Government tied in knots by bondage protest "Forget the whips and chains: it's actually a lot more serious than that". This was the view of Consenting Adult Action Network Spokesperson and disability activist Clair Lewis, as she joined fashion photographer Ben Westwood and a bevy of bound and gagged models in a demonstration against what they believe to be the latest …
Translation of "Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government" becomes "Any excuse for a database and witch-hunt. McCarthy would be proud!"
If there is such a low prospect of prosecutions, why can't they be done under existing laws? Can it really be that hard? Or is this just another slim excuse for further prying into everyone's life's for more control and making employers do the dirty work for them?
So its wrong to go after Homosexuals, other races and those with different religeous views...
But just fine to come into our bedrooms and tell us what to do and descriminate against those who like a little 'slap and tickle'.
Through loud minorities acting in the face of the majority I've lost more than enough rights thanks to this government. Twice I've lost the right to do the things I enjoy in knee jerk reactions that had no effect whatsoever. So whats next? These people consent to it, they get off on it and tbh, those that dont get a lot of fun at their expense. The law as it stands is very very fuzzy and like most of the recent additions it'll be used to get inconvienient people out of the way or destroy them.
Ban birdwatching, those binocs could be turned on a school, or maybe sunbathing in public, or maybe....
For the record I'm not Homophobic or Racist and have no issues with religion.
Has this labour govt got nothing better to do than victimise consenting adults in their own homes.
What kind of idiot thinks we need to legislate that you can be put on the sex offenders register for taking a picture of a mark on someones arse that they consented to having done. It's OK to spank your partner but you will be up their with peodos etc if you take a photo.
They need to get a grip and get it fast before peoples lives are ruined by puritancal no lives.
Its family fun to watch old James Bond blow up baddies, its sex offender time for photographing your consenting partner in handcuffs.
"There is evidence already, from individuals who have spoken to us, that some employers are beginning to quiz would-be employees about the nature of the material they use for sexual titillation – which puts individuals in the highly difficult position of having to decide between being honest and not getting a job, or lying at interview and risk losing the job later."
It shouldn't be a bar at all - prospective employers have no right whatsoever (unless they're in the porn business) to ask such questions and if you are refused a job or sacked because of it, you'll have a nice Employment Tribunal againts them plus you could possibly take them to court for discrimination and, oh, maybe throw in ECHR as well. What I do in the privacy of my own home is, provided it is not illegal, is no-ones business but mine so they can fuck off and get a life.
It's not like they can vote... how about safeguarding the personal freedoms of adults from this evil, diminutive minority that seem to be hell-bent on flushing all our personal freedoms down the pan.
What's that? It's the paedo-hunter general and his army of mentalists clamping down on behalf of the munhckins? Somebody asked them to? Oh - I see - you can't be bothered to raise your own children properly and want the state to be your nanny at the expense of the rest of the adult population... thanks for that.
Terrorists and children, the two greatest threats to (or excuses for unecessarily restricting) personal freedom.
"According to them, the extreme porn clauses of the Criminal Justice Act (s. 63-66) were about catching material that originated outside the UK that could not at present be prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959."
I.e., "other countries like the USA don't share the UK's prudish views on what adults should be allowed to see, so we need to put them in prison for their own good". Right.
Note that the law itself has no requirement that the material be illegal under the Obscene Publications Act - the Government specifically refused to add this clause. Elsewhere, they say "we believe" that it would only cover illegal to publish material ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7682319.stm ) - i.e., they think, but they can't be sure. Since they wrote the damn law, why not make it explicit rather than having to rely on "we believe"?
And even if it is illegal under the OPA, why are we still worried about this Victorian law? If an adult consents to making or viewing a fictional image in the privacy of their own home, why should that be illegal because others deem it to be "obscene"?
Extending publication laws to possession is a huge step. It's one thing to put extra burden upon a publisher when publishing material - it's quite another thing to put a burden upon anyone browsing the Internet, for every image they might stumble across! A publisher can seek legal advice, or submit the work to the BBFC. Do we now need legal advice to browse the Internet? Should people's private videos that they make of their own acts for their own amusement need to be submitted to the BBFC?
Another problem is that if possession is illegal, you are committing a crime as soon as the image is made. So you can't consult the BBFC even if you wanted to, because you'd already have broken the law if the image came under the law!
