall rightly back on the LPC the way that the state might get out of their Art 6 obligation is to set up a system which says thou shal never have legal aid for X, Y, Z but, there is a "discretion" to allow it... but I wouldn`t bank on that discretion being exercised all that often... pbr [27107. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 00:40] View Near Messages
Indeed Harvey, you know though...
Although the statutes say `not without the DPP`s consent` they don`t *actually* require the DPP personally to consent to it, there`s a mechanism within the CPS to consent on the DPP`s behalf, I`m afraid I`ve not actually gone looking for how far down the deligated authority goes... persumably it should be fairly easy to find...
But yes... your points about the these non-cases making it past quality control, they`re as pertinant as ever. pbr [27105. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 14:23] View Near Messages
When [enough] people are willing to stand up and defend unpopular or embarassing issues in the face of tutting opposition. pbr [27098. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:11] View Near Messages
Re: Extreme porn
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/
Positive story there...
With this rather worrying element... "We spoke to Holland after the case yesterday and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: "Now I can start to put my life back together."
...now... unless his daughter looks very much like a tiger I`m not quite sure what the connect between the charge and preventing access is...
pbr [27094. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 00:04] View Near Messages
@emark
I was just pointing it out because I thought it was funny that there`d been no amendment to their policy document and also because of Kent police`s... "reputation" *roll eyes*
The issue of airbrushing is for me, a bit of a storm in a teacup... I don`t see a problem with a kite mark in the corner of a magazine or poster... so long as people are free to create airbrushed images then the fact that they are labelled as such is almost a step in the *right* direction... you tell people what something is, they make their choice... it`s almost like... trusting people to make an informed judgment... scary given what we`ve come out of, I know. pbr [27091. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 12:47] View Near Messages
So... I decided to try some research using just google to find if there`s any reports on charges or convictions under the DDA... So far not found one...
Did chuckle at this wee gem though:
http://www.kent.police.uk/about_us/policies/n/n085.html
"Academic research and experience shows that many people engaged in the use of child abuse images are also engaged in sexual abuse of children."
As it tags the DDA to it... pbr [27081. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 14:09] View Near Messages
Ofcom regulates Iran`s propaganda organ? rly? pbr [27076. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 09:03] View Near Messages
That would be an "indecent [pseudo-]photograph of a child"...
You`re right though, it is odd that they don`t quote that part of the Act... but the definition is a person, whether fictional or not, who is under 18 or appears to be under 18 despite having some features which would imply they were over 18... of course... they do indeed omit the definition of a child... while they do include the bit about having sex with imaginary animals... queer old world... pbr [27074. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 07:52] View Near Messages
Sorry to hear you`ve been unwell Misa, best wishes for recovery (so far as one can with diabeties!)
I`ve been popping along every so often but I haven`t spent all that much time on it, I`ve been voting everytime I find a new one, I`ll have to give a more thorough review a little later and possibly post my own version, I must say I am very pleased to see all the current ones seem to be in the high 4s, I had expected they`d get pumelled by the tub thumpers who`re foaming at the mouth singing the praises of capital punishment, condemning "`uman rights" and making empassioned cries that we should roll back to a time when the gentry could trample urchins with their horses without fear of a "compensation culture"...
As to where I think it`ll go... I`m positively skeptical, it`s possible that we`ll see a it amended to basically be an [unncessary] extension of the OPA, possession is permitted and distribution/publication prohibited... not ideal and pointless given the existence of the OPA but it`s less of a volteface...
There`ve been no prosecutions under it (that I`ve encountered) and it`s received next door to no attention in the media... that`s a partial argument for it being unnecessary! And given how the police and the child protection industry claimed at the consultation and hearing stage that H is a pillar of every good child molestor`s diet... funny we`ve not seen anime fans hanging from the lamp posts...
I also note with some interest that there`ve been rumblings of plans to roll the Church of the Reverand Jim more explicitly into the state`s structure... I`m not certain if that`s a good or a bad sign... but it seems something that`s worth flagging at this point...
On the otherhand... this one will not count any chickens until he`s seen them lay eggs...
Interest in the petitions has been positive, but low-level, the offence is a on about as hot a button topic as you like, if it did make it into the Bill then Lord if any part of the media took exception to it and ran with it... I can already hear the NSPCC, Bernados and the CEOP howling in incandscent rage... well... I question whether the will would be there to repeal it in the face of "interest" let alone "opposition"...
Any event... to use a quote that should send a shiver of rage and sardonic amusement... from here, "things can only get better!" coz when you start at 0 it`s all an improvement or at least not a regression... (I have this terrible fear that one day those words will come back to me and it is not I that shall eat them but they me...)
I hadn`t seen it before but the CPS have put up guidance on the offence:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/index.html
Nothing terribly new in there though...
Random assides...:
@ Bukkake Parties - see what happens when they criminalise H? *rolleyes*
@ Gaza mannequins - is it just me... or are those breasts literally terrifying? pbr [27054. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 00:15] View Near Messages
Actually... I`m inclined towards Harvey`s question... it does seem odd that "violent rape porn" wouldn`t be added to the charges.. I mean... surely, it`s open and shut... you have a violent rapist who committed an appalling crime after he watched "violent rape porn"... I mean if you`re `common sense` isn`t tingling, you must be with *them*... so, frankly, you can`t not get a conviction...
I would tend to discount the possibility of there being a neutral reason for there not being an extreme porn charge... I would imagine that the prosecutors weren`t confident that they could get a conviction on it... and that that would undermine, in however small a way, their arguments about the rape -and- the reporting of the story afterwards... if you put it and failed to secure a conviction that`s a shitstorm -but- you also failed, if you choose not to put it because the porn was about rape but wasn`t "extreme" then that`s a problem for the politicos, you were, afterall, only applying the law as written...
pbr [27050. Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 04:24] View Near Messages
Re: Blame Alert...
Oh dear... how committed will the coalition remain to an agenda of rolling back neo-labour`s carpet of new offences in the face of a couple more stories like that...
You know... on a matter of faniciful claims... I remember the child protection industry reps and the police claiming hentai was found mixed in on some computers with child abuse images... but... with only one exception (I`ve referred to it previously, where the Court wrongly concluded that 3D CGI looked real enough to qualify as pseudo-photographs... I repeat you must live a nightmareish existence if you could mistake cheaply done early 2000 3D CGI as a depiction of reality...) I`ve never seen it reported... I wonder if should, against all odds, the DDA make it into the Great Repeal Act, we might expect an avelanche of revealations on where H turns up...
Post Script:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/25/oz_senate_censors_cartoon/
"Meanwhile, under the heading “you couldn’t make it up”, the Australian Government has now censored some 90 per cent of a document released under Australia’s FOI laws on the controversial topic of what data ISP’s are going to be asked to keep when snooping on their customers. The reason for keeping the answer under wraps? Apparently there were fears that the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate"."
...wow... pbr [27027. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 07:33] View Near Messages
Dave... you sure that long tentacle of the law drawing is kosher? As neither the guy or octopussy (...sorry...) have their imaginary birth certificates and grey hair in the shot... they could be under 18... pbr [26980. Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 11:19] View Near Messages
@IanG
Hi there, short answer is I don`t know :)
Longer answer is it`s a little more complicated lol
First off my understanding is that the problem with the VRA is that the Thatcher government didn`t properly notify the Commission (a European Union body, or I suppose, at the time a European Economic Community body) of a law which could interfere with the free passage of goods/services.
*wandering off into wild speculation and guesswork*
The law also created some criminal offences which are only relevant within the UK... they are perfectly proper offences regardless of whether the Act was properly announced to the Commission... if you wanted to make those offences unlawful in the European Convention on Human Rights sense, then you`d need something more that a failure to comply with a notifying requirement for a wholly different body.
The European Union and its forerunners and its court the European Court of Justice are completely seperate to the Council of Europe and its court the European Court of Human Rights... yes... I know it`s confusing, it`s even more confusing that the EU stole the flag of the CoE (no, not that one) :)
There is some overlap between the two courts... and oddly enough, this is an area where it`s possible to see that overlap, but from two very different angles lol that of freedom of expression and the free movement of goods... however, in both cases, there are restrictions which allow... I think the charming wording is "for the protection of health or morals" which appears in both the Treaty of Rome (EU - re movement of goods/services) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR - re freedom of expression).
I hope that in some way helps... lol
I think your other question is about a conflict between obscenity and the VRA, which, I would have to look into to give a more informed answer :) pbr [26954. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 00:34] View Near Messages
Indeed Harvey...
It`s one of my concerns over the Tory plan to "free" the police to lay their own charges again, they say on the most minor crimes only (..*for now*..)... but... I can`t help feeling that if the qualified lawyers of the CPS keep laying charges and dragging cases which fail to meet their own prosecution tests all the way to Hearing then... then... aren`t the police just going to stuff the system with -even worse- clunkers? =/
The reasoning on this one left me a bit puzzled... can`t help but feel this was a fluke... possession being a continuing act and there not being a grandfathering provision... pbr [26949. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 10:45] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/22/extreme_smut_verdict/
^ Interesting extreme porn story there... pbr [26928. Posted 17-Jun-2010 Thu 09:59] View Near Messages
Did I hear my name? O_o
I`m still waiting on some -real- details of this Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/queens-speech/2010/05/queens-speech-freedom-great-repeal-bill-50647
...and in particular:
"The repeal of unnecessary criminal offences." pbr [26898. Posted 11-Jun-2010 Fri 10:29] View Near Messages
When I saw Arbuthnott and Vaz had retained their chairmanships, I realised that I didn`t wake up on on May the 7th.... pbr [26880. Posted 5-Jun-2010 Sat 06:12] View Near Messages
...wouldn`t it be funny if a bad thing happened that couldn`t be blamed on porn, television or video games?
Back to my This Week comment earlier... if you`ve got time I reccommend you hop over to the iplayer and watch it, because there`s some interesting things said... I was most interested to discover there was no such thing as a seriel killer till the 80s, it`s amazing what you learn when a pop psychologist and a politico (even a retired one) get together... pbr [26876. Posted 3-Jun-2010 Thu 08:08] View Near Messages
Livestock Market... "Magistrates said they could not deal with the case and sent it to Lincoln Crown Court for sentencing with a date to be confirmed. Short was released on unconditional bail."
How`s that for a mixed message? The magistrates don`t feel they have the sentencing powers to deal with the case... and they released her on unconditional bail...
Funny old world...
Long time post script:
...so... I`m watching This Week... and there`s Linda Papadopoloulos giving her `expert` opinion on why the Cumbrian killings happened... pbr [26869. Posted 1-Jun-2010 Tue 05:37] View Near Messages
@ Ominous... Police to be given more powers to charge people with offences
Little late to the party I know... but... when I was doing the LPC I a good number of us taking a crime elective visited a detention centre and while we were there met a custody sergeant, that day`s duty prosecutor and a couple of other constables and staff (all seperately, naturally.), they seemed friendly enough but you couldn`t help but notice they knew they were on different teams, with the custody sergeant appearing to occupy a *slightly* more balanced position than I expected (course... he was on show...) even so... I couldn`t help but notice the tension between the police and CPS over the latter`s "letting villians go"...
I`m somewhat dubious over the whole thing... after all... if the police are empowered to lay charges... are we going back to the bad old days where the police brought their own prosecutions? Or will the police be able to clutter the system (even worse than it is now!) with cases that the CPS wouldn`t even bring... which, presumably will lead the CPS to drop these cases at the first hurdle... or offering no evidence when they actually get to trial... which will lead to soured relations (more so) between the CPS and police... all this leads to grumpy(/ier) benches... well... waste...
Doesn`t make sense to me this one... it looks like a good sound bite and bad policy... hmm... doesn`t that sound oddly familiar? =/ pbr [26867. Posted 30-May-2010 Sun 09:37] View Near Messages
Dangerous Bodies "The ban on the practice that passed by an 86-12 vote said minors cannot post, forward, receive or possess photographs, video or other material that shows them or another minor in a state of nudity."
...so... baby photos are bound for the pyre then? pbr [26853. Posted 26-May-2010 Wed 16:52] View Near Messages
You know Shaun... kids mature a little faster now, dietry changes and such... but leaving that asside...
When I first heard from a co-worker that the boys were convicted of attempted rape despite the girl saying she made it up... I thought that made absolutely no sense at all... why on earth wasn`t the case withdrawn? ...but... then some of the other details that appeared in the press... moving from place to place... presumably there`s more to it than was worth writing up or getting the air time... I can see why you might infer that there was another intention from the little extra bits...
Also... given the girl`s age and the dispairty between their ages... I don`t think a jury is ever going to entertain any ideas of her being a "willing participant" when you move things beyond what counsel on both sides referred to as "you show me yours"... pbr [26832. Posted 16-May-2010 Sun 01:38] View Near Messages
Interesting... Garnier showed some disatisfaction with the DDA at committee... pbr [26828. Posted 13-May-2010 Thu 10:59] View Near Messages
Oh sweet jesus... if they`re cutting Code Geass, which is so far from the the "cutting" edge then stick a fork in it, to paraphrase, anime`s over guys, go home. pbr [26824. Posted 12-May-2010 Wed 10:34] View Near Messages
I was a little surprised by Clarke at the MoJ... I suppose he has the credentials though... but it`s something of a quiet part given his usual portofilio... what did he say... "I was a lawyer once"? lol it`s nice to see that silks have fine recall.
May at the Home Office however, doesn`t bode all that well... I was particularly amused by her also getting the women and equality brief... pbr [26822. Posted 12-May-2010 Wed 00:14] View Near Messages
For clarification of the terminology... one reads manga, one watches anime.
They handcuffed him, but didn`t arrest him... so... what they`re saying is... they used force, but not to affect a lawful arrest? That`s potentially interesting... when exactly was the poster taken down?
Further... is the word wanker, when used to describe someoneone not present, "alarming" "harassing" or "distressing"... I would suggest no. However... we`re back on the path where the person with the lowest tolerance sets the rules... pbr [26813. Posted 10-May-2010 Mon 01:08] View Near Messages
@Spiderschwein
Erm... why bollox britian? The story is from Germany? o_O
"A trainee teacher who fronts a gory death metal band whose live act features blood-smeared women has been threatened with dismissal by German authorities."
