Official Info regarding new law proposals

[Brigella]

I emailed the official board direct, asking if spanking material were included, and this is the reply I received:

Dear ******


The proposals would cover pornography in all forms, whether on a website, in a magazine, video or any other form. If the spanking or corporal punishment (in a sexual context) being depicted was so severe that it could be charged as serious assault (or in England grievous bodily harm) then such images would be included in the proposals. However if the actions being depicted were less severe (eg consensual and no injury was caused), then they would be very unlikely to be included in the proposals.



Yours sincerely,



Susie
Criminal Law Branch 2

Justice Department



(CP videos rarely depict consensual scenarios, so I think that everything is at risk)

[Brigella]

I am awaiting a reply to my follow up email, as follows:

Dear Susie,

Thanks for your reply, but I have two points i'd like clarified if I may, the first being:
In a spanking video, there are usually severe cane welts, and general bruising, would this constitute grievious bodily harm?
Secondly
The scenarios rarely portray a consensual scene, would this be seen to infringe the new proposals?

[jayed]

Thanks for this Brighella, good to know that there is someone sensible enough to do the obvious thing and just ask them what they mean. I'm actually quite re-assured by the reply you got and look forward to seeing what the reply to your follow up says.

I do like to be caned hard. Recently I had my bottom photographed after a session and I have been showing off my extensive stripes and bruises to others ever since, although I have not posted them on a website. The way this issue is unfolding it does seem that there will some sort of crossover point at which a picture of a consensually caned bottom tips over into what they consider a picture of a bottom illegally assaulted by whoever caned it. We do need to know at what point they think this has occurred. It all gets slightly bizarre doesn't it.

[paul5656]

dear briggy and all
there is a lot of panic at the moment
on are life style of cp. and discipline

and meny people are worried as you know I work
for a company as a model in f/m spanking and get it really
hard and that is up to me I have told the people
that I work for that I will defend my right to take punishments
as I wish and if anyone is punished for the marks inflicted on me
then I will appeal to the the high court and european court of human rights

concerning websites all websites are well within the law
1 they have a general page displaying wornings of the
content of the site and the legal requirements
of the uk and usa there is an enter button or a leave button

2 if a person likes the site then they may enter
they will be shown a preview page not containing anything hard

3 if they like that then they can join a members page
and see the real material
that is up to them
the law has been obeyed there has been no violation

in other words no criminal act has been committed

it will not be easy to stop this in the courts

1st it does not depict children so it is adult

2nd it is consensual and within the parties agreement

by creating that it is an assault then the injured party
must press for a charge against the person who created
the injury if they don't want to then the law cannot proceed
with a case of assault if they do then the state is overriding the persons
individual rights

there are lots of things that have to be worked out here
it is not very easy to put legislation in place the will be lots of breaches
in its structure and there I hope will be challengers to certain parts of it

we in are life style can only do are very best we to supply entertainment
to are fellow members but how meny members of this board
would also defend are right to life style we lead
or would they hide in the closet because they are ashamed

to win this we all stand together just like gay people did
and they won it will take hard work but we can do it we have done nothing wrong
hold your head up hi

lots love paul barry xxx

[Brigella]

I'm sorry Paul, but you are wrong, this has nothing to do with the people on the films, rather those in possession and producers.

Thanks Jayed,
I received a reply, and it looks as though it will not effect us, unless extreme CP, mind I think care is needed, especially those buying films of severe nature. I will be writing back to her, and see what I can sort..here's the reply:

Dear ******,



I’m afraid I can’t give you a definitive answer on your first point. I think it most cases spanking would not constitute grievous bodily harm (in English law) unless it was particularly severe, but it would depend on the precise image and would be a matter for the courts to decide on the facts of the particular. Scots law is even more subjective and therefore even more difficult to give a definitive answer I’m afraid.



However I realise that this isn’t particularly helpful in clarifying the issue. I would therefore suggest that you explain which types of material (if any) you think it should be illegal to possess, and also if you have any comments about how it should be defined then that would also be helpful – as you can see, there may be drawbacks in using the various legal definitions of assault.