There is also the point that if a country temporarily has draconian laws against publication, that simply means the material can't be published for the duration. But draconian laws against possession means that the material can't exist at all - it has to be destroyed. So even temporary laws on possession have a permanent effect.
Far greater consideration and evidence must be require for any laws on possession - and for "extreme" adult material, supporters of the law have presented none.
"Safeguarding children"
What do children have to do with this? The law is about private possession, not publication.
This law is yet more interference from a deceitful regime that just LOVES to meddle and micro-manage wherever and whenever it can. The law was brought in against the wishes of the majority of individual consulted - thereby making the "consultation exercise" just a waste of taxpayers' money - as the culmination of the campaign by Liz Longhurst started by the murder of her daughter Jane by Graham Coutts.
She claimed that Coutts had been looking at "extreme pornography" shortly before he killed Jane Longhurst. What neither Liz Longhurst nor her supporters cared to add was that Coutts was obsessed with "breath play" and strangulation fantasies for years before he even got a computer. He doodled nooses on images of women in clothing catalogues so, by the same hysterical "logic", possession of clothing catalogues should also be banned or the sale of ball-point pens should be strictly controlled.
One of the Parliamentary supporters of that law even claimed during the debate on the second reading that it would combat snuff films or images of necrophilia hosted on a server in Guatemala. (http://tinyurl.com/5pm2j4) Needless to say, there was probably more evidence for the existence of WMD in Iraq.
This regime is not fit to govern even a third-rate banana republic, let alone the UK. It has lied, cheated and bamboozled Parliament time and time again. The sooner they are out so that they can be impeached and their repressive laws repealed, the better we all shall be,
I've vaguely followed this on El Reg. One thing that baffles me is this:
"There was no intention to attack conduct, so long as it was legal and did not cause harm to the individuals participating in it."
I do remember reading somewhere else that it is illegal to do harm, even if it's consenting. Where the f*ck does that leave boxing and all but the fluffiest of martial arts??
Those giving and receiving the damage in boxing and martial arts are consenting. Is it the fact they aren't perceived to be getting sexual gratification out of it mean it's OK - but if it was BDSM it would be illegal?
Or is it purely the making of pictures and video of said violence (and jacking off to it) that's illegal?
Does watching a rerun of the Lewis/Tyson fight and getting aroused now break the law?? (Not that it does for me - but I'm sure there are those out there who would; it's a big world etc..).
Surely we're into the "thought crime" realm yet again?
(Yes, I know I've posted comments on this before, but *still* there has been no response or "guidance" from the MoJ with only two months to go before they introduce this law...!)
Here are some questions which the MoJ need to supply answers to in order to give us *any* clue as to what this law will *actually* affect...
http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803
My arse. I am trying to get CRB stuff sorted out now and it is a flaming joke.
It does *nothing* to protect children, it is just make-work to get more people off benefits and make the figures look good. Children still get abused and mistreated everyday (usually by their parents/relatives) and all the MPs do is crow about how much effort they've put it.
It's enough to make you sick.
"Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government and the child has been put at the heart of our reforms and we are determined to maintain a relentless focus on children’s safety."
My niece once walked away in a supermarket from her mother (my sister). My sister threw a hysterical fit, shouting and screaming that her child had been taken. My niece had just walked into the supermarket ahead of us of course.
In my sisters mind the place was full of child kidnappers who would murder her baby at the first possibility, and she imagined I guess that the decapitated corpse of her kid was in Isle 3 next to the baked beans. My sister watches too much TV and can't correctly asses risk. She sees something on TV, imagines that something happening to a kid she knows, if she knows 20 kids to her there is a 1 in 20 chance of it happening to her child. At least that's what she thinks, but as I said she has a problem with the real world.
She is a nutter, and her children would have grown up to be nutters too, if I wasn't there to stabilize them. For a while they were afraid to go out, she'd got them so scared. They would hide in the flat and run away when someone knocked the door.
My sister is in a mental institution now, Jacqui Smith is in the Home Office.
Typical of this Government to once again hide behind 'child protection' to sneak in yet more ill-defined 'moral' legislation. Kids and terrorists: this government's best friends and allies in the war on civil freedom. Everytime a Government minister (of whatever colour) tries to justify some new, patently flawed legislation designed to spy, snoop, eavesdrop, curtail, limit or criminalise our private lives listen for the moment they evoke the 'children & terrorists' card.
