back to article UK to outlaw cartoons of child sexual abuse

First they came for the child pornographers... It may not have quite the same resonance as Pastor Niemuller’s oft-quoted aphorism. But the reality behind this particular slippery slope is just as sinister. The British government today announced proposals to make possession of drawings and computer-generated images of child …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. N1AK

    Light at the end of the tunnel

    I'm neither a cartoon/comic fan or old enough to have seen any change myself, but I have heard the general consensus among those who are. The view expressed is that the various limitations placed on comics in the UK took the edge away from them as they were forced to become less controversial or were relegated to minority interest stores.

    Obviously this might not be true, or the correlation may be coincidental. How ever if one believes as I do that this law will not just criminalise material that I have no interest in (but believe should be available for those who wish it) but also be one step on the path to yet broader controls, then I would not take the 1955 act and its lack of use as too good an omen.

    Thanks for a well researched and written article.

  2. Steve
    Thumb Down

    *facepalm*

    I'm off to draw a stick figure eight year old getting it on with a donkey in a paddling pool full of thousand island dressing.

    The kid's going to be smoking lethal skunk too.

  3. JohnG

    Kill Bill Vol 1

    ...will have to go, due to the cartoon scenes of the character O-Ren Ishii as a child prostitute. Blockbuster and other should probably hold public burnings of the DVDs - although I guess that would contravene Health & Safety legislation. Perhaps they should ban anything by Quentin Tarantino, just in to be safe.

    This government will probably go down in history as the one which introduced the most ill-conceived legislation.

  4. Mike Crawshaw
    Stop

    Bible? Torah? Koran? etc

    I'm sure that there are instances of under 18s being sexually active in these (seeing as they share a core content, should be easy enough to track down).

    So we can ban them, and all religion based on them, because the followers are clearly all Paedos if they read that sort of filth and claim to live their lives by it. Evidence? Roman Catholic Church, instances of child abuse. Think Of The Children!!!!

    (Hey, theo-politicians, you started it...)

  5. Peter Fielden-Weston
    Stop

    UKistan

    This country is getting more restrictive and oppressive every day. The Labour government is intent on total control, "for our own good", "because they know best".

    These laws will not remove kiddie pr0n, whether actual or cartoon, written or pictorial, from circulation. All it will do is move the supply of these things further into the hands of organised crime. Throughout history we have multiple examples of oppressions and "for the greater good" laws fueling crime as the populate in general still wanted the produce. Perhaps the best known of these is the USA's prohibition laws. Look how well they were obeyed, and how much crime they generated.

    How stupid can a politician be to make a photograph of a legal act or a consensual act between adults, illegal? I know that the blithering idiots don't have any real work to do as the actual work of running this country is now done in Brussels (and that is their fault too) but the country would rather they sat on their backsides doing nothing (or their secretaries) rather than make up stupid and unenforceable laws the the country neither wants or needs. It is now time to make candidates for office take common sense exams. Those without any common sense i.e. the current bunch in parliament, should just be shot as an example to anyone else who wants to 'lead' the country.

    These laws could only have been made in a country in which the "people" have no rights at all. It is no wonder that the Labour party wouldn't look at a UK constitution, that would have limited their powers and Labour know no limit to their power.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Kill Bill Vol 1

    I'm sure it will be fine unless someone cuts out the bit with the cartoon to fap too.

    I for one support our new book burning overlords!

    No... no I can't say that with even feux sensirity.

    How long until they ban extreme porn manga?

    Then how long until they just ban porn all together?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    Dawn raids on the National Gallery

    all those nymphs and cherubs are clearly an incitement

  8. Graham Dawson
    Black Helicopters

    Manga

    I'm going to cement some sort of reputation as a nerdly type here but let me point thos out: Manga is the japanese name for comics and graphic novels (and is also the name of a company that imports japanese "animé" for some stupid reason). The equivalent of saying you want to ban "manga" would be like saying the police want to have all illustrated books banned because a few of them contain these images. Or saying they want to ban all film and television because some times you can find videos of people doing nasty things to their kids.

    There's no denying that the Japanese have quite a reputation for less than savoury comics (and animation) but that's not an excuse to ban *everything* from there. It's like saying Hollywood movies contain sex, so lets ban everything from the United States! And the French, well they're just weird, so lets ban everything French! And the Italians? They've got naked kids painted on the ceiling of their most famous church! PERVERTS!

    And that's another thing, I can think of a number of paintings that would be banned by this, with images of the cistine chapel just being the most famous example. A few of them are pretty fruity and feature what would be considered "children" by the standards of some of these bad laws. Sorry, Monet, Raphael and all you other 'artists', you're under arrest.

    Does anyone believe this law won't be so overbroad and ridiculously vague as to do all of these things? I bet you it'll be an enabling act as well. This government are very fond of enabling acts, with their lovely statutory instruments that let them arbitrarily expand the provisions of the act without facing parliamentary scrutiny.

    As I think I've said before, laws like this are the actions of a government in denial about how much power it actually has. They're desperate to be seen to "do something" that they'll do anything. And, of course, it's "for the children", which means there's nothing to argue against without being twisted into a monster.

