"dealing 'with individuals' who are 'causing concern'"

In practice that means, you can see into their brains and determine, more accurately than they can, that they are a danger to society and that you have the remedy for it, basically lock them up on a pretext to prevent a future crime you're sure will happen. They may SAY it does them no harm and they won't become violent rapists, but YOU know better, and you know BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT too.

It's effectively a pre-crime, the aim isn't to prevent you watching BDSM, it's to prevent the violent rape a minister is convinced 1 in 10000 of you will likely commit from watching that porn. In the ministers head, there is a causal link and it's better to lock up 10000 people NOW based on that belief, than to lock up the rapist later.

The crime is simply to create a pretext on which they can be locked up.

Of course that means they need evidence, but hire a few researchers, get their papers peer reviewed by their own students, make sure they have the appropriate baggage (ugly bitter women whose past papers link sex to violence, and made false claims of 'snuff videos' etc.).

In reality that means, you Mr Minister THINK you can see into people's brains, which means you're DILLUSIONAL and need to be kicked out of office before you go doing any more harm.

It's not better to lock up 10000 people just in case 1 goes on to commit an offence you hypothesized a causal link to. You are the danger to those 10000 people, you are one attacking them on a mistaken belief. In locking otherwise innocent people up, you set them on a course of crime, they have less to lose by committing further offences since they are permanently labelled a sex offender. Hence you will continue the pattern of increasing prison populations and high reoffending.

You are in essence no different than the Taliban (the Afganistan type or the US Religious Right) ignoring reality and chasing some blind faith beliefs for some benefit that can't be measured in this world.

/rant.

Once the law is in place, the Daily Mail will rush in to define extreme... anything with naked people especially if they are on their own, 2 or more, with an opposite sex partner or worst same sex one....

But I suspect that's the way it's going, pass a generic law and let the public/tabloid decide.

Sounds a bit to me like special investigation power that will never, ever, ever, (seriously, we promise) be used or abused for anything else than major national security threats (like people planning to take a can of Coke on-board a plane, or enrolling their kid at school)... but of course as long as people will just vaguely hiss and vote for an even more oppressive/authoritarian/security focused regime/party/Tories what would you expect!

Are they having trouble trying to work out what's 'bad' porn and what isn't or are they all waiting until they've all wiped their hard drives first?

Surely, they would have to prove that the image whose remains were found on your hard drive was not deleted prior to the date of the bill?

There's two distinct issues here.

Ever since the child porn definition was extended to Age-18, it's been a crime to possess pictures of lawful sexual acts. Now we're getting more of the same stupidity, another sledgehammer cracking another nut.

But the big question is how, after nearly three years of consultation and debate, we get such a vague definition. If the politicians responsible are saying "we didn't mean that", why didn't they draft the law with the meaning they wanted?

It is a shame that two sane amendments by Lord Wallace and Baroness Miller, that might have had some chance of passing - restricting it to actual sexual offences, and allowing a defence where the viewer reasonably believes the participants were willing - were not even voted on!

Regarding the amendment to limit the material to that which is obscene under the Obscene Publications Act -

"Lord Hunt, who suggested that such linkage might have the effect of widening the scope of the offense."

His response ("The amendment has the effect of opening up the offence to all obscene pornography") is complete nonsense. The amendment required that the material be obscene, in _addition_ to the other requirements (just as his "must be disgusting" amendment is in addition to the other tests). In fact, the proposed amendment directly replaced the text for his amendment about disgusting images. Was he really misunderstanding, or was he being deliberately misleading to avoid having to explain why the Government didn't support this amendment?

I find it ironic if he opposed the amendment because he didn't want the law to be widened in scope!

The Government's amendments are good in the sense that any restriction is welcomed, but they are very limited - as The Earl of Onslow stated:

"My Lords, when members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights were told that the Minister was going to move this amendment, we all said, "Yippee" or words to that effect, so I would like to thank the Minister for going as far as he has. There is a question of moving millimetres rather than metres, but one must be thankful for small mercies; on behalf of the Joint Committee, I would like to say, "Thank you for the millimetres"."

