23 Mar 10, 8:38 PM
x_Pan_x
UK(E), 8 yrs
 |
Fitznicely wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
Mr_Boring wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
I don't have any issue with that stance. It's the gnashing, editorialising, whipping (sic) up into a frenzy, doommongering and general Chicken-lickin sky's-a-falling that's getting on my goat.
|
What are you doing to that poor goat? 
|
The film will be available soon.
|
...at all good Magistrate's Courts
(Other judicial establishments are available)
|
The most hyped film(flam) of the year. Thought to be a blockbuster, but really going straight to video.
Just remember, when you think you're free - the crack inside your fucking heart is me.
In Syberia - a Blog
|
23 Mar 10, 8:45 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
ClassAct2005 wrote:
As for whether it matters - it is part of a raft of new laws which potentially criminalise many people; the state says don't worry we will choose not to use those against most of you and then of course if someone does want to "get you" they have the legal means to do so. That is bad law.
|
Oh Indeed. However it is a law now, and repealing it isn't going to happen. The only option is really to reduce is to ineffectual, and farcical status so the CPS don't want to touch it with a bargepole. The judiciary isn't the government (thankfully) and may choose to respect plausible defences - irrespective of whether they really believe them. This Tony Tiger guy could easily have said "this clip was clearly produced for shock value not titillation" and if he'd won on that basis, or the judge had dismissed it on the basis that the jury had no evidence that could be grounds for what 'must reasonably be assumed' regarding its purpose, the law would already be diminished.
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!
|
23 Mar 10, 8:50 PM
Fitznicely
UK(B), 2 yrs
|
x_Pan_x wrote:
Fitznicely wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
Mr_Boring wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
I don't have any issue with that stance. It's the gnashing, editorialising, whipping (sic) up into a frenzy, doommongering and general Chicken-lickin sky's-a-falling that's getting on my goat.
|
What are you doing to that poor goat?
|
The film will be available soon.
|
...at all good Magistrate's Courts
(Other judicial establishments are available)
|
The most hyped film(flam) of the year. Thought to be a blockbuster, but really going straight to video.
|
If you thought Tony the Tiger was bad, just wait till you see what the Rice Krispie kids get up to! You know they say it's always the quiet ones you have to watch? That's me.
Edited 23 Mar 10, 8:51 PM by Fitznicely
|
23 Mar 10, 9:01 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
|
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
ClassAct2005 wrote:
As for whether it matters - it is part of a raft of new laws which potentially criminalise many people; the state says don't worry we will choose not to use those against most of you and then of course if someone does want to "get you" they have the legal means to do so. That is bad law.
|
Oh Indeed. However it is a law now, and repealing it isn't going to happen. The only option is really to reduce is to ineffectual, and farcical status so the CPS don't want to touch it with a bargepole. The judiciary isn't the government (thankfully) and may choose to respect plausible defences - irrespective of whether they really believe them. This Tony Tiger guy could easily have said "this clip was clearly produced for shock value not titillation" and if he'd won on that basis, or the judge had dismissed it on the basis that the jury had no evidence that could be grounds for what 'must reasonably be assumed' regarding its purpose, the law would already be diminished.
|
The problem is, people charged with this aren't going to be advised by defence lawyers who have sat studying the finer points of the CJIA. I'd be amazed if most lawyers have even *heard* of the EP provisions.
What would be interesting would be to have a case where people who know what they're talking about were representing a defendant charged with possession of EP, and could really argue the points in court. Ah semen. What is it about that ridiculous white secretion that pulls down the corners of an Englishman's mouth?
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
23 Mar 10, 9:22 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
spirifer wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
ClassAct2005 wrote:
As for whether it matters - it is part of a raft of new laws which potentially criminalise many people; the state says don't worry we will choose not to use those against most of you and then of course if someone does want to "get you" they have the legal means to do so. That is bad law.
|
Oh Indeed. However it is a law now, and repealing it isn't going to happen. The only option is really to reduce is to ineffectual, and farcical status so the CPS don't want to touch it with a bargepole. The judiciary isn't the government (thankfully) and may choose to respect plausible defences - irrespective of whether they really believe them. This Tony Tiger guy could easily have said "this clip was clearly produced for shock value not titillation" and if he'd won on that basis, or the judge had dismissed it on the basis that the jury had no evidence that could be grounds for what 'must reasonably be assumed' regarding its purpose, the law would already be diminished.
|
The problem is, people charged with this aren't going to be advised by defence lawyers who have sat studying the finer points of the CJIA. I'd be amazed if most lawyers have even *heard* of the EP provisions.
What would be interesting would be to have a case where people who know what they're talking about were representing a defendant charged with possession of EP, and could really argue the points in court.
|
Yup - totally agree with that. So why aren't the organisations that are fighting this stuff*, putting the right people in front of them, because the best case to fight is the first, when there is no precedent in place.
The political battle was lost, and yet all the hubris is going to go into fighting another political battle which will, also, in due course be lost - meanwhile the score on judicial front is now 1-0 (this time by virtue of an own goal).