"Unless he abandons his controversial music career with the band Debauchery, Thomas "The Bloodbeast" Gurrath will have to give up his teaching traineeship, according to a report in Bild, the German daily.
The 29-year-old Stuttgart-based teacher and his band have released albums with names like "Kill, Maim, Burn" and "Torture Pit"."
...I mean... I know exactly why you read Germany and thought Britain... to be fair *roll eyes*
On a matter of bollox britian...:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7702143/General-Election-2010-BBC-apologises-after-Jeremy-Paxman-swears-at-voting-public-on-Newsnight.html
In Torygraph land, the word bollocks (or possibly bugger?) is according to their front page: "a x-rated outburst"
I don`t recall him having to apologise for quoting Herr Gordo earlier this year though... *sigh* they are skittish at the beeb these days... when a news programme an hour and a half after the watershed is afraid to state the facts O_o pbr [26801. Posted 7-May-2010 Fri 09:54] View Near Messages
Indeed... no tory bill will pass the house without the lib dem`s support... very, very interesting... I`ve been watching the numbers tick by all day... and when they got to the point that not even the fanciful tory - DUP - SNP - PC and indy vote could hold against neo-lab/SDLP/lib dem opposition, my eyes lit up...
What do you know... no over all majority in the house and the great unwashed haven`t stormed the town halls with pitch forks and torches... nor have the markets imploded down to a black hole... who would have thought it... the two big parties and their media handlers told a fib o_O pbr [26780. Posted 3-May-2010 Mon 02:54] View Near Messages
@ Comment: Not So Dangerous in Scotland
"First, why is it that the IWF will not add sites containing non-photographic visual depictions of the sexual abuse of children (or drawings, as we used to call them in the old days) to its watchlist?"
...because there would be a repeated of the Scorpions incident I imagine... or... maybe it`s partly an acknowledgement that this law is out of whack with the US, Japan and plenty of other places...
"Are they any less illegal than other types of child pornography?"
In some ways yes and in others no...
If I recall rightly there`s no mandatory SOR requirement on conviction under the DDA... but on the other hand there`s none defense like under the PCA that you `were married to/living with` the subject... No scale yet exists for the DDA like it does for the PCA and god help us if they just port over the scale that developed from the PCA because if "erotic posing" then it`s game over for the entire anime/manga genre... and of course... the offense has no defense of "but, s/he really is over 18!"... coz believe it or not they don`t issue birth certificates to magical pink unicorns... *roll eyes*
"Second, in regard to their remit to help remove such images in the UK, has it escaped the IWF`s notice that these images are still perfectly legal to possess and distribute in Scotland?"
I`d be surprised if they`re strictly legal to -distribute- in Scotland, but I dinny-kna... but I for some reason suspect that the SNP aren`t going to climb up onto the belfries to scream about the English infringing on their soveriegnty, on this point...
Equally... like the DPA I`d be surprised if the puritans up North don`t yet have plans to mirror this one... with a slight uplift in its harshness level... pbr [26776. Posted 1-May-2010 Sat 16:02] View Near Messages
Don`t go getting your hopes up too far freeworld...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a86.stm
Represented by Labour since 1945, Camberwell and Peckham`s MP since 1983 has been Harriet Harman.
She retained the seat in 2005 by 13,483 votes, despite a 4.9% swing towards the Liberal Democrats.
-
The Harperson`s seat isn`t exactly on a knife edge looking at those numbers...
As for the possibility of a roll back of the DPA or DDA... I wouldn`t hold my breath just yet... pbr [26760. Posted 27-Apr-2010 Tue 11:06] View Near Messages
@Harvey
I didn`t think I needed to! I thought it was clear on the face of it that this one couldn`t lose lol
You just can`t lay charges like these and fail to get the conviction you need to roll the law back to where it was when we knew our betters knew better than us.
My gut instinct is that this would have been part of one of those "rings" and I would imagine the online chat as it were were something akin to irc... where you can probably already see the problem with "corrupting" *rolls eyes*
If it were something... more "intimate" then there`s something interesting in that... and indeed, if it were in a more open place... well... I struggle to think of an example that I would describe as a "chat"... pbr [26751. Posted 26-Apr-2010 Mon 10:28] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/26/obscene_publications_chat/
"Kent Police have charged an individual with nine offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) in a case that could potentially see online chat in the UK subjected to a much stricter regulation regime.
A Kent Police spokeswoman confirmed to The Register it had brought the charges against the individual, and that these charges relate to online chat."
I struggle to come up with a better description, so I`ll go with my gut reaction: ...Oh fuck...
=/ pbr [26746. Posted 25-Apr-2010 Sun 09:56] View Near Messages
@Harvey... possibly... Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress is triable either way when it`s racially or religiously aggrivated... which would account for a jury to be there as reported...
But even if that were the charge... can you rightly say that it was harassment or alarming?
I leave out distressing because yea... I`m pretty sure that when you allow for people to take offence on behalf of their all-powerful imaginary that most things are "distressing"...
However... perusing my old crim law books... it does mention that the offence has to prevent public disorder so as to avoid breaching the defendant`s Art 10 rights...
If that be the case we`ve got an illustration of a problem with public disorder in this context... the disorder is going to come from people taking offence on behalf of their imaginary friend... I resist the urge to make a pun on "disordered" *rolls eyes* pbr [26742. Posted 25-Apr-2010 Sun 03:01] View Near Messages
@freeworld
I wouldn`t say the government really loves lawyers (well, not the kind you mean here... they do love City lawyers, obv.)... they just love passing laws... if you look at the things this government have done to the legal aid budget (who would imagine that hosing out thousands of extra laws would cost more to deal with?) and the mechanisms for delivering it... it becomes harder to believe lol
We`ve already seen quite a few politicos make a very interesting statement about legal aid basically there`s too far too much of it and... under no circumstances MPs should get it... but... where does that go? No one likes MPs so they should have to pay their own way... but equally, you wouldn`t want your taxes going to defend some murder, paedophile, burglar....*fade off into distance*... would you? These people must be scum, they`ve been arrested! The police know best, right? They`re on "the frontline" after all... pbr [26738. Posted 24-Apr-2010 Sat 07:13] View Near Messages
Threatening to Make a Mockery of Justice
...god help us all =/
"Judge James told him: Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did but even now you continue to maintain that you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future."
No remorse? No remorse?!
How on earth did the learned judge fail to withdraw the case... unreal... unfucking real...
"One image showed a pig excreting sausages with insults to Islam, and others linked Muslims to attacks on airports."
That`s not a threat... causing offence is not the same as threatening someone...
And... the fact that a jury could reach a unanimous decision on this (assuming he wasn`t caning people across the face with these articles...) scares the living shit out of me. pbr [26724. Posted 19-Apr-2010 Mon 00:59] View Near Messages
The Star are preaching morality and taking up the mantle to defend all that which is pure and wholesome?
I think I need a lie down. pbr [26720. Posted 14-Apr-2010 Wed 10:03] View Near Messages
@ MichaelG
"`If it is harmless and involving consenting people there is nothing that we can really do.`"
...I think if you read that over again, you might see another inferrence can be drawn from his comment... pbr [26709. Posted 9-Apr-2010 Fri 08:53] View Near Messages
ASA easily offended by internet security advert:
"the ACCESS DENIED sign across the naked woman`s bottom implied anal sex."
I like the way they think over at the ASA... ie, contrary to the facts, surely it actually implies you`re *not* getting anal sex...?
"We noted nudity and sex had no relevance to the product advertised.
We concluded that Retell had gone too far in their bid to attract attention and that the commercial e-mail"
...has no one in the ASA ever visited the interwebz? I wasn`t aware e-mail had any applications not related to nudity or sex =/
Violent DVDs and video games exert a negative influence on nutter MPs
"Speaking of a Home Affairs Committee report on knife crime, Liberal Democrat MP and former party leader candidate Simon Hughes stated: The report then makes a controversial point, but I believe that it is true – evidence supported our view that violent DVDs and video games exert a negative influence on those who watch and play them."
Oh fuck, if the Lib Dems are doing the "getting tough" soundbites there must be an election coming *roll eyes*... pbr [26673. Posted 31-Mar-2010 Wed 12:46] View Near Messages
That was a... wait for it... *foolish* thing to do Dave ^_~ pbr [26661. Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 15:49] View Near Messages
First of all I just want to repeat this line:
"parental controls should be in place for material which can cause `serious impairment`"
I love that... I also love the way indecency is defined at law... ah... anyway:
On the matter of adding the watershed to the online world... brilliant another failure to accept reality -.-
I`ll just pick on one example, the iPlayer. How do you prevent the iPlayer being accessed by chidlren who want to watch "filth" well... first off the Beeb doesn`t produce "filth" so we can end this right here - but - for argument`s sake I`ll continue... The current method asks you to confirm you`re over a certain age when a programme contains certain material... so, you tick a box and get what you wanted... hardly a great hurdle for anyone really... lets say you use that great panacea to all ills "password protect it" well... first off someone has to register to get a password... otherwise you don`t even want to think of the problems of distributing passwords to the masses... but unless you tether the account to the person verify their ID (oh hey! maybe ID cards will save the yoof a`today from impairment inducing tv!) a new one can be made and hey presto, we`ve circumvented the protection... pbr [26654. Posted 27-Mar-2010 Sat 14:58] View Near Messages
I know it`s not strictly censorship related... but I just wanted to share this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/27/gordon-brown-unveils-election-pledges
"Speaking just 11 days before he is expected to go to Buckingham Palace to call the election, Brown insisted that constitutional reform is vital to restoring trust in politics. "You might have thought that after three terms of a Labour government we would be cautious about further reform. Quite the opposite is the case.""
I`m not sure how much more of this "reforming" the mangled tatters of the constitution, which was a frail old soul before hand anyway, can take... pbr [26651. Posted 26-Mar-2010 Fri 10:41] View Near Messages
You know... I`ve been watching a lot of on demand programming on c4 and the bbc`s websites and the Question Time from last week closed with a question on Anna Arrowsmith/Span`s standing for Parliament, the question was pretty much "is it right that this sort" should run for Parliament... Charlie Kennedy`s embarassed attempt at a dodge then zooming down to constituency level stuff was a typical politico-jobbie, the Green`s moralising was unsurprising... but it was the Conservative (think it was Andrew Vinders[sp]?) reply that struck me, he said something along the lines of "it takes all sorts and Parliament should too"...
Can`t remember the last time I heard something come out of a tory that I could agree with without a phone book of cavaets lol pbr [26634. Posted 22-Mar-2010 Mon 02:59] View Near Messages
The Gorbals Vampire story:
"A few dissenting academics pointed out there was no mention of a creature matching the description of the Gorbals Vampire in any of these comics."
"But their voices were drowned out in the media and political frenzy that was by now demanding action to be taken to prevent even more young minds from being polluted by the terrifying and corrupt comic books."
"The government responded to the clamour by introducing the..."
Nice to see that some things never change... -.- pbr [26629. Posted 21-Mar-2010 Sun 03:03] View Near Messages
;) I know that was meant to be ironic Dark... but... "all too fucking often in this country" is the answer ;) pbr [26627. Posted 20-Mar-2010 Sat 08:40] View Near Messages
*sigh*
Was hoping that they wouldn`t get round to activating the DDA before the election and it`d just lie there inactive... aw well... scorch and salt the earth as you retreat ay? pbr [26593. Posted 12-Mar-2010 Fri 06:18] View Near Messages
Hang on a second...
If BBFC certificates can be revoked... then the defense that material has been passed by the BBFC (like for dangerous drawings and dangerous pictures)... can disappear without notice to you...
Now there`s an interesting problem... pbr [26569. Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 16:58] View Near Messages
Keep being late to the party here...
"likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…"
1, performer is over 18, dialogue in one instance refers to someone younger than her... okay... maybe...
2, incest is a sexually abusive activity...? interesting... I had a criminal law lecturer who used to love incest... as a matter of academic interest you understand... ;) it is an interesting topic of course...
3, ...where`s the rape? O_o pbr [26555. Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 15:31] View Near Messages
@IanG - I`m going to play Captain Obvious and suggest a dildo, then I`ll get me coat :)
dictionary.com offers the following definitions:
sex object
–noun
a person viewed as being of little interest or merit beyond the potential for providing sexual gratification.
Use sex object in a Sentence
See images of sex object [< I lol`d]
Search sex object on the Web [< I lol`d again]
Origin:
1925–30
sex object
n. A person regarded primarily as the focus of sexual attraction.
Main Entry: sex object
Function: noun
: a person regarded especially exclusively as an object of sexual interest
So... there you have it... basically by being reminded of the fact that [most] people do occassionally want to have sex with other people, people will forget that people are more than something to make your special places happy... obv.
@MichaelG
I read that Littlejohn article... I tried to find it funny or insightful or indeed anything other than well... you know... wouldn`t want to say something defamatory coz we know how that turns out here *rolls eyes*
In amongst the droning laissez-faire rantings and xenophobic drivell I did spot one sentence which did bring a smile to my face "Lord Chief Justice Keith Vaz"... pbr [26530. Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 14:24] View Near Messages
You know... I keep seeing these common sense solutions to gaming being the devil... sell consoles with the parental controls "switched on", what a smashingly simple and common sense approach... because having a BBFC rating on it didn`t stop little Johnny and Janey getting hold of "Duke Nukem does terribly naughty things with Lula and then kills lots of things in a awfully unsporting fashion" just as an enforcable PEGI rating didn`t either... but... pray tell gentle reader... how do these miraculous parental controls work?
I do believe they involve the "parent" setting a password or PIN which "controls" which age-level a system may play without prompting the gamer to enter said password or PIN...
I do hope everyone`s common sense tells them that this is clearly a brillant idea which has absolutely no flaws what so ever... pbr [26465. Posted 10-Feb-2010 Wed 14:47] View Near Messages
;) we won`t be seeing Janus17 for a good while I imagine he`s already through the reeducation camp gates... pbr [26415. Posted 17-Jan-2010 Sun 15:14] View Near Messages
Harvey, I have followed this fellow`s story with mild interest... and I know what he`s being prosecuted again and again for...
My gripe, which I would have thought was fairly obvious from the comment was with the commentor`s somewhat purplexing conclusion...