---

The Register is correct to point out that the "disgusting / offensive / obscene" test is not the Obscene Publications Act definition of obscenity, which requires that the image would "deprave or corrupt" those who viewed it. A law that decides legality based on whether the jury thinks it is "disgusting" or not is a bad law. Despite the repeated claims from the Government that the law would only criminalise material already illegal to publish under the Obscene Publications Act, the rejection of the amendment shows this to be a lie.

The defence for people in the photographs is next to useless, not including the photographer as The Register notes. An image of oneself would also be illegal to show to your partner, if he or she was not in the image! Another problem is that the defence only applies to acts that the law considers people can consent to - this is a blatant reference to the Spanner case, where consenting adult sadomasochists were convicted for consenting to harm on their own bodies. So whilst this might help for staged acts, it's next to useless for consenting sadomasochists, who will still face prison for an image of themselves.

Soon, they will be putting color designations on different scales of pornography.

Concentrate on child pornography, those who supply and sponsor it.

When it comes to consentual adults, leave it alone. Legislating morality is a waste of time, and what people find 'acceptable' in this regard changes all the time and with cultures. Think of the difference in womens wear 75 years ago, compare it to today. Might as well define different levels of witchcraft, and begin criminilizing witches again.

Money is better spent on things which everyone can agree to, and will do the public good.

"4) Exclusion of Classified Films ... (3) But such an image is not an "excluded image" if— ...(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work,"

The BIG absurdity here is that the law is so wide ranging and vague that it overlaps rated films at all, films on general release in the cinema. That's why they needed to add this clause, because without it, there would be films released in the cinema which would come under this 'extreme porn' law and in turn would be a criminal sentence to watch. There would be DVDs in WHSmiths and in your home collection, the possession of which would be a criminal act.

The sheet fact they had to add this clause shows you how insane this law is.

The clause about clippings from rated movies potentially being infringing, shows how low a regard HMGov has for it's people. It views throwing voters in jail so lightly that possessing clippings from commercial released movies in the cinema can be a criminal offence, if the clippings are claimed to be for 'sexual gratification'.

And nobody can see any problem with creating a law that casts a criminal shadow over millions of people, they're so out of touch in their ivory towers. As long as they can hire some kooks to hypothesize a causal link, they don't care how many people they lock up.

No disrespect meant, but he was a man with testicles therefore it is highly unlikely his life was entirely devoid of porn.

Had this law been in place we would have seen officers mumbling about how he wasn't a terrorist but did have extreme porn (no you can't see it, but take our word for it it's extreme) and without a judge ruling on whether it counted as extreme or not they'd wash their hands of it a little better than they did anyway.

Now they have passed this law fewer innocent people will be shot by police because they've redefined innocent to mean castrated.

"I actually agree on the need for this sort of legislation--not that we can't regulate ourselves, but given the existence of goatse and tubgirl..."

Is there are need? I mean, what are you saying here - that someone should be punished with three years in prison for viewing or privately possessing goatse or tubgirl?

I find those images disgusting, but I don't care if someone else looks at them. This is a law on possession, not on publication. Indeed, if someone tricks me into clicking on a naughty image, I'd be the one at risk from the law.

Of course, I agree entirely with you in the difficulties of judging what is obscene or disgusting; the law criminalises one person's kink, because other people find it disgusting. But we should be careful of saying that some things are too disgusting (where no one has been abused in the production of such images). As soon as we accept that there is a need for some criminalisation of disgusting images, it's just a question of where they draw the line...

That wouldn't be MIke Hunt by any chance, would it?

If you can be prosecuted for having a thumbnail of an illegal picture on your computer suppose some bright spark sends a few million e-mails with the said thumbnail embedded aka virus like to all the important people in the country like MP`s e.c.t that would be interesting.

