Porn ban

[pencil shavings]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm

"Pornographic material which depicts necrophilia, bestiality or violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals has no place in a modern society and should not be tolerated," says a spokeswoman for the ministry.

Ive just written an essay on porn and free expression, and I cant stand the gov. getting involved in our private lives.

[the_lone_wolf]

Ive just written an essay on porn and free expression, and I cant stand the gov. getting involved in our private lives.
Damn, i did physics at university, wrong choice it seems;)

but yeah, thought police are on the case:rolleyes:

[SoulKiss]

Taken out of context, that scene in Casino Royale involving a chair with the seat removed and the knotted rope could land you in prison for 3 years if this bill passes........

[Warthog]

Utterly ridiculous! The comments afterwards are bang on too:

"If owning material that contains "An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life" becomes illegal, then almost every film I own will be illegal. Even if the violence must be in a sex scene I can think of several mainstream films this would include. Basic instinct and Goldeneye to name two."

"Speaking as a psychologist who has taught for nearly 10 years the alleged links between violent media and aggression, I think we need to take a step back here. Despite popular assumptions that watching violent images 'causes' aggression, the evidence (around 1000 published studies) that it does is contradictory and far from conclusive. It is one thing to say that a deeply disturbed and dangerous person may seek out violent pornography to fulfil their deviant fantasies: however it is an entirely different matter to say that normal, well adjusted people will be inspired to commit violent crimes if they watch such images. If we wish to avoid such tragedies happening again, we should take a wider look at how people become so disturbed that they lose the ability to judge right from wrong and commit such atrocities. A debate over whether such pornography is banned or not is therefore a side issue as it does not adequately address this matter."

I hate this kind of stuff, there is no freedom anymore.

[gettin2dizzy]

I hate the Government getting involved and banning things, but I have to say I won't be fighting to stop this being passed.

[G]

Each to their own, I cant say I'm a fan of getting intimate with animals, dead people, nearly dead people......or being strangled, stabbed, suffocated and poo'ed on (not all the time anyway) but why should me not liking it stop other people doing it out of sight of other.

[Camel]

Interesting quotoe from the story:

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

The answer is definately "yes", if you want to stop alcoholism.

If (and note the "if") material that is produced encourages 1 man to commit 1 serious crime, then should the material be banned?

I would say yes, but then again, I don't want to watch hardcore violence of any kind.

[Warthog]

Interesting quotoe from the story:

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

The answer is definately "yes", if you want to stop alcoholism.

If (and note the "if") material that is produced encourages 1 man to commit 1 serious crime, then should the material be banned?

I would say yes, but then again, I don't want to watch hardcore violence of any kind.

What, restrict 60 million people's freedom to stop one death? One death that might well not have been caused by violent porn anyway?? Why not just lock up everyone in the whole world and then noone can commit any murders?

[Girth]

Taken out of context, that scene in Casino Royale involving a chair with the seat removed and the knotted rope could land you in prison for 3 years if this bill passes........

....and is also the best part of the film!

[Warthog]

....and is also the best part of the film!

I dunno, it made me cringe! :-?

[gettin2dizzy]

Having now read the story (probably vital before passing comment;)) ..

As it's already illegal to 'do' any of those acts, I think it is ridiculous they should say portraying it is illegal; only because those laws WILL be abused. Personally I couldn't watch porn with animals and stiffs (;)), tbh I think anyone who does needs their head looking at! It's just weird.


Supported by her local MP, Martin Salter, she found a listening ear in then home secretary, David Blunkett, who agreed to introduce legislation to ban the possession of "violent and extreme pornography".


oh...A blind man banning porn....now it makes sense ;)

[Camel]

Interesting quotoe from the story:

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

The answer is definately "yes", if you want to stop alcoholism.

If (and note the "if") material that is produced encourages 1 man to commit 1 serious crime, then should the material be banned?

I would say yes, but then again, I don't want to watch hardcore violence of any kind.

What, restrict 60 million people's freedom to stop one death? One death that might well not have been caused by violent porn anyway?? Why not just lock up everyone in the whole world and then noone can commit any murders?

I even asked you to note the "if"!

And yeah, personally, I wouldn't want it on my concience.

[SoulKiss]

Oh and dont forget that you would need to bin your copy of Pulp Fiction as well

[missyburd]

Taken out of context, that scene in Casino Royale involving a chair with the seat removed and the knotted rope could land you in prison for 3 years if this bill passes........