Pathetic.
The general thrust has been, for quite some time, to control individual behaviour and association with others through both employers and through strict monitoring of travel and communications. Some of the enabling mechanisms used to achieve this control include "threats" from sexual deviancy, terrorism, digital piracy and illegal immigration - mostly things we've all managed to live with in the past without draconian new laws. I'm not saying that there aren't rapists or real violent extremists out there - there are - but the existing laws were always enough to deal with those situations to an acceptable level of effectiveness. Nevertheless, they are used daily as leverage.
If you want to see the big picture, you have to think like them.
A NuLab appointed judge stated that the pictures of Max Moseley taking part in "prison camp guard" sexual roleplay printed in the NoW were not in the public interest and that people have the right to privacy in such cases, now the MoJ states being accused of such acts is a dismissable and imprisonable offence for the general public. Funny that Moseley has lots of money & F1 gave £1million to NuLab wheras most people object to giving their taxes to this extremist government. Draw your own conclusions. BTW under this law wouldn't an accusation of participating in extreme sex result in MPs being sacked or is this sort of behaviour a prereqisit to be an MP.
Anonymous as my normal reply to unanswerable questions is "beats me" & I don't want arresting.
1) Thought police (aka Extreme porn laws)
2) ID cards
3) Wacky Jackie's uber snooping database
4) ... actually anything she has said or done
5) The farcical "war on terror"
6) That t#@t Hoone
7) The U-turn on cannabis - against recommendations
8) The neglect of the science and technology sector
9) enhanced” CRB check (i.e. guilty without proof)
10) Prolonged Detention without charge or trial
I could go on...
Is there anyone in the country they haven't pissed off yet? I can only assume they want an embarrassing defeat at the polls.
Safeguard the children... for what? So they can grow up, safe, sound and cosseted.
Then, in turn, as adults they can be subject to these same repressive measures themselves.
The rights of existing adults are the future rights of children.
Doesn't anybody ever consider *that*?
i have been helping to campain on this since it was first consulted about, i have donated a large sum of money to the backlash campain and all for nothing, in a few months i am going to be a criminal for doing nothing more than the things i enjoy with my partner (who btw is devilish with a singletail) and filming it. we dont publish our material, we dont have children (or want any) this is just another law that is designed to turn me into a criminal, and given where i work as soon as i get a criminal record i am out of the job so would have to claim the dole just to try and make ends meet. and of course once i am a criminal i wont be able to get another job because im a criminal.
i am proud to be kinky and proud to display the marks my loving partner inflicts on me (at my own request) i would rather be a criminal than give up being myself just because the gov tells me im a naughty boy...
fuck them!
@ Sammi - they can't teach arithmetic nor speling :) why would you think they could teach parenting?
As Pierre Elliot Trudeau said in 1968 "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", and "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code".
(Minister of Justice at the time, later Prime Minister of Canada)
Paris, cause she knows what a bedroom is for.
"Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government and the child has been put at the heart of our reforms and we are determined to maintain a relentless focus on children’s safety." - Department for Children, Schools and Families
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
There is no suitable icon.
They're practically mainstream these days. The concern I have is for those of us (*cough*) with less well known and less widely accepted quirks, we're the communities who are going to come under Orwellian scrutiny...
I jumped Blighty's shores for America about 6 months ago. I'm starting to feel like I got out just in time.
(AC because...)
There is no "kids" angle here. Its /already/ very illegal to show sexual material to children and there's no need for new law to cover this - so this law has b*gger all to do with child protection.
The govt dept who brought this up either
a) have no clue what the act is about; or
b) are conniving to get it introduced; or
c) were asked a leading question by a disingenuous reporter.
My money is on a but c is a close second.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
Thank you, Ken. I was not aware of that quote. It says it all.
"clauses of the Criminal Justice Act (s. 63-66) were about catching material that originated outside the UK"
About time they did something to keep the foreign smut out of the country! Unfair competition from the bronzed models! Time to go local, get it from where the sun don't shine.
Too much fun on that island, get back into character.
Given previous reassurances about some of the draconian terror laws and how they would only be used against bad guys, can we ever trust the government not to misuse laws? Far better to write them properly in the first place rather than have something vague with accompanying handwaving to reassure us that it'll be OK. We've had recent proof that this is patently false.
