RE: C.A.A.N UK

RE: C.A.A.N UK (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (10/21/2008 3:27:15 PM)
The protest was reported on the news tonight. And something occurred to me - if the offence is possession of images, then the best publicity stunt would be to have the TV media turn up to a protest once this law is in place - a protest consisting of people doing the acts (well, some of them), images of which are prohibited. At a stroke, all major TV channels filming are in violation of the Act. Then we'd see some action! E

LadyEllen -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/10/2008 6:31:46 AM)
Update on my efforts for anyone interested; we held an IAG meeting on Saturday where following unanimous support (now they understand this may affect them too) from all the members of the LGBT group, there is now to be a meeting scheduled with the relevant force HQ people to discuss intepretation and application of the new legislation. E

FourQ -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/12/2008 3:29:44 PM)
Not a fan of the news - I don't read the rags and don't have a TV, so I'm blissfully ignorant over this whole thing. What specifically are they trying to ban? Is it all areas of BDSM? Is it a specific area of it? This whole 'thou shalt not' scene has gained huge publicity since the fox hunting. Smacking children and the bloody smoking ban followed. Are we stealthily being converted from a democracy to a dictatorship or are these do-gooders improving the shattered remains of a once great Empire? Am I going to be able to keep photos of friends/partners being tied and spanked? Are they going to make me erase photos of my son as a baby? After all nobody gets to see them! Where is the line going to be drawn?

LadyEllen -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/13/2008 1:52:26 PM)
What is prohibited? 64 Possession of extreme pornographic images 1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image 2) An extreme pornographic image is an image which is both a) Pornographic, and b) An extreme image 3) An image is pornographic if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. 6) An extreme image is an image of any of the following- a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal Where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

delphius1 -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/15/2008 1:54:48 PM)
I sent quite a few letters to my MP about this with little result. It seems they all wanted to jump on the moral bandwagon. The problem with the law is that its so vague. The "appears to" clause covers not just images of an actual assault, but posed images too. So for example a staged hanging of a naked woman could fall foul of the law. Real consentual images are caught as well. Needles or nails in the breast? Ditto. Asphyxiation? That'll be caught too. Drowning? Check. I'd go as far as to say rough sex could be covered by this law as a jury could be convinced that a huge penis shoved roughly into a vagina could cause "lasting harm". The same goes for large toys. You'd have to employ a pretty convincing expert witness to explain why that isn't so in order to avoid conviction. I feel sorry for the guy that takes a snapshot of himself rodgering his sleeping wife... after all, how do you tell a corpse from someone sleeping? The fur fetishists out there had better make sure that they only have sex with non-realistic stuffed animals too! One other stupid clause in the law is that extreme violent images in a film passed by the British Board of Film Censorship are ok if they stay as part of the film BUT images extracted from the same film are illegal. So you can get yer rocks off by watching the film, but rip a still image of your favourite bit and you can be branded a criminal. Another point is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. For owning these images, you can be sentenced to 3 years in prison. If you publish (i.e. share with friends) violent porn, then you can be sent down for 5 years. Also you can look forward to being put on the sex offenders register. Just for owning pictures of a bloke dressed as a schoolboy with a blue painted arse with a woman stood over him holding a cane aloft. Remember, the image only needs to appear to cause harm, no actual harm has to be done at all. There are very few getout clauses unfortunately. One is to be one of the people in the picture. But that then raises the question of the legal status of the photographer who's behind the camera.... Its a bloody minefield! How on earth a normal person is to have an interest in BDSM and not come across such images is beyond me.

LadyEllen -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/15/2008 2:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: delphius1 Its a bloody minefield! How on earth a normal person is to have an interest in BDSM and not come across such images is beyond me. Yep - EVERY SINGLE UK USER OF THIS SITE is in breach of these laws. There is an advert on the first page which shows a lady in a tube or some such which fills with water, along with a message indicating its pornographic nature - clearly this threatens or appears to threaten her life. Given that this advert is now on hard drives of all UK members, all UK members have possession of a prohibited image. Regardless of whether any of us downloaded it purposely, we are all guilty. Personally I cant wait for my 3 years' sentence, for which I shall be imprisoned in the separate wing with the rapists and paedos in a male prison. I cant wait for my house to be destroyed by the locals who will be convinced I'm a paedo. And how happily I shall contemplate the loss of my small business, along with six jobs, and my offspring being taken into care what with having no home in which to live. E

