quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

The Bill proposed to outlaw images showing serious injury or the danger of serious injury - serious injury is the description used for grievious bodily harm (GBH) charges and legal proceedings and constitutes something far more than anything that most would regard as "safe" as per SSC.

Well bang goes just about every adventure and war film

The Bill proposed to outlaw images only concerning certain parts of the body - anus, breasts and genitals. This despite its origin being in the case of a man who supposedly strangled a woman after viewing supposedly erotic pornography concerned with such act.

Well I guess there's nothing new under the sun in regards to the British culture police.


The Bill proposed to outlaw images only if they were pornographic in intent.

So, unless the Act was totally different, the images banned would have to be
a) pornographic, and
b) of breasts, anus or genitals, and
c) depict breasts, anus or genitals being subjected to or having been subjected to serious injury as defined by grievious bodily harm - ie, something more than a tap (common assault), something more than most of us consider "safe" (actual bodily harm/ABH - which is the most that most of us could be charged with)

This is a case of do as I say, not as I do. We all know that half of the house of Commons and half the judiciary are into buggery, spanking and breast torture.