On the second, the proposed position is that it would be whether the material depicts serious sexual violence (or other images) which would determine whether it would be unlawful to possess an image. In some images it may not be easy to determine whether acts were consensual. In others, serious violence may be used to force an act in the absence of consent and the serious violence used would mean that it would be unlawful to possess an image. Again, we would welcome your views on these proposals and whether they should include reference to whether material is consensual.



Yours sincerely



Susie

[sarahcollins]

Well done Brigella you have asked exactly the questions we have been trying to work out! It is a garve concern of ours for two reasons 1. BDSM and 2. Spanking and CP, we make both kinds of movies fully consensually andare now in an odd position because having read the proposed brief it states that consent is no defense!

The law has seemed to leave it general enough to be able to pull whatever scenrio/film they choose into it. I may be being a little hard on this matter but it stands to make our lives very difficult.

I have a copy of the briefing if anyoen would like to read it let me know and i will email it

Fingers crossed, and thanks Brigella xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Aegean]

If you look at the proposed regulations then the illustrations they give as being 'illegal' are looking at situations where someone is tied down, suspended in shackles or otherwise restrained and where a charge of grievous bodily harm would be incurred if witnessed in real life ... i.e. torture images, cutting, severe whipping etc.

I think that, for spanking and moderate caning, it would be hard to prove non-consent if no physical restraint is imposed on the 'victim' and especially if the 'victim' is prepared to state that all acts depicted where totally consensual ... and in many cases enjoyable!

As regards the severity of welts, a cane welt lasting a few days would not be grievous bodily harm, whereas one lasting weeks I suppose could be. I certainly never want to inflict the latter on any lady !!!! and do not like seeing that level of damage as shown in some of the Lupus films.

The test they say thay are considering applying is not whether the films would pass a BBFC certificate, it is whether they show, or depict, real or simulated serious physical or mental harm to the 'victim' for sexual puposes.

I think that until we get a more definitive anwsers with regard to whether spanking image would be illegal per se ... and many Judges, barristers, MPs and policemen enjoy our 'sport' ... I think we should all calm down a bit as it is just this form of panic and speculation without facts that can cause a Press feeding frenzy.

Briggy, well done for having the bottle to get the info from the 'horses mouth', I look forward to seeing more of that correspondence.

[Brigella]

Your welcome Sarah

This is what I wrote in reply:

Hi Susie,

It's a complicated issue, for instance many CP videos depict schoolgirl scenarios, is this permitted?

There needs to be a distinction between material filmed without consent, and scenes depicting unconsentual fantasy for want of a better description.
I know that recently the level of severity has increased dramatically and I would appreciate the view of the law on what is acceptable.

The word "sexual content" confuses a little as CP to most is not sexual, but rather punishment.

[paul5656]

dear briggy
yes I know its to do with producers
and you are a producer but the case in question is
do they have a right to censer material we are adults

what I see is that this legislation is because of an incident
were a boyfriend killed his girlfriend by suffocation
after seeing a website her boyfriend must have been very sick
mentally to do what he did

and so we are all going to suffer for his wrong doing
so it is better to remove every thing on the net

and this is happened before meny times
what will you do if this goes ahead fight it or give up
and loose everything you have worked hard for

I have always loved and respected you with all my heart and it will be a sad day
if your sites had go you have a great lot of fans that also love you

but I know you would never fight but I would as I believe that are writes are
being violated and we are being controlled in the way we behave
but do they have the right by international law to do this or is there another way

lots love paul barry xxx

[Machoman]

The numbers involved in spanking in any serious way are so small compared with gays that I can't see thousands manning the barricades. The only hope is if the support is gained of someone with high profile such as a high up Churchman, even better would be someone high up in the Muslim or Jewish faiths, look at the way they won't touch the killing methods to obtain Hallal meat even though they have been proved to increase the suffering of large beasts.

[Brigella]

Personally, I believe some form of legislation is called for, the levels of CP material are reaching ridiculous levels, and as one that meets for 1-2-1's I am expected to accept more and more severity. Something has to give, and if not the law steps in.

