This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Wed 25 Aug 10, 12:40 PM BrianC UK(TQ), 6 yrs   |
"Read the Register tomorrow. Tis far worse than you think...." It's there now at: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/25/pain_oly... and makes for sobering reading. | ||
| 25 Aug 10, 12:51 PM bohnanza UK(FK), 12 yrs |
If a video of a man having his genitals mutilated is OK, would a video of female circumcision be equally acceptable? If you read about the Leicestershire case it isn't made clear which parts of the sentence were for cannabis possession and supply and which parts were for the clip. Could you enlighten us? In both cases it looks like the defendants pled guilty as did the dentist, this makes no clarification to the law. Not guilty pleas are what makes a difference. Why don't cash machines have a Gamble button? | ||
| 25 Aug 10, 10:24 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
I don't care what an adult chooses to do, male or female, and certainly wouldn't view either as something that should be illegal in an image (which is the issue here; terms like "okay" and "acceptable" are broader). (Didn't the Spanner case involve genital torture of some kind? My viewpoint on that isn't changed by the idea of women doing it instead; although who knows if what went on in these images was more or less damaging that the Spanner case.)
This does give us some clarification on what sort of images might result in prosecution, which would be a concern in itself. Unfortunately I'm not sure we'll ever get much clarification on the law even with "not guilty" pleas - we can't see the images if they're illegal, and details are often vague; also it is possible that different juries may return different answers, given the subjective nature of some terms, and depending on things like context or other circumstances. But yes, I can see there is perhaps a link between what gets prosecuted, and the court results - if people plead guilty, the police can always chance prosecuting someone even if it's doubtful it comes under the law; but repeated not guilty verdicts of some kind of images might keep them away from those. Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 25 Aug 10, 10:28 PM by emark | ||
| 25 Aug 10, 10:26 PM Jane_Fae UK(W), 3 yrs |
er...rather think you missed the point. The story is in the lede, to wit: "In matters of extreme porn, the message of recent cases seems to be that whether you get off increasingly depends on how familiar your legal team are with a law still in its courtroom infancy." I spend half my life talking to lawyers, CPS, defendants, etc. and what seems to be happening here...though i can't be absolutely sure because, for obvious reasons, i haven't seen the clips...is that in several recent cases, lawyers not familiar with the law have advised people to plead guilty when there are good grounds for thinking that the clips in question are the selfsame clip - or variant thereof - that the CPS didn't bother to proceed against when a defence was offered in Mold. A sobering thought...and sort of backs up the point that maybe the only lawyers in the country who understand this law fully are currently assisting Backlash. On Mold, i have spoken to representatives of almost all sides present in court. For sunderland and Bournemouth, i have also had direct feedback from individuals present in court during the case. It is always possible that these were extreme porn, whilst Mold wasn't. My strong intuition, though, is that we may well be talking about the same material. I also know, from talking to individuals involved in a couple more similar cases - which i can't report on for reasons of confidentiality - that the legal establishment really is not very clear what the law means. This adds nothing to our understanding of the law: but should act as serious warning to anyone who finds themselves in the firing line on such charges not to rely on local solicitors. jane xx Personal: http://janefae.wordpress.com | ||
| 25 Aug 10, 11:46 PM doulos UK(SW), 7 yrs |
It should be acknowledged that it is perfectly reasonable for an individual to plead guilty even to dubious charges. It makes a prison sentence less likely and gets the whole terrible ordeal over with. It is perhaps the safest option. However, collectively, it makes prosecutors and police more confident that they can get away with poorly founded charges. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 9:23 AM Jane_Fae UK(W), 3 yrs |
I understnd wherfe you're coming from, but ep is not necessarily a good charge to plead on. Basically fine if you're single, have nothing to do with kids or likely to wish anything to do with them, and self-employed. Otherwise very dangerous. Even if you don't end up on the SOR - always a possibility with this offence - you would almost certainly fall foul of safegurding legislation and quite possibly end up on one or both barred lists. The information would be in the syswtem and you also risk, under moves to inform new partners of your past, finding a new partner simply informed that you have a conviction for a sexual offence. Sure: plead to fare-dodging or d&d: but think very very carefully before a plea on ep. jane xx Personal: http://janefae.wordpress.com | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 11:43 AM Fourfiveone UK, 7 yrs |
I'd also add the problem that local newspaper coverage is likely to result in a lot more local people knowing about the conviction than know the actual details of it. A significant proprotion of the general public don't seem to be able to tell the difference between somebody convicted for extreme porn possession, somebody convicted for child porn possession, and somebody who's likely to go on a rape and murder spree tomorrow. So everything from nasty letters to vandalism and physical attack is a possibility as well. | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:05 PM Hells_Bells UK(G), 7 yrs |
How awful. When I read that story, I immediately thought of the BME Pain Olympics vid (the more shocking and 'mulilating' version of which is widely known as a hoax). If it was that particular clip, being convicted on a fake video is probably the more disturbing aspect of this tale. Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. ~ Groucho Marx | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:15 PM little_belle UK(E), 4 yrs  |
Me too. Even if it wasn't, the police really need to have some sort of awareness about internet 'shock' sites. They are so widely spread and I'm sure loads of them could be as likely to be viewed as extreme porn as the BME one. Also, the very fact that they are shock videos* should kinda disprove the idea that they were made for the purposes of sexual arousal. *plenty of which will be fake anyway. "I'm a right bitch, but if you want to get laid, you'll have to lump it." Marilyn Monroe. | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:25 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
Indeed, BME Pain Olympics is also suggested by The Register's source. It would be very interesting if this could be confirmed (though it seems this would be very hard in the cases where they were found guilty? I guess one could still ask the defendants what the videos looked like, or where they obtained it, etc). It would show the use of the law on something known to be fake (even if it doesn't "look" like it from the video) - as well as the use against a "shock" video. Wikipedia has some info, describing it as a fake, suggesting it's been hosted by BMEzine, and viewed by many people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_Olympics#BME_P... - unfortunately no references given. In fact links to the video seem to be available in the history... (no I haven't clicked on them). The whole idea of shock videos are something I hadn't really considered before this law was enforced. It seems that many people will watch such images for a wide range of reasons - even if they think they are disgusting. Even if everyone agrees that the video is disgusting, and even if people might suggest legal restrictions on production or publication, it's a whole leap in logic to suggest all those people who watched it should be criminals. Just look at the phenomenon of "Reaction" videos where people post themselves watching it (but not the video itself). This tells us two things - that people view these images as disgusting, but *also*, that people see nothing wrong in watching or possessing such videos. Consider, can you imagine people posting "Reaction" videos for child porn? ETA: There are some "Reaction" videos on YouTube for BME Pain Olympics. Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement Edited 27 Aug 10, 1:44 AM by emark | ||
| 26 Aug 10, 12:28 PM little_belle UK(E), 4 yrs |
I've just looked again at some info on the law and it says it also covers staged acts? So hoax/fake videos would still count if they were considered porn? ETA:
So a talking tiger wouldn't count but a realistic hoax would. Hmph. Depressing. Still leaves open the point about shock vids v porn. "I'm a right bitch, but if you want to get laid, you'll have to lump it." Marilyn Monroe. Edited 26 Aug 10, 12:32 PM by little_belle |