    I hate that argument.

    now those few of you that may actually know are asking "But Graham, you're a christian, shouldn't you be all for banning everything sinful?" No. You don't ban, you don't use the power of the secular state to enforce religious ideas because that power can be turned right back on you. Another religion can come along and use the same mechanisms to subdue you, outlaw things you never intended to be outlawed using the very same laws you originally promoted to enforce your idea of what's moral. The answer is never over-broad and potentially unenforceable law - along with the implicit threat of force contained in any law - but talk. I try and convince you you're doing the wrong thing, you tell me to toss off. That's how a civil society works.

    I was going to post this as anon but, frankly, I think it's time people stopped hiding. Like I said, "for the children" mean any argument can dismissed with "you're just a pervert pretending to be about liberty or something", standing up can mean ruining your reputation no matter how logical your argument and no matter what your own moral stance on the issue. I'm a christian. My stance on many things is probably quite easy to glean from that, but I prefer to believe that people can be reasoned around to my way of thinking without the use of great big legal sledgehammers.

    Bring on the black helicopters!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    <no title>

    I have argued before in forums, that this banning of owning images is wrong. Likened to burning 'unapproved books'. Too much control by authorities over individuals, something more associated with totalitarian regimes. But it is difficult as one gets unjustly accused of supporting paedophiles, and made to feel awkward for pointing out the uncomfortable obvious. So one figures if the problem isn't self evident, and my few words doesn't clarify it, best to leave those who preach retribution on anyone who has something they disapprove of, to get on with it.

    Owning images are not abuse, even if having a desire to possess them should ring 'warning bells'. The law should be clamping down on abusers, rather than wasting their time elsewhere. If this new fuss about drawings brings home the slippery slope problem, then maybe that's not such a bad thing. Sooner or later the majority must realise they are heading down the wrong route, surely.

  10. oliver Stieber
    Paris Hilton

    stupid.

    It's like these people have never seen the internet.

    Paris, coes she looks underage to me (well at least mentally)

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It is one thing to ban material depicting actual abuse...

    ...but to censor fictonal material is to censor the imagination and to censor freedom of thought, no matter how distasteful one finds the subject being depicted.

  12. Stu
    Paris Hilton

    Crazy!

    So, the government is making my 17 year old step-daughter a criminal if she takes a photo of her and her 19 year old boyfriend getting it on! Have these f*ckwits nothing better to do?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Madness

    They never like to mention that in the UK the vast majority of child abuse is comitted by parents or relatives. It's an uncomfotable truth, so it's much easier to make headline grabbing laws in order to appear to be doing something.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    you can't argue back because "it's all for the sake of the children"

    "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse."

    Isn't that like trying to charge someone for murder because they wrote a fictional story about a murder? Why do people even need a loophole to do stuff that isn't harming anybody ?

    "This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally,"

    Yes it is.

  15. Laurent_Z
    Coat

    @Mike Crawshaw

    You can add Lolita by Nabokov, most social studies on Medieval Japan, Europe, Asia pertaining to mariage and/or sexual habits up to 1930 (people were married quite younger then, in their 15s and 16s, and for medieval anything you were married around 12-13 y.o.)

    You can also outlaw quite a lot of countries were you can marry @ 16 y.o...(don't forget, both the civil code and the wedding pictures will have to be prohibited)

    BTW, my grandfater was married @17 y.o, and my Grandmother was 16y.o. at the time. I absolutly must destroy those wedding pictures, I wouldn't want my grandparents to get arrested because they were both pedophiles at the time...And I really hope they didn't take pictures of their honeymoon, it would be an aggravating thingy, circumstance.

    Just for fun, I remember a story about a 19 year old that had a 17 year old girlfriend in the US (awful, isn't it ? true depravity ! should never happens...)

    The mother of the girl disliked him and reported him to the police...

    He is now married with the same girl, but has since acquired a rap sheet as sexual offender/child molester, had to "separate" until she got 18, cannot legally be left alone with his own children or pick them up from school, must report himself to the police if he changes his home adress, ad nauseam.

    I also remember that story about a girl of 15 that took pictures of herself barebreasted and sent them to her boyfriend. She actually got arrested for diffusion of underage pictures.

    /coat, Mine is the one belonging to the penitentiary administration

  16. alistair millington
    Flame

    Ban the kama sutra, nappies, childrens charities, the news.

    No age can be perceived on the drawings in there afterall. The man has a tash but the women do not look adult.

    Banning manga... What next, banning adverts for nappies because it has naked babies in them. And baby oil, baby food... baby pain killers (can't remember it's name) as they are sometimes seen in bed, or in a pram looking cute.

    Hey ban films with maternity ward scenes as they contain kids asleep half naked. Or anything with an incubator shot in it. Like the news or those kids adverts for the NSPCC because they show half naked kids.

    ....Will the last sensible person (those with common sense, which means no one from parliament) to emigrate this infested isle, please turn off the lights.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Films....

    Once you ban artificial images of "children" in sexual situations you actually ban quite a few films... Doesn't Crash have a naked Japanese "schoolgirl" in it? No, she's not actually under age or anything, but now it's the depiction that counts.

    And of course in a cartoon image how do you say how old a character is anyway?

