Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Spanner Trust -SM campaign- can you join in? (93)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

13 Jun 09, 5:00 PM
CommanderBondage
3 yrs

It seems to me the law has become far too academic and complicated.

If you asked me how I would change the law, I would scrap the law of "precedents".

It is ridiculous to make judgements on cases which are now history.

Every individual case is different and should be judged as such.

Looking at this thread it reminds me of the song about the Old Lady who swallowed a fly...........she kept swallowing more and more to fix the problem caused by the last thing she swallowed.

Its about time we started with a clean slate and used common sense which seems to have disappeared from our society.

The Commander

14 Jun 09, 11:16 AM
Degenerate

UK(M), 4 yrs

Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:

Degenerate wrote:

spirifer wrote:

That would be more persuasive if Spanner didn't say that the claimants may be able to remain anonymous.

I still don't understand how a claim like this doesn't stand or fall on its own merits. The court is hardly likely to suddenly say that the case is incompatible because it has a statement in front of it purportedly from a straight woman, rather than one from a gay man, is it?

I have just been talking to a senior criminal barrister on the phone about this and he thinks it would work just as well with less risk if the volunteers were not engaging in SM because of the assault law and claiming they should have the right to under the HRA.

So we should say that we want to, rather than that we do already?

He thinks that would work just as well, yes.

Sign up to CAAN's statement www.caan.org.uk
Get up, stand up - Bob Marley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zTxUxFjLB0
All you need is love - The Beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo
Glad To Be Gay - Tom Robinson Band http://www.cockerel.net/music/pitd/gtbg.mp3

14 Jun 09, 11:24 AM
Degenerate

UK(M), 4 yrs

TheSpannerTrust wrote:
Hi,

Sorry for arriving late to the debate but better late than never.

Just to clarify with everyone the activities of the Spanner Trust fall into two categories:

1 They act to assist people who have found themselves with legal issues as a result of their consensual SM activities. This has included assisting individuals and groups under investigation and threat of legal action. Unfortunately this happens all too frequently across the SM spectrum and although prosecutions do not appear to be very forthcoming the damage to people's private lives is often done at the allegation stage before any guilt is proven or a charge is made.

2 The second aspect of the trusts work is to challenge the legal position of consensual SM activities and the law. To this end a number of strategies have been researched and attempted with the most likely being a appeal of the law under the HRA.

With regards the HRA yes the trust does need volunteers to take that case forward, ideally it would be a variety of relationship structures illustrating that SM activities pass through gender and relationship boundaries. In an idea world the claimants would be given anonymity from disclosure in the media as the issue is fundamentally the freedom for consenting adults to engage in activities free for persecution and prosecution. In reality although this can be applied for we will not immediately and before the process know if it will be granted.

At this point in time we are very much preparing information for the case and investigating legal avenues and angles and collecting information and analysis in support of the case. As such anyone with skills in this area may be able to assist.

Others can best be able to help by being aware of the issue and the current legal status.

Hopefully in the not too distant future there will be more activity on the legal challenge and we will endeavour to let people know how they can assist either publically or with appropriate levels of anonymity.

Other aspects of the Trusts work also include responding to government consultation documents for proposed new laws. Because of the Trusts long standing activities they are often given a higher level of consultation with the government and have been called upon to give evidence at hearing where other groups are only permitted to present in writing.

They also tend to be called upon as spokespeople for the SM community and have given many media interviews on the subject of SM and the law.

In answer to the question as to why the Trustees themselves do not take legal action, well fundamentally we are by taking the case forward. In the event that any appeal was lost then the Trustee's could be responsible for the court costs which are unlikely to be a small matter.

In an ideal world there would be no need for the Trust and one of the things that keep the Trust going forward is that very hope that one day there will be no need for it.

I hope that clarifies a little.

Regards,

David on behalf of the Spanner Trust

Hi David, thank for providing more information about this.

15 Jun 09, 8:37 AM
Cosmic1
UK(SW), 7 yrs
£

Empress_Martine wrote:
....... and the members amongst them have no history of practising BDSM........

I would respectfully beg to differ on this one.

I don't think I have met anyone connected with the Spanner Trust who does not practice SM, certainly all the trustees past and present do.

David

London Alternative Market - the place to be on the first Sunday of the month
Just Rope - Rope Bondage club - www.JuSTRope.co.uk
www.MasterCosmic.co.uk

15 Jun 09, 9:08 AM
Cosmic1
UK(SW), 7 yrs
£

Attitude_Adjuster wrote:

TheSpannerTrust wrote:
In answer to the question as to why the Trustees themselves do not take legal action, well fundamentally we are by taking the case forward. In the event that any appeal was lost then the Trustee's could be responsible for the court costs which are unlikely to be a small matter.

