This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Sat 26 Feb 11, 12:30 AM Jane_Fae UK(W), 3 yrs |
Ah. The slightly longer-in-tooth may recognise the reference. "Misleading cases" was a long-running series of legal spoofery, sometimes based around ral legal principles, which succeeded both in making people laugh and, on occasion, raising serious issues of law. I thought i'd extend the thread on prostitution here to take in a more general discussion of the SOA 2003 and related stuff a) because tis a subject close to my heart (and am thinking of maybe doing a doctorate on the emergence of "sexual" as a concept in UK law) and b) because i wonder what other legal inconsistencies people have spotted in recent legislation. Anyway, here's a couple to kick off with. Toilets. Anyone notice s71 of the SOA 2003...which means it continues to be an offence to do sexual things in a public toilet. Its intended, of course, to catch those darn homosexuals, who clearly can't control themselves in a public toilet...but bear in mind that the act is not actually gender specific. Any women on here ever snogged another woman in the loo at a club? Would you have considered that act sexual? If so, would you consider it right for you to be liable to 6 months imprisonment? And here's one for the extreme porn lawyers. For various reasons, my testosterone levels are at or near zero. According to those who know about these things, i am told 'tis the testosterone in men AND women that tends to govern sex drive. No testosterone, no sex drive. Now...let's re-read the CJIA s63 again. Ah yes. its an offence to possess material produced for sexual purposes. But if i am immune from sexual purposes, does that mean i can now browse with impunity? Intriguing thought... jane xx Personal: http://janefae.wordpress.com | |
| 26 Feb 11, 12:25 PM doulos UK(SW), 7 yrs  |
On the ex porn front, not really (and not just because sex drive is more. Complicated than that). Leaving aside that someone with no testosterone at all could also be in for rather a rocky ride on some other physical side effects, the question is what the images are being produced for, not why they are being accessed after they have been made. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken | |
| 26 Feb 11, 12:32 PM emark UK, 9 yrs |
What if they were home made, or images extracted from a BBFC film? Though I suspect it still wouldn't necessarily help - the law isn't what they were produced for, it's what it appears they were produced for, based on looking at the image (or if relevant, the context in a series of images in which it was found). I can imagine the prosection arguing: if it looks like porn, it's porn, even if you know otherwise it wasn't. | |
| 26 Feb 11, 12:38 PM Vareox UK, 2 yrs  |
Does the fact that you personally have no sexual urges mean that the material was not produced for that purpose. Does the fact that I don't like apples mean that apples are not an edible fruit. Your own sexual drive has no bearing at all on the nature of the material and its intent ro your possesion of it.
| |
| 26 Feb 11, 7:00 PM Cagoulion UK, 7 yrs |
I remember this part of the law was thrown in at the last minute and I thought it a very poor attempt to re-criminalise cottaging. It seemed to be intended to extend the offence (there is a similar phrase in the Scottish legislation) to catch couples who have sex in public places. You can have sex just don't have it in a toilet, not even if there isn't a witness. I noticed it immediately at the time but I haven't heard of any cases brought using the clause but it deosn't mean it wasn't passed into law. | |
| 27 Feb 11, 9:36 AM SirOpenSource UK(E), 6 yrs    |
[That reasonableness test can be a bugger] SOS xx
The Titter group - for when you don't feel too serious. Edited 27 Feb 11, 9:37 AM by SirOpenSource | |
| 27 Feb 11, 10:17 AM MisstressvsSolicedog UK(NN), 17 mths |
offence to possess material produced for sexual purposes, ah well best cut me testies off dammit i was attached to them, whoops there go's mister willy, stroof, dunt yer just luv law
Please excuse crap spelling cause i,m rubbish | |
| 27 Feb 11, 10:37 AM fullysub UK(LE), 2 yrs |
I hereby announce that I intent, at some time over the next month, to suck a bloke off in a public toilet somewhere. He doesn't need to be good looking as I won't be paying attention to his face. No, sorry, that's wrong - the Councils are closing all the public loos. I wonder... could they have an ulterior motive? | |
| 27 Feb 11, 10:41 AM Ianneil UK(N), 5 yrs |
If your porn is painted by Caravaggio its OK. If its done in the style of Hungarian porn its not. If its images of sadistic mutilation and torture carried out over hours eventually leading to death in the style of a de Vinci snuff fresco that is OK. (Stations of the Cross) A naked woman having the same done to her directed by Ben Dover is not.
| |
| 27 Feb 11, 11:12 AM Vareox UK, 2 yrs |
The testosterone levels are totally irrelevent, the legislation is interested in the intent of production and the fact of possession.
| |
| 4 Mar 11, 12:06 AM Black0rchid UK, 2 yrs |
But, does he actually come from Dover or is he using poetic licence? Az me shloft mit hint, shtayt men oyf mit flay :
or,
Quien con perros se acuesta, con pulgas se levanta. |
