2 Jul 11, 12:46 AM
mq1965
UK(DA), 8 yrs
 |
kitiara wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
kitiara wrote:
ladybabe2 wrote:
Without the help of BDSM activists this person would be struggling for help and advice but thanks to caan and backlash the person now has help and guidance and hopefully it will not proceed to an actual court hearing...
|
Can I just reply to this...I am sure that any 'good' defence solicitor would have givin just as good advice and managed to achieve the same outcome; if not better.
|
Sadly probably not. Most lawyers, on both defence and prosecution sides, actually have very little awareness of the issues, especially on extreme pornography. Nor do the police. Check some of the stories that have been referred to on the boards by CAAN and Jane Fae, and you'll see quite a few examples of people who have received bad advice from normal defence solicitors and been rescued by the specialist advice from CAAN and their specialist legal team.
|
My husband is a criminal defence lawyer, and (to say again) he worked on the defence in R v's Brown. (I can't go into other cases he has worked on or is working on as that would be unprofessional and agaisnt client confedentiality, of course, but he knows of the issues.)
I also know quite a few criminal defence lawyers who are mostly to do with fighting for justice and improving our laws.
Therefore, I would disagree with what you have just said.
|
I said most lawyers, not all. I don't know your husband (as far as I know) and he may well have good knowledge of the issues - I have no reason to doubt you about that.
I do know plenty of criminal lawyers. The large majority have never come across the law on extreme pornography, or even heard of it. They will also probably never have dealt with a case involving consent as defence in a case of sexually motivated assaults. They may (or may not, depending on their age) have come across Brown in their training, but will have little call to remember it.
The fact is that while they may well be very good lawyers who can give very good advice on the crimes they deal with day in and day out, these sorts of things (thank goodness) very rarely come before them. As with any unusual area of law you will get much better advice from a specialist than an ordinary defence lawyer, no matter how well motivated that lawyer is.
It is really only the same as saying that your GP may be very good at dealing with your runny nose, but you'd probably be better off seeing a specialist for your difficult brain tumour - and that is no slight on your GP. |
2 Jul 11, 12:50 AM
DarwenSpirit
UK(BL), 18 mths
|
mq1965 wrote:
It may not be hard to grasp, but does that mean we have to accept it and agree with it?
|
It's variable. A high profile politician ranting about how disgusting BDSM is whilst privately indulging in it has no right to privacy at all in my view.
Max Mosley's orgy was not relevant to anyone and he was awarded damages for it. But it doesn't change that the tabloids thrive on seeking out such stories, it's their business strategy.
If we want the freedom to act out our fantasies, then surely the press has the freedom to probe them. It cuts both ways.
mq1965 wrote:
Unless your parents had a very bizarre sense of humour I suspect that finding you as DarwenSpirit isn't that much of a breach of your privacy.
So why isn't your profile under your real name? There may be plenty of reasons, but one might be - and will be for plenty of people on here - because you can't afford to have people find out about your sex life. Were you on Gaydar, or a simple dating site, you might still hide your name because you don't want your sex life to be known to other people, but you wouldn't have to worry about being sacked.
Do you think that is a good thing or a bad thing? If a bad thing, do you think anyone should do anything about it?
|
I have no qualms in people using, and addressing me by my real name: it's Bryn.
My family know what I get up to, their only concern is that I am careful and safe.
My employers would have zero interest in my home life, although several of my colleagues know what I get up to and don't care either because a few of them are at it too.
I work in local government.
I have no issue with people campaigning for BDSM to be exempt from the OAPA 1861, and the extreme pornography laws are so badly drafted that they should be repealed for their blatant stupidity above all else.
What I have issues with is people using activism as a means of forcing our way of kinks into the 'mainstream' as if to say "OK, you've not liked this for long enough, now you have to accept it and we're going to make sure you do".
The line between campaigning for a greater awareness of consensual acts being just that, and campaigning to force our views on others is very fine and easily blurred. Regards,
~DarwenSpirit
|
2 Jul 11, 1:05 AM
Perplexion
13 mths |
mq1965 wrote:
kitiara wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
kitiara wrote:
ladybabe2 wrote:
Without the help of BDSM activists this person would be struggling for help and advice but thanks to caan and backlash the person now has help and guidance and hopefully it will not proceed to an actual court hearing...
|
Can I just reply to this...I am sure that any 'good' defence solicitor would have givin just as good advice and managed to achieve the same outcome; if not better.
|
Sadly probably not. Most lawyers, on both defence and prosecution sides, actually have very little awareness of the issues, especially on extreme pornography. Nor do the police. Check some of the stories that have been referred to on the boards by CAAN and Jane Fae, and you'll see quite a few examples of people who have received bad advice from normal defence solicitors and been rescued by the specialist advice from CAAN and their specialist legal team.
|
My husband is a criminal defence lawyer, and (to say again) he worked on the defence in R v's Brown. (I can't go into other cases he has worked on or is working on as that would be unprofessional and agaisnt client confedentiality, of course, but he knows of the issues.)