That would be a no then? I'm sorry - risking financial penalty is a long way removed from risking a criminal record or prison, which is what you are asking of others

There is also the rather subtle fact that if you are working for a trust on specific issue you can't be the one that takes it forward to the appeal.

Claimants are only claiming that the law as it currently stands is a breach of human rights not that you have committed an offence.

It is more than feasible to step forward as a claimant saying that you have not engage in SM activities because of a fear of prosecution but want to change the law so that you can investigate that side of your sexuality.

I would also respectfully suggest that the trustees carry a lot of other risks being publicly identifiable individuals. I personally feel that the risk is out weighed by the need to support this cause.

Yes it is a lot of ask but thankfully we do have some individuals who have come forward and agreed to act as claimants in order to take the case to appeal.

Regards,

David

London Alternative Market - the place to be on the first Sunday of the month
Just Rope - Rope Bondage club - www.JuSTRope.co.uk
www.MasterCosmic.co.uk

15 Jun 09, 9:44 AM
Silent_Storm
UK(M), 6 yrs

Looks like I was wrong on my earlier post Cosmic 1.

Thanks for making things more clear!

**Choose Freedom** Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk

15 Jun 09, 11:47 PM
Ethics_Gradient
UK(N), 5 yrs

Cosmic1 wrote:

Attitude_Adjuster wrote:

That would be a no then? I'm sorry - risking financial penalty is a long way removed from risking a criminal record or prison, which is what you are asking of others

There is also the rather subtle fact that if you are working for a trust on specific issue you can't be the one that takes it forward to the appeal.

I certainly acknowledge that - though I suspect that 'working for a trust' isn't an immutable condition...

Claimants are only claiming that the law as it currently stands is a breach of human rights not that you have committed an offence.

The literature posted by De clearly stated that "the claiment would need to be at risk of prosecution". That implies that they either need to testify to breaking the law or, by virtue of lifestle, be breaking the law (and hence as Tanos conjectured, open to investigation and potential follow up action). De later added that legal advice suggested that the claimant would not need to have engaged in SM. If the later is correct, then would it not be better to seek volunteers who are completely unconnected with the scene at all, because that reduces the risk on the claiment? By asking on here, you are likely to receive responses from people who *have* practised SM and hence *are* vulnerable to prosecution/investigation, even though you now state that this is unneccesary.

But thats not what the spanner literature implies (still).

Perhaps I've misunderstood this, but the position appears to have changed mid-thread between my response, and your subsequent response.

I appreciate that, and (in response to emark), I'm not trying to demonize spanner in this, or devalue your or anyone elses efforts in what is fundamentally a good cause. I do suggest that you have a consistent story though, given the risks involved for people volunteering (and also so that you don't appear to have appealed for injured parties before you have decided the nature of the injury).

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Edited 15 Jun 09, 11:58 PM by Ethics_Gradient

16 Jun 09, 12:06 AM
Cosmic1
UK(SW), 7 yrs
£

There is a long walk and discussion between coming forward to discuss the possibility and being a suitable claimant. I have seen a few people get a long way down the process before finding reasons why they could not proceed with the claim at that point in time.

Yes there are many inherent risks in being a test case. I think they are best discussed between potential claimants and legal council.

After all there is a significant difference between what individuals will claim and some will claim that the current laws and an infringement of human rights regardless of it anyone has committed an offence under the law.

As it currently stands more lives are trashed by allegations and investigations than actual criminal proceedings which is a very valid part of what we fight against.

David

London Alternative Market - the place to be on the first Sunday of the month
Just Rope - Rope Bondage club - www.JuSTRope.co.uk
www.MasterCosmic.co.uk

17 Jun 09, 8:59 PM
Degenerate

UK(M), 4 yrs

Cheers David, I hope more claimants come forward, glad to see this thread may have found some. Might be worth a leaflet reword and also seeking non BDSM people as claimants - if any non SM people wished to join in would they be welcome? Let me know and when I put this to further shout in the networks I'm involved in, I'll add something about that.

1 Jul 09, 11:56 PM
Madame_Petra
UK(E), 5 yrs

Empress_Martine wrote:
I tend to stay clear of this lot as to offer them help means that you might be doing something illegal but not all the law is against BDSM,its ironic that bondage has been legal since the 16th century,yes the law is full of contridictions and sometimes they work in our favour.But as for vounteering for this group,I would stear clear as they have poor veting security and the members amongst them have no history of practising BDSM.Considering that I have been practising for over ten years now,some of them have little or no experience.Also the organisation has been going through political infighting so I would avoid them like hell.

As a former Spanner Trustee myself I can assure you that all the trustees are very much BDSM practitioners.

Where on earth did you get this nonsense from? Maybe you are talking about a different group??

Next page