    What if the dialogue indicated that the child like whore was actually a 2 million year old zombie? Plenty old enough then?

  18. Brian
    Coat

    F.E.A.R...

    Um, does that mean killing the EVIL girl in F.E.A.R and other games would also be illegal?

    Mine is the one with the assault rifle sticking out the pocket

  19. Brian Ribbon
    Thumb Down

    The Ministry of Justice are twisting the truth

    The Ministry of Justice have made some misleading comments. Firstly, Maria Eagle claims that,

    "paedophiles could be circumventing the law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons."

    She neglects to mention that it is already illegal to do this or to possess any image derived from an indecent photograph of a child, under Section 69 of the recently enacted Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

    Secondly, Ms Eagle claims that,

    “This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society."

    Photo-realistic images have been illegal under the Protection of Children Act for thirty years. This law will actually only target the possession of virtual child pornography for which no real child has ever been abused.

  20. Elmer Phud
    Stop

    Does that mean I'm a paedo?

    I've got one or two Bob Crumb cartoon books and some Furry Freak Brothers and Felix the Cat stuff. Looks like I'll get done for being a potential kiddie-fiddler. We won't mention the School Kids edition of Oz and Rupert the Bear.

    (might also put up the value of the collection)

  21. Dave Ross
    Unhappy

    Quick, stop thinking...

    the mind police are coming!

  22. Xander
    Pirate

    A Workaround Already

    I hate to break this to those wonderful people who know so much, but there's already a fair few work-arounds that let hentai depict child porn:

    1. They're 18, but they have a "disease" which stopped them aging at 6

    2. They're not humans, but cat girls. So I'm not showing a 5 year old child, it's a 19 year old cat-girl who just 'happens' to look 5.

    3. F**k you, I'm allowed to say what I want so I'll damn well draw what I want

    I'm all for the crack down on Actual photographs, as they require a real child to be abused and that is just sick and wrong. But once you get into censoring *art* then I agree with el reg, it's one slippery slope which could, most likely, end in a book BBQ.

    Also: Does this law apply to websites, because I really quite enjoy 4chan. And what happens when I get linked to a violent porn site by someone upping a rick-roll?

  23. Steve Evans

    So let me get this right...

    If I don't quickly dig through my hotmail inbox and deleted the rude Simpsons cartoon, I'll end up on the sex offenders register?

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    faith politics

    “These new proposals will help close a loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse."

    It may seem like the right thing to do as child abuse cannot be tolerated but like many other new legislation e.g. the change in pot classification, its based on BELIEF.

    Is it too much to ask that things are thought through a bit more.

    I dont think i am the only one that sees the similarity with other belief led oppressive regimes.

  25. Nick Palmer
    Thumb Up

    @Graham Dawson

    Well said; frankly, you've covered everything that I would have wanted to say, and probably with greater eloquence than I could have mustered.

  26. Dave Bell
    Stop

    Here we go again

    I can see sensible reasons to keep under-18s out of the porn business, but using the child-porn age limit is just stupid. When you have a hammer, you treat every screw as a nail.

    I'd be willing to bet that a suspected paedophile got raided, the Police saw a bunch of cartoons, and they are all worked up because they couldn't do anything. But just how many bad people is this going to catch? And how many pre-puberty victims are going to be "groomed" by images of schoolgirls with gargantuan breasts?

    I really don't want to know what the sex-life of these politicians is like, but it's hard not to conclude that they're the abnormal freaks, not us.

    Don't tell them about Elf Sternberg, please.

  27. Mike Crawshaw

    @ Laurent

    Good additions. I went for the religion angle because I'm sick of career politicos shouting about their religious beliefs, and using convenient parts of that belief to beat me over the head with their chosen rules and regulations, whilst ignoring the hypocrisy involved.

    PS King Solomon, one of the more venerated OT figures ("The Wisdom of Solomon" even having entered common speech for recommending cutting a child in half...), had a wife (Namaah) who gave birth at 15yo. I rest my case.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thats just wrong...RE: *facepalm*

    You are a sick and twisted person.

    "a paddling pool full of thousand island dressing"

    Do you have any idea how many calorys that contains. Childhood obesity as a major problem in this country. Unlike cartoon porn.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Beyond reasonable doubt

    1. A man reads manga.

    2. He is incited by the manga to rape kiddies

    3. He goes on to rape kiddies

    4. He gets convicted

    Ergo, banning manga is to prevent crime, tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime as Tony Brown said.

    To be convicted, it has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there is no correlation there, even the evidence Jacqui Smith put forward was speculation, the numerical correlation is the reverse, more suppressed societies are more violent. Muslim societies seem to be at an extreme and are also the most restricted. Japan has manga and is less violent.

    What they're doing is making a charge for one thing to fix a crime for another. So making it illegal to possess Manga to fix child rape.

    But what they're also doing is bypassing 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Do people who read manga rape kiddies 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Well there's no measurable correlation so it's not even up to the test of 'preponderance of evidence', it's not even at the level of ASBO evidence, heresay.

    It's some minister making a link and treating her random thoughts as so important and people as so unimportant, that she's fine with locking people up for no reason beyond a random idea she had.