delphius1 -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/15/2008 3:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Yep - EVERY SINGLE UK USER OF THIS SITE is in breach of these laws. There is an advert on the first page which shows a lady in a tube or some such which fills with water, along with a message indicating its pornographic nature - clearly this threatens or appears to threaten her life. Given that this advert is now on hard drives of all UK members, all UK members have possession of a prohibited image. Regardless of whether any of us downloaded it purposely, we are all guilty. Personally I cant wait for my 3 years' sentence, for which I shall be imprisoned in the separate wing with the rapists and paedos in a male prison. I cant wait for my house to be destroyed by the locals who will be convinced I'm a paedo. And how happily I shall contemplate the loss of my small business, along with six jobs, and my offspring being taken into care what with having no home in which to live. E Luckily, we're not illegal until January. Mind you, I've changed the settings of my browser to delete all temporary internet files when the browser closes, thus reducing the number of images I may inadvertently save to my hard drive. I'm still debating what to do with those images deliberately downloaded though! The bad news is that people have been tried in court after the Police have re-created deleted files from hard drives and used them as evidence. Basically saying that the files were deleted to destroy evidence. I agree though that some of the banner ads on collarme would fall foul of the law, as would some of the more extreme pictures put on user profiles on this and other BDSM sites. I'm saddened that those in the "non-kinky" porn industry didn't get involved in efforts to stop this law, because the relevant clauses of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act are so vague as to impinge on some of the more extreme "straight" porn too. We'll have to see how the law is applied in the New Year. The bad news is that its the way things work in the UK that someone has to go to court and have their life ruined in order to define the limits of this law. I hope they get all the support they can from those of us in the lifestyle not in the limelight.

piratecommander -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/17/2008 3:18:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen What is prohibited? 64 Possession of extreme pornographic images 1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image 2) An extreme pornographic image is an image which is both a) Pornographic, and b) An extreme image 3) An image is pornographic if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. 6) An extreme image is an image of any of the following- a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal Where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real. This could (allegedly) include inkwork too ..right ? Pirate

LadyEllen -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/17/2008 5:15:46 PM)
In theory PC - as long as it is a pornographic image (appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal - the "appears" is important here) and depicts one of the four categories of prohibited image. The chances of establishing the pornographic nature as described, in relation to a tattoo (if thats what you mean) would be low IMO however. Albeit that if someone gets aroused by seeing it..... The problem with all this isnt so much at the end of the process though (court) but the initial stages of suspicion and arrest; even if not charged your reputation would be ruined, your PC at home (and at work - getting you sacked toute suite) being seized by the police means what to the average low brows who confuse paediatricians with paedophiles? E

delphius1 -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/20/2008 12:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: piratecommander This could (allegedly) include inkwork too ..right ? Pirate The definitions say the image has to be a "realistic" depiction of extreme acts. There's no definition of whether thats a photograph, a photoshopped image a cartoon or a tattoo, just a "realistic" image. Everyone assumes that the law will only apply to photographs, but the wording is vague and doesn't specify, so I guess the answer is: don't assume anything. The fact is no-one knows what the boundaries are with regard to this law. So as usual, boundaries will be decided by who wins and who loses in court. On that basis you can't say definately whether an image is or isn't caught by the new law, frustrating as that is. Its a case of employing the best lawyer you can (tough luck if you have no money) and taking your chances on the day. MPs during debates on the bill as it passed through Parliament made various references to the types of images they thought would be caught and one assumes that Judges sitting on cases will refer to MPs statements to get a feel for the types of images that should be caught. Delphius1.

piratecommander -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/21/2008 6:21:29 PM)
I've seen some realistic imagery in ink over time,glad you agree.....no one knows how far the boundaries go with this "law".And as such this example is thought provoking,as is your response. As it stands , we may be entering the "unknown" as far as Liz's new law and its interpretation by the "judges" , I suspect that "the public interest" , "human rights" "and the "freedom of the press" may have more than a slight influence on how it is interpreted by those who "employ" it. (not that I'm suggesting in the slightest that any of those who "employ" the law would have the slightest concern about being examined by it......perish the thought.I'm not suggesting it at all.........I'm stating that,in my opinion,most would) Pirate