.. I guess that's what they were REALLY after (i.e. just jealous).
Thank God the Tories are about to be voted in, they had so many incidents involving, umm, "creative" approaches to sex they would think twice about putting any more laws in place :-)
Mine's the one with the chains and handcuffs, thanks.
Re: "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." - Adolf Hitler "Mein Kampf"
Only the first sentence is from Mein Kampf. The second seems to be by a Rabbi. http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm
to execute all politians from all parties as a threat to the citizens of the UK. Furthermore, all politicians that have been in office at any time over the last 15 years should be arested on the spot and formally charged with placing UK citizens at risk through bad laws and badly worded legislation.
Everytime I attend a public sector meeting it is dominated by tree hugging, risk averse, think of the children, are you compliant.........halfwit jobsworths who contribute very little.
You said Wednesday 22nd October 2008 12:24 GMT
Boxing and martial arts doesn't involve sex (mostly).
Here's the thing. Surely a lot of BDSM doesn't involve sex either.
Pulling hair, slapping, choking, impact to the genital area - that could either be cage fighting, or S&M.
My question is - making/possessing video of cage fighting (MMA style) it is legal. The same type of activity (infact - much less violent) , but call it S&M is to become illegal?? All because the S&M has sexual connotations?
So, if someone makes a video of himself and his wife dressed in bondage gear, and engage in some mutual slap n tickle - but *don't* have sex on tape, then it's OK?
You must forgive me, I left the UK a number of years ago - so what might be obvious to those still there isn't to an expat like me. I try to keep up with the news, but this one has me stumped.
¿But, aha! is it *really* Dear Jacqui, the UK's very own Precious Leader, who is at the center of this nonsense?
I can't help but think that one of two situations prevails: either this is all driven by one screwy person with a great deal of power in Whitehall, or it's an entirely cynical move to further the Stasification of Britain.
In the latter case, one can well envision a bunch of cops and their sympathizers being behind it all.
We're all familiar with cops being so sure they know who's guilty that they don't hesitate to fudge the evidence; it's an attitude that comes with the job and one of the reasons civilized countries keep the cops under firm control by a magistrate who refuses to buy into their lies.
Tell me, someone, has this kind of nonsense been going on since before Precious Jacqui got her grubby little mitts on the levers of power?
And tell me, which of the two situations outlined seems more likely, given the available evidence?
Meanwhile, since unsupported allegations will be listened to, I suggest anonymous complaints to the Thought Police about Labour MPs' family members to the Nth degree might have some interesting consequences.
PS: it strikes me that maybe there's a third possible situation. Labour is trying to entrench itself so only party members in good standing qualify for much of anything, just as in the Soviet Union party members were the creme de la creme and everyone else a second-class comrade. Perhaps all these Stasificatory moves are merely intended to sweep, say, 95% of the UK population into the "suspected" category leaving behind only 5% to dictate the life of the country. Suspect? Can't vote. Suspect? Can't work in the public sector. Suspect? Automatically guilty on nobody at all's say so.
Discussion, please, if the Divine Moderatrix doesn't mind.
@Anon - in this case, had the law been present, the newspaper would have been the ones prosecured for being in posession of the film. Max wasn't guilty of anything even under the new law.
I'm fed up of talking with the Ministry of Justice. They have no actual serious answers to my most serious questions. Trying to write to the Prime Minister ends up with his protectors forwarding the correspondence to the MoJ and refusing point blank to put it under his nose even. The Obscene Publications Act is due for review this month and, although I don't know the consequences, if they have revoked the six guidance points that I provuded discussion for, then the CJ7Ip5 will seem to be even more stupid and out of touch.
(the CPS control the guidance notes to the OPA, which is why the MoJ don't want to link anything to the OPA - it means the CPS could remove the teeth from the legislation if they wanted to.)
The big problem with this law is the power given to the police ... the power to smash down your door and take any digital recording medium they wish despite who it belongs to. This includes music CD's and mobile phones. They can do this without having any charge to bring against you, and can keep things for six months. All it needs is the signature of a magistrate. And what level of proof do they need to give said person? Who knows ... perhaps show them a copy of a soft porn image and say that they want to check you out ... just in case?