I also know quite a few criminal defence lawyers who are mostly to do with fighting for justice and improving our laws.
Therefore, I would disagree with what you have just said.
|
I said most lawyers, not all. I don't know your husband (as far as I know) and he may well have good knowledge of the issues - I have no reason to doubt you about that.
I do know plenty of criminal lawyers. The large majority have never come across the law on extreme pornography, or even heard of it. They will also probably never have dealt with a case involving consent as defence in a case of sexually motivated assaults. They may (or may not, depending on their age) have come across Brown in their training, but will have little call to remember it.
The fact is that while they may well be very good lawyers who can give very good advice on the crimes they deal with day in and day out, these sorts of things (thank goodness) very rarely come before them. As with any unusual area of law you will get much better advice from a specialist than an ordinary defence lawyer, no matter how well motivated that lawyer is.
It is really only the same as saying that your GP may be very good at dealing with your runny nose, but you'd probably be better off seeing a specialist for your difficult brain tumour - and that is no slight on your GP.
|
The GP is the one who you need to see before being referred to the specialist for a tumour. A solicitor is the person you see who may employ a barrister but who will look into the relevant law and cases or re-direct you. Not all solicitors who do defence are specialists in criminal law and those who are are the ones who can help with traffic violations but may not be the best at more complex cases. Fewer and fewer solicitors can now do legal aid work, however, and none of them are supposed to offer the friendship support that CAAN provides. We need decent solicitors and we also need CAAN. |
2 Jul 11, 1:16 AM
kitiara
UK(WV), 8 yrs
|
Perplexion wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
kitiara wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
kitiara wrote:
ladybabe2 wrote:
Without the help of BDSM activists this person would be struggling for help and advice but thanks to caan and backlash the person now has help and guidance and hopefully it will not proceed to an actual court hearing...
|
Can I just reply to this...I am sure that any 'good' defence solicitor would have givin just as good advice and managed to achieve the same outcome; if not better.
|
Sadly probably not. Most lawyers, on both defence and prosecution sides, actually have very little awareness of the issues, especially on extreme pornography. Nor do the police. Check some of the stories that have been referred to on the boards by CAAN and Jane Fae, and you'll see quite a few examples of people who have received bad advice from normal defence solicitors and been rescued by the specialist advice from CAAN and their specialist legal team.
|
My husband is a criminal defence lawyer, and (to say again) he worked on the defence in R v's Brown. (I can't go into other cases he has worked on or is working on as that would be unprofessional and agaisnt client confedentiality, of course, but he knows of the issues.)
I also know quite a few criminal defence lawyers who are mostly to do with fighting for justice and improving our laws.
Therefore, I would disagree with what you have just said.
|
I said most lawyers, not all. I don't know your husband (as far as I know) and he may well have good knowledge of the issues - I have no reason to doubt you about that.
I do know plenty of criminal lawyers. The large majority have never come across the law on extreme pornography, or even heard of it. They will also probably never have dealt with a case involving consent as defence in a case of sexually motivated assaults. They may (or may not, depending on their age) have come across Brown in their training, but will have little call to remember it.
The fact is that while they may well be very good lawyers who can give very good advice on the crimes they deal with day in and day out, these sorts of things (thank goodness) very rarely come before them. As with any unusual area of law you will get much better advice from a specialist than an ordinary defence lawyer, no matter how well motivated that lawyer is.
It is really only the same as saying that your GP may be very good at dealing with your runny nose, but you'd probably be better off seeing a specialist for your difficult brain tumour - and that is no slight on your GP.
|
The GP is the one who you need to see before being referred to the specialist for a tumour. A solicitor is the person you see who may employ a barrister but who will look into the relevant law and cases or re-direct you. Not all solicitors who do defence are specialists in criminal law and those who are are the ones who can help with traffic violations but may not be the best at more complex cases. Fewer and fewer solicitors can now do legal aid work, however, and none of them are supposed to offer the friendship support that CAAN provides. We need decent solicitors and we also need CAAN.
|
Everyone gets free legal advice at the police station, after that if the case goes to court then it is either means tested or up to the judge to decide if you get legal aid..One of the problems for firms is that the LSC don't always pay on time or not pay all of what is billed and this may put many firms off. Also, the LSC has had big problems with idiots running it, but thats a different bug to bear. Firms have to apply to the LSC to renew various contracts.
Yes, there are specialist criminal lawyers and only so many firms that deal with appeals, judical reviews and work with the CCRC.