* I don't mean CAAN - I suspect they can't possibly resource that kind of thing. 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!
|
23 Mar 10, 9:29 PM
Cadwallader
UK(W), 7 yrs
|
Totally agree x_Pan_x. The register has long been known as the Sunday sport of the IT world. I would definately like to see this story on a more credible site before I would believe one word of it.
x_Pan_x wrote:
redcat wrote:
six seconds of porn could land you in jail
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_seco...
The Mold 'tiger man' went back to court last week.
Single 'extreme' porn charge. Human on human. Six seconds worth.
He's been told by the judge that he'll probably get a custodial sentence.
|
Is there a more reliable source for this story than The Register?
I only ask because the google news search for 'Mold Tiger "Andrew Holland" ' throws up zero hits. Not even one.
However if you search the notoriously accurate Blogsphere there's plenty of handwringing un-journos regurgitating this story.
"Your search - Mold tiger "Andrew Holland" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Try Google News Archives Search.
Try Google Blog Search.
Also, you can browse today's headlines on the Google News homepage."
Surely if this was news, it would be news?
|
|
23 Mar 10, 9:50 PM
rose_in_chains
UK(W), 4 yrs |
x_Pan_x wrote:
Surely if this was news, it would be news?
|
Because none of the mainstream media cares about the infringement of civil liberties and the criminalisation of consensual activities. Because anyone who would want to watch even 6 seconds of extreme porn *by mistake* and not be so disgusted as to delete it straight away, must be a filthy pervert who should be locked away for their own good, and society's good. Because no-one in the mainstream media wants to provoke a debate because there is no win for them. They have to instead all print the same other stories and focus on creating a hype against legal highs (OK, that one's a provocative red herring, other issue).
John Oz, the author of this piece, is one of the very few journalists in this country who has consistently and continually beat the drum in not allowing the curtailing of sexual freedoms to go unreported.
If he writes it, I know it's a reliable source. |
23 Mar 10, 10:20 PM
rose_in_chains
UK(W), 4 yrs |
SheilaBlyge wrote:
Well, it's pretty important and the sky IS falling in for the poor sod who's branded a criminal and may end up in jail for 6 seconds of 'something' on his computer/phone.
Just because it's not happening to thousands of people doesn't make it any less disturbing than the fact that it CAN happen, IS happening and WILL CONTINUE to happen to random individuals on the whim of a capricious police force.
Last week I might have thought differently. I would probably have thought 'no smoke without fire'. But then last week some friends had their home raided by 8 policemen with a warrant, fully searched, including their child's room and possessions, and had to answer personal questions about their fetish gear, all because of something an ex-lodger is alleged to have done. Nothing to do with them at all. But it didn't exempt them from undergoing the search, even thought said lodger is long-gone!
It doesn't take much of a leap of the imagination to realise that if the police intelligence had been to do with cyber-crime, rather than a real-time issue, then computers would no doubt be seized, since the ex-lodger had access to them.
What an insight into how a law abiding family is inadvertently dragged into something so bizarre. The 'no smoke without fire' argument no longer washes with me. Any of us can become targets by association, by malicious tale-telling, by inadvertant do-gooders. I think the most dangerous thing is to undererstimate the potential of these laws, and to gloss over with an anti-sky-falling-in reaction.
|
Absolutely. The problem is not how it affects or doesn't affect our kinks. The problem is that it DOES make many records of consensual acts criminal with jail time attached. And it can pull in those who 'innocently' receive such images (extreme, yes, but a very vague definition of what is actually meant by extreme). And that is an affront to EVERYONE's civil liberties. And if we sit around all apathetically and raise our hands and say 'it's nowt to do with me mate', then one day, it will be to do with us.
Example. Something bad happens to you. Maybe you meet someone who first made contact over the internet. That person turns out to be rapist/con artist/thief. You go to the police. In order for the police to fully investigate they request they take temporary possession of your computor so that they can record chain of evidence of the correspondence with the alleged criminal. You say, of course, because you want the criminal caught, charged and prosecuted, justice done. BUT. What if the police then see that you have some consensual pictures or videos of you engaging in a bit of ultraviolence? Maybe a bit of rope bondage, with the rope around your neck? Maybe a knife aimed at the nipples or genitalia? The police then have evidence of YOU being the criminal.
It isn't a far fetched scenario.  |
23 Mar 10, 11:05 PM
backlash_uk
UK, 5 yrs
|
spirifer wrote:
What would be interesting would be to have a case where people who know what they're talking about were representing a defendant charged with possession of EP, and could really argue the points in court.
|
Precisely. Unfortunately in this case, when twice approached last year, they weren't interested.
Few yet know the actual facts.
When a good test case does surface, Ishmael's suggestion has excellent precedents.
|
24 Mar 10, 1:16 AM
xjames
UK(SS), 5 yrs |
I feel sorry for any magistrates, judges, court officials and jurors who may have to be exposed to this six seconds of filth during the course of the case. It will turn them all into knife-wielding sex-crazed killers. ***Signature area for sale. Imagine your product, event or ideas being publicised here. Competitive daily, weekly and monthly rates. Message the owner***
|