    IMHO Jacqui Smith has such a contempt for people, she can see nothing wrong in locking people up to fix a crime, in the face of the evidence before her, and on a legal basis weaker than 'ASBO heresay'.

    Vote the fookers out.

  30. David Austin
    Coat

    Title

    “This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society.”

    obscene? Perhaps. Realistic? Normally not, unless most of the government have prehensile dicks, the women included.

    The whole thing makes me uneasy - Who sets the moral (as opposed to legal) standard, and how far will it go?

    Still, we may not need cartoons, as with the newly passed embryo laws, we're only a few lab accidents away from having catgirls running around....

  31. Pete Laird
    Unhappy

    Where for art thou...

    "At the consultation for the Extreme Porn law, one Police Force – Kent – argued also for the criminalisation of written material."

    Does this mean that one of the most famous plays ever written, would be up for banning? I believe that Romeo was 14 and Juliet 13, as was the norm in Elizabethan times.

    As for this bill, it's another example of legislation which criminalises the pass times of a large number of people, whilst doing absolutety nothing to actually stop abuse/exploitation of children, whilst pandering to Middle England/Daily Mail readers who have lost faith with the failed NuLab project.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Ban everything

    *scratching of head*....

    I've often thought that some manga was perverse, but what worries me is the "establishment's" inability to draught legislation that doesn't fall into the "law of unintended consequences".

    For sake of space, lets include literature and graphical representations.

    Surely this is banning that book beginning with L by Nabokov?

    Would it also ban the Bible?There are multiple references to "begetting" of under-18s.

    By extension/association wouldn't it also criminalise the Torah and Koran.

    I'm guessing a fair number of "old masters" paintings around the UK would also be banned, as the subjects are often in suggestive poses and clearly in their teens or younger.

    The Ruben's cherub paintings - they're not "cartoons", but they are graphical representations which could quite easily be construed as pornographic. I'm guessing there are depictions of Mohammed with his under-18 wives as well...child abuse according to this logic.

    AC, cos I mentioned paedo and a religious figure in the same comment.

  33. Jamie
    Linux

    Funny thing is

    I know people and have relatives who cannot see the problem with these laws only the "good" things that the law will do.

    I have some Anime and Mange videos home along with some DVDs of movies which I guess I will have to burn.

    I think we should all go to Westminster and dump them on the lawn and then torch the movies.

    Sort of scary though of how this is so reminescent of the Witch Hunts, and the Inqusition.

  34. Michael Compton

    Danish Mohammed cartoons

    I can't help but think of that incident and draw a comparison.

    They probably found it as offensive as our government finds these drawings but yet we rightly stood by the right to free expression (general consensus not sure the governments stance).

    When will we ever be free, every week there seems to be some new law brought down from on high and we are told its for our own good and to protect are well being. NO VICTIM NO CRIME.

  35. David Webb

    Art...

    O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?

    Deny thy father and refuse thy name;

    Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,

    And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

    Shall I hear more? Or shall I leave because a drawing of Romeo and Juliet is now illegal, and I'll have to wait until she turns 18 before anyone can draw a picture of us in loves sweet embrace?

    I'm very anti-child abuse, but you have to draw a line between protecting the innocent, and destroying freedom of speech. Any laws which help protect children from abuse = good, any laws which will have no effect on child abuse but is there because some stuffy old politician wants a +1 to their vote count is an abuse of their powers. Lets all not vote for whichever idiot thought these laws are good ones.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Damien Hurst

    Doesn't viewing Damien Hurst exhibitions make you want to go and kill cows?

    http://pingmag.jp/2008/05/28/damiens-cow/

    "At the consultation for the Extreme Porn law, one Police Force – Kent – argued also for the criminalisation of written material."

    Does discussion of Damien Hurst's work make you want to kill cows?

    To me it looks like the religious prudish nutters know they're going to lose the next election and be unelectable for decades and they're getting in their insane moral agenda before they leave. Slash and burn mentality, leave office with Britain in the grip of Taliban style fanatical controls.

    And the police as the priests, instead of red robes they wear yellow jackets, instead of a mitre, a pointy black hat, instead of the shepherd crook, a truncheon. Enforcing some random extreme morality for some supposed good that can't be quantified in this life.

    How else to explain a slew of laws not attached to problems, and policemen powers without judicial controls.

  37. John Macintyre
    Thumb Up

    @Graham Dawson

    here here, well said

  38. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    Another Thought Crime from a Failing Government

    So, after banning "Extreme Porn" based on the *belief* that it may cause us to do nasty things without any credible evidence to back that up, this lame duck Government is making another desperate bid for positive headlines by saying "Look, we're doing something! We're protecting children! That's good isn't it?"

    Except, again, they have no proof other than their "belief" that this will somehow protect children and they're once more pandering to the prejudices of the Tabloid readers who will start to froth at the mouth at any reference to child porn without stopping to engage in any rational thought.

    Of course you can guarantee that the Tories will once again do their famous "Fence Sitting" act, they won't actually *approve* of this law, but neither will they actually have the guts to stand up and oppose it.

    Probably, again, the only people with the courage to resist this ludicrous legislation will be the Lib Dems and they will be roundly ignored by those who think that it's not worth supporting them because they won't win, except that if people don't support those who oppose laws like this they never *WILL* win.