How many girls on this site alone have met a guy and been hurt?
A few i'd wager.

Paul, I closed my website, and will nolonger produce videos. I will continue 1-2-1's for awhile. That is my choice, and has nothing to do with new legislation. Ten years, and I just had enough.

I doubt all material will fall to this, but I do believe the producers of the severe titles, or at least those in the UK that buys it, will be affected.
That's just my opinion, and I may well be wrong.

Regards
Brigella

[Machoman]

Personally, I believe some form of legislation is called for, the levels of CP material are reaching ridiculous levels, and as one that meets for 1-2-1's I am expected to accept more and more severity. Something has to give, and if not the law steps in.

Thats a very good point and in a way proves that what some people see on the net or on Lupus type videos they want to do.

[Brigella]

Thanks Macho,
You are right, they do want to do it themselves, and one in particular I knew wasn't into spanking..he happened upon a european website. I know the severity expected of me has increased. So no way, that just isn't for me anymore.

[roddy9uk]

Thats a very good point and in a way proves that what some people see on the net or on Lupus type videos they want to do.

I tend to agree Machoman. What is portrayed as fantasy doesn't in my view hurt but it is when people claim fantasy to be reality the damage starts. I am not sure what the solution is (or even if there can be a solution) but I feel too many frustrated wannabe's post on sites like these purporting to be relating what actually happens(ed) to them but is simply what they have seen in a video. When they finally DO get to meet someone real-life they have no real idea as to what is expected.

roddy

[Tovarich]

Hm, I think touch of elitism from a well-experienced player, Roddy.

I don't think I can be the only member here who's attended one event and realised he has no idea what the dynamics and etiquette are and consequently doesn't go again, not wanting to spoil things with clumsiness.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't post on this site or have our postings dismissed in that way.

Things that happen within a commited relationship are bound to sometimes be more intense, especially emotionally, than what happens at parties, etc.

[roddy9uk]

Hm, I think touch of elitism from a well-experienced player, Roddy.

.

I think you are mis-interpreting what I said Tov.

It is not a question of "etiquette" at parties or anything similar. It is, quite simply, a question of "how hard" or "how severe" the CP should be. This is especially true of those who see themselves as "Tops" (I am well aware that there are a few "bottoms" who really DO like to be left bruised/bleeding). I was thinking more of the 1-2-1 scenario where someone, having spent a lot of time watching the more severe CP videos and having seen a lot of postings on here purporting to be "real", actually starts believing them and tries to treat a (perhaps similarly new to the scene) "bottom" in a like fashion.

Similarly anyone looking for "ammunition" to have such sites as these closed would need to look no further than such posts as from one who claimed to give a pro-sub well over 2,000 cane strokes in an hour "All full force". We may know this to be utter nonsense but a vanilla "watchdog" may simply take it as literal truth.

roddy

[peewee]

The Home Office are talking in riddles

(1) There's a huge gap between what contravenes the Obscene Publications Act and material which fall foul of this new law.

(2) The issue of consent is confused, one minute it refers to the participants consenting, the next minute it refers to whether action appears to have consent. As we know any decent material will appear non consential, but the participants will be consenting.

(3) What about sites like www.ogrish.com ? (Don't look if you're squamish - you've been warned!). This site depicts the result of death and injury where people most definately didn't consent. I know members of emergency services who've been disturbed at some of the images - yet this will be legal because it's not in a sexual context.

(4) There's another gap between what would be refused a BBFC certificate, and what contravenes Obscene Publications Act.

(5) The Home Office acknowledge no other Western country outlaws ownership of images, yet they expect co-operation from other countries!

(6) Most of the material they're talking about is hosted in America, yet they have stronger laws than this country concerning welfare of participants in adult material than this country

In short these proposals are a dogs dinner. Hopefully they're just proposals that'll never reach light of day, but Government can say to Mary Whitehouse types - "Look, we tried to ban this stuff". But this this New Labour lot, you never know....