Aargh that didn't half make me cringe, felt for the bloke despite not knowing what it feels like.....painful I should imagine :p

[Warthog]

I noticed the "if", but you did ask whether it should be banned and I gave you my opinion ;)

[Warthog]

Having now read the story (probably vital before passing comment;)) ..

As it's already illegal to 'do' any of those acts, I think it is ridiculous they should say portraying it is illegal; only because those laws WILL be abused. Personally I couldn't watch porn with animals and stiffs (;)), tbh I think anyone who does needs their head looking at! It's just weird.



oh...A blind man banning porn....now it makes sense ;)

The key here is that it is NOT illegal to do these acts, its not just bestiality and necrophilia they are talking about. It is more concerned with snuff films and violent porn, which most of is done by consenting adults acting it. Ergo as you will have noticed seeing as you said you read the article (;)) that it would render the act legal, but the possision of photographs of the act illegal!

[pencil shavings]

The key here is that it is NOT illegal to do these acts, its not just bestiality and necrophilia they are talking about. It is more concerned with snuff films and violent porn, which most of is done by consenting adults acting it. Ergo as you will have noticed seeing as you said you read the article (;)) that it would render the act legal, but the possision of photographs of the act illegal!

Yep, the key is acting. And just say if my other half (im single so this is sooooo not me im talking about ;)) wanted to engage in a rape fantasy, that would be illegal.

I am very liberal, believe in Mill's harm principle. Clicky for harm principle if you dont know it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle)

Damn, i did physics at university, wrong choice it seems;)

but yeah, thought police are on the case:rolleyes:

you did, and they are :p

I only read 1984 about 2years go, great book about though police, almost phophetic with its modern relevance, great read if you havent.

[SoulKiss]

I only read 1984 about 2years go, great book about though police, almost phophetic with its modern relevance, great read if you havent.

It was equally prophetic 20 years ago when I did it at school

[Lozzo]

I cant say I'm a fan of getting intimate with animals, dead people, nearly dead people......or being strangled, stabbed, suffocated and poo'ed on

What?

You're weird!

[SoulKiss]

What?

You're weird!

No more of thos flogging a dead horse vids for you then Lozzo

[jambo]

Interesting quotoe from the story:

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

The answer is definately "yes", if you want to stop alcoholism.

If (and note the "if") material that is produced encourages 1 man to commit 1 serious crime, then should the material be banned?

I would say yes, but then again, I don't want to watch hardcore violence of any kind.

I think we all need to be careful when making sweeping "won't somone please think of the childeren!?" comments.

People die every year riding bikes, if they're banned the problem goes away doesn't it. Gotta be worth it too, these fools need saving from themselves....

And yes I did note "Quote from the article" rather than you saying this was your own personal view.;)

Jambo

[Camel]

My point was intended to play devils advocate, and my final comment was also put in to really pass comment on society in general - if it doesn't affect you personnaly, then the "I'm alright Jack" attitude tends to surface.

Biking and being murdered are very different though, (that the person being murdered has no choice in the matter), but I see your point. How far does / should the nanny state go?

I am sure if I said that the murdered girl should have lerarned karate or something, then everyone would also be up in arms!

I am all for freedon of personal choice, and I don't like the nanny state we are living in as much as the next person. But what if someones life could be saved? Is it worth banning extreme material? Even for just one life? That was the point I was making, although I fear I am not possible expressing myself to well today. :(

[pencil shavings]

I am all for freedon of personal choice, and I don't like the nanny state we are living in as much as the next person. But what if someones life could be saved? Is it worth banning extreme material? Even for just one life? That was the point I was making, although I fear I am not possible expressing myself to well today. :(

I feel your point might be contradictory, maybe ive miss interpreted it. You cant have freedom and protection of the individual, they are mutually exclusive if you are talking about only 1 life.

I should be able to take what ever drugs I want, then go for a sky jump, if i feel fit. none of my actions will have a direct effect on anyone. But the 'nanny state' state interfears in an attempt to preseve my life. But I argue, that the state does not have a right to interfear in this.

[Camel]

I feel your point might be contradictory, maybe ive miss interpreted it. You cant have freedom and protection of the individual, they are mutually exclusive if you are talking about only 1 life.

I should be able to take what ever drugs I want, then go for a sky jump, if i feel fit. none of my actions will have a direct effect on anyone. But the 'nanny state' state interfears in an attempt to preseve my life. But I argue, that the state does not have a right to interfear in this.

I am talking about someone ending another life, not ending your own, through your own actions, if you see what I mean.