    Write to your MP via http://www.writetothem.com and tell them that you're not falling for the "won't someone think of the children!" argument, this is not protecting children, it is a Control Freak Government desperately rushing through another Thought Crime before they're kicked out of office.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Stu

    Yup, if your 17 year old step-daughter takes a photo of herself engaged in lawful activity, she is committing a criminal offence. Unless they're actually co-habiting, I believe.

  40. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    London Olympics Logo.

    How about getting the dirty perv who did that one?

  41. Pat

    Government by morals or morons - which is worse?

    Two major reasons for this type of legislation (in my opinion):

    1 - The people in government appear to think that the 'moral' stance they publicly take (cynically, for widespread public approval despite policies causing death, suffering and poverty) SHOULD be imposed on the rest of society. They fail to understand the distinction between individual morality, group ethics, and social laws.

    So, as an imaginary example, a leader could have a strong 'moral' belief that a war of aggression was 'right', and this would in his eyes mean that any manipulation of a balanced legal system would be justified to achieve his ends.

    2 - New Labour (but I suspect also the Tories & LibDems) are pretty useless at actually getting anything done, other than passing laws, so they just keep legislating, regardless of any quantitative evidence for or against their legislation.

    Real criminals, which in my view means those who satisfy their own desires regardless of causing real harm to other people, pretty obviously won't pay any attention to the proliferation of badly formed laws. The rest of us are unclear what our legal rights are and so are hesitant about standing up for them. I can't help but wonder if that's part of the reason the legislation is so irrational and/or illogical.

  42. Maty

    What happens ...

    If you try to do a cartoon version of Romeo & Juliet? I seem to recall Juliet is 14 when she gets seduced, married and dies horribly. (Not that, I've ever read or seen the play, Mr Policeman)

    Mind you, a lot of that depraved Shakespeare perv comes under the extreme porn category anyway. Ban him, for the children's sake!

  43. Iamfanboy
    Alert

    Access, comfort, and trust.

    "They never like to mention that in the UK the vast majority of child abuse is comitted by parents or relatives. It's an uncomfotable truth, so it's much easier to make headline grabbing laws in order to appear to be doing something."

    -Exactly. Every girl or boy I've known who was sexually molested as a child, and I mean EVERYONE (and that's a fair few), was done up by a father or other near relative - and don't forget older siblings, too.

    The three components to molestation are access, comfort, and trust. The molester has to have consistent access to the child, the child has to be comfortable with the molester's advances, and the parents or guardians have to trust the molester to be alone with the child for long stretches of time.

    Except in rare cases of preadolescent nymphomania (or whatever the psychs are calling it these days, probably preadolescent aberrant sexuality), it takes a long time and a lot of PERSONAL CONTACT for a potential molester to groom a child properly - most kids will laugh like hell at requests for naked pix, and potential molesters have learned that the Internet is no safe place to find quick kiddie sex.

    The only other real candidates for child molesters, other than parents/relatives, are teachers, daycare specialists, and yeah, priests - they're the only people that parents TRUST. A random child abuser isn't going to grab your kid from a crowded mall and tear down his pants in the bathroom; that's just stupid. He's going to try to insinuate himself into your life first, gain your trust, and THEN abuse it - google Donald Anthony Strawn for a textbook example.

    It's the ONE thing that will win you an argument with these bastards, mentioning, "By the way, according to most reputable experts, the ones molesting a child are nine times out of ten going to be either a parent or close relative." It's like playing rock, paper, sucker punch to the balls. Either you shut them up, or you get to watch them writhe around in agony. Win/win.

  44. David
    Happy

    Other violent crimes

    Why not ban drawings depicting murder? Just in case.

    Playing 'Hangman' will be a bit more difficult though.

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    hmmm

    just the audacity of a government to place a drawing on the same level as an act of child molestation is mind boggling.

    These images arn't a loop hole, that's lies, pure unadulterated lies.

    The reason cp is banned is that children are molested to create it, it's the only provable bad thing in there. Whether a person will or will not decide to abuse a child themselves is based on far more complicated stuff then whether they see a picture.

    Just like the extreme pornography law is made out of, built from and, reinforced with lies so is this bit of fascist propoganda. It will be fully supported by the proportion of the newspapers who have no interest in freedom of expression or thought only bottom line.

    I remember reading the study linked to by the Reg when this was origonally brought up last year I think and I have yet to see something based on so much speculation and lies in my entire life, even more so then WMD's and the flimsy foundation of the extreme pornography law. The basic jist of it being that moral thought control nambys think that drawings make people molest children.

    Police were annoyed that there was a guy who hadn't commited a crime other then own lolicon and they couldn't arrest him. So they want a new law.

    Bulls--t artist talking about the material being usable in grooming (what utter w--k cindy dolls and disney films are the stuff of which grooming is made of.)

    The proposal is just based on lies, speculation and power hunger.

    @A Workaround Already

    1 and 2 don't work, the law was more focused on "in the likeness" so the girl in Onegai Teacher who is immortal but looks 10 is out of bounds where as any 12 year old with massive baps is fine to bang (basically this is going to be a law about not being allowed to fap to delicious flat chest) it has little to do with the age/race/gender/mechanical origins of the character.