D

This, like El Gordo's ideas about cannabis is just another example of a government that has lost it's way. No one can think of any sensible laws to pass so they sit around and think up crap like this. It's a case of them thinking that they must be seen to be governing and the only way to do that is to keep passing laws. Having nothing better to do means they are just gonna keep eroding British freedom. In November 1940 Winston Churchill said in the Commons " Immense surrenders of their hard-won liberties have been voluntarily made by the British people in order in time of war to serve the better the cause of freedom and fair play, to which, keeping nothing back, they have devoted all that they have and all that they are. PARLIAMENT STANDS CUSTODIAN OF THESE SURRENDERED LIBERTIES; AND IT'S MOST SACRED DUTY WILL BE TO RESTORE THEM IN THEIR FULLNESS WHEN VICTORY HAS CROWNED OUR EXERTIONS AND OUR PERSEVERANCE. Some how I don't think our current Gov thinks like that, and their excuse is NOT a war it is police action. Vote them out as soon as possible.

This law will do nothing to protect those who most need it - the Labour party members who will get chinned if they ever knock on my door.

I've tried using evidence and reasoned arguments, but they just ignore me. However, when they want something from me, the first thing that they do is threaten violence. If they believe that it's an acceptable way to get what you want, then I don't see why I shouldn't use the same technique.

how long before the copyright mafia decide to try and push for a prosecution of someone who has a 'clip' from a dvd, where that clip just happens to be the whole film without the adverts and other crap at the start?

after all its a clip, and may well contain images that would otherwise be illegal..

farce, and i dare say when it gets to court the first time it will be ripped to bits. unless its used very, very carefully for the first few times (against the stuff its meant to be aimed at) to establish it, then they can go after everyone.

I can see this ending up as something handled at a low level of 'violation' by the FPN system. otherwise there is seriously not enough prison space int he country, or judges who wouldn't be locked up to try everyone.

on the plus side now all you have to do is encrypt some random rubbish, email it to an MP, report to plod they *may* have something illegal, and its encrypted.. nail the swines with their own laws..

oh sorry the law doesn't apply to *them*

sigh.

"Is there are need? I mean, what are you saying here - that someone should be punished with three years in prison for viewing or privately possessing goatse or tubgirl?"

Hrm, some clarification... Let's make some hypotheticals. Subject A does, let's say, beastality, He gets pictures taken with man's best friend in action, and posts them. Subject B sees these, and saves some for future enjoyment.

Now, who needs the finer points of obsenity smashed into him? IMO, it's Subject A. He provides a service to Subject B, of which is objectionable and disgusting (IMO.)

That's the point I was trying to make. Take it as you will, but obsenity needs to stay in the background.

Sadly this law does nothing to prevent people posting goatse and tubgirl. It only serves to criminalise people who make complaints about it since they will inevitably possess copies in their webcache.

Come along to the station would you?

Why do people continue to knock the House of Lords when they only exist to stop governments elected on populist issues destroying the country by virtue of their majority (and that was explained to me by a firebrand Welsh Socialist).

Unfortunately Bliar successfully used the spin that the Lords are a bunch of silver spooned unelected hangers on, fit for no purpose and made the Lords self destruct, but the fact that the parliament act has been used more times by this lot than in the previous century speaks volumes for the reasons behind the damage done to the country.

An Amazing total of new laws have been passed by this crew and very few of them have actually been debated correctly, worded correctly, thought out past the short term political postulation etc. If Clarkson was firm in his stance that he would repeal every law passed since they came to power and then take a holiday, I would probably vote for him. How much more damage can they do in their death throws? Frightening really.

"As I understand it, it is a principle of English Law that a reasonable person should be capable of understanding whether or not they were breaking the law"

er No!

It is a principle of English Law that ignorance is no defence - you don't have to know about it. let alone understand it!

AndyD 8-)#

So, in other words if you possess the new Bond film in Polish that's illegal because it's not the bbfc classified release.

Many films which are legal to own in English are illegal to own as released in a foreign country. Taking this into account read the title of the bill again. Coincidence?

This is merely one little aspect of the changes in the law that have been made in the last year. Since Labour came to power e have had in excess of 3600 new laws and over 10,000 new regulations ( not even passed by parliament but devised by quangos.

The whole unsavoury process is to get rid of our law and it's presumption of innocent until proved guilty and substitute continental, Napoleonic code, a code made by a dictator, for dictators where you are always guilty of some infringement and may only ever do what is specifically permitted. What an unnecessary waste of life WW2 was for us. We have lost the freedom so expensively bought and are being broken up into divisions as planned by Hitler, when he had suceeded in invading us.