Still... just because someone`s actions are mad and for a cause which society doesn`t feel terribly strongly about, doesn`t mean something better won`t come after someone throws themself under the King`s horse... pbr [26413. Posted 17-Jan-2010 Sun 06:10] View Near Messages
@ emark
Coming to a green and pleasant land near you...
What`s the penalty going to be? As obviously the offence won`t be preventable... but the bricks can still come tumbling down after...
More on the Naked Rambler:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/17/naked-rambler-terror-arrest
"It`s as though we can only accept nudity if it`s sexualised. Nudity for nudity`s sake – well, that`s deeply suspect. One commentator on radio suggested that children needed to be protected because Gough could be a paedophile, as though clothes were confirmation of a healthy sexuality.
Gough`s behaviour is obviously unusual. But abnormal is not the same thing as criminal. While he has been adjudged to have broken the law, it`s hard to see what crime he has committed. Any society that thinks prison is the correct place for him has lost grip of a basic principle of liberty. "Man is born free," wrote Rousseau, "but everywhere he is in chains.""
Being naked in public means you want to abuse children. Yep... yes indeed... I don`t know where to start... maybe "again somewhere else" -.- pbr [26397. Posted 12-Jan-2010 Tue 08:05] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/police_search_illegal/
Suspicionless stop and search under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is illegal, who would have thunk it?
Not HMG by the looks of their Mr Hanson`s response:
Policing and Security Minister David Hanson MP said: ”Stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of measures in the ongoing fight against terrorism.
”I am disappointed with the ECHR ruling in this case as we won all other challenges in the UK courts, including at the House of Lords. We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal.”
...the last 2 sentences beautifully illustrate why we need a Court dealing with laws above all others...
Still... no doubt this`ll turn into another DNA/Phorm issue... and not resolve... pbr [26395. Posted 12-Jan-2010 Tue 03:04] View Near Messages
The problem with "create an account" type age gate keeping is... in isolation it doesn`t achieve anything... I could register myself as a 4 year old or a 110 year old, without an external referrence who will know? Perhaps though... we will see this become a sound argument for ID cards... children in the UK could be capped out by some referrence number that UK based providers would be able to refer to...
Of course... an upshot of "protecting the children" in such a is that there would be a nice personally identifiable trail of your viewing habits... which could quite literally track "development"... and... we adults would also have our viewing habits following us around... I wonder if a history of watching "Monkey Dust" might harm ones "life chances" *rolls eyes*
Course... it would do sweet FA to deal with torrents or non-UK based sites... but you know, better to be seen to be doing something and blame its failure on Johnny Forgeiner...
I do want to pick out these particular words for attention:
"might seriously impair [their] physical, mental or moral development".
Funnily enough I`ve just finished watching a brilliant anime were all the central characters as teenagers/young adults develop PTSD and/or disassociative disorders because of a car accident and the events leading up to it and following it...
Anyway... I`m slightly at a loss as to what you might see or hear that might cause "physical impairment" as a discrete catagory of injury... unless of course you`re present to see light so bright it blinds you or a sound so loud it causes deafness... but... I don`t think that`s likely to happen from a streamed video and if deafness occurs... it`s probably not the stream service`s fault, rather the person who put their volume up to Saturn 5 launch levels...
Mental development... now that`s interesting... because... one might reasonably say that mental development means capping non-educational programming out as much as it means not letting a person of a certain age observe something which will leave them traumatised...
Course... as a kid I watched the Walt Disney narated wild life documentaries... some might find that traumatic lol
Moral development... I feel a multitude of sins can be buried under the title morality... as a bairn I used to watch a pretty wide varity of things, from the old godzilla movies to the moomins to... well, it was a pretty broad scattering really... and if you start looking for moral messages in some of these things you might see some odd patterns... I mean...
Take the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they were "rude" (purportedly) and they resolved conflict with violence more often than not, but they were essentially "good" and they wrought violence on only "bad people" to the benefit of "good people", they were even "outsiders" (...something to be viewed with suspicion nowadays perhaps...)
Or take the Moomins, my favourite character was always the anarchic Snuffkin, a wondering vagabond with little desire to fit in with society... yet... he wasn`t a bad person, he was in fact, a very good one...
Better yet take the old Godzilla movies, creatures which appear utterly amoral a lot of the time, suddenly become guardians of humanity, at one moment tearing up cities and landmarks for very naught but the sheer lulz, then they`re saving the world from invading mutants, aliens or other general menances... the moral is unclear... I wonder how such grey morality would go down in the black and white world of our better`s view of what is good and proper for the plebs (and their children) to see...
I mean I could go on... Topcat was still kicking around on TV when I was growing up... as was Rudedog and the Dweebs, Heathcliff, Yogi Bear... roguish undesirable sorts with questionable moral compasses...
I don`t really have much of an idea what makes up children`s television anymore... perhaps someone with kids might enlighten me as to whether western cartoons still have moral ambigity...? pbr [26393. Posted 11-Jan-2010 Mon 10:30] View Near Messages
@DarkAngel5
...nothing should surpise you anymore mate... we live in strange times.
@ste
I`m also largely comfortable with the BBFC`s performance with games, there are a few I`d say they were too restrictive and a classification a step down would have been fine... and a few instances of pronounced lunacy... but, on the whole it`s not been *too bad*... but maybe I`m forgetting some egrious actions in my dull headcoldy-state...
I suppose we also need to consider that games nowadays tend to only "push the boundaries" with their violence level, sometimes more daring developers will mix things up with a mature story theme... "foul langauge" is common enough in your shoot`an games... but... sexual themes are pretty few and far between really... and we`re all too aware that it`s one thing to dismember an elf... it`s quite another to put it in one *rolls eyes*
I suppose also with games though... the limited role the BBFC had probably prevented it from running up more fuck-ups...
@sergio
There`s *plenty* of questions that the tiger case begs sergio... from the reg article it appeared as though the sound and video were two seperate files... but even if they are... :) it seems that for now the CPS are operating under the assumption that realism is the act, not the totality... as it were.
And your query about "pornographic" and "comical" is exactly the kind of problem that anime and manga are going to come crashing headlong into... there`s a significant sub-genre that`s all about what you might roughly call in English `burlesque` humour... but that doesn`t exactly convey it is... in any event, comic sexual themes appear all over the place in anime/manga... and if the "tiger" case is how the CPS are going to be dealing with the DPA and it`s realism requirement... then fuck me there`ll be no manga (anime being classified by the bbfc and so exempted) left safe in the UK... as the ubiqitious panty-shot is... well... cliché to the point of requirement... pbr [26388. Posted 10-Jan-2010 Sun 03:08] View Near Messages
@ The Digitial Economy Bill story...
"Shadow Culture Minister Ed Vaizey added: The Digital Economy Bill will amend the 1984 Act and bring video games into a system of statutory classification using the European rating system known as PEGI—pan European game information. Broadly speaking, hon. Members of all parties support that. Everybody recognises that video games should be classified under a statutory system."
...if I turn to my right I see a number of games... at the top of the pile is The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, which has an (oversized) BBFC 15 on it... immediately underneath it is Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising which also bears a larger than normal BBFC 15 label... in any event... it does appear to me that there is some kind of statutory classification of video games... otherwise the BBFC is sneaking into warehouses and leaving perfectly interlaid classifications on covers...
In any event, to have a crack at the PEGI system, underneath those two games is Civilization 4 and its 2 expansion packs these all bear a PEGI label of "12+" and... I would postulate that if the BBFC rated those games they would be "E" "U" or "PG" though I would very much like to see the explanatory warnings that would accompany it... "contains themes of genocide" perhaps, it comes with the little clenched fist for violence but... I`m not quite sure how many of you have played the Civ games in one incarnation or another but... if you were to compare the violence in a BBFC 12/12A rated film, you might actually struggle to see where there is violence in the game...
If I glance over elsewhere there`s the Sims 3 another 12+ by PEGI which has had some terribly amusing moral panics...
There`s Mario Kart Wii, it`s got a 3+, course... I`d say MK was more violent than Civ, at least visually...
Then ARMAII at 16+ (some may already see the irony in this being enforcably 16+ while OFP 2 is 15), the game if rated by the BBFC *might* get a 12, would certainly not get higher than 15...
PEGI uses 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+, they also have a set of warning content labels, violence, bad language, fear, drugs, sexual content, discrimination, gambling... in any event, I would point to the (neo-labour friendly) disparaty between PEGI and the BBFC`s ratings, ie, the increase from what would be PG to 7 (though I concede there`s little practical issues with this as kids of this age are probably not buying their own games) while there is at 15 to 16+ essentially the content we would have in a 15 rated game is moved years up (TES:O was 15 to BBFC and 16+ to PEGI, OFP 2 was 15 to the BBFC and 18+ to PEGI)...
Oh well, in any event, best not get in the way of a good sound bite for a reoccuring moral panic...
-indeed, if the BBFC is inconsistant... then even using my example of ARMAII and OFP 2, the former of which allows the player to commit ("imaginary") war crimes on civilians and POWs [while I might add rewarding the player for uncovering evidence of war crimes by the "bad guys" and indeed, punishing the player for committing any] while so far as I`ve seen the same is not true in OFP 2 (well... you can blow up civilian buildings, which is a war crime... but there`s no pits full of mutilated civilians buried in the woods)- pbr [26387. Posted 9-Jan-2010 Sat 17:29] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8447784.stm
Hatty got a £350 fine and 3 points, the charge for using a mobile was withdrawn... shame, would have been amusing to see her "forced" to use a chauffeur all of the time, a claimable expense no doubt... pbr [26385. Posted 9-Jan-2010 Sat 04:34] View Near Messages
*read the olympics story, discovered that he wasn`t completely dead inside yet.. coz another little bit died*
...I`m wondering just how much longer will it be before the mounted militia will charge a crowd with sabres drawn... pbr [26382. Posted 6-Jan-2010 Wed 11:22] View Near Messages
Oh deary-deary me... turns out the "tiger" was not a tiger, it was, how we would say under the Dangerous Drawings Act, "an imaginary" tiger:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/06/tiger_police/
"The first charge involved a video clip of a woman having sex with a tiger. The tiger, according to Mr Holland, was an animated image, rather than a real tiger.
He told El Reg that the fictional nature of the action was obvious from the fact that, at the end of the scene, the Tiger turns to camera and said: "that beats doing Frosties ads for a living"."
So we now know where the requirement for "realism" under the DPA is drawn, where the state says it is. pbr [26381. Posted 5-Jan-2010 Tue 02:04] View Near Messages
Non-partisan in the political sense, with conotations of being well judged... which is the best light you can shine on a gate-keeper...
Seems HMG have a new definition of indecent - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws - on the one hand it`s amusing to see them hoist by their own petard (both over the scanners and the rampant paranoia), on the other hand it shows how paranoid it`s all become... and it`s particularly amusing because I`m sure no one will consider using kids to mule things... oh wait... pbr [26379. Posted 3-Jan-2010 Sun 15:52] View Near Messages
Harvey - You know... I completely forgot that the DPP had to consent to a prosecution under that offence... I do however recall our lords and masters using the DPP`s consent as a fig leaf of non-partisan consideration before charges are brought under a controversial (I say smiling on one side of my face...) offence... I wonder if anyone in the media will pick up the fact that this gate-keeper function, to put it politely, may not be working quite as intended...
Course... as something of an aside on the DPP, if I recall rightly... before Mr Starmer took up the post drew some attention because of his human rights background... while watching his performance at the committee stage of for the DDA, it struck me that there was little consideration of article 8 or 10... *rolls eyes*
@ emark -
The MoJ haven`t published a date for implimentation yet.
Have HMG made any promises about how it`ll be implimented? Do you have any sources? I don`t recall a single comment from HMG other than the apparatniks that appeared at committee and the bald lies that appear as blurbs for the offence.
Suffice to say this law is NOT targeted at non-realistic material, it is targetted at ALL material which might possibly fit its requirements, be it live-action capture or stick figures...
In fact.. I`d postulate that if you take the 2012 olympic symbol and draw a child-like stick figure in front of it.. you`ll have a drawing of a sex act in the prescene of a child... which is an offence...
I know I`m just repeating the same thing over and over... but... you know... they`re protecting innocent stick-figure children from observing sex... with their little dot eyes...
Words fail me. pbr [26374. Posted 1-Jan-2010 Fri 16:00] View Near Messages
You know Harvey... you can have all of the threshold tests in the world... but when you keep getting handed hammers, gosh-darn it, everything that comes along just keeps looking more and more like narrow cylinders generally of metal drawn to a point at one end with a flat surface at the other...
Now... I really struggle to see how this could be anything but blind zeal and a gleeful desire to play with the new toys...
As... in the alternative, to be quite plain about this... tigers are fucking big, they are also rather distinctive in their appearance... it must have been a cracking suit that made someone watching it accept this was a real tiger... and... I would postulate (having not seen the offending, or rather, non-offending, article) that for full comic effect the "tiger" would have to stand up after the act to deliver the line and... presumably even a non-naturalist could spot there`s something not quite right about that posture for a big cat...
I do hope the judge tore a strip out of the prosecution...
Still... I have this terrible feeling that we`re going to see a trough and a peak and that peak will be paraded for all it`s worth and it`ll be fantastic copy made all the more effective by the pitious baffoonery which went before it... pbr [26371. Posted 31-Dec-2009 Thu 19:04] View Near Messages
Not strictly censorship related... but I hope someone will enjoy a sardonic moment at this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6916946/Police-officers-prefer-warmth-of-police-station-to-catching-criminals.html
For me Straw has always been one of the most insidious members of the ruling junta, wildly repressive one day and claiming the HRA was his baby and a selfless gift to freedom the next... a radical reforming authoritarian...
But now he`s turning on his Brown Shirts... is there an election coming or something? *rolls eyes*
The quote I most enjoyed though was this:
"Simon Reed, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “Jack Straw’s remarks are irresponsible and inflammatory.
“Police officers are not the architects of bureaucracy, they and the public are the victims of it. It wasn’t police officers who brought in 3,000 new laws and multiple forms. This was done by politicians.”"
Now the police are crying foul and that they have too many laws to deal with? The zeal with which they have executed their last man standing fight to keep the government from forcing further powers into their unwilling hands todate adds a particular bitter-sweetness to it... pbr [26340. Posted 18-Dec-2009 Fri 10:46] View Near Messages
@ UK Internet Censorship... / Digital Economy Bill
*slow clap*
"(b) any other consideration."