    However I wonder if it counts if the child is actually a featus inside it's decapitated mother? I think by the current law that would be fine until they outlaw extreme drawn porn... Sadly for me I'm not a fan of guro but when needs must.

    Also 4chan can already be illegal if you hit refresh at the wrong moment...

  46. Lazy Gun
    Thumb Down

    Time to leave I think...

    C'mon ffs - "Broon" didn't pop his cherry 'til his late forties, and then only for political expediency as it didn't look right him not having a wife and kids. Are we really to take our moral lead from a bloke who has had sex twice in his life? Are we seriously to believe that our "leaders" entertain no sexual fantasy darker than "lights out, missionary position " and then only on St Andrew's Day? I think not.

    Perhaps, instead of dreaming up more ways of controlling what we think with censorship that will actually increase the number of dirty paedos, that useless shower of wankers in govt might like to do something useful for a change. Like resign.

    With the lights going out as our antique power stations trip offline with increasing regularity, we won't be able to read anything considered morally outrageous by that bunch of self-righteous Scottish puritan prudes running the show, except by candlelight.

  47. Mick Gower
    Go

    In for a penny, in for a pound....

    The peado will be thinking 'If I am going to go down for possession, it may as well be for real/live abuse images rather than so drawings'

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    nee naw nee naw - thought police coming through

    Good on you Graham. You are right.

    I don't know who they are to try to enforce their strict personal morals on the entire country when it's over a freaking cartoon. They should try punishing actual criminal activity properly, not branding all vaguely related things as crimes too.

    The government obviously aren't going to accept the fact that people will kill. Paedophiles will exist. No matter what we do, no matter how many laws we make, or how much we threaten, bad stuff will continue to happen.

    So even though it will keep happening, and we can't stop it, the government feel the need to bring in law after law restricting us and eroding our freedom 'just in case', and as Graham said, to look like they're doing something about it.

    It's impossible to argue against and frankly I've almost given up. You can't argue against anti-paedophile laws. (Although this is not what they are.)

    We don't live in a free country. Funnily enough to live in a free country you are supposed to be free enough to break the law. The government are slowly but surely making it so that we can not step one foot out of line, they will catch us before we actually commit any crimes. And charge us before we do anything too!

    No possesion of any photograph should be a crime. Possesion of a photograph can not possibly be a crime unless the photo is stolen. It's what's depicted in the photo or artwork that is a crime, and i'm sorry but even possesion of child porn pictures is not technically a criminal act. It is having a photo of a criminal act.

    So how can having a drawing of a cartoon be a criminal act, when the people in it are not even real, so no crime took place. No one was hurt or exploited.

    What is going on? Plus it's impossible to tell the age of a cartoon, so I don't know how they figured this one out

  49. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Blurring the line of common sense

    The light at the end of the tunnel is for other governments who watch Britain first to see if she can get away with it, and then try it themselves on their own people based on the tried and tested formula used by the UK. As someone else wrote elsewhere: * Law must first blur the lines of common sense in order to engineer our society to the whim of politicians. *

  50. Richard Sloan
    Thumb Down

    Law can be misused

    I think the common agreement is that any act such as child abuse that is non-consentual should be stopped, but these new laws are not going to do anything apart from be taken out of context and used against someone who just got unlucky. The main problems seem to surround the complete lack of definition for anything - take the extreme porn law: It could apply to such things as 1950's Bettie Page sets and the covers of those cheesy paperbacks they sell in service stations (My girlfriend and I were discussing this law at Clackets Lane and noticed one showing a girl getting spanked, and had a red mark photoshopped onto her therefore being "a sexual image which portrays an act whereby someone may be injured" and therefore illegal under the violent image law).

    I've seen some of the things they are talking about thanks to me not knowing what the word "lolicon" meant until I clicked on it and discovered my eyes were bleeding shortly afterwards (do NOT google that). Under these laws I would be convicted for that despite a complete lack of a mens rea. While the material concerned itself can be pretty sick the nature of this law is just plain wrong, doesn't do anything to protect any innocents and exists solely to garner votes from the Daily Mail readers at the expense of some poor sod

    The aforementioned poor sod clicks an unknown link, buys a truckstop paperback without realising the somewhat tame cover breaks the law or gets his PC turned into a porn FTP server by a 14 year old Israeli script kiddie, then gets broken into, the dog bites the crook so the police bother to show up instead of giving a crime number out over the phone like they usually do because the CPS smell a conviction under the dangerous dogs act. They also find this extra dirt to convict on for good measure, no innocents were ever at risk but the detection rate league tables are satisfied. 1984 isn't the handbook, Brazil is.

  51. TrishaD

    @Graham Dawson x 2

    Yes... absolutely. An excellent summary....

    Some thoughts on Manga etc....

    One feature of Manga-style art is that it is (presumably deliberately) ambiguous. Not only is the age of characters ambiguous, but often their gender is too. Transgender would appear to be a fairly common theme. This ambiguity makes enforcement of any of the suggested legislation a joke.

