This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 9 Dec 09, 11:19 PM keithunder UK(M), 10 yrs   |
Sex with dead animal .... no penalty There are no animal welfare issues here the animal is dead. As in frozen chicken. If you had images of yourself having sex with a frozen chicken it is a maximum of 2 years Oral sex with animal .... no penalty Masturbating an animal .... no penalty This is a common practice in the farming community. It is called artificial insemination having image of above .... no penalty A couple of years ago a young woman was shown masturbating a pig on some sort of farm reality show on one of the chav tv channels Not to mention the eating of the poor creatures and the dreadful f word porn shows glorifying this atrocity Edited 9 Dec 09, 11:22 PM by keithunder | |||
| 9 Dec 09, 11:35 PM a_caelo UK(M), 2 yrs |
On the animal welfare issue, was this not the basis of the prosecution of the 2 stupid lads and the masturbation of local wild dolphin? Afraid I'm too lazy/short of time to research this properly and am relying on my notoriously faulty memory | |||
| 9 Dec 09, 11:39 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
They also change dead animal to "carcase" - they really want to make sure they get people molesting frozen chickens from Sainsbury's I suppose (sorry, images of I mean - obviously the act itself will remain perfectly legal). | |||
| 10 Dec 09, 12:58 AM keithunder UK(M), 10 yrs |
Are the Scots trying to be nuttier than the nutty nuts in Westminster? | |||
| 10 Dec 09, 7:24 AM LittleMissEvil 4 yrs |
It's the principle that all common law systems are based on; murder is a prime example of this. There is no statute that says murder is wrong, and there never has been one. The basis for murder being a crime comes from case law which developed because it's a morally wrong act to carry out. The human rights act has a section about retrospective justice, which this isn't by any means and tbh if you get off on having sex with dead animals or having live animals perform sex acts on you then tbh I think you need help. ETA an o in section It's in the water baby, it's in the pills that pick you up It's in the water baby, it's in the special way we fuck It's in the water baby, it's in your family tree It's in the water baby, it's between you and me - B.Molko Edited 10 Dec 09, 7:31 AM by LittleMissEvil | |||
| 10 Dec 09, 4:50 PM LittleMissEvil 4 yrs |
Well if they really wanted to get you they could go for a simple conspiracy to have sex with an animal; it then is a very open charge and the fact you were doing something of a sexual nature they can show that it h ad the possibility to lead further, therefore it would be left to the magistrates of jury to decide if you had intent to go further or not.
It's in the water baby, it's in the pills that pick you up It's in the water baby, it's in the special way we fuck It's in the water baby, it's in your family tree It's in the water baby, it's between you and me - B.Molko | |||
| 10 Dec 09, 7:31 PM mq1965 UK(DA), 8 yrs |
I think we are probably a few hundred years past the point where Common Law can just create new offences though. Murder is an offence because it is established at common law, as are a few other offences, though not many are left. However they are well defined and established in law. That is a very different thing from saying that you could now be prosecuted for some new offence because it was 'morally wrong'. Human Rights generally require that people can know what the law is. Hence new laws are created by statute. Those Common Law offences that exist are so well defined that people should be able to know what they are. That wouldn't be the case with any new Common Law offence that a prosecutor tried to charge on the basis of moral wrongness. |
