Page: 1 2 3

Congratulations Kevin Webster (28)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

7 Jan 11, 7:46 AM
Sirebel
UK, 5 yrs

verte wrote:
All of it

Thanks for the quotes and references. That was my understanding of the current situation but the reason for the original question is I'm sure someone was quoted recently as saying something like "If a case reached the Supreme Court today where consent to harm was the issue, the spanner ruling would probably not survive."

Reading the R vs Wilson outcome makes me suspect that this is not the case. I don't think anyone would claim Spanner wasn't for sexual gratification. Hopefully sexuality (as in hetero vs homo) wouldn't come into it these days but it would be interesting to see a judge rule differently to R v Wilson because they weren't married. It might be an interesting test of the recent changes in the equality laws. How about a defence like "My religion is atheist therefore you are discriminating against me on religious grounds because I consensually branded my partner and we aren't married."

Why can't people just accept that what two consenting adults get up to in privacy is no ones business but their own. The Spanner ruling almost goes that far except for that clause on sexual gratification.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. Abraham Lincoln

7 Jan 11, 8:42 AM
Ian_2007
UK(N), 4 yrs

Sirebel wrote:
[Why can't people just accept that what two consenting adults get up to in privacy is no ones business but their own.

Perhaps because they're mature enough to understand the moral hazards of such a situation? All confidence tricksters and fraudsters rely on the consent of their victims. If criminals knew they could act like Harold Shipman and yet have an impregnable courtroom defence, do you seriously imagine that they would forbear?

Most people who live in society and accept its constraints for the sake of a happy and successful life accept that their desire for jollies does not and cannot outweigh the lives of others. Why are so many of the exceptions to be found on IC?

7 Jan 11, 9:16 AM
backlash_uk
UK, 5 yrs

emark wrote:
Are there any details

Forthcoming. Transcripts and digestion needed first.

An initial press release has been made and will be on the Backlash website soon.

It was a unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts by a predominantly female jury.

7 Jan 11, 9:55 AM
keithunder
UK(M), 10 yrs

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/Jury-a...

Man found not guilty in landmark 'extreme porn' prosecution A MAN who downloaded "death fetish" pictures from the internet has been cleared by jurors of having "extreme pornography" in a test case.

The photos, posed by actors and showing scenes of stabbing and suffocation of women, were found on Kevin Webster's computer during a police raid at his home.

Recently introduced legislation makes it illegal to possess pornography that realistically portrays acts likely to cause serious injury or death.

In the first jury trial of its kind, Webster, aged 47, of Cresswood Drive, Stone, was acquitted of four charges of possessing extreme pornography.

The jury heard the four pictures were samples from sets produced by a company called Drop Dead Gorgeous using actors and actresses for a niche pornography market known as "death fetish".

Webster opted not to give evidence in the trial and also made no comment during police interviews following his arrest on 24 August 2009, initially on suspicion of having child pornography, which turned out to be wrong.

The jury took 90 minutes to reach a unanimous not guilty verdict.

Judge Michael Cullum told the jurors afterwards that this had been a test case: "This is new legislation that is currently being interpreted, to determine where the line in the sand is.

"It is an imposition to inflict images of this nature on you – everyone has a level of comfort or discomfort on this matter and maybe you have found these images difficult to consider.

"It is clear the legislation in this field is for a jury to make a determination."

9 Jan 11, 10:37 PM
emark
UK, 9 yrs

backlash_uk wrote:

emark wrote:
Are there any details

Forthcoming. Transcripts and digestion needed first.

An initial press release has been made and will be on the Backlash website soon.

It was a unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts by a predominantly female jury.

Thanks for the details.

For anyone who hasn't already seen, Backlash's press release is now up at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?p=829 .

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

9 Jan 11, 10:47 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs

Ian_2007 wrote:

Sirebel wrote:
[Why can't people just accept that what two consenting adults get up to in privacy is no ones business but their own.

Perhaps because they're mature enough to understand the moral hazards of such a situation?

And what precisely are these 'moral hazards'?

Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

9 Jan 11, 10:57 PM
Silent_Storm
UK(M), 6 yrs

verte wrote:

Ian_2007 wrote:

Sirebel wrote:
[Why can't people just accept that what two consenting adults get up to in privacy is no ones business but their own.

Perhaps because they're mature enough to understand the moral hazards of such a situation?

And what precisely are these 'moral hazards'?

Oh! just ignore him, your unlikely to get a response from Ian...., perlease tell us more about moral hazards Ian, we would love to know more of your golden nuggets of worldly wisdom.

Congrats to Backlash btw Great outcome!

*Choose Freedom* Sign up to http://www.caan.org.uk
Please buy a raffle ticket to help fund BDSM Activism and Wood Street Mission. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/291185/
@The_Poly_Group has a chat room

15 Jan 11, 6:16 PM
Dark_Deeds
UK(EH), 19 mths

I thought it was all about Coronation Street as well. It sounds like it's actually an old episode of Crown Court

Lush_Life wrote:

Sirebel wrote:
Congratulations Kevin Webster

Not guilty ? Did you see the look on poor Tyrone's face ? The man has ruined lives and Sally is quite right to adopt the position she has - bairn or no bairn.