[sarahcollins]

*QUOTE (3) What about sites like www.ogrish.com ? (Don't look if you're squamish - you've been warned!). This site depicts the result of death and injury where people most definately didn't consent. I know members of emergency services who've been disturbed at some of the images - yet this will be legal because it's not in a sexual context.QUOTE*

Yes this site is certainly a sick site but i think they get away with it because theimagery of death and injury isn't puposly filmed, it is stuff that happened to be caught on camera, whereas BDSM and CP movies set out to cause the damage inflicted.

I really hope that they are going to narrow it down to rape and female sexual torture sites, there really are woman kidnapped and sexually violated for sick people to simply get off on. I agree to banning these but the problem if they ban it then there wil be a thriving black market for the stuff then there will never be any kind safety for those involved, no-one can then report a site for severe violent or illegal acts against someones will- its like naming and shaming peodophiles- they then go underground and work in secret and very dangerously.

I think CP will be safe, or at least I hope, as some of the films I have made have been rather heavy but the marks on me personally do not last longer than a week at max, that I gues is not classed as GBH. We have already started to film differently as of yesterday to try and cover our arses somewhat more.

Hugs all xxxxxxx

[sarahcollins]

.

Similarly anyone looking for "ammunition" to have such sites as these closed would need to look no further than such posts as from one who claimed to give a pro-sub well over 2,000 cane strokes in an hour "All full force". We may know this to be utter nonsense but a vanilla "watchdog" may simply take it as literal truth.

roddy

Ouch! I thought I had done some pretty harsh things to my backside lol But providing the sub wasnt restrained and, theough i doubt it if 2000 really were recieved, the injuries subsided in less than a week, and it wasnt filmed in a "sexual" way or any way then it would be safe?

This whole thing is opening a very messy can of worms, its threatening many good people and their rights and lets face it I am sure many a MP is into something kinky be it spanking or self asphyixiation because they are humans after all, well some are

Love xxx

[Tovarich]

I think you are mis-interpreting what I said Tov.

It is not a question of "etiquette" at parties or anything similar. It is, quite simply, a question of "how hard" or "how severe" the CP should be. This is especially true of those who see themselves as "Tops" (I am well aware that there are a few "bottoms" who really DO like to be left bruised/bleeding). I was thinking more of the 1-2-1 scenario where someone, having spent a lot of time watching the more severe CP videos and having seen a lot of postings on here purporting to be "real", actually starts believing them and tries to treat a (perhaps similarly new to the scene) "bottom" in a like fashion.

Similarly anyone looking for "ammunition" to have such sites as these closed would need to look no further than such posts as from one who claimed to give a pro-sub well over 2,000 cane strokes in an hour "All full force". We may know this to be utter nonsense but a vanilla "watchdog" may simply take it as literal truth.

roddy

I see what you mean now, Roddy.

Yes, whilst sometimes (on appropriate threads) I've referred to (rare!) hard beatings I've taken, I certainly shudder to think of trying to re-create those in a 1-2-1 with a comparitive stranger rather than someone who's also my girlfriend/partner - and I'm saying that as a sub/bottom!
For a top/dom to really lay into somebody they hardly know is a horrifying idea, and would indeed probably get us all tarred with the same brush, as those are the instances that get talked about most.

[peewee]

*QUOTE (3) What about sites like www.ogrish.com ? (Don't look if you're squamish - you've been warned!). This site depicts the result of death and injury where people most definately didn't consent. I know members of emergency services who've been disturbed at some of the images - yet this will be legal because it's not in a sexual context.QUOTE*

Yes this site is certainly a sick site but i think they get away with it because theimagery of death and injury isn't puposly filmed, it is stuff that happened to be caught on camera, whereas BDSM and CP movies set out to cause the damage inflicted.

I really hope that they are going to narrow it down to rape and female sexual torture sites, there really are woman kidnapped and sexually violated for sick people to simply get off on. I agree to banning these but the problem if they ban it then there wil be a thriving black market for the stuff then there will never be any kind safety for those involved, no-one can then report a site for severe violent or illegal acts against someones will- its like naming and shaming peodophiles- they then go underground and work in secret and very dangerously.