    I am in favour of any legislation that will further the prevention of child abuse. Its the most repellent of crimes and I have personal friends who still carry the scars.

    The relationship between 'non-real' pornographic images and actual abuse remains to me unclear and I'm not sure that I actually do support the argument that says such images provide a legitimate outlet for peoples' fantasies and thus reduce real abuse. The jury is still out on that one as far as I'm concerned.

    But this IS knee-jerk legislation. Our current government has a track record of gesture politics whereby they 'address' issues by creating unenforcable legislation that makes no real difference. This sort of stuff makes problems worse, not better......

  52. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    But this great - smite your enemies...

    What this means is that you can email someone a load of dubious images - preferably hidden in another pile of attachments. Use an anonymous address from the web. Or maybe spoof the return address.

    Then quickly shop them...

    They get done for _possession_ and you get that promotion or what ever. Heck the black helicopter guys could even email it to you and then arrest you for _possessing_ it. I wondered where all those Stasi guys found work.

    This is starting to make Judge Dredd (comic version) look like a namby pamby liberal. He usually required you to be carrying out the crime. You can now be prosecuted for a crime, for planning a crime (conspiracy) or imagining a crime. Before long it could be tough being Ruth Rendal, et al.

  53. Chris Ashworth
    Coat

    At least there's some good to come of this

    The filth that came up with the London 2012 logo are going down for a loooong time.

  54. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    The Police pushing doesn't surprise me

    It doesn't surprise me that the Police are pushing for tougher laws, but they are the enforcers and shouldn't be allowed near the process; they're biased.

    I have been involved in the BDSM world for a good few years and have been colating accounts of Police abuse of the Obscene Publications Act 1959; raiding people at 2am when they could have just rung the doorbell in the daylight; that's public money well spent, I don't think; even when judges have ruled against them (having a judge tell them the business is legal just seems to make them even more eager to drive said business out of business by seizing all their equipment so they can't trade.)

    These accounts have been forwarded to the MOJ along with the question asking for one, even one, account of a life that would be saved by the introduction of the new law ... after receiving that request, the MOJ have been stubournly silent.

    I have, just this morning, posted a letter to the head of my local CPS asking for a review of some sections of the OPA.

    Paris? Because she might suffer an overload of TLA's realising that I'm a BDSM'er who's asked the CPS to review the OPA and the MOJ have gone all NC over the CJ&I.

  55. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does this include all the wang doodles in school books?

    Does this include all the doodles of my wang in my old school books?

    @Steve Evans

    It's probably in a tape back up some where so you are still stuffed.

  56. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    IIRC

    Child porn is illegal on the basis that it is evidence of a crime, a nd also that it's existence somehow makes the crime worse for the victim as they have it as a constant reminder. That viewing it MAY cause someone to offend is purely speculation, and studies seem to indicate that the opposite is true in any case.

    Following this logic, it should also be illegal to possess, view, or distribute images depicting someone being unlawfully killed, as it is evidence of a crime, and it's existence would be damaging to the family of the victim - yet images depicting REAL murder are freely available online and are even shown on television, albeit in a censored form.

    Simulated murder is so prevalent on TV and online that even children have watched a depiction of someone being murdered.

    But of course, violence isperfectly acceptable in society, and sexuality is not.

    At the end of the day, what is it about sexual crimes that makes them so special, other than our fear of our own sexuality?

  57. ImaGnuber

    Slippery slope?

    Forget any talk of a 'slippery slope'. Britain is already wallowing in the pool at the bottom of that slope. I'm sure all of this will come here too but until then you have my sympathy - at the moment you seem to have the most inept politicians on the planet.

    Hmm... I'm reasonably good with a brush - maybe I can pay for a holiday over there by getting myself hired to paint discrete bits of cloth, leaves, or whatever on all the cherubs etc. in your nation's galleries... or would even applying for that job get me listed?

    I know it's more than a bit of a cliche but you have to wonder what these "ban everything" political perverts are thinking about all the time... shudder.

  58. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Comical compliance

    "All school girls, tentacles and other images that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this cartoon were over the age of eighteen years at the time of drawing."

    Idiots. How do they plan to prove how old a character in a cartoon is?

  59. Anonymous Coward
    Alien

    Hmmm

    You see, when I'm having a quick hand shandy whilst perusing the web I hit many ads on freebie porn sites and funnily enough the ad servers spewing this stuff don't go "oh, he's uk based best not to display ads for girly manga rubbish", they just spew out what they've been paid to. So, I randomly break the law in that respect.

    Presumably if I were to do an image search on "Manga", the full force of the law would come down on me like a ton of bricks, yet another load of s**t unenforceable pointless daily mail shock value legislation.

  60. Ted Treen
    Coat

    Consistency

    Well, NuLab have made a big thing on inclusivity:-

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of race:

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of gender:

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of race:

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of faith:

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin:

    to which can now be added

    Don't discriminate on the grounds of mental incompetence

    Mine's the lasciviously and erotically-drawn picture of a raincoat.....

  61. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    briliiant...

    "What if the dialogue indicated that the child like whore was actually a 2 million year old zombie? Plenty old enough then?"

    I want to see this - and markedly similar questions - asked in the house of commons. "the incredibly old zombie" defense - another loophole!