DarkLordDredd -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (11/22/2008 3:54:48 AM)
Found the following in the Law Society Gazette, though it does cover a case of child porn, the laws in regard to "recoverd data" will cover the CJIA 2008 when it comes into force. The article reads as follows :- The appellant (R) appealed against his conviction for 12 counts of possessing indecent photographs of children on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The police had searched R's parent's house and seized 20 floppy disks and a computer tower from R's bedroom. Eight disks contained several deleted files and two non-deleted files of images of child pornography, and two movie images. There were also three deleted files of child pornography on the computer tower. At trial, experts agreed that R would have needed specialist software to access the deleted files, which he did not appear to have. It was not possible for them to prove whether the deleted files had actually been viewed. The last time that the non-deleted files had been accessed was years before the date on the indictment. Held: (1) The convictions on the counts relating to the deleted files were unsafe as R no longer had custody or control of the images, R v Porter (Ross Warwick) [2006] EWCA Crim 560, [2006] 1 WLR 2633 applied. The original jury were not directed to consider the potential significance that the deleted files had on R's ability to have had knowledge of the images. The counts relating to the deleted images were quashed. (2) The absence of the counts relating to the deleted files made a significant change in the factual evidence, and only eight still images in non-deleted files remained. Had the jury only had that evidence to assess they might have had reservations in finding R guilty of possessing the non-deleted files. Those counts were also unsafe and were also quashed. Appeal allowed. The link is http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/law-reports/criminal-law-3 As I noted at the start of my posting this actual appeal is not related to the CJIA 2008, it now sets a legal precident when it com,es to prosecutions involving recovered data. As the new act is not retrospective, which would be illegal under the EUHR, any images that Forensic Sciences recover whoch are deleted prior to 30th January 2009 will now no longer be admissable as evidence. Hopefully, this ruling will banjax any thoughts that the police may have about knocking a few quick prosecutions off to up their clear up rates by nailing a few "pervs"! DLD

piratecommander -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (12/22/2008 12:48:42 PM)
So how does one go about joining this network ? Pirate

karibo -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (12/28/2008 10:11:08 AM)
As far as I can see this ban is mostly outlawing things which the courts already consider illegal. Because bestiality and necrophilia are already illegal, and there is legislation to prevent production I guess they feel it hasn't extended far enough and punishing the 'consumer' is just. To be honest in that respect I agree.. the law is the law. To an extent I can see the logic in it, that pictures could affirm somebody's desires for acts like that. Justify them in some way. I can even push to understand why things like necrobabes are banned, as they are realistically depicting illegal acts. Where I struggle with this is, well, for one, how exactly is this going to be enforced? According to what i've read most police forces aren't even sure what is and what isn't illegal, and are only just being briefed. The wording is a little vague, and really sounds like one of those "Jury, jury, executioner" type deals. Also I'm not sure when consensual activities became outlawed, or the recording of such. Surely a disclaimer on the front-page would pretty much state that it's consensual and that no-one was harmed in the making of, etc. I'm not entirely sure how far the law will extend and by the sounds of it, neither do the police. The other objection I have is that this is partially being pushed through under the guise of being done to "protect our children". Now.. personally, I feel that that is the parent's job, not the government's, and why should parent's shirk responsibility by claiming their children gained access to unsuitable content. Hello? Supervise your child's internet access? Seems pretty clear it's another delicious government hysteria tactic. Yummy. More Sun newspaper incited lynchings to come I presume. Apologies for the mostly incoherent rant. This really annoyed me!

piratecommander -> RE: C.A.A.N UK (1/1/2009 5:33:06 PM)
It's a typical British law , in that it's boundaries are vague until a few "test cases" destroy a few lives , then even when it's victims are succesful in establishing it's vagueness and get absolved of guilt ..... their lives can never be the same again. The intent behind this law makes sense , this law does not make sense and will not make sense until it has been changed. Pirate

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875