To use just a handful of interwebz clichés:
Good night sweet prince, internetz over, go home.
I mean... what a surreal world we live in... where our true believing lords and masters at once critise Iran and China (though the latter no so loudly anymore... *rolls eyes*) while they fill up their shed with the exact same tools...
Shit ain`t even scary no more... it`s like the wrong side of the iron curtain mind set -.- pbr [26321. Posted 12-Dec-2009 Sat 04:40] View Near Messages
@ the Tiger Woods story
I hope you don`t have any assets in the UK they can come after Dave coz if I recall right... this is one of those "we can`t tell you and we can`t tell you why" injunctions...
Still... yet another beautiful example of the Striesand effect *rolls eyes*
(also... don`t you love the way his lawyer spoke... we got an injunction to prevent something which doesn`t exist, but if it does exist then it could be a fake... I love legaleese it makes me warm inside.)
@ The pope story
"Pope Ratzinger has been whingeing about the media. He complained that the mass media: Tend to make us feel like spectators, as if evil regards only others and certain things could never happen to us."
But bad things can happen to you, so (to quote in the stlye of the interwebz) FEAR FEAR FEAR - :) but trust in god and his most perfect church, and it`ll come right, after you die.
@ the Call of Duty Controversy...
I`ve never much cared for COD, always seemed dumbed down and too arcade for my taste... but guess what I`m planning on buying? *rolls eyes* pbr [26307. Posted 5-Dec-2009 Sat 03:59] View Near Messages
@bleach
Means it`s the same situation as it was with the DPA, except, that the DPA had a set date for quite a long time before it went live (...was it Jan or Feb 2008?) while this has no `safe` date as it were...
There are plenty of laws have been introduced and never made live (remember the furiore over the play set in a Sikh Temple "Shame"? (fragment of story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/13/arts.religion ) - there`s a law against showing plays which are offensive to religious sentiments (if they can convieniantly be tied to race) in the Public Order Act 1986 - but it`s still not gone live... much to the upset of that shower protesting about the playwrite`s blasphemy...)
I might be wrong, but I don`t think there`s anything which stops the sectary with the power to impliment it dropping a SI into parliament on the 8th and it going live on the 8th... how Damaclesian =) pbr [26303. Posted 1-Dec-2009 Tue 15:28] View Near Messages
Just a few more little odds and ends...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/coroners-justice-act-09-implementation.pdf
(no live date set for the DDA)
A one to watch here... the one of the greatest touch stones of anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion (End of Evangelion provides an alternative ending to the series)... although a classified work and thus safe from criminalisation... there is a scene here which may well end up snatching it away from any new audiences... I do wonder whether an edited version will appear later...
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/111182/Neon-Genesis-Evangelion-The-End-Of-Evangelion/Product.html?ptsl=1&ob=Price&fb=0 pbr [26300. Posted 30-Nov-2009 Mon 01:59] View Near Messages
@ MichaelG
Presumably the Duchess doesn`t feel that away about -all- guns... I believe the upper class rather fetishise the shotgun... pbr [26298. Posted 29-Nov-2009 Sun 16:10] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/29/olympic_logo_lisa_simpson/
That was one of the first things that came to mind when I saw that neo-labour drone spewing her bile at committee... I`m weighing up the lulz of making a complaint... pbr [26295. Posted 29-Nov-2009 Sun 06:02] View Near Messages
@ emark
It does cover *all* images, that`s clear in the definition of images, think of it as a progress chart with yes and no answers, all images fall under its definition but not all images are criminalised by it because they won`t necessarily meet the requirement to be pornographic, explicit, realistic, etc...
But as I suggested earlier, realistic doesn`t mean on the face of it that "it looks real" it could mean that it shows the act in for what want of a better explaination is that it is physically correct.
@ emark and Harvey
If you`ve ever seen the kind of 3D models produced on a porn budget (particularly a porn budget from 2000(!)) you`d know that if anyone mistook the image for being a photograph or something derived from it that their existance must be one long terrifying nightmare...
The DDA "closed the loophole" that someone found with an ero-ge, hentai or comix could escape punishment for their deviancy... as a jury, just one, somewhere out in the theoretical ether, might not buy that a black and white sketch pulled from an artist`s head, a stylised fictional image, or indeed a satryr and a cherub going at it is in fact the product of the abuse of children...
Co-incidentally for the purposes of Section 1A of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_11) as introduced:
(6) “Child”, subject to subsection (8), means a person under the age of 16.
(7) “Pseudo-photograph” means an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph.
It`s been awhile since I did criminal but if you read through the offence it`s explictly only about appearing like "a photograph", not a series of images like the DPA or DDA, not any other kind of image, it had to be photo-esq.
You`ll also notice that unlike the DDA the old law required a person under the age of 16 (it`s now 18 btw, that happened in the SOA 2003) and didn`t define it as anything other than a person, whereas the new law doesn`t distinguish between real persons and fictional characters, though Hoque was convicted in the absence of a person... why I still maintain it was wrong in law as well as being plain silly. pbr [26291. Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 18:58] View Near Messages
@emark
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63
-
(8) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
-
meaning any image, is an image.
-
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
-
Realism is a question of fact... again, this is a matter of an artist`s skill determines the criminality of their work... strange times.
I suppose if you want a real legalistic argument we could go over whether person here is person in the legal sense or the ordinary sense...
Of course... I would point out... that the offence requires the image to "portray" the act... and protrayal is different to being... you can protray a train crash with toys, but it won`t be a train crash...
And... I think you could argue that the "act" is what is required to be realistic, not the image as it were, and to be a touch crass, the requirements for the portrayal of those prohibited "acts" isn`t particularly taxing...
-
PS:
And on pseudo-photographs and fiction... a man was convicted at Teesside Crown Court for possession of pseudo-photographs that *were not* generated from a photograph and were pure fiction, but the fact they were 3D comix upset the judge/jury enough to secure a conviction... it`s up on the Beeb site... I`m sure melonfarmers had the story some time ago? I`ll dig it up...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7676738.stm
There you go... a jury of 12 good men in true considered something they knew was not real to be real enough for the purposes of depriving someone of their liberty. pbr [26286. Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 14:15] View Near Messages
@ Shaun
Yes, the DPA criminalised possession of bestial porn (including drawings might I point out)...
...you know... surely paintings of a significant wad of Greek mythology must be criminal now... I mean... didn`t Zeus have a bit of a fetish for turning into animals...? =/ Why hasn`t plod kicked in the doors to the British Museum like they did at the Baltic/Tate Modern? *rolls eyes*
@ Sergio/emark
When I read that I chuckled because I did think "I wasn`t aware it was shown on TV" ...either bestial porn or porn proper...
pbr [26264. Posted 25-Nov-2009 Wed 02:03] View Near Messages
@MichaelG, Re: Enemy Combatant Nutters
"how does a game break [humanitarian] laws when there are clearly NO HUMANS present?"
I seem to be on a roll with this spot the familiar phrase game but... does that sound familiar?
Reality and fantasy (and the state`s perception of what it means) are shifting closer and closer together... this line of reasoning should not be a surprise... though it should certainly leave you shitting bricks. pbr [26259. Posted 24-Nov-2009 Tue 02:05] View Near Messages
I thought this was an interesting one...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/23/censorship-dispatches-antisemitism-islamophobia
interesting in it`s own right and those two Dispatches programmes were exceptional, but, do you also see something familiar?
Something that may have been said here at the time of the DPA and DDA?
"In other words: ignore the content of the programme, ignore the arguments and the evidence – just shut up, or else you`ll be responsible for mass outbreaks of violent islamophobia/antisemitism."
[insert words: violent rape/paedophilia]
"Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, made the point in last Monday`s Dispatches film that it would be astonishing if newspaper articles critical of Israel led directly to racist attacks. Where was the evidence? And where was the evidence that Undercover Mosque had led to attacks on Muslims? There wasn`t any – despite the desperate attempt to link us to a lunatic`s assault on an imam at London`s Regent`s Park mosque."
[remove "Israel" to "racist", amend "Undercover Mosque" to read "Extreme Pornography or non-photographic images of a child" remove "on Muslims", remove from "an imam" and insert "a murder"]
"But how convenient and easy it is to hide behind wild allegations of inflammatory prejudice if you want to avoid actually answering difficult questions."
...doesn`t it all sound *very* familiar? =/ pbr [26253. Posted 22-Nov-2009 Sun 05:20] View Near Messages
@Phantom
You forget the most fundemental rule of free speech and a conservative mindset, that is free speech for me [and those like me], but not for you. pbr [26244. Posted 20-Nov-2009 Fri 15:13] View Near Messages
The Isle of Man story...
"He added: We have watched the UK become a bit of a police state but there is no need for the Isle of Man to follow suit. In the Isle of Man we need common sense — not punitive and pointless laws. These contentious new proposals need widespread debate.
...can we import a couple of manx politicos? Coz that sounds like an improvement on this shower... pbr [26236. Posted 19-Nov-2009 Thu 14:16] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8369371.stm
"Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman is to be prosecuted over a minor car accident in her south London constituency in July.
She faces prosecution for allegedly driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute."
There`s some justice in the world... not that you`d know it with that story about the soldier and the shotgun...
Still.. anyone remember Lord Ahmed...?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7939988.stm
...it`s not proper to apply the same sort of punishments to the ruling class as it is to the commonfolk... perhaps the Court should award Ms Harman some form of compensation... and have the other driver flogged... naturally. pbr [26231. Posted 18-Nov-2009 Wed 11:44] View Near Messages
Don`t bother pinching yourself everytime they say something so redundant as to make you wonder if they have even looked at the case art let alone the game itself Mike... you`ll end up with a lot of scars and a physical ache to go with the mental pain :) pbr [26229. Posted 18-Nov-2009 Wed 02:06] View Near Messages
@Janus17
"But last night a more troubling picture began to emerge - of a woman who knew that her own father used prostitutes. It may be that this made her wish to emulate those alltoohuman women, or that in some obscure way she sought revenge on her father."
Personally... my favourite word in the article is "alltoohuman"... now... I`ve never for a moment considered using the services of one... but... I`m fairly sure that they`re all quite human otherwise someone has kept quite a secret from science from pretty much year dot!
I mean... is the accusation not that people (men) engaging a prostitute are "dehumanising" them? Words too can do that... words like "alltoohuman" I might very well suggest... pbr [26214. Posted 15-Nov-2009 Sun 12:36] View Near Messages
Yes... that particular subsection is included to bring fiction into line with reality... as it`s an offense to cause a child to observe a sexual act (biology classes must be even less fun than they were in my day *rolls eyes*) it`s in the SOA 2003 but I can`t remember the section... in any event, as we know that reality and fiction are one and the same which is why video games are so dangerous as we all understand... obviously, imaginary children also need to be protected... so their non-seeing little eyes need not not see other lines making up the forms of............ =/ it`s so absurd I can`t even bring myself to finish my sentence =/ pbr [26212. Posted 15-Nov-2009 Sun 07:48] View Near Messages
Just some further little odds and ends... the ministry of justice spins out this to describe the dangerous drawings offence...
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease121109b.htm
"strengthen the laws of child pornography to include non-photographic images of child abuse"
But... where`s the mention that child abuse actually means imaginary characters who have some features which might be shared with someone (presumably a real comparative someone... but hey... let not let definitions get in the way of law making) who might appear to be under 18... pbr [26206. Posted 12-Nov-2009 Thu 12:48] View Near Messages
Well I think it`s done guys, the disagreements holding up the Coroners and Justice Bill have been cleared:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/169/amend/pbc1691211m.1565-1566.html
I don`t think there`s anything left to stop dangerous drawings now... pbr [26197. Posted 10-Nov-2009 Tue 10:59] View Near Messages
Home Inspectors...
I`m probably quite guilty of quote mining here... but... when I read the article... I thought, "This is why Liberty will never be anything like as useful as the ACLU"
Shami Chakrabarti, of Liberty, the human rights group, said: "Why can`t we have a public information campaign before we rush into creating databases and intrusion and introducing bureaucracy to the living room?"
Ask yourself... is that the first response you should come up with if you`re about defending liberty? srsly. -.- pbr [26188. Posted 8-Nov-2009 Sun 04:38] View Near Messages
Re: Modern Warfare
=/ I remember killing civilians as far back as Civ 1, Colonization, Populas... and they`re just the ones I can remember... and shit... you want tramatic acts of murder try the Black Hand arc on The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion...
As ever... outrage is way behind the curve...
What is it that they don`t understand that games aren`t just the actions of the players within the confines of what the mechanics of the game allows... rather... they are also telling a story, what is it about this combination of interactivity and traditional story telling that causes our moral betters to lose their collective shit?
Seriously though... what does a good and wholesome game that this amorphous mass of joyless, alarmist, petty little cunts actually look like? I mean... The Sims is a paedophile trainer, Civ lets you commit genocide, all RPGs encourage violence, all MMORPGs drive people to anti-social reclusive addiction...... oh I give up, I`m going to dig a bunker in the back garden... -.- pbr [26182. Posted 5-Nov-2009 Thu 13:34] View Near Messages
Coroners and Justice Bill just left the Lords to go back to the Commons with no change to the dangerous drawings provisions... pbr [26154. Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 04:47] View Near Messages
Now... I`m a little reluctant to post this here because of it`s considerable size... but the source contains plenty of material which while legal today may well not be come the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill... here`s the link anyway:
http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/03/09/uk-bans-loli-all-children-are-victims/
and the article:
The UK’s decline under illiberal socialist governance continues with the news that the UK is set to ban all drawn imagery of an erotic nature where the “impression” is that a participant or onlooker is a child, or rather is “under 18”.
The ban officially brands such imagery “disgusting”.
The laws in question, coming as part of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which looks set to come into effect without difficulty, set out a complete ban on possession of drawn pornography featuring underage participants, images where “the impression conveyed … is that the person shown is a child.” In this case child is simply defined as anyone under 18 years of age.
UK law already bans “pseudo-photographs” of underage sex, referring to images which have been Photoshopped or rendered with a computer; this new law is presented as “closing a loophole” as a result.