Hugs all xxxxxxx

These proposals aren't about banning sites. The sites being talked about are already banned under UK law, New Labour is proposing that you can get up to 3 years for just LOOKING at the sites - that's what I call sick.

[peewee]

I emailed the official board direct, asking if spanking material were included, and this is the reply I received:

Dear ******


The proposals would cover pornography in all forms, whether on a website, in a magazine, video or any other form. If the spanking or corporal punishment (in a sexual context) being depicted was so severe that it could be charged as serious assault (or in England grievous bodily harm) then such images would be included in the proposals. However if the actions being depicted were less severe (eg consensual and no injury was caused), then they would be very unlikely to be included in the proposals.



Yours sincerely,



Susie
Criminal Law Branch 2

Justice Department



(CP videos rarely depict consensual scenarios, so I think that everything is at risk)

I bet the operators of the sites concerned can't wait for Susie's new law to come in. Only a small proportion of their subscribers will be in the UK and very little of their material originates here - so their operation & cash flow will be affected very little.

Susies law won't affect their hosting as they're normallly hosted in countries with free speech - normally America.

However they will be able to advertise their sites as "Banned in the UK", any site that has an actual prosecution and especially an imprisonment will enjoy huge worldwide publicity and kudos..

[foxxx]

I find the responses from "Susie" a little alarming : she may be a real person, or perhaps just a name used in all responses from that office. What she has said is essentially that spanking/CP is included in the proposal. Getting into specific examples of which material is/not 'severe' or 'extreme' is an invitation to make the sites/films/distributors targets if this does become law.

That said, the matter of degree is irrelevant. Brigella says virtuously that it's getting too severe for her nowadays, and blames "ridiculous levels in CP material"; but there are many spankees who would consider films and pictures sold on her sites to be too severe. The proposed law is not about actual spanking/CP, only about photographs/films. If what is there could not be published today in Janus, Kane et alia, then owning such pictures would probably become illegal.

PS - the official documents are available at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html

[and anyone planning a 1-2-1 session with Brigella better not have been looking at anything more severe than her own films & pics ]

[Brigella]

Hmm not really foxxx, but I know for a fact that the trend is moving more and more severe. I can and do take alot, but i'm not selling my soul for a few quid.
Having said that, the guys I see regularly have become friends, and respectful, it's the ones I won't see again, that watch this material, they will no doubt find another girl and so it goes on.

Susie is a real person, and not an automated response as she quotes me in her replies. I have her surname and department too but i'm not prepared to share that, as it was a private email to myself.
The scene has changed, and I don't feel for the best.

All the Best
Briggy

[Tovarich]

Seems reasonable to me that Briggy should stick to her own limits, and it's appalling if some clients expect anything more severe than that! Do they think they OWN her body and can cause whatever damage they like, just because cash has changed hands?!

I detest the idea of sex-workers being treated that way (& I've known one who was very well indeed) and it is no more right to treat a professional sub/spankee that way.

[chrisUK]

[Quoting correspondence from "Susie" at the Home Office]
I’m afraid I can’t give you a definitive answer on your first point. I think it most cases spanking would not constitute grievous bodily harm (in English law) unless it was particularly severe, but it would depend on the precise image and would be a matter for the courts to decide on the facts of the particular. Scots law is even more subjective and therefore even more difficult to give a definitive answer I’m afraid.

I was very concerned about this until I did something that I should have done days ago - I looked up what the definition of grievous bodily harm actually was. The following site maintained by the CPS gives a good description.

Offences Against the Person

It seems that our Susie has no clue about what goes on in spanking or even S&M scenarios if she thinks they are even close to GBH. Here are some examples of the various categories of assault in English law, taken from the website above:

Common assault:
Grazes;
Scratches;
Abrasions;
Minor bruising;
Swellings;
Reddening of the skin;
Superficial cuts;
A 'black eye.'