Therefore, you do not want a baby solicitor/advocate/barrister who has only done minor motoring offences defending you in the Old Bailey (Central Criminal Court) or the RCJ. Nice things come in small packages...but so does poison!
Edited 2 Jul 11, 1:38 AM by kitiara
|
2 Jul 11, 2:47 AM
emark
UK, 9 yrs |
DarwenSpirit wrote:
None of these circular arguments are addressing the issue that outings use BDSM as an excuse to bring a person down when the motive is dislike of a person, not the activity. |
But why is it that BDSM can "bring a person down", and not say stamp collecting or having a monogamous relationship?
| If society hated BDSM so much as some people insist, then places like Ann Summers would not be able to exist in the UK would they? |
Who insists that all of society hates BDSM, to what great extent?
I think there's also the issue of BDSM being a broad spectrum - which covers everything from mild spanking and bondage, to edgeplay and so on. It's very common - even on these forums - for people to draw a line, and say they're okay with BDSM, but actually they don't include anything too "extreme".
So we can live in a world where Spanner resulted in prison sentences, whilst Ann Summers is legal. It meant people could support the "extreme porn" law, whilst saying they had nothing against BDSM.
| For what it's worth, I outed myself and no-one cares. Which brings us nicely back to the fact these things are done because of personal grudges and not BDSM. |
I don't think anyone is disputing the motive; that BDSM can be used against someone like this is the issue.
I'd add that if these events occur not because of an honest negative view against BDSM, but where people use the negative perception of BDSM to bring someone down - if anything, that's worse!
But just to add:
| I have no issue with people campaigning for BDSM to be exempt from the OAPA 1861, and the extreme pornography laws are so badly drafted that they should be repealed for their blatant stupidity above all else.
What I have issues with is people using activism as a means of forcing our way of kinks into the 'mainstream' as if to say "OK, you've not liked this for long enough, now you have to accept it and we're going to make sure you do". |
With the first paragraph, I really don't think there's a great deal of disagreement between us two, or anyone else you're discussing with here. My viewpoint is just as you've said in the first paragraph there, and that's pretty much my main concern as far as the law and BDSM is concerned.
But I guess I just don't see examples of what you say about forcing kinks to be mainstream - can you give examples?
I don't care if kink is mainstream or not. I would want people to "accept" it in the sense of not being intolerant; not putting up with journalists who write crap about people into BDSM; not caring what someone gets up to, thus outing someone for it has little effect - and perhaps one day that certain politicians and judges are more careful in their judgements and actions. Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement
|
2 Jul 11, 10:14 AM
fitzcaraldo
UK(BA), 6 yrs
|
Lady_Lancashire wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
fitzcaraldo wrote:
x_Pan_x wrote:
ToakReon wrote:
Because people are maliciously outed. Because people's jobs are threatenned. Because people's relationships are damaged by bigotry and prejudice.
And because the above is wrong.
|
Can you point me to some evidence of "Malicious Outing"?
Thanks.
Pan
|
Max Moseley is a classic example of someone's private BDSM activities being outed to try and ruin his professional credibility, even though it had absolutely no bearing on his career activities and those with whom he came in contact.
Is that malicious enough ?
Fitz.
|
I believe it was in the public interest.
The public enjoy titillation and that's a factor of having a free press I'm afraid.
|
This poster has previously stated that he is using the forums for research which will be revealed later and also that he is a professional writer.
|
Thank you , Lady L. I had realised there was something deeply unsettling about their stance in general and will no longer interact on any of their posts. Fitz.
Escaped from the parallel universe
|
4 Jul 11, 2:04 PM
Captain_Jack
UK(CR), 5 yrs
|
Thank you to all who contributed their opinions constructively.
My own personal opinion is that it's wrong that people who have jobs which expose them to the general public risk their livelyhood by being BDSM practitioners.
Also I think that whatever one or more consenting adults get up to which has no negative impact on another person should be legal. And no, getting your metaphorical nose out of joint is not negative impact as far as I'm concerned.
To pursue an acceptance in public opinion and in law of these two points is in my opinion grounds enough to 'bother with BDSM activism'.
There are some elements I feel less positive towards and to me are offshoots from BDSM activism.
For example... - trying to define BDSM as a "sexuality" for political purposes
- the health & safety police busy bodies who paint everything as life-threatening
- institutionalised political correctness
The list goes on, but there's no need to be exhaustive I think ...
The bottomline to me is, I suppose it can be said while these latter items annoy me, I think they stem from a genuine well-meaningness.
However, the formers (risk to career & risk of prosecution) genuinely piss me off for they are caused by maliciousness and bigotry and they are worthy goals to strive towards.
To sum it up, I think that BDSM activism is worth bothering about. I hope it is for you as well.
Your Captain Jack Edited 4 Jul 11, 2:05 PM by Captain_Jack
|