[pencil shavings]

I am talking about someone ending another life, not ending your own, through your own actions, if you see what I mean.

ah right sure. I doubt there would be anyone who would argue against legislation preventing you killing another. But there is already this legislation in place and has been for many years.
But back the porn, the new law aims to make it illegal for concenting actors to protray killing and rape and other acts of harm. which IMO has got nothing to do with government. If it was real rape and real killing, then there are already laws in place to deal with it.

[SoulKiss]

Just more evidence that UK.GOV has been reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand


Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . ."We've waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted."
"You seem to be pleased about it."
"Don't I have good reason to be?"
"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
"Well, what do you think they're for?"
Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

[pencil shavings]

Just more evidence that UK.GOV has been reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

Why have I not heard of this book!! :confused: I know what Im getting after my exams!! :cool:

You raise a valid point though SoulKiss, government cant rule without fear. Without telling the people to be afaid of the monsters in the dark.

But i get tired of preching to the unconcerned and ranting to the converted :-|

[yorkie_chris]

It is one thing to say that a deeply disturbed and dangerous person may seek out violent pornography to fulfil their deviant fantasies:

Hmmm, so no "extreme porn" and they'd have to look elsewhere for the "fulfillment" of their fantasies... like actually killing people.

Obviously watching paid, consenting actors is much, much worse.



P.s soulkiss hit the nail on the head, and comrades blair and brown have been doing a pretty fkin good job of creating USSR v.2.0

[sv-robo]

Each to their own, I cant say I'm a fan of getting intimate with animals, dead people, nearly dead people......or being strangled, stabbed, suffocated and poo'ed on (not all the time anyway) .
PMS:lol:

[thedonal]

Damn.

That's me with a lot more time on my hands then. Er.

I'd best cancel my subscription to the binternet.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Just more evidence that UK.GOV has been reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

Great quote.

You can certainly draw parallels with what the government are doing. The all encompassing 'anti-terror' laws spring to mind.

[rick0361]

Banning and outlawing things just because a certain minority "believes" it to be casuing harm will do no more

than drive it underground
Make it harder to "police"
Make a small number of people very rich and then give them the ability to influence the political and social circles who feel above the law and can afford to flout itAn excellent example of this is the prohibition era in America and all that it gave them - Organised crime, social inequality and corruption to the heart of the society. If you want that then ban it. Otherwise come up with a more sensible and measured way of tackling it and dealing with its "influence".
Be a grown up not a nanny!

Rant over for today!!

[northwind]

People die every year riding bikes, if they're banned the problem goes away doesn't it. Gotta be worth it too, these fools need saving from themselves....


Someone was bound to say it, I just assumed it'd be Soulkiss :D

The vagueness of the law is a worry... Who defines violence or extremity? Is a smack on the bottom violent or extreme? For some people it would be, for others it'd be incredibly tame. Who decides? Hair pulling? Same. Breathplay? Waxplay? Getting trickier. As ever it's a sliding scale, but any law that's this bad about definitions is wide open for abuse. (so to speak)

And as someone else pointed out, they're talking about making it illegal to possess images of perfectly legal acts. That's obviously insane.

[dizzyblonde]

so what they going to ban next....making babies?

[Lozzo]

so what they going to ban next....making babies?

From what little porn I've watched, they always seem to be in the wrong area or stop short of finishing the act in anywhere that might end up in a pregnancy.

[SoulKiss]

Hair pulling? Same. Breathplay? Waxplay?

I must get a copy of your firefox bookmarks and/or your browser history........

:)

[tomjones2]

A bit of topic but Gordon was on about this "new" "fatal" type of weed called skunk today which should be banned because its destroying society........I think the prime minster should have a little more to worry about than porn and weed from looking at the current issues facing the country.

Although I have backed labour for ages it seems there time is up, brown isnt a leader and the current policies seem more about grabbing headlines that sorting anything out on a long term basis

[yorkie_chris]

Although I have backed labour for ages it seems there time is up, brown isnt a leader and the current policies seem more about grabbing headlines that sorting anything out on a long term basis

More like grabbing power IMO

[Razor]

I'd rather do it than watch it anyway, will they ban us from having extreme sex?
I do hope so, that last visit to the A&E with the beer bottle was quite embarrassing...

[yorkie_chris]

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/now-hes-gonna-do-things-to-her-GASP.png

Now illegal... I'm sure they'll be locking me up soon...

[missyburd]

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/now-hes-gonna-do-things-to-her-GASP.png

Now illegal... I'm sure they'll be locking me up soon...