One of the major proponents of the bill even went so far as to suggest that prosecutions should be made for simple doodles:
“Let us assume that for the purpose of this argument he and I were separately doodling the sorts of images described in the measure and that once we finished we tore them up, threw them away, and showed them to nobody. Would he expect that that doodling should lead us to be prosecuted under the clause?”
George Howarth:
“[If] somebody retrieves it, and then it is discovered that it is grossly offensive, disgusting or of an otherwise obscene character—an image that could be of such a nature that it would be solely or principally used for the purpose of sexual arousal—what he had engaged in would be improper and should not be approved of or sanctioned by the law.”
An MP raises doubts over the complete lack of evidence underlying the bill, and the lack of any victims, but is told that “all children” are victims of the drawings:
“I am a little concerned that we are legislating without any evidence, because the risk to children could increase. If the evidence showed that having images that were not photographic acted as a release, and therefore reduced the risk of harm to children, legislating could increase the risk of harm. That is why I am concerned that we are legislating without sufficient evidence.”
George Howarth:
“If the image in question is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character but does not have a child as a victim, is it not arguable that, by extension, all children are victims of that image?”
A victimless crime where all children are victims? You heard it in parliament.
No evidence of any kind is presented in support of the law or claims of the legislators.
The opposition to the bill is muted, with only amendments to change the wording of the law to cover only “publishing by any means whatsoever to another”, instead of the current blanket ban on possession proposed. Freedom of expression is not given any consideration.
The issue of how to tell the age of a character illustrated is hardly considered by the proponents either; in practice this will be left up to police, courts and juries to decide, with predictable results. Most people would likely be unable to reliably discriminate between 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds, and in fact it is legal to have sex with 16-year-olds in the UK.
An opposing MP considers the matter of age, even making specific reference to manga (although not knowing the proper word):
“Clearly, when we have a photograph of an actual person it is much easier to determine someone’s age. We can work out how old they were when the photograph was taken.
When it is an imaginary figure that is drawn, a number of concerns have been raised— including in some of the responses to the consultation—that Japanese art forms in particular are often ambiguous, so it is difficult to decide how old the figure is.
My amendment proposes to delete the entire subsection. I know the thinking behind it is obvious, but I am not sure how it can be properly implemented without pulling into it all manner of things that probably should not be illegal.
For example, images of an 18-year-old who is dressed as a child, such as Britney Spears in a pop video, clearly is not illegal. If it was a drawing, however, it could be illegal because it would be very difficult to work out whether the person in the picture was supposed to be over 18 or under 18 and dressed up as a school girl.”
Bizarrely, the minister (Maria Eagle) in response starts rambling about how such images could be used for “grooming” a child:
“One of our major concerns is that the images could be used for grooming a child in preparation for actual abuse.
Amendment 489 would remove images such as cartoons or drawings from the scope of the offence. We believe that that is an unacceptable limitation. Children see cartoon images regularly in day-to-day life.
They are a well-accepted form of entertainment for children, and the characters are often well known. An offender could easily exploit that familiarity, using explicit images created in such formats, and such graphic cartoon images could be a powerful grooming tool.
Reducing the scope of the offences described in amendment 489 by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could leave explicit cartoon images in circulation and open to serious misuse, and without the provision the police would be unable to remove them from people’s possession.
The amendment would create a loophole in the law and in the new offence, which would be exploited.”
She then starts rambling about the need to make illegal disgusting nekomimi shoujo:
“[The amendment proposed] provides that an image of a person should be treated as an image of a child if:
‘the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.’
I appreciate that that last point may sound unusual, but it is important to cover circumstance in which a person may try to avoid prosecution by amending the image of a child slightly—for example, by adding antennae or animal ears, and then suggesting that the subsequent image is not a child. That is a real concern.
The people who seek to exploit the provisions and to continue to create what they call legal child pornography on the internet will use every loophole to try to escape the offence. It has been carefully structured and amendment 491 could create another loophole that would render ineffective the offence that we are seeking to create.
We structured the provision carefully to capture only the images that cause concern.”
When finally pinned down as to how to determine the age of a fictional character, she is determined that no “reasonable person” have the opportunity to judge whether an image is of a child and illegal, only police and courts:
“[The amendment] would add a reasonable person test so that an image would be treated as one of a child if a reasonable person would consider the impression conveyed by the image of the person shown to be that of a child.
We believe that that test is unnecessary and unhelpful …”
The same spate of legislation also contains a variety of unrelated laws, including a ban, including criminal penalties for manslaughter, on providing information which “encourages or assists” suicide…
You can read what else the wise legislators have to say in the official transcripts of their debate.
This comes hot on the heels of the ban on fetish porn the UK recently passed into law, leaving no doubt as to the fact that UK now harbours one of the most illiberal and oppressively moralistic governments found in the developed world, with the ruling Labour Party consistly having shown no interest whatsoever in preserving essential liberties.
Controversy in the US, or the judicial ban in Australia clearly have nothing on the dedication with which UK legislators seek to stamp out sexual deviance…. pbr [26145. Posted 23-Oct-2009 Fri 10:44] View Near Messages
"Serious injury"
You know... the more I think about it... and that`s not to say I`ve thought about it a lot *rolls eyes*...
Sex with animals... it doesn`t really strike me as a matter for criminal law... -but- sex with dead animals...?! I mean... who IS the victim?
You know, with a dead human being, you can conflate and conjure a victim in the family... but that`s pretty fucking poor legal reasoning, you couldn`t make a civil action out of it the trauma of finding out someone fucked your dead relative, so why can you make a criminal one? But, where are the hurt feelings for the dead animal ey?!
And remember, the DPA refers to extreme images, not extreme photographs, a drawing of a loon fucking an animal is caught by this wording... I mean shit, the DDA allows for the criminalisation of fictious images of imaginary people fucking imaginary animals! (alive or dead!)
......I`m approaching abject dispondency I really am -.- pbr [26129. Posted 20-Oct-2009 Tue 11:56] View Near Messages
"Your husband is heterosexual and mildly kinky - it`s really not the end of the world."
I lol`d.
I would offer perhaps... the "I felt violated" by him fantasing about other women line of reasoning being the root and the S&M whailing simply being a way of amplifying the wrong she feels done to her... god help her if the lad happens to be bi with an interest in lactaphilia and klismaphilia... pbr [26126. Posted 20-Oct-2009 Tue 10:26] View Near Messages
Just a little reminder on the Dangerous Pictures offence... the Report stage starts tomorrow and there has been absolutely no change to it other than it`s moved a few Sections deeper into the Bill as new bits have been added elsewhere and there are no amendments waiting to be made to it on the marshelled list...
That slight flicker of hope I was holding out for sense and "holy christ it`s niether real nor even well defined!" to break out has faded away... and all that remains is for farcical stories of children jailed for sharing simpsons porn on their phones and for dirty old Harry Potter ladies to get binned for the wicked little doodles that come with their fanfics... sardonic bile is all that keeps me ticking over sometimes... =) pbr [26119. Posted 18-Oct-2009 Sun 05:36] View Near Messages
I do happen to think that giving a 3 year old cigarettes is a rather bad thing... I don`t however see how encouraging the 14 year old to record it really adds anything to it (unless he threatened or otherwise coerced her into it)... I mean yea it shows a real disregard for the seriousness of giving a toddler death sticks but... doesn`t the act itself show that disregard in and of itself?
No doubt the establishment sees people recording their antics as glorifying or otherwise revealing in their criminality... but... have they not been outside in a decade? You can`t get a gathering of 2 people anywhere, for any purpose where one of them won`t be carrying a camera... society has just embraced technology... we live in the age of facebook.
As for a fair sentence? I`ve no idea... we don`t have all the facts infront of us... some can be a model parent and do something stupid... or someone can be a fucking nightmare who finally got caught after a string of dangerous acts...
...whatever the situation... you do have to be a little worried for the future and health of the bairn. pbr [26109. Posted 16-Oct-2009 Fri 11:17] View Near Messages
"The move is a sign of changes to come from new CEO Scott Flanders. The Marge Simpson centerfold is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Flanders said in an interview: It had never been done, and we thought it would be kind of hip, cool and unusual."
...how can the CEO of Playboy be that naive...? Really.
"Can we keep our hands off the Net?"
I chuckled at this title... what a non-question *rolls eyes*
But in an interesting development:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/16/home_office_iwf_legislation/
IWF blacklisting won`t be mandatory...? How very queer... I feel a sucker punch is coming. pbr [26103. Posted 14-Oct-2009 Wed 14:20] View Near Messages
I almost roffled my sox off when I read this one...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/14/manchester_airport_arch/
"Child porn threat to airport`s `virtual strip search` scanners"
...can you imagine? The goverments two greatest hot button scare the plebs into obeying issues crashing into eachother head on? My god... what will be left standing? pbr [26102. Posted 14-Oct-2009 Wed 11:08] View Near Messages
@ IanG
"Spider, is it me or aren`t slander and libel laws supposed to protect the character of innocent people falsely tarnished by scurrilous lies?"
No... that`s not what defamation is about... there`s no requirement for "innocence"... certainly not the kind of innocence you`d think of when you hear the word anyway...
"How the hell can quacks, claiming they can cure asthema by manipulating the spine, be awarded damages when accused of making such ridiculous and unproven claims?"
Now that`s what we`re going to find out... if you call someone a con-man and can`t prove the con (and jump through afew more hoops) then you`re in the proverbial crapper.
"How can a company breaking international laws on the dumping of toxic waste be awarded damages and gagging orders when their illegal and lethal practices are exposed?"
Now that`s were it gets interesting... the first point I suppose would be that it wasn`t proven before a court... you start to get all muddled up in prejudicing trials not yet begun... my understanding was that if this is the Guardian case you`re referring to that it hasn`t been concluded and so no damages have been awarded, but the super-injunction was made...
"What the fuck happened to Justice, to truth, to decency and honesty? The `law` has been turned into a tool to protect charletans and criminals from the cold light of day."
...if you prick us do we not bleed? =)
"A company is non-living legal entity - it has no claim to Human Rights or privacy whatsoever."
Now this is interesting... if I recall rightly during the implosion of the financial markets some banks did bring (or menace bringing) actions under Convention rights against the state which might dare to try and impose conditions on them...
But in any event, defamation is not based on privacy, compressing it down to the basic, it`s about reputation and a company`s reputation is capable of extraordinary value...
"Criminals forfeit their right to freedom, to anonymity and privacy when they choose to flaunt the rights and break the laws the rest of us try to live by."
They lose *some* rights when they are *convicted* (or accept a cuation... but hey... things aren`t that black and white anymore are they?)
"What is the point of laws and regulatiors if they don`t do what they`re supposed to do - i.e. protect the rights of the people they serve?"
...what indeed... pbr [26087. Posted 12-Oct-2009 Mon 10:52] View Near Messages
"We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment."
To be a touch clichéd... O RLY?
[always worth considering parallels with religion. Studies link exposure to religion with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that religion can cause harm, is it worth the risk?]
I loved this comment, it made me smile. pbr [26079. Posted 9-Oct-2009 Fri 10:56] View Near Messages
...guys?
Surely you`re not only just now realising the BBFC says asphyxiation is an absolute no-no?
Hanging scenes get cut from films and anime all the time because of the censor`s distain for asphyxiation... I was particularly annoyed with the wise old men and women of the BBFC when they clipped an episode of Paranoia Agent over it... it certainly wasn`t encouraging or glamourising suicide, it was hard social commentary... (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/F545F349E551DB8F802571450031ED83?OpenDocument) pbr [26065. Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 10:42] View Near Messages
Advocatus Diaboli time again...
Urine largely water with a little bit of urea in it, water turns up all over the body and urea comes out when you sweat...
Urination is the act of passing urine through the urethra...
So while urine may be appearing, it`s not appearing by urination... pbr [26059. Posted 6-Oct-2009 Tue 10:59] View Near Messages
...strictly speaking... science doesn`t prove anything where obscenity is concerned... pbr [26051. Posted 4-Oct-2009 Sun 08:42] View Near Messages
ASA rulings...
...Gotta side with the Indie on that... and I liked their come back re teen being a word which covers a spectrum of ages...
Now... just to play devil`s advocate here...
Issue 2. Six complainants challenged whether ad (b) was offensive, because it seemed to condone sexual violence against women.
Issue 3. One complainant challenged whether ad (c) was offensive, because it was demeaning to women.
The ASA upheld point 2, but rejected point 3... now... being a lawyerly-sort and a general fan of the English language I`m quite keen on the games you can play with the meanings of words... and... I can`t see how if you accept something condones sexual violence you can not accept that it is also demeaning... I mean... that`s just inconsistant isn`t it...? Or... maybe that`s the real message *rolls yes* pbr [26034. Posted 2-Oct-2009 Fri 11:03] View Near Messages
...Joyless plods...
Children and the Elderly might have considered the lack of clothing inappropriate......?
1, Did they?
2.i, Does the right of the very old (and miserable) trump the right of everyone else to wear exactly what the diddums they please?
2.ii, Have you ever known a child think some piece of clothing was inappropriate... tends to be someone else who thinks it so on the child`s behalf...
...still... only not turning up outnumbering the shoppers 10:1 means this was a well restrained police intervention... they should be thankful their betters choose to let them off... this time. pbr [26012. Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 13:08] View Near Messages
Ladies and Gentlemen I wish to present you with a direct quotation from El Gordo that has caused me to erupt in the most bitter of sardonic chuckles:
"I`m not here to lecture individuals about their private lives,"
...drink it in, savior it...
(4th stanza from the bottom: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/30/the-tony-ripped-up-labour ) pbr [25946. Posted 16-Sep-2009 Wed 11:13] View Near Messages
@Bleach
I`m sure I`ve seen shuriken in all manner of bbfc approved anime... hell I`m sure they even get in amoung the kunai in naruto for christ`s sake...
Why is it a shounen series can have throwing stars but a seinen one can`t? O_o that strikes me as terribly odd... pbr [25928. Posted 12-Sep-2009 Sat 10:48] View Near Messages
CAAN should just look up the word "guro"... that`ll work... pbr [25923. Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 20:50] View Near Messages
I`m a wee bit on the tired and fuzzy side... but... if memory serves there isn`t an distribution offence for the DPA nor is there one in the (current) draft of the DDA, it`s straight possession...