Utter madness?

Dave.

...they're welcome to employ my expert services.

"It is a principle of English Law that ignorance is no defence - you don't have to know about it. let alone understand it!"

I think there's two different concepts. Not knowing what the wording of the law is is no defence. But to someone who does make an effort to read up on the laws, the point is that they still don't know what the law is actually criminalising.

The problem with a vague law is not that someone is ignorant of what the law says, the problem is that even though they've read the law, they don't know what is legal and what is not.

I'm just going to sit and wait for the knock on the door.

The poor definition of the obscene publications act was aimed at publishers, and the police caused a lot of hassle, with cases being dropped before they reached a judge; (who would usually see things in a decent enough light and denounce the police raids as useless)

This law is aimed at the individual. The police aren't going to care whether or not a judge will uphold their claims; by the time they have raided a home, grabbed all the computer and pirnted material they can, upset the family, informed the nosey neighbours and the poor person has got fired from their job ... it doesn't matter what happens in court.

If this bill gets passed, they've just handed the police a loaded gun with no check on where they fire the bullets.

As for the "classified work" malarky ... what a mess. It's O.K. for someone to own a copy of the whole work and just view the section that the gain arousal from, but not to extract a piece of it. Hello? 'scuse me? Copyright law covers that already? (to a degree)

I've read the bill and also tried to engage in conversation with one of the Ministry of Justice people responsible for part 5 ... a complete waste of time. They know it is a useless piece of legislation but are trying to get it past in to law in whatever form they can. They see it as a vote winner.

I'll just sit quietly in a corner and wait for them to come for me. It's only a matter of time.

I agree that ignorance of the law is no defence, but the point is that the law on the Statute Books should be *comprehensible* to anyone who cares to read it.

The traditional "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" (or should that be "Man in the Clapham Internet Cafe" these days?!) should be able to look at the law and say "if I do X I will be breaking the law, but Y is legal".

The problem with this "Dangerous Pictures Act" is that it is someone else's entirely subjective opinion of what an image "risks" and whether it is "grossly offensive" that will determine your guilt or innocence and there is *NO WAY* to test that until it is shown to another person.

I find gay (that'll be man on man) sex pretty discusting/obscene, and if I were some kind of government fascist I'd ban it.

However I'm not, I'm something of a liberal and think, well, there are folk out there that wanna fap to men tapping men.

Oh and old people, I think that would be vile, and cripples, they shouldn't film nookie, and midgets, no sex for them. Black people. Don't like that.

See, I find all those things pretty darn mank, however I don't mind seeing a Japanese chick getting the old three way, and a wide range of other delicious things.

But see I'm not a government fascist sort, I think that folks should be allowed to fap to black folk, gay guys, midgets, amputees and Japanese girls getting three wayed. Hell you could fap to a scene with all of them if you were into it, I wouldn't care. As long as you ain't harming nobody it's gravy baby.

Some more peculiarites of this bill.

1. Suggestive images are to be illegal, but it will be quite all right to depict the same scenario using words to describe it in the minutest ("graphic") detail. So I cannot show you any camel-humping, but I can write about it. "She was so gooooood...." doesn't begin to scratch the surface.

2. Men apparently prefer their pr0n visual, women theirs verbal. The legisation is discriminatory.

3. It could be illegal to possess the notorious Abu Ghraib images. Junior denies the USA tortures, but I doubt the US authorities would be prepared to testify in your defence that what was depicted there was interrogation of prisoners.

This legislation is so bad that I suspect prosecutions will undertaken cautiously (if at all), in case juries dismiss them not on their merits, but on the grounds that the law alleged to cover them is such a mess that it would be unfair to convict anyone under it.

An MP's expense account?

If porn is that which is likely to "Deprave & Corrupt".......

And a Judge looks at the evidence..........

By definition, s/he's been depraved & corrupted.

But is a depraved & corrupted person fit to be a (fair) Judge?

Catch 69 anyone?