Ah so that's why I wake up with a headache in the morn :rolleyes:

[yorkie_chris]

Nah it's rohypnol that gives headaches, why do you think that I don't mind doing the cooking? :p

[Balky001]

has the Gov't really turned in to the Mary Whitehouse fan club? They are obviously trying to appeal so someone with this 'law' but who? Have they just raised the tax on soft porn and need more users or is the WI threatening to turn to the LibDems?? :-)

It must be difficult of MPs to vote this is given many of them have colourful activities themselves.

Any erosion of freedom and choice should not be accepted lightly by the public, whether you feel strongly for the subject or not. The bigger picture is people being taken to court for possesing pictures of a scene acted out whilst the courts and prisons are inundated with processing violent and anti-social crimes. Creating criminals for these offences dilutes the seriousness of worse crimes.

[dirtydog]

Nah it's rohypnol that gives headaches, why do you think that I don't mind doing the cooking? :p



:smt044:smt044:smt044:smt044

[Flamin_Squirrel]

And as someone else pointed out, they're talking about making it illegal to possess images of perfectly legal acts. That's obviously insane.

That's already the case in some respects. I do remember hearing of a young man being dragged into court for having a 17 year old girlfriend - not because he was sleeping with her, that was fine - but because he had naked pics of her.

[yorkie_chris]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/

Bump.

[Mr Speirs]

As stated on another thread I love the headline:

Extreme Porn Law Goes Live... Are you ready??? Hahaha

[SoulKiss]

That's already the case in some respects. I do remember hearing of a young man being dragged into court for having a 17 year old girlfriend - not because he was sleeping with her, that was fine - but because he had naked pics of her.

Its the way the "penalties" stack up thats so wrong.

If Bear gets caught with his GF Flossy the sheep thats 2 months in prison.

If Hovis gets caught with a picture of Bear and Flossy getting it on, he gets 2 years.

WTF?

[yorkie_chris]

When they are making laws like this, how do they expect people to have any respect for any law?

[missyburd]

Wonder if it was a mainly female panel who passed the law :-P

[yorkie_chris]

Wonder if it was a mainly female panel who passed the law :-P

Probably a fat and ugly female panel who got all ****y because noone wanted to spank them.

[Ceri JC]

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence,"

+1.
Anyone else think this is a bat***k-insane piece of legislation? ;)

[SoulKiss]

bat***k-insane

Isnt that illegal too under this act?

[carty]

Taken out of context, that scene in Casino Royale involving a chair with the seat removed and the knotted rope could land you in prison for 3 years if this bill passes........

Why? That was not supposed to be a 'sex scene' - that was a method of torture to get a man to speak? If he'd willingly sat down in the chair and asked for it whilst appearing sexually aroused then I could understand where you're coming from? :confused:

[yorkie_chris]

But the porn they're supposedly on about is not meant to appear consensual, as I understand it.

[carty]

The article says the following will be illegal;


An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal
Can anyone on here honestly say that the depiction of these things should remain legal? What is a good reason to allow these things to continue? Why would people want to watch these things?

[carty]

But the porn they're supposedly on about is not meant to appear consensual, as I understand it.

Ok, so they're actors - they make it appear non-consensual, but presumably they are agreeing to being filmed and they have a fair idea what they're getting themselves into?

[carty]

Who decides? Hair pulling? Same. Breathplay? Waxplay? Getting trickier.

Hair pulling and Waxplay don't take much imagination but I can't imagine what 'Breathplay' is? Do I want to know?! :smt104

[yorkie_chris]

Some people get off on breath play, it "appears" to threaten a persons life despite the fact that some ladies find it entertaining.

Once again, perfectly legal in the bedroom with a consenting partner, but illegal to watch?


It's the definition (or lack of) that is the problem. Define serious injury if you will?

Making necro-porn illegal... fine, that's pretty sick. Making images of actual rape illegal, fine. But may I point out that both these acts were illegal in the first instance!


I'm of the mind that if 2 people consent to do something of their own free will, and other people want to watch... then crack on. It's noone elses business if someone gets off on watching simulated rape covered in ketchup while breathing through a stick of celery.

[yorkie_chris]

Ok, so they're actors - they make it appear non-consensual, but presumably they are agreeing to being filmed and they have a fair idea what they're getting themselves into?

One would hope so. Although the fact that you see models returning to certain websites for another go must say something about it...