Distribution is covered in the OPA...
pbr [25913. Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 00:30] View Near Messages
Gotta remember MichaelG... It`s being passed about that the CRB will need proper ID checks to speed up the process... and you know what is really great for that sort of thing? ID cards!
So... as with so many of our Lords and Masters repressive plans... where they`ve failed to sell turds on every other conceivable platform... it`s time to wheel out old faithful, yes, won`t someone please think of the children? Coz only someone who wants to hurt children would oppose ID cards... and you wouldn`t want to hurt children would you? pbr [25910. Posted 10-Sep-2009 Thu 13:14] View Near Messages
Once again Harvey spots the diamond in the rough...
The police "know" you bought obscene material... which is of course... not a crime... but it might be worth kicking in a few thousand doors just to check you haven`t committed any others... coz... you know... you`re a bad egg of some sort... pbr [25881. Posted 3-Sep-2009 Thu 12:13] View Near Messages
The ASA article...
Well... as we`ll soon have a law making ageless cartoon characters child porn, it seems only right that we should banish make real people over the age of consent, indeed over the age of majority, from the public eye until they appear to be non-child-like in appearance...
*sigh* Xenu preserve us -.- pbr [25859. Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 14:32] View Near Messages
Further (and sympathetic to the anti-censorship cause) reporting on the video recording act tomfoolery:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/26/video-recordings-act pbr [25849. Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 13:52] View Near Messages
@Dano
...I always found the maoam man to be a jovial little fellow... who just happens to be very passionate about fruit...
Fortunately for little Benjamin and Ophelia (ffs if you`re going to blight your children for the rest of their lives pretentious names SPELL THEM RIGHT) I`m sure their upright parents will find them good, domestic, british, ket to rot their teeth, not this brutish german filth.
@the VRA debate
All I can say is I eagerly await the flood gates of appeals against those unsafe convictions and the argument the establishment puts forward to say that a conviction based on an unenforcable law is a safe one...
I must say though... I`ve never heard of this "notification" requirement... perhaps I fell asleep during that bit... pbr [25836. Posted 24-Aug-2009 Mon 13:56] View Near Messages
"And in other news... fellatio fatalities and cunnilingus croakings are up to an all time high after the bbfc let some particularly intense oral slip through the net..." pbr [25817. Posted 17-Aug-2009 Mon 00:56] View Near Messages
They blew up, raped, tortured and murdered "collaborators", the difference between delivering milk to the german army base and spying for the gestapo or rounding up jews and `deviants` not always being fully appreciated...
But they did kill massively, massively lower numbers of people... pbr [25796. Posted 9-Aug-2009 Sun 07:55] View Near Messages
I dunno IanG... hostility and hatred are rather different things... I can be hostile to your opinion but not hate you... never can tell with UK.gov whether its the will of the machine or just the chuntering of a minor limb... course... sometimes they use the lack of a chomp down on such indiscreate statements to test the water...
Lord Falconer might want to suffer from a memory lapse... having drugs in your blood (or fatty tissue) can suffice for possession... I wonder if the human memory will count for the DPA or DDA *rolls eyes* pbr [25794. Posted 7-Aug-2009 Fri 11:27] View Near Messages
Govt response to defamation of religon:
"The right to freedom of expression is not absolute and can be subject to certain restrictions that are provided by law and are necessary for respecting the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals. In line with our domestic legislation, we have argued that that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression.
The United Kingdom will continue to protect and promote freedom of expression internationally, including by opposing attempts to curtail it by deploying the concept of defamation of religions."
Hang on just one moment... does anyone see a new word in that list of no nos? Coz I see one I`ve never seen before... a very worrying one indeed...
"hostility", not just violence or discrimination, but "hostility"?
Now... I can`t help but feel this is one of those beautiful examples of neo-labour bull shitting, lets take a look at what the word hostile means as defined by dictionary.com:
hos⋅tile
/ˈhɒstl or, especially Brit., -taɪl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hos-tl or, especially Brit., -tahyl]
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an enemy: a hostile nation.
2. opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostile criticism.
3. characterized by antagonism.
4. not friendly, warm, or generous; not hospitable.
–noun
5. a person or thing that is antagonistic or unfriendly.
6. Military. an enemy soldier, plane, ship, etc.
...I don`t think any further explanation of how deep the govt`s commitment to freedom of expression is necessary... pbr [25791. Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 10:51] View Near Messages
Well that is an interesting point IanG... if the statute isn`t updated frequently then it`s the case law that would have to provide the `current interpretation`...
Anyone resourced well enough to submit something that`ll fail to pass the BBFC and take them for Judicial Review? :) pbr [25786. Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 00:20] View Near Messages
...I see what looks to be a lot of confusion here about sexual violence and violent sex...
One is definately bad, while the other... pbr [25769. Posted 3-Aug-2009 Mon 10:57] View Near Messages
Ball`s Britian...
holy balls O_o
First it was couples with learning difficulties... now it`s "problem families"... what was it Pastor Niemöller said? pbr [25760. Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 14:45] View Near Messages
Phantom is bang on the money about the police and badges... I mean Jesus Christ if the police turn up at a demo and some of them have badges in support of the demonstration... how the fuck will the rest of them be able to tell who to denigrate, beat or kill? =/ pbr [25714. Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 10:35] View Near Messages
"But we are opposed to the sex industry, and we have an issue with women removing clothes."
...personal hygiene is a top priority in Scotland then... pbr [25710. Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 00:46] View Near Messages
Harm has always been an elastic concept... potential harm an even more stretchy one... but hey... at what BBFC rating does sexual humour become appropriate... sorry, it`s never appropriate... when does it become certifiable?
Coz... I`m fairly sure that there`s innuendo in some of my PG rated collection... maybe not as strong as this... but... what are older children? Do they happen to fall around the oh-I don`t know... 12 region?
In any event... presumably the harm is anything involving any kind of sexual reference... because sex is a "gift" of sorts the state gives you at 16 but tells you not to open it till 18... before then it is unmentionable... though... did anyone see that NHS advert? That teens, yes, pre-16s, have a "RIGHT" to a happy sex life? How conflicted... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6689953.ece) pbr [25700. Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 00:50] View Near Messages
It`s not the "knock to self-esteem/confidence" that`s the concern... it`s the knock at the door with a 30kg metal bar that`s the worry =p
In any event, Parliament has buggered off for the 82 day holiday and the dangerous drawings offence is the same absurdity it was when it went into the Lords:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/069/2009069.pdf
`cept that it`s been pushed to a new number, starting at Section 56... only thing that`s really left is to hope the government will be too stubborn to agree to the other amendments from the Lords and the bill won`t be agreed by the next election... and then that which ever buggers take over won`t bring it back to life... looking promising then. -.- pbr [25665. Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 06:35] View Near Messages
@Spider "How patronising. Does His Honour really think that most people are so weak-minded that simply reading something racist will turn them into incorrigible bigots?"
Mate... people will be depraved and corrupted by seeing `obscene` material... people will be turned into sadistic killing machines raping and slaying all before them by seeing `extreme` material... people will be turned into child abusing monsters by seeing drawings... people will be turned into rabid racist mobs turning upon one and other by attending the wrong kind of play... people will turn into drug taking suicidal space-wasters if they see how to do it in films...
I could go on and on and on but I think that`s concise enough to show the state is only protecting you from you. pbr [25653. Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 00:47] View Near Messages
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90707-0015.htm#09070792000146
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed.
Clauses 54 to 58 agreed.
Dangerous Cartoons will now be a reality.
Goodnight Sweet Prince. pbr [25621. Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 02:20] View Near Messages
I guess the idea is the more skilled you are as a writer the more dangerous you are to society... what a topsy-turvy place we live in... pbr [25619. Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 00:20] View Near Messages
Hi guys, while reading the ongoings in the Lords hoping someone would put down and pass some kind of sense in relation to the dangerous drawings offence I spotted these two little gems of proposed changes:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/033/amend/su033-ivb.htm
Clause 53
BARONESS O`CATHAIN
Baroness O`Cathain gives notice of her intention to oppose the Question that Clause 53 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 is the BBFC rated exclusion clause, i.e. something isn`t going to be illegal if the BBFC has already rated it... which means even non-imported anime collections could be at risk... if they weren`t already...
And then this stunning piece of proposed law:
After Clause 59
BARONESS O`CATHAIN
Insert the following new Clause—
"Possession of extreme pornographic writings
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of extreme pornographic writing.
(2) "Extreme pornographic writing" is writing which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) extreme writing.
Yep... the Dangerous Writings offence could be upon us... on the plus side the good Baroness hasn`t thought too hard about it coz she just cut and pasted the DPA offence with amusing results:
(7) Writing falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person`s life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person`s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),
and a reasonable person looking at the writing would think that any portrayal of such person or animal was realistic.
...looks a lot like words on a page to me... but what do I know? ;p pbr [25598. Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 14:01] View Near Messages
Cleared of obscenity:
"A report from a consultant psychiatrist also said it was baseless to suggest that reading such material could turn other people into sexual predators."
...and the sky parted, golden light shone down upon the people... and the government and her majesty`s opposition sat with their fingers in their ears reading the daily mail... pbr [25581. Posted 26-Jun-2009 Fri 10:38] View Near Messages
iPorn, Miranda Suit, co-founder of the nutter group MediaMarch told MailOnline she was appalled: We are very concerned about the mainstreaming of pornography. It is being packaged in a tempting way and will be disastrous for youngsters who are not equipped to deal with such content. And what about the growing number of sex addicts? I know of cases where they are trying to avoid certain films and magazines, but now even their phone will be a risk for them. We urge the Government to look at the affect pornography has on children and vulnerable adults.`
I choked on my laughter, that is all. pbr [25565. Posted 23-Jun-2009 Tue 10:46] View Near Messages
I was extrapolating a little bit MichaelG, my understanding is that a missile was thrown at the protestors, this missile was as you say, comedy gold, but a 250g pack of bacon will still hurt if it cracks you from the rooftops! I believe there were two arrests made for some kind of public order offence.... *checks a source* (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/two-arrested-army-protest-luton - no mention of the bacon, but 2 arrests yes)
The point I was trying to make was that we can`t be for freedom to protest, but not the "wrong sort" of protest... we can`t say we`re really for freedom of speach... except were someone says something we don`t much care for...
I believe there`s a right to offend and a right to be offended, but the right to be offended doesn`t give you the power to make being offensive verbotten by force of law or mob lol (though how far apart those two are seems to be questioned everytime they show up for "public order") pbr [25560. Posted 23-Jun-2009 Tue 00:23] View Near Messages
I`m liking the comments right now, but I think you`ve fallen into a trap there MichaelG, the Luton protestors were saying things which upset others, they caused offence, is the correct response to pelt them with objects from the rooftops?
;) I hope you see my point. pbr [25548. Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 07:51] View Near Messages
@emark
I don`t have Blackstone`s in front of me right now to check... but I`m almost certain that the you can be placed on the register without a jail term and that it`s in the court`s discretion whether or not to, unless it`s a compulsory registration offence of course... pbr [25545. Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 04:15] View Near Messages
@Shaun, human rights? :)
Article 10 – Freedom of expression1
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, *****may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.*****
...it`s injurious to public morality you know... if people realize they can have sex with animals... well... they`ll frighten the horses as it were... *rolls eyes*
And now... I hope everyone has had the need to learn how to repair your own computer impressed on them lmao
And a story which is tangentally censorship related:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/20/iraq-war-inquiry-brown-blair - Blair is afraid of a "show trial"... I can`t help but lap up the irony... pbr [25484. Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 11:37] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/extreme_pr0n_convictions/
Little tasters:
"Five months on from the passage of new laws on extreme porn, police forces up and down the UK appear to be using them sparingly – and not quite in the way that parliament intended."
"If true, this suggests critics were right to challenge claims that it was no more than the Obscene Publications Act for the internet age. In the cases described, it would have been open to the police and prosecuting authorities to charge individuals under the Obscene Publications Act.
If there was – as has been argued – no difference between obscenity as defined in the extreme porn law and the OPA version of obscenity, then the OPA would be the more appropriate legislation to apply. The material in question was obscene: those caught by the police would have been guilty of seeking to distribute it – not mere possession."
:)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/16/id_card_what_for/ -
"Lord Steyn, a former Law lord, is calling for the government to abandon its national ID card scheme because it is an unacceptable invasion of privacy and will not help to solve the various problems they keep claiming it will solve.
He outlines the different claims made by the government in favour of ID cards. First we were told they would fight terrorism, then we were told they would help protect our identities - which al Qaeda terrorists were trying to steal. Finally the focus has been shifted to foreigners - non-EU citizens will be the first group required to carry the cards."
@ Dave I expect we`re just another handful of "video games made me do it" away from a mandatory BBFC`ing... I wouldn`t expect this Report to be the last word... if there`s one thing this government likes it`s a good report... or a bad one... or a pointless one... or a whitewashing one... or a... pbr [25477. Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 15:12] View Near Messages
Censorship Concern...
...least likely allies on my list... well... after the NSPCC of course... *rolls eyes* pbr [25463. Posted 13-Jun-2009 Sat 12:49] View Near Messages
Well Sergio... erm... I guess that means the DPA is working as intended... O_o pbr [25460. Posted 13-Jun-2009 Sat 03:32] View Near Messages
the "toolkit" argument is one of those "commonsense" arguments that defy sense... let`s look at proportionality...
First off, `normal` porn *can be* used for grooming so that needs banning under this logic... but why stop there... why not ban sweets, money... any item to which we add an exchange value... coz you know... they can be used for grooming.
Or... alternatively... we could just leave the system as it is... you know... using an image to groom someone is a crime.
Which is the least restrictive? Which one actually protects...?
And of course... you have to bear in mind that a drawing/cg doesn`t come with a real age... criminalization by interpretation if you will... pbr [25457. Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 12:26] View Near Messages
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/23/girls_aloud_case/
- If no other matters intervene, the trial is now set for five days in Newcastle Crown Court, starting on 29 June later this year.
:) pbr [25455. Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 12:03] View Near Messages
"I exempt laws criminalising unreal pics of children from this, however questionable the measures may be, at least there exist proofs in abundance of a harmful situation which requires addressing there-none whatever has been produced for the adult case"
I would offer a simple question... why is everything but one type of fiction okay? What differentiates it from any other form of fiction...
