Person charged under BDSM part of nasty new law (96)

Edited to clarify its fair enough to be charged with, not fair enough to have them !

quoniam vita est brevis
"he could see corruption everywhere, except that within" "better to beg forgiveness, then to ask for permission"

Edited 22 Oct 09, 8:50 PM by Darkest_desires

concupiscent cunt

I think this is what the OP is on about and due to the nature of the other things he's been charged with it appears the CPS is looking to set a precedent on BDSM elements by the back door.

The problem is it doesn't give the details of what this image is about either so solves nothing.

Edited 22 Oct 09, 9:11 PM by Pheonix_Ian

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh come on... everyone knows that this constitutes BDSM, well on the activism board it appear's to at any rate.

~* Raku wa ku no tané; ku wa raku no tané. *~

It doesn't say anything in the article about sex with children. In fact it doesn't necessarily mean children at all. Pseudo? Someone possibly pretending to be child. adult schoolgirl perhaps?

Its a very brief article anyway. Hopefully more detail will emerge as time goes on.

As for indecent child images, I looked for the nude photograph of a young Brooke Shields a few months ago just to see what all that fuss was about in the news. Does that in itself make me a sex offender?

The Hunger Site

'real', harmful injuries are nothing to do with BDSM. in my opinion.

lock em' up.

freedom is another word,
for having nothing left to loose.
(joplin)

What it has to do with is that yet again someone is charged under the new laws when there were plenty of things to charge him with already (child porn laws) without needing the new laws. By doing so yet another precedent is set with an "easy" conviction that may well count against some consensual BDSM person should they be charged in the future.

I doubt anyone is up in arms that he's been charged or desperate to defend him. It's worth monitoring how the laws are being used though - and the best way to do that is to look at cases as they come along.

The BDSM bit is definatly there in the article, bit hard to get off this charge, considering the animal image and the psdo child image.

I wonder if it was real abuse, or staged though??

*Choose Freedom* Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk
New IC group here>>> @The_Poly_Group

What is "real" harmful injuries?

Needle play? Cutting? Branding? Flogger/crop marks? Fingernail scratches? Bite marks?

All of those could potentially be covered by the new legislation if they appear on the breasts, anus or genitals...

...and all of those occur in genuine BDSM play throughout the country.

What does that mean though, or what could it mean?

The Hunger Site