A raid like this happened to a friend of mine a few weeks ago. Slightly different cause, but it has really torn the household to pieces. It was not a prety sight. His reputation and his household, torn completely to shreds and yet he is still an innocent man.
This law literally wants me to vomit down the throats of whomever at the MoJ are responsible for this sick act.
"They're practically mainstream these days." Almost, close, but not quite (at least here in America). Has the lifestyle gained more acceptance than it had twenty years ago? Certainly yes. However it's still considered abhorrent behavior by many and those of us who tend to dwell in the edgier parts of the lifestyle still need to be a little extra cautious.
However in comparison to the way the UK is going right now the road blocks that we still deal with over here seem very minor in comparison. Though I fear if McCain and his cronies end up in the white house we'll soon see protests just like this one forming on the streets of the U.S..
> Now you can't take a photo of a politician in a kinky sex act (can you say oranges) and publish it in the news of the screws
Actually you can, because they can argue that it's "not for sexual arousal".
Unfortunately publishing anything on how to engage in asphyxiphilia (asphyxiation for sexual arousal, which is what Stephen Milligan MP was doing) with photographs about how to perform such acts more safely *will* be illegal, so the Government will actually be creating a greater risk to people's lives by denying them important and relevant information!
Fuc*ing hypocrites. Ask any dominatrix in London and they'll tell you the MPs, judges and lawyers are their biggest customers ( uh..I didn't mean big down there!).
Bunch of fuc**ng hypocrites.
For the last 20 friggin years I just can't figure out why the policitians in this country are so blind and can't see the few miles across the water over the English Channel to countries such as Germany and the Netherlands.
The politicans in this country have always had an opinion that porn, that sex is wrong.
Yet, in Europe, they're much more open about it, and have a different opinion.
Why do the politicans that run this country think their opinion is right?
Do we live in a democracy? Do we fuc*k. We live in a society where these tossers they call for an MP feel they have a right to impose upon us their moral beliefs, which they think are the 'right' ones to have. Clearly, the beliefs of the politicians in the countries of Germany and the Netherlands are different.
Total bunch of hypocrites.
In China, the former career of all 9 members of the Polit Bureau which run the country are engineers. In Britian, they're all bankers, accountants, lawyers.
Let's have some decent qualified, logical thinking, practical problem solving ( and sex starved) engineers running our useless f***ng country. I bet they could do a much better job than the current bunch.
Firstly to add to my earlier comment - the "extreme porn" law has a clause specifically criminalise extracts from legally available films. So the Government's claim that this only covers illegal to publish material is clearly false.
scott:
"I do remember reading somewhere else that it is illegal to do harm, even if it's consenting. Where the f*ck does that leave boxing and all but the fluffiest of martial arts??"
The law is rather confusing on this issue - technically, you can't consent to ABH except for some exceptions. However the number of exceptions is quite broad - sport as you suggest, but also body modifications (including a case where a man branded his wife's buttocks in private - see R v. Wilson). BDSM stands out as the one case that isn't an "exception", due to the Spanner case (R v. Brown) where consenting sadomasochists were sent to prison.
A branding is legal. But if you get off on it, the same branding is illegal.
However, more recently was the Mosley case - it was interesting that the Judge noted that although actual harm and possibly wounding was inflicted upon Mosley, the Judge ridiculed the idea that it was illegal, even though it was clearly S&M. His reasoning was that it wasn't as extreme as Spanner, so the precedent of R v. Brown didn't apply.
But back to the original claim: "There was no intention to attack conduct, so long as it was legal and did not cause harm to the individuals participating in it."
This is false anyway, since the law covers images of staged acts too (perhaps by "conduct" they mean "you can do it, but not take pictures", but this is still criminalising consenting adults for what they do - taking or viewing a picture is still "conduct", after all).
@Scott:
> Boxing and martial arts doesn't involve sex (mostly).
Apart from women's topless boxing, female on female "submission" wrestling and a few NSFW others...!
> if someone makes a video of himself and his wife dressed in bondage gear, and engage in some mutual slap n tickle - but *don't* have sex on tape, then it's OK?
No, because the offence is having *possession* of that video and, in someone else's entirely *subjective* opinion, it fits the criteria for "risking harm" and you had it for "sexual arousal".