To labour the point... why would people see a drawing of an adult gardening be free to choose whether they wish to garden while people seeing a drawing of a character who appears to have more features defining it as a person under 18 suddenly feel their will overborne and thus be forced by some unseen force out into the garden with a trowel?
...why should fictious porn be any different? pbr [25453. Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 10:17] View Near Messages
Well the way the Lords have ignored the issue it certainly is looking like the hentai party is winding down... good night sweet prince... pbr [25415. Posted 6-Jun-2009 Sat 12:03] View Near Messages
"ain`t it fantastic?"
In a word, no.
The map turning all blue with no yellow means we`re in for an equally rough ride under a hard line tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime; ie, music we don`t approve of, films we don`t approve of and porn, hang `em high tory fisting.
But hey... it`s been so bad these past few years it`s like throwing a hot dog down a hallway anyway... *rolls eyes* pbr [25396. Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 02:51] View Near Messages
I would be very wary of what you`re saying there IanG,
"IF the BBFC are really serious that some material in a film `might` be found obscene, then they can report the DISTRIBUTOR to the police/CPS and let them (the PROPER AUTHORITIES) decide IF the distrbutor should be prosecuted or not. Without a court decision, without the material actually being declared legally obscene by a public jury, the BBFC CANNOT censor or suppress it - all they can do is place it in a suitable (e.g. adult) category and perhaps provide descriptive content guidance to any potential adult viewer."
First off we don`t have a unified police force, what runs in one constabulary doesn`t necessarily run in another, so each for would set it`s own standards and might try it on with the same film in different parts of the country, while the force where the distributor resides might not be offended, a dozen other forces might be and might chase the retailers in their zones over it... they might be then offered a caution and a video burning (and whatever ungodly new "tough on crime" measure are avaliable to them by this point in the future)... they get a criminal record it`s never tested in court and freedom of expression is curtailed.
Personally I don`t like the BBFC`s position as non-judicial arbitor of `law`... but... depending on how the Girls Scream Aloud case turns out... you might find that a rejection from classification and no sanction bar your submission fee is better than a prison sentence for distributing obsence material...
I`ve got a feeling a jury won`t turn on whether something is likely to deprave and corrupt (such an absurd standard -.-) and rather do I find this icky or shocking...
The answer I would imagine is to repeal the offence... pbr [25390. Posted 2-Jun-2009 Tue 10:12] View Near Messages
Don`t sing and dance too loudly DarkAngel... you replace one weak minister with a one who will be ***tougher!1!*** no... I still think we`ll see an even more fanatic new labour marionette. pbr [25371. Posted 27-May-2009 Wed 13:07] View Near Messages
Won`t consider it for very long?
Unless there`s immunity for MPs with ministerial positions he won`t be thinking about it for a moment longer than it takes him to realize he and his cadre are not just the government but also MPs and thus are liable to be booted out before any general election! Well... those who haven`t been ennobled and thus have to go through the near pointless charade that an election under FPTP is...
More on the Bates story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/27/police_disc_row_deepens/ pbr [25363. Posted 25-May-2009 Mon 04:29] View Near Messages
The story goes back a long way and it`s complex... my understanding is thus:
The guy is an expert in some tech field, I think something to do with malware. He may have upset a lot of police acting as an expert witness for defendents.
Some time ago he perjuried himself by claiming a qualification he didn`t have.
(Footnote: An expert witness doesn`t need to hold any formal qualifications - but lying about them is serious business.)
The police took the view that the material he collected while acting as an expert witness was now somehow illegal, that having perjuried himself he suddenly lost his ability to hold the material he legally held and so... some might suppose they saw an opportunity to teach someone who gets paedos let off a lesson...
(I haven`t read the judgement) My understanding is that a judge has stated perjury doesn`t dissolve previous legitimate reasons to hold material which would be illegal to have without a legitimate reason... -so- the police cannot blanket detain it... - that`d be were the "Over my dead body!" indignation comes in. pbr [25356. Posted 23-May-2009 Sat 10:46] View Near Messages
You misunderstand my intention freeworld... I was not infering that all german soldiers were nazis... rather I was playfully refering to the hate mail`s historic sympathies towards the nazi party... remember? The reason Brand had to be taken down? pbr [25353. Posted 23-May-2009 Sat 03:05] View Near Messages
MichaelG... It`s the hate mail and it`s Tarantino... it was already off to a flying start... throw in the chance to hint at antisemitism and you`ve got yourself a proper story, give it a nice hero connection like say oh... being allied soldiers in WW2 and you`ve got editorial gold... (oh and some indignation at americans bastardizing british history doesn`t hurt too)
Still though... notice the language:
"Over-the-top: Quentin Tarantino`s film revels in the slaughter of Nazis"
...it`s almost as though the hate mail is *sympathetic* to the nazis... *roll eyes* pbr [25332. Posted 19-May-2009 Tue 11:08] View Near Messages
So I just skimmed the Hansard for the Lords debate on coroners and justice bill (if anyone wants to subject themselves to it they can do so here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90518-0002.htm#0905182000422) and there were a total of three references to the drawings offence and they are thus:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
From 1997 to 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation achieved a 17 per cent fall in child pornography sites through monitoring. I am glad that the Government have included in the Bill provisions on pseudo-photography of children. That inclusion is essential for this work, as some really disturbing images are emerging, particularly out of Japan.
Lord Kingsland
Clauses 54 to 58 deal with prohibited images of children. We entirely accept the necessity for these clauses in the Bill.
Lord Henley
(complains there was no debate on the drawings offence in the Commons - but was part of a much larger complaint about the lack of debate on the whole Bill: gives no opinion either way)
I`m also sad to see that although a Lord I corresponded with on the issue did speak, they did not mention it. pbr [25326. Posted 18-May-2009 Mon 12:14] View Near Messages
"Phoney War"
Actually... I think that term is more appropriate than the torygraph and Ms Gyngell realize... during the phoney war there weren`t many deaths in England related to the war... kinda like ecstasy... unlike horse riding... *rolls eyes* pbr [25310. Posted 15-May-2009 Fri 12:45] View Near Messages
I wouldn`t be so quick to think they`re worried about what the serfs think about it MichaelG, notice the words "cross-party support"... in the UK parliament the only time you have any reason to give a flying monkey`s about what any other party is going to support is when you don`t think you`ll be able to hold your own buggers in line... or if you have a time limit bearing down on you and you`re concerned about a bounce from the Lords... a time limit like say... oh... a general election?
No... they fear an obstruction in the Lords and aren`t sure they`ll have time enough to Parliament Act their wretched will through... which raises the question... what are they really interested in getting through with this Bill? The drawings offence? The deeply muddled murder reform? The witness provisions? We`re down from well over 150 sections to now presumably about 80-90 when they clip the bits they`re afraid don`t `command` "cross-party support"... I do wonder what the pearl in this oyster is... pbr [25308. Posted 15-May-2009 Fri 08:34] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8051953.stm
"Straw drops secret inquest plans
The government is dropping plans to hold secret inquests without juries, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said.
In a Commons written statement, Mr Straw said the move did not command the necessary cross-party support, despite earlier government concessions."
The red rag has been dropped... what about the contraband now?
pbr [25299. Posted 12-May-2009 Tue 12:15] View Near Messages
An Egyptian court has banned porn on the interwebz:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8046787.stm
"Freedoms of expression and public rights should be restricted by maintaining the fundamentals of religion, morality and patriotism."
...that language looks worryingly familiar... pbr [25282. Posted 7-May-2009 Thu 13:36] View Near Messages
Well... while MichaelG and Spider disappear for the next 28 days, I feel we should reframe from further subversive statements and return to obediance and our regulation sex lives of consentual sex in the missionary position once a week, in the dark. pbr [25279. Posted 7-May-2009 Thu 00:56] View Near Messages
Home Office plans following the ECHR ruling against them:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/07/dna-database-government-retention
- essentially, carry on regardless... but stop it being a "blanket" retention by having time limits... long time limits... longer than the likely jail time by a long way in almost every case...
"The genetic profiles of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years in a decision critics claim is designed to sidestep a European human rights ruling that the "blanket" retention of suspects` data is unlawful.
The proposed new rules for the national DNA databaseto be put forward tomorrow by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, include plans to keep the DNA profiles of innocent people who are arrested but not convicted of minor offences for six years.
The proposal would also apply to children from age 10 who are arrested but never successfully prosecuted.
In cases of more serious violent and sexual crime, innocent people`s genetic codes will be kept for 12 years." pbr [25268. Posted 4-May-2009 Mon 18:54] View Near Messages
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/05/hazel-blears-george-monbiot - watch Squirrel Nutkin defend herself and NeoLabour... it`s sad and scary in nearly equal proportions... pbr [25264. Posted 4-May-2009 Mon 05:24] View Near Messages
lol, however apt, those are the kinda comparasions which will get you hung drawn and quartered outside of the interwebz IanG :p
MichaelG... liberation is far, far too strong a word for what is going to happen... think more end days of the Vietnam war... and we`re the South Vietnamese... pbr [25261. Posted 3-May-2009 Sun 01:54] View Near Messages
...oh my sweet jesus...
I didn`t even have to read beyond the headline on that one sergio... from the handful of cases involving a woman charged with a sex offence against a child I`ve encountered there are indeed female [child] sex offenders... and queerly, they appear to get shorter sentences than men do... unless the female offender`s victim was a girl...
(I`ve never done any research specifically into sentencing of female sex offenders, but my unscientific observation while looking for other things points me to believe the above)
...I did go back and finish reading it... and the comments too lol
The point I thought was most poignant is the one the beeb is most likely to forget...
"They point out that teachers "seduce" pupils if they are female but "sexually assault" if male."
...he without sin should probably put down the stone before he starts judging...
Expenses Allocated for Dubious Purposes...
I often find it hard to work out... how can something so tyrannical and menacing... be so utterly, utterly incompetent and bungling at the same time? pbr [25256. Posted 2-May-2009 Sat 03:37] View Near Messages
Fagged Out...
You know... did they refer to god or jesus or xenu or whatever they call their flying teapot as their "Husband"? Now... I assume given their paternalistic streak they write as male... so...? Have they flipped on gay marriage? Or... alternatively do they [like the rest of us] regard themselves as animals who need some husbandry? :) pbr [25252. Posted 1-May-2009 Fri 06:39] View Near Messages
phantom... if you want to play the spot the contradiction game... how about them Gurkhas?
Hain: "We need to kill the poision of the BNP."
Woolas: "100,000 of them will come if we let `em!"
...I swear... I`m getting to the point that I`m frustrated to dumbfoundedness -.- pbr [25220. Posted 17-Apr-2009 Fri 11:06] View Near Messages
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-g20-manslaughter-questioning
"The police officer suspended following the death of Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests has been questioned on suspicion of manslaughter after a second postmortem examination showed the newspaper vendor did not die of a heart attack.
The findings released today show Tomlinson, who was thrown to the ground by a Met officer during the protests, died from an abdominal haemorrhage.
The dramatic shift led the Independent Police Complaints Commission to confirm that the officer under investigation in connection with the alleged assault had been questioned about manslaughter."
...bet no one saw that coming... pbr [25212. Posted 16-Apr-2009 Thu 17:43] View Near Messages
I like the way you think phantom, perhaps we really do need it making plain that by living in a society that respects freedom of expression you implicitly consent to being offended... oh wait... we don`t live in a society that has that much respect for freedom of expression, never mind... ^_~
[25210]cor
Indeed I could have used the royal mail, but, and I might be wrong in this... I believe that intercepting mail as something distinct from intercepting telephonic or electronic data is an offence in its own right one which is considerably older than our wiretapping ones...
Also and here I stray even further from my knowledge, I don`t believe as tempting as it is to believe that a letter is the same as data packets (it is after all information addressed to you traveling to you), perhaps they are less like letters and more like post cards, one you have to damage to get into, the other you don`t... can you reasonably expect that open data won`t get read along the way...? I think I`m right in saying that postcards don`t enjoy the same protection that sealed letters do, which returns us to the opaque or transparent tubes... indeed we can further complicate this, consider if the ISP stores the websites you visit, which might lead to an interesting situation where you can`t legally read the `hot` transmissions, but you`re perfectly within your right to peruse the cold stored data...
I am playing devils advocate somewhat, but I think a better analogy for the position of an ISP is a shop offering photocopying services which retains a copy of whatever you printed in the copier, you chose to go to that shop and you chose to copy your data there... hell, they could even put a tiny little warning label up somewhere in very fine print saying that you accept they will copy what you print there (did you read the full contract when you signed up for your ISP?)
Now... I fully accept I might be wrong in what I`ve said, I`ve never studied much into data protection offences, the misuse of computers offences, or intercept crimes or whathaveyou... I`m working on opinion and things I`ve picked up here and there... but the concept of consent is something I`ve spent a lot of time on... (how sad... or maybe even creepy does that sound? lol and I`m about to put my foot in it...):
Well... you *can* have sex with a sleeping or otherwise unconscious partner and not commit a sexual offence, the belief in the consent just has to be reasonable... but this concept of consent is somewhat distinct from implied consent.
Also there are limits on how far implied consent can be carried say... if you go into the OR unconscious for a knife wound or something along those lines and they find you have a massive tumor in your lung it might be reasonable to imply you consent to having it cut out there and then, but it would be hard to say someone who went in for a bone marrow transplant had consented to having plastic surgery on their ears because during the surgery the doctor noticed they had wonky ears lol (course in the latter example you`d probably have signed a consent before the surgery... but you get the idea)
[25209]MichaelG
As I said above... I like my examples... I thought they were fun... :( plus I wanted to demonstrate the silliness of the law on consent and haircuts and open heart surgery seemed like a good way to do it :)
I`ll probably refine my thoughts tomorrow... I am perhaps a little hazy in my sleepy state right now lol pbr [25208. Posted 16-Apr-2009 Thu 07:04] View Near Messages
MichaelG,
You rightly spot the problem with suggesting you can use "implied consent" for something you have NO IDEA exists. That`s the problem, not having any idea something is there... that you can`t consent to, however... consent doesn`t really serve here very well, lemme `asplain...