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) must be "more than transient or trifling" and includes:
Loss or breaking of tooth or teeth;
Temporary loss of sensory functions, which may include loss of consciousness;
Extensive or multiple bruising;
Displaced broken nose;
Minor fractures;
Minor, but not merely superficial, cuts of a sort probably requiring medical treatment (e.g. stitches);
Psychiatric injury that is more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic.

Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) is even more serious and includes:
Injury resulting in permanent disability or permanent loss of sensory function;
Injury which results in more than minor permanent, visible disfigurement;
Broken or displaced limbs or bones, including fractured skull;
Compound fractures, broken cheek bone, jaw, ribs, etc;
Injuries which cause substantial loss of blood, usually necessitating a transfusion;
Injuries resulting in lengthy treatment or incapacity;
Psychiatric injury.

It is, notoriously, illegal under English law to indulge in even consensual SM activity if the physical effects are "more than transient or trifling", i.e. if they constitute ABH (e.g. the Spanner case). But this new law is targetting GBH which is way above what any non-psycho would get sexual pleasure out of. Even the Lupus or Russian Slaves stuff is at the low end of the ABH category, if that ("Extensive or multiple bruising" perhaps).

Of course these are only proposals. It is quite possible that some family-values type MP's will complain that they don't go far enough and push for all obscene material to be outlawed. I am against making it illegal to look at images, in any case. But if the government are detemined to go ahead, I think we should at least try and make sure that they stick to this requirement that the activities depicted must be at a level comparable with GBH.

[Birchmaster]

I have to say I am a little concerned by some of the attitudes in this thread, particularly the 'lets wait and see what they tell us' line. The fact is that on the table is a consultation document. We, as members of the general public, are invited to submit our views on the desirability of these proposals and I think we should all do so....and we should do so assertively, not in a mood of resignation.

We have an opportunity, particularly if we work through an organised campaign like 'Backlash', to really express forcibly what we feel about censorship of what we watch and read and to put a lot of pressure on the government to be absolutely explicit on what they wish to make illegal and possibly to force a watering down of some of these proposals.

What worries me is the fact that some people seem to be missing the point. Its all very well to hold individual views about Lupus films, or whipping to the blood, or bestiality or whatever. If however, as a community, we approach this in a concessionary spirit, prepared to allow the goverment full rein over things we personally dislike, then no one will speak with one voice and the government will trample all over objections by the BDSM/Spanking community.

The proposals are riddled with deliberate ambiguity. We should make it clear that as a community we resent any further criminalisation of viewing offences. By all means let them prosecute those who commit illegal acts in manufacture but surely the intrusions into our private space of what we read and see has gone far enough. There might have been valid arguments with child porn..there are NO valid excuses for this.

If we accept that a British government has the right to continue encroaching on our individual freedom to make our own moral choices on what we read or see, we might as well live in a police state!

[Brigella]

Thankyou Tov,

I'm so tired of folk thinking that because I take more than most as it is, I feel no pain. I do, both physically and emotionally..so thankyou xxxx

[foxxx]

Tovarich My point is that many people would consider Briggy's own stuff too severe. Brigella (and any other pro or amateur spankee) should be treated with respect ought to go without saying.

Susie is a real person,

forgive my cynicism there Brig: many departments use a fixed name to provide the 'company line'. Do you know if your correspondence with her is going to be fed into the proposal responses? What she says seems as woolly as the published proposal when what we need is something clear-cut to allow a straightforward yes or no.

Her views may be 'Official Info' but they are not part of the proposal published on the Home Office website. One of her responses uses the phrase "....whether the material depicts serious sexual violence (or other images) which would determine whether it would be unlawful to possess an image. [my emphasis]. Looks like they don't know precisely what they are targeting; they just want permission to make it illegal.

[Brigella]

It's ok foxxx, i'm just trying to get points explained better, perhaps Mags will be able to interpret.

[tomme]

Well we only have ourselves to blame for this as I have pointed out in previous posts.