Hair pulling and Waxplay don't take much imagination but I can't imagine what 'Breathplay' is? Do I want to know?! :smt104

google it :-P

[SoulKiss]

The article says the following will be illegal;


An act which threatens or appears to threaten a person's life
An act which results in or appears to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal

Can anyone on here honestly say that the depiction of these things should remain legal? What is a good reason to allow these things to continue? Why would people want to watch these things?

Its called freedom and the right for an individual to make choices based on their own values, not those imposed upon them.

The main thing that bothers me is that possesion of images of the above carries a stiffer (ooo-er missus) penalty than actually doing it, which even if you think that non of the above should be legal to possess images of, SHOULD worry you.

Its like bringing a law in saying that there is no change to the penalties for speeding, (3pts, fine etc) but if you have a youtube clip of someone speeding you can go to prison.

Thats whats intrinsically wrong.

Personally what 2 (or more) people want to do in private (or with a consenting audience) is up to those involved, NOT the government, and if they, want to record it in pictures or on video, then thats fine with me.

[yorkie_chris]

Its called freedom and the right for an individual to make choices based on their own values, not those imposed upon them.

That seems to be totally alien to society at the moment.

First they came.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

[carty]

Personally what 2 (or more) people want to do in private (or with a consenting audience) is up to those involved, NOT the government, and if they, want to record it in pictures or on video, then thats fine with me.

I agree, that what people do in private; and if they want to photo it / video it for their own personal viewing, then fine - but I think the dissemination of it is the problem. You can't stop people from shag*ing corpses, but I think it's perfectly understandable that the government want to ban the distribution of media depicting it. Same with any of the other 'extreme' acts that they mention in the BBC article.

I took Chris's advice and googled 'breathplay' and agree that it sounds potentially life threatening if taken too far - whereas the other things mentioned by Northwind, (hair pulling and waxplay) don't, so I wouldn't class those as extreme.

I know what people are saying, that they don't like the government controlling what people can and can't watch, but to me, the introduction of this act is an attempt to stop people / animals from actually being harmed during the making of 'pornography'. You could argue no-one gets harmed from someone 'having intercourse with a corpse' but I'm sure it would upset some people if they watched it and found it was their late Nan in the video.

Cheers,
Matt

[carty]

Oh, 'Breathplay' in google obviously comes up with several different uses for the term. Whilst I found what I assumed to be the correct meaning in this context, I found that it is also a is a 'kinesthetic training technique developed by cycling coach Ian Jackson for use by competative bicycle racers'. I presumed this wasn't what Northy meant so I chose the other meaning 'Erotic asphyxiation'.

[Daimo]

I find it amusing how someone giving someone some ral hard assed anal sex can be put in prison.

Meanwhile, Mr Film director has just shot his latest movie about an axe weilding gun toating maniac who likes to remove the skin of his victims to feed to his pet pidgeon.... (or whatever, most grusem horror films).

That stuffs ok though yeah????

go figure :lol:

Honestly, UK, i know everyone sprouts its getting worse and worse, but truley, it really is.

We now live in a dictatorship. Its just dictated by a whole room full of people instead of 1 singular person........

[SoulKiss]

[quote=cartwrim;1764843 so I wouldn't class those as extreme.[/quote]

There are no hard and fast definitions of what is extreme.

So depending on who is dealing with your case you could be dealt with differently.

EG I was watching something on channel 4 the other Friday and they showed a clip of some suitably censored for the UK TV Market, "Midget Zombie Porn".

Ok so its a simulated corpse, and animates at that, but its still portraying someone thats mortally challenged.

Not saying I am right or wrong, but I would rather it was Northwind, with his list of activities judging if my porn is Extreme or not than you.

[Daimo]

I know what people are saying, that they don't like the government controlling what people can and can't watch, but to me, the introduction of this act is an attempt to stop people / animals from actually being harmed during the making of 'pornography'. You could argue no-one gets harmed from someone 'having intercourse with a corpse' but I'm sure it would upset some people if they watched it and found it was their late Nan in the video.

Cheers,
Matt

Then is the question really about the material being available, or the simple ethics of the person watching someone shagging a stiff?

If it was their late nan, it would be hilarious.

Now wheres my scottish nan who wasn't voted in power, oh or do I mean Labour and Gorden Brown?

[Ceri JC]

There are no hard and fast definitions of what is extreme.


You won't be allowed "hard and fast" anything if they pass this law. ;)

[northwind]

Hair pulling and Waxplay don't take much imagination but I can't imagine what 'Breathplay' is? Do I want to know?! :smt104

Don't google it, you mught get 2 years :mrgreen:

[carty]

I find it amusing how someone giving someone some ral hard assed anal sex can be put in prison........