Implied consent is a legal concept that means we can get on with our lives, say if someone steps on your foot (without causing much damage) in the street or brushes against you those are batteries, but by being out on the street you accept some risk of being brushed against or accidentally trodden on... or if you`re unconscious in an ER and need some immediate surgery your consent to that surgery will probably be implied... it wouldn`t do that we should be clogging up the courts with such trivial or even beneficial matters... there are perverts to be locked up ;)
(if you want some interesting thoughts on consent, consider the case of major surgery, you can consent to have a doctor cut into you and pull your heart out... but strictly speaking almost all S&M acts are illegal just as you can`t consent to settle an issue by fisticuffs, you can`t -strictly speaking- consent to being whipped someone... but the queerest issue is hairdressers, they can commit a fairly serious assault and get away with it by consent without a professional qualification lol)
Anyway... intercepting data is a crime (without a court order... or being a RIPA scheduled quango *rolls eyes*) but your consent can make it a non-crime like a doctor or hairdresser cutting you... would you say your ISP intercepting your data is more akin to a surgeon operating on you after you came in unconscious or your barber cutting your hair while you were asleep in the waiting room and lifting the money it cost?
The question is... is there a reasonable expectation that an ISP through which all your traffic travels and it "sees" all of that traffic coming through it... is it reasonable to expect it won`t "look" at what it sees? Is the internet a series of opaque tubes or transparent ones? O_o pbr [25203. Posted 15-Apr-2009 Wed 17:21] View Near Messages
"boys" "as young as 18"
Well... unless you`re familiar with them refering to a *man* of 18 as a boy is a bit of a perjorative isn`t it? If not well... somewhat contradictory... but hey...
In any event... on a related note of "childification"... I don`t know if anyone has heard this advert on the radio but it`s running up here, about vaccinations, it closes with a message of "whether your child is 13 months (I think) or 19 years old"... I`m wondering if the ground work is being laid for adulthood to move back up to 21... pbr [25192. Posted 11-Apr-2009 Sat 06:45] View Near Messages
No, no spider... not 4 years, 4 *weeks* is what I said...
Sadly on going looking for the story`s link (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/out-work-bankers-be-fast-tracked-law)... it seems it`s been updated since I read it... I`ve been had... the Law Gazette was pulling an April fool`s joke... worst part is... it`s utterly believable...
In any event... I do know how you qualify as a solicitor... I`m an LLB and LPC grad :) pbr [25190. Posted 11-Apr-2009 Sat 03:42] View Near Messages
It would be a mistake to consider new labour the extreme left... have you ever known a Leninist, a Marxist or even a Kropotkinist who goes so weak at the knees and damp in the trousers whenever a banker walks into the room?
I`m waiting for the next initiative for bankers... they`re already going to be teachers in 6 weeks, solicitors in 4 (it takes everyone else 6 years!)... maybe it`ll be doctors in 12 ay? =/ pbr [25187. Posted 10-Apr-2009 Fri 06:16] View Near Messages
There`s a fine new article up on the register on how the government has used whatever "research" (produced by whatever favourable group) they could lay their hands on to justify legislating morality:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/10/dirty_data/ pbr [25154. Posted 5-Apr-2009 Sun 05:00] View Near Messages
(from the updated shock horror article)
"Clever camera angles stop short of actual penetration, but it`s abundantly clear what is going on at all times."
...forgive me but... unless one takes pornography`s meaning as far back as the bare bones of its Greek origins... it really is abundantly clear what`s going on... or have I been `depraved and corrupted` *rolls eyes* pbr [25141. Posted 2-Apr-2009 Thu 18:00] View Near Messages
She might be no good when it comes to porn... but she`s at least a consistent rebel and thorn in the government`s side... can`t have it all ey? pbr [25137. Posted 2-Apr-2009 Thu 16:26] View Near Messages
Interesting little story from el reg:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/02/surveillance_register/
"MEPs urge govs: Set up surveillance register
Watchers must be seen to be watched
Governments should create a list of all organisations that track internet use and produce an annual report on internet surveillance, the European Parliament has said.
The Parliament also said that users` online activity should not be monitored in the fight against piracy." pbr [25132. Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 18:05] View Near Messages
Shaun... you`d have thought in a programme actually including the words "sex education" in its title they`d get that point... you can lead a horse to water... or in this case it can walk to it itself =/ pbr [25129. Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 16:35] View Near Messages
[25127] Ah... so when you said you don`t agree with the agenda here... you meant the thinking part... gotcha...
Would you explain what exactly the problem you`re identifying there is? As I can`t quite work out whether you see a problem in the level of sex education avaliable, the level of alcohol mis/use by kids, the programme itself or the school that let them use their captive audience... care to enlighten?
Thanks IanG, I had a strong feeling that there would be an imbalance of some kind *rolls eyes* pbr [25121. Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 06:30] View Near Messages
...don`t know what porn you`re watching Shaun but I see the men shaved or at least well pruned down below as often as I see the women...
Also... I can`t help but feel the breast implant comment is somewhat misleading...
"A group of boys from Sheringham high school in Norfolk is shown photographs of 10 pairs of breasts. All say the most attractive are the ones that have been surgically enhanced. A posse of their female classmates says the same thing."
...is porn the only place you see larger breasts being held up as a feminine ideal? =/ I seem to have some kind of incling that breasts weren`t only fetishised from the day people discovered they could stick bags in them...
Also... did those images include larger natural breasts or where they comparing natural As with augmented Ds and Es? pbr [25113. Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 09:30] View Near Messages
The Lebenon story...
Surely this has to be fraudulent...? Unless Hitler not much liking Jews consitutes something which would make people sympathetic to Israel for...? pbr [25100. Posted 30-Mar-2009 Mon 18:21] View Near Messages
I meant to watch channel 4`s sex ed romp (Private Parts was a delightful piece of filth and much appriciated by a then still school-aged me)... I`m sorry I missed it now... perhaps I`ll catch it elsewhere...
I`ll also add my voice to the choir... I`ve never encountered anything quite like the claimed video in my *counts on fingers...* 12-13ish years of using and abusing the interwebz.
Perhaps someone should inform the police where ever C4 is based that someone is in possession of indecent images? *rolls eyes* pbr [25072. Posted 25-Mar-2009 Wed 04:44] View Near Messages
On education:
I did sense that when the compulsory part of of education got shifted up to 18 that it was a purely economic thing (and therefore, face-saving)...
At 16 you`re not an adult, you can work but finding someone to employ you when you`re in your twenties have a degree and a post-grad qualification is an up hill battle =/ so... as at 16 the only thing you have to offer is that you`re cheaper than an 18 or 22 year old how`re you going to get into the system?
And... turning away from economics and into bald cynicism... the cult of childhood may be at play here... you have two choices to deal with 16 year olds... you can upgrade them to adults (with voting rights and all the rest of it) and try to level the playing field or you can downgrade them completely to children... it was under this party that the 18yo amendment to indecent photographs came in... it`s under this party that imaginary 16 year olds need to be protected... pbr [25062. Posted 23-Mar-2009 Mon 07:19] View Near Messages
Well... if there was any doubt that the conservatives wouldn`t carry the dangerous drawings offence if they`re elected, none other than Mr Dominic Grieve has signed up to the repugnant Beresford`s 5 year maximum amendment.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/072/amend/pbc0722303m.527-533.html
The report/debate happens at 3-30 today by the way... http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Live.aspx pbr [25050. Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 07:58] View Near Messages
Hmm... I don`t know how I missed that review clause... thanks freeworld.
Course... I can already guess the result... "Functioning as intended, insufficient data for full assessment, [redacted], tractor production is up!" pbr [25048. Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 06:37] View Near Messages
I`m just reading the amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill and I spotted something rather odd...:
New Clauses, New Schedules and Amendments relating to Part 2 except those relating to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation
Abolition of offences of sedition and seditious libel
Dr Evan Harris
NC5
To move the following Clause:—
‘(1) The offences of sedition and seditious libel under the common law of England and Wales are abolished.
(2)In the Criminal Libel Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 8) section 1 (orders for seizure of copies of seditious libel) and section 2 (disposal of seized copies) are omitted.
(3) Subsection (2) extends to England and Wales only.’.
Abolition of offence of criminal libel
Dr Evan Harris
NC40
To move the following Clause:—
‘(1) The offence of criminal libel under the common law of England and Wales is abolished.
(2) In the Libel Act 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 96) sections 4 (publications of libel known to be false), 5 (publication of libel) and 6 (plea of truth of matters charged or of not guilty) are omitted.
(3) In the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 60) section 4 (inquiry by court of summary jurisdiction as to libel being for public benefit or being true) is omitted.
(4) In the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 64) section 8 (order of judge required for prosecution of newspaper proprietor, etc) is omitted.’.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/072/amend/pbc0720319a.456-460.html
...with both hands they taketh away but sometimes they drop something and don`t pick it up O_o
While on the drawings offence there`s some muddled bollocks...
Mr Douglas Hogg
Mr Richard Shepherd
Page 29, line 7 [Clause 49], leave out ‘be in possession of’ and insert ‘create (other than by downloading an image created by another) or to communicate to another’.
(which... makes production but not possession an offence)
Sir Paul Beresford: Page 32, line 15 [Clause 53], leave out ‘3 years’ and insert ‘5 years for possession or 10 years for making and distributing’.
(I remember him spewing his bilge during the early debate)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/072/amend/pbc0720319a.461-467.html
I accept that this post is getting rather long... but I burst out laughing when I read this proposed amendment:
“(1A) “Threatening” in subsection (1) extends to words, behaviour or written material which asserts or implies an association between sexual orientation and a propensity to commit child sex offences under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42).”’
Holy christ... what`re the bigots going to do now? If you can`t accuse a homo of pedofillia[sic] then they`re going to have to completely recast their arsenal... pbr [25037. Posted 20-Mar-2009 Fri 06:28] View Near Messages
You know IanG... strangely enough I`ve been following this all quite closely, and the only direct reference I can think of to Japanese art was a question point out that anime/manga are drawn age ambigious...
I don`t recall the government side ever mentioning Japan... pbr [25033. Posted 18-Mar-2009 Wed 15:54] View Near Messages
More dangerous drawings: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/18/thought_crime/
and the offending passages out of the hansard:
Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that not only are images based on real children unacceptable, but so too are images that people use for these purposes that they have generated either from their own imagination or electronically? Will she give the House an assurance that her Department will not be going down the route of believing that those sorts of images are a matter for the individual concerned and their own conscience?
Bridget Prentice: I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend that assurance. He will have been as surprised as I was when in the Coroners and Justice Public Bill Committee the Opposition spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), said that he felt that our clause was, perhaps, over-egging the pudding. I do not for one minute think that taking action against these people in this way is over-egging the pudding. We need to protect our children.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090317/debtext/90317-0002.htm
The sweet, eggy taste of the pudding that is freedom... pbr [25024. Posted 16-Mar-2009 Mon 03:25] View Near Messages
...our medieval defamation laws keep me from saying anymore...
But wow... it`s right out of the early-mid nineties... pbr [25008. Posted 13-Mar-2009 Fri 05:20] View Near Messages
Actually... the extreme porn offence might have made drawings of adult bestiality a crime [s63(7)(d)], the section uses the word "image" and defines it wider than photograph...
And yes, the inclusion of the `in the presence of a child subsection` is just another amusing stripe ontop of the whole thing... it demonstrates how plainly it`s not about protecting real children... it *is* about protecting imaginary children. We`ve got laws on grooming already for the love of cake.
As for Huey, Dewey and Louie... I reckon, they will be caught, because anthropomorphised children would be just another "loophole" (and we know that there`s nothing worse in our law than a lacuna - you know... given our virtually complete reliance on the absence of positive rights) and should they get some news airtime it`ll be amended in, assuming the first trial involving them doesn`t spot that antrophomorphised characters are within the mischief of the offence anyway...
PS: Infact... the proposed offence already includes "imaginary" animals [49(7)(e) and (f)] I didn`t spot that the first time round... pbr [24999. Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 16:03] View Near Messages
I made the same point in my letters freeworld... drawn porn doesn`t end with still-life drawings of human beings...
Be it hentai, furry porn or freaking dragon porn... if you can imagine it, rule 34 applies.
I can`t wait to hear the argument to come along that forewarns underage furries are the next big threat to child safety... then underage unicorns... pbr [24986. Posted 10-Mar-2009 Tue 01:50] View Near Messages
We have brought up the 16-17 issue cor :) just look a little deeper in the message history.
I believe we`ve also mentioned the fact that 3D sculptures and models will be legal while images of them will not be... it`s the same reasoning as in the extreme porn offence... the act is fine but the image is not... we live in strange times.
[24980] ...when someone gets a working universal brain wave reading piece of kit made... I imagine these people will come rainbows... then be devoured by their monster. pbr [24957. Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 16:20] View Near Messages
I believe the Paedofinder General was a Monkey Dust creation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bcGyCA-5k&feature=related )and... it is a brilliant spoof, because it has a good scent of reality lol pbr [24952. Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 11:12] View Near Messages
Dear me Harvey... I expected better from you than a "put your money where you mouth is argument", one does not give up the right to call another on cowardice just because one won`t throw oneself at a duanting uphill task in a system which renders the attempt pointless.
Or prehaps you`re trying to illustrate the apparent hypocrisy... however, even if that is the case, the situations do not hold for fair comparison as those involved in this are MPs, backed by their parties who fought elections aided by the party aparatus on a spread of issues (though I haven`t looked into their majorities I imagine at least 1 of them is in a sack of coal with the right colour rosette consituancy)... how does an independent on his single issue porn loving, `child-endangering` soapbox compete? I find your comment spurious sir. pbr [24950. Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 09:11] View Near Messages
[24947] Harvey, I quite like what phantom said on the issue, so I`ll confine myself to a [near]soundbite reply ;)
Political pragmatism and political cowardice are degrees on the same scale, then we throw on the lense of those facing oppression and we`re into freedom fighter / terrorist semantics. pbr [24943. Posted 7-Mar-2009 Sat 05:18] View Near Messages
Astounding... I like how both Ms Willot and Mr Garnier backed off completely from their arguments while seeming to maintain their concern.
Impressive political cowardice. pbr [24921. Posted 5-Mar-2009 Thu 04:10] View Near Messages
:) Thank you for your insight Harvey, I understand the process, but haven`t quite deciphered all the the terminology lol
|