There is a "defence" in the CJIA that says you *are* allowed to own it if you can prove you were a "direct participant" in the acts shown, but that means that if you were videoing two other people you wouldn't have been a "direct" participant and even if it was you in it, were you to be dressed in head to toe leather/ rubber etc, how would you "prove" it was you? (Oh, and, of course, Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights says you have the right to be presumed innocent, ie you do not have to *prove* your innocence, but when did this Government ever let trivialities like that get in the way of a Moral Crusade?
@RW
> has this kind of nonsense been going on since before Precious Jacqui got her grubby little mitts on the levers of power?
Oh yes, it started under the reign of David "I'm blind, but I'll ban things I can't see" Blunkett, then was followed by Charles "ID Cards are good for you" Clark, followed by John "Jackboots" Reid. Wacky Jacqui is only the latest in a line of Home Secretaries to decide that we can't be trusted to look at pictures they don't like.
Labour has to be the most divisive ballot stuffing, electoral border shifting, government this country has ever had the displeasure to have foisted on them.
I am not sure they represent anyone apart from themselves at this point.
Who in their right mind is going to vote labour come the next general election, there cannot be a group they have not pissed off.
Brown has lead this country into economic ruin, both as chancellor and PM unelected. We are the laughing stock of the western world.
The banks have pulled out, research has been cut, small business left to shoulder the debts of the mismanaged corporations who are laying people off left right and centre, pensions linked to the market are shot to shit, and we are stuck in two foreign wars where we get nothing, and it is all Labour's fault.
Quite incredible, demonstration of complete incompetence and corruption. These Labour people should be hanging their heads in shame, and not doing another thing apart from resigning and allowing a general election to be called as soon as possible, everything they touch turns to crap.
"Unfortunately publishing anything on how to engage in asphyxiphilia (asphyxiation for sexual arousal, which is what Stephen Milligan MP was doing) with photographs about how to perform such acts more safely *will* be illegal"
Will it though? As I read the law these instructions will not be used for sexual arousal in themselves but rather for safety in acts you were going to perform anyway.
"Safeguarding children is top priority for this Government"
Can someone tell me exactly what this law has to do with children..? Child porn is obviously unacceptable and a totally separate issue for which we already have quite clear laws and severe punishment.
I suspect what the above statement really means is "exploiting fears about children to further our aims is top priority for this Government".
...then surely violent movies and video games, and 'shock' sites showing real videos of nasties such as beheadings, ought to be made illegal in the same way, lest people who view them become serial killers.
Won't anyone think of the children?
It wasn't the politicians. They weren't told about the way the MoJ fixed their REA "report" which conveniently left much information out of the picture. The politicians weren't told about the police enforcement of the OPA act and what the CJ&Ip5 lets them get away with... There was much that the MoJ didn't tell the politicians ... I honestly thought that the houses thought they were doing what was actually for the best. You want criminals and conspiritors in this, then look no further than the MoJ, the Police and Customs and Excise that was. Those poor Labour MP's that supported Liz whassername didn't have a clue that they've been used.
Can I make a correction to my statement, "Those poor Labour MP's that supported Liz whassername didn't have a clue that they've been used."
It should have read... "Those poor Labour MP's that supported Liz whassername didn't have a clue that they've been used, abused, chewed up, spat out, trodden in to the ground and made to look like complete political amateures to the degree that 'Yes Minster' would look like 'Rainbow.' No wonder that no politician has the guts to stand up and admit they screwed up; they'd be made to look like fools by the very departments that are supposed to report to THEM!!!!"
Um ... you don't think I'm taking this a touch, um, personally, do you?
this law is never intended to be inforced it is there to scare pepol the definations are so vage that everybaody will stick to the defently safe white arears and not stray into the dubius gray arears thsi law craetes at risk of 5o years at a labor camp.
to look at similar laws
Viloent crime reduction act. that bans the sale and import of repiclar imation fire arms (fimilar to touse of us that play airsoft) there have been 0 arests
hunting with hounds . 0 arests
need I say more?
actulry I think I do when this law comes into force can the reg be done for this pic?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/16/moderatrix_boudoir/
nuff said
I note part of the reason for excluding any B&D is that children might be exposed. What about children who are naturally disposed and find out that this behavior is quite normal? A case in point, the poet Swinburne was caned at school and his reaction was such that the principal didn't know what to do and contacted the parents.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