I'm not sure the new law makes that the case, but if it did I would guess because it is real, whereas the films you describe are fake - ie, 'no-one was harmed during the making of this movie'

[SoulKiss]

I'm not sure the new law makes that the case, but if it did I would guess because it is real, whereas the films you describe are fake - ie, 'no-one was harmed during the making of this movie'

Faked is banned.

[SoulKiss]

You won't be allowed "hard and fast" anything if they pass this law. ;)

What do you mean "if"

Its already in force.

[carty]

Faked is banned.

Soulkiss, I presume you're referring to faked material being banned under the new law? I was talking about how horror films where people get fed to pigeons etc, as per Daimo's example, are faked, as opposed to the real damaging of someone's anus through hardcore derriere action. I'm trying to keep this U rated but I think failing somewhat! :smt083

[the_lone_wolf]

First they came.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

Unintentional pun FTW

:rolleyes::mrgreen:

[missyburd]

Unintentional pun FTW

:rolleyes::mrgreen:
Phew not just me then!

[embee]

Most new laws seem to be so badly drafted that they should be in essence un-enforcable. Unfortunately this just leads to the laws being applied in totally inappropriate cases, we all know glaring examples of this.

This government has passed more new laws in the last 10years than all the previous ones did in the preceding 100yrs. The judiciary have complained that they cannot keep up with it all. It is in the misguided belief that the way to stop people doing things is to make it illegal, just like it stops people stealing, robbing, murdering, speeding etc etc. All that more laws achieves is to create more offences resulting in more people committing offences and ending up with records. The government do it purely because they think it makes it looks like they are "doing something".

I have nothing but respect for the law, and precious little of that.

[SoulKiss]

Most new laws seem to be so badly drafted that they should be in essence un-enforcable. Unfortunately this just leads to the laws being applied in totally inappropriate cases, we all know glaring examples of this.

This government has passed more new laws in the last 10years than all the previous ones did in the preceding 100yrs. The judiciary have complained that they cannot keep up with it all. It is in the misguided belief that the way to stop people doing things is to make it illegal, just like it stops people stealing, robbing, murdering, speeding etc etc. All that more laws achieves is to create more offences resulting in more people committing offences and ending up with records. The government do it purely because they think it makes it looks like they are "doing something".

I have nothing but respect for the law, and precious little of that.

If I may refer everyone back to post #26 of this thread (http://forums.sv650.org/showpost.php?p=1494245&postcount=26)

Just more evidence that UK.GOV has been reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand[/b]]
Dr. Ferris smiled. . . . . ."We've waited a long time to get something on you. You honest men are such a problem and such a headache. But we knew you'd slip sooner or later - and this is just what we wanted."
"You seem to be pleased about it."
"Don't I have good reason to be?"
"But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
"Well, what do you think they're for?"
Dr. Ferris did not notice the sudden look on Rearden's face, the look of a man hit by the first vision of that which he had sought to see. Dr. Ferris was past the stage of seeing; he was intent upon delivering the last blows to an animal caught in a trap.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

[pencil shavings]

That seems to be totally alien to society at the moment.

First they came.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)

I like that alot, never heard it before

[Stu]

Its like bringing a law in saying that there is no change to the penalties for speeding, (3pts, fine etc) but if you have a youtube clip of someone speeding you can go to prison.
.
I like the sound of that a lot! Means all those cops with video equipment better watch out before they're in trouble! :D

[yorkie_chris]

Unintentional pun FTW

:rolleyes::mrgreen:

un? :mrgreen:

[anna]

Most of my points on this have already been raised.

Yet another law that cannnot be upheld in any practical way, and is clearly open to abuse.

The people who are most (psychologically talking here) open to the extreme sexual fantasy plays, are people in high powered jobs. They crave dominance in their sexual lives, as they don’t get it that balance in day to day normality.

This means that you are just making a whole load of problems, and opening up another avenue of corruption. i.e., the power then to blackmail these people!

There is NO scientific link between watching these "faked" activities and committing them. It´s a bit like saying we will ban the work "kill", because it is subconciously suggestive!:rolleyes:

[Tim in Belgium]

I haven't read all the discussion but,

Damn, no more sh@g91ng a dead cow up the anu$ whilst hanging on to its udders for dear life and photographing it for financial reward. What will I do with my weekends now? Time to get a new hobby.







PS If this is already illegal I've already stopped doing it.