A little tolerance of each others views, beliefs and pleasures, and there would be no need for legislation, which is mostly driven by a minority infulencing the majority through the media, that will whip up (exscuse the pun) public opinion against anything they see that will grab the headlines.


http://www.britishspanking.com/forum...235#post534235

[chrisUK]

What she says seems as woolly as the published proposal when what we need is something clear-cut to allow a straightforward yes or no.

Her views may be 'Official Info' but they are not part of the proposal published on the Home Office website. One of her responses uses the phrase "....whether the material depicts serious sexual violence (or other images) which would determine whether it would be unlawful to possess an image. [my emphasis]. Looks like they don't know precisely what they are targeting; they just want permission to make it illegal.

The "other images" clearly refers to the other categories defined in the consultation document i.e. bestiality and necrophilia. Her reply, and the consultation document itself seem pretty clear to me, although I am baffled by what the connection is between these other categories and serious sexual (or sexualised) violence. What is this law actually for?

FWIW I am fundamentally opposed to banning the mere possession of images and I think this is a gross violation of individual liberty. But, sadly, this argument cuts little ice with most British politicians. Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, on the day that these proposals were announced, lamented that they didn't go far enough. Censoring "sexual violence" seems to be one of those rare things that right and left can agree on - the left hate it because it's violent, the right hate it because it's sexual. I'd expect it to be overwhelmingly pased in the House of Commons, with all-party support.

I doubt the government will pay the slightest attention to the results of the "consultation" but the Human Rights Act might stop them. It does contain a get-out clause that allows the government to act to "preserve public morals" but it is hard to see how outlawing the private possession of images has anything to do with this. If this law does contravane the HR act that would be a very good line of attack against it.

[Birchmaster]

I doubt the government will pay the slightest attention to the results of the "consultation" but the Human Rights Act might stop them. It does contain a get-out clause that allows the government to act to "preserve public morals" but it is hard to see how outlawing the private possession of images has anything to do with this. If this law does contravane the HR act that would be a very good line of attack against it.

Good point Chris! I would be interested to see, if all else fails, what an appeal to the European Court might bring, if the machinery were allowed for a specimen case to be brought

[Birchmaster]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Flag but I am not prepared to stand up and be counted as it were. How many of us are?
Im not into harsh CP just erotic pleasure - but whether the distinction will be made by the powers that be, goodness knows.

Not sure if anything can be done annonymously, but if through the Internet they will have your IP addy.

morgana

Well maybe I would have taken the same retiring stance a few years ago, Morgana, but I am approaching 60 and with advancing years comes a bloody minded resistance to being bossed around by puritans in the British Government who really DO live up to the 'Nanny State' jibes. I am less bothered now by my interests being publicised too which gives me less fear.

There are so many areas of that document on which they can be confronted. There is an admission that already they have abandoned hope of an EC concensus on this because our Community partners wont support it. So they are tacitly suggesting that the British need more moral 'protection' than the French, Germans or italians? Utter rubbish! They also admit that they cannot prove any link between the material they are aiming at and consequent sexual crime. So why make it illegal? Why when we have 77,000 people already in prison..a record...does the government want to, unnecessarily, create new criminals just because a small cabal wants to 'clean up society'. It doesn't make sense.

I understand why you are reluctant to 'stand up and be counted' after all this should be an interest not a sacrifice but I hope there are enough folks willing to risk some exposure by publicly saying 'enough'!


I wasn't quite sure what you were inferring in the reference to my IP address but if you are thinking that merely expressing strong objections to government policy risks the early morning knock on the door then we really ARE living in Nazi Germany!!

[frankDale]

As I understand it, the current position in English law is that not only actual bodily harm but also any assault carried out from a sexual motive is unlawful. There was a case in the 30's (R v Donovan) when a man gave a girl a caning - on the evidence with consent. It was described afterwards by a doctor as "a fairly severe beating". The Court said that in law the subject could not consent to the assault. It said that a similar degree of injury influicted in a "manlky sport" - boxing or rugger, say - could be consented to. I chatted about this once to a fairly eminent criminologist, and he also takes the view that anything beyong mild slapping is probably illegal.

Sad but, I believe, accurate!

[peewee]

FWIW I am fundamentally opposed to banning the mere possession of images and I think this is a gross violation of individual liberty. But, sadly, this argument cuts little ice with most British politicians. Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, on the day that these proposals were announced, lamented that they didn't go far enough.

The "Times" considered Labours censorship proposals nonsense & unworkable (but then again that applies to much of their output)

[peewee]

As I understand it, the current position in English law is that not only actual bodily harm but also any assault carried out from a sexual motive is unlawful. There was a case in the 30's (R v Donovan) when a man gave a girl a caning - on the evidence with consent. It was described afterwards by a doctor as "a fairly severe beating". The Court said that in law the subject could not consent to the assault. It said that a similar degree of injury influicted in a "manlky sport" - boxing or rugger, say - could be consented to. I chatted about this once to a fairly eminent criminologist, and he also takes the view that anything beyong mild slapping is probably illegal.

Sad but, I believe, accurate!

Wouldn't surprise me, British law is in a world of it's own. I wonder what would happen if someone got a sexual kick out of being hurt in say martial arts, dental treatment etc - would action then become unlawful?. As an extreme example what about a haircut?

[peewee]

A few more points.

(1) Isn't it worth filling your PC with such images right now - presumably the law won't be retrospective and you might develop such a taste later in life even if you're not into this type of material right now. If it is retrospective they'll have to pay out compensation for the loss of your property.

(2) The sentencing guideline for GBH is four years in jail. These proposals state a 3 year sentence for looking at a picture of GBH, even if act is simulated. Someone into this material might as well actually carry out their fantasy, they'll only get an extra year - probably only 6 months in practise.

(3) What if you access this material via a proxy server? Nothing would be downloaded to your PC, the images would be just pixels on your monitor - would you be in possession of the offending material? A similar situation would exist if you watched a satellite transmission of the offending material - unless you recorded it.

(4) I hate to disappoint our lords & masters, but I think this ban would lead to more material of the type they don't want anyone to see. For starters they'll be a rush to see the material before the ban takes effect - just to see what all the fuss is about - this happens in all censorship situations. Secondly the offending material will be placed in mainstream adult newsgroups etc, this will enable people to say they didn't intend to view this material.

(5) I wonder if Susie, Mr Goggins have seen any of this stuff?

[chrisUK]

(1) Isn't it worth filling your PC with such images right now - presumably the law won't be retrospective and you might develop such a taste later in life even if you're not into this type of material right now

It won't be retrospective in terms of prosecuting you for having such images before the law came into effect. But I'm sure it will apply to any images you own after the law takes effect, regardless of when they were downloaded or created. It's possession, not just downloading that is being criminalised.

(3) What if you access this material via a proxy server? Nothing would be downloaded to your PC, the images would be just pixels on your monitor - would you be in possession of the offending material? A similar situation would exist if you watched a satellite transmission of the offending material - unless you recorded it.

Your computer downloads the images into its memory and browser cache, whether or not you go through a proxy server. It might make it difficult for them to catch you though. The IP address logged by the ISP would be the address of the proxy server, not the illegal website.

(5) I wonder if Susie, Mr Goggins have seen any of this stuff?

And after the law passes they won't be allowed to and neither will we, effectively killing all serious discussion about whether it really is harmful or whether it really is common on the internet.

[Machoman]

Wouldn't surprise me, British law is in a world of it's own. I wonder what would happen if someone got a sexual kick out of being hurt in say martial arts, dental treatment etc - would action then become unlawful?. As an extreme example what about a haircut?

I did once find having root canal work done by a very attractive lady dentist rather enjoyable. Turning this round the other way what if spanking became a sport with no sexual content, then it would be on the same ground as boxing. There are sure to be people who get off in some way at seeing someone having their brains damaged in a boxing match. Its like the fishing thing though, there are too many fishermen so pick on the fox hunters, they dont vote labour anyway. They probably think all spankers are ex public school Tory voters.