    ;-)

  62. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Always remember they lie

    John writes: "Some years ago the Protection of Children Act 1978 made it illegal to possess pictures of children being abused. There are two arguments for this law. The good and obvious one is that any and every picture of child abuse is a picture of a child being abused. It is evidence of a crime being committed."

    Not true. POCA says nothing about "child abuse", it deals only with "indecent" photos of children. It carefully leaves the word "indecent" undefined. Accordingly the law has very often been used to prosecute where the images are certainly *not* pictures of children being abused - for example, pictures of naked toddlers in a public place, or photomontages made from catalogue pictures. Nevertheless, the police and the grandees of the child protection industry always insist that reporters use the phrase "child abuse images", even though they know very well that it is misleading.

    Why do I mention this? To show the dishonesty of the people who propose and enforce this sort of legislation. They defend it on the basis of "fighting child abuse", but their real purposes are to extend censorship of the Internet and to reinforce the police's very useful power to seize individuals' computers "on suspicion" that they contain illegal material. The existing law is dangerous enough in this respect, but this new proposal is even worse.

    [Posted anonymously because, pace the Pastor, it is unwise to publicly criticise any proposals that are claimed to "protect the children". Rather like 16th-century France, where anyone who spoke up to defend a witch would himself be tried for witchcraft.]

  63. Mei Lewis

    What if...

    What if I buy Volume 1 of some edgy manga where a fifteen year old girl gets molested at her high school by some tentacled ogre, the police find out and lock me up, then Volume 2 comes out and it turns out that the 15 year old girl was actually a 30 year old psi-investigator sent in disguise to the school to investigate the tentacled beasties?

    Or the other way around, what if a sequel comes out to some adult book and reveals that the characters thought to be adults were children all along?

    Are we now being judged for actions we _might_ take as the result of looking at fictional worlds where there is _no_ definitive reality?

  64. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Damien Hirst

    "Doesn't viewing Damien Hurst exhibitions make you want to go and kill cows?"

    No, it makes me want to go and kill Damien Hirst.

  65. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    @TrishaD

    The relationship between REAL pornographic images and actual abuse is tenuous at best.

    In fact, the evidence seems to suggest that viewing pornography makes one less likely to commit a sexual offence - countries with lax laws regarding pornography have lower rates of violent sexual crime than those with more oppressive laws.

    Now, I find child abuse as abhorrent as the next man, but I'm afraid I have to agree with the AC at 11:38 GMT - no photograph should be illegal to possess, as it is merely an image of an event which has already happened.

    If the police concentrated on their job - which is enforcing the law and gathering evidence where the law has been broken, instead of trying to make laws criminalising anything remotely connected with a criminal act in order to get their performance statistics up - then perhaps crime levels would actually fall, and save the Government the job of 'massaging' statistics.

    AC for obvious reasons.

  66. James Pickett
    Thumb Down

    Oh dear

    I enjoyed this though (the possible double entendre only struck me later)...

    "When you have a hammer, you treat every screw as a nail."

    It's going to be tricky charge to make stick, though. How, exactly, does one determine the age of a person depicted in a drawing?

  67. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Jury

    And as to

    "The jury remains out on that debate."

    Then it shouldn't be admitted as a foundation to law. If you can't be sure of something you can't darn well use it.

    For example.

    Knives kill.

    Therefore if you buy a knife you are more likely to kill someone, so one should ban knives and make owning them an offence. Not just carrying them around, but owning them, bread knives, meat knives, fish knives, the whole lot.

    However the fact of the matter is, a knife only kills when someone stabs somebody with it.

    Lolicon (in it's full range from diabolical disgustingness that I wouldn't touch with someone elses - up to delicious flat chest - off into shouta con land - right back to big boobed teens - then off the way of asuka and rei) can't even be used to stab someone.

    But it is nice to see that the police are at long last starting to talk about banning writing. But it's our own fault, we let them ban hate speach, we let them ban extreme porn, we let them ban protests and rallies, we let them ban us from downing street. It really is our own fault.

    The truth is the law will have little effect, other then to destroy the lives of a handful of innocent young men whose only crime is to wank to drawings. And what's the lives of a few men set against the feel good factor of a job well done and a few more votes?

  68. bobbles31
    Coat

    London 2012

    Does this mean that they will have to ban the London 2012 logo because it looks like Lisa Simpson giving head?

  69. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Orly

    Well if it provides the basis for those troubled minds to the point where they can stay at home to do the acts and not upon the reality of the ordeal, it should be allowed. I mean if they are not doing real harm physically due to there primordial urge to mate with the undeveloped/matured, they should be given something to cope with before they do real damage imo. So in a sense it does keep the crime in control but there are some out there and most that do have CP have real images and never a mix of both non-real/real. From all those that were caught anyway :P

  70. dreadful scathe
    Black Helicopters

    here, have this hat - it will protect you

    How far is this from thought policing ? Some people clearly like sexual cartoon manga and other "depravity" on the offical "depravity" list, and currently can look at it - BUT such thoughts are clearly wrong, according to our wonderful government, so it starts by banning the visual depiction of this "depravity" and work on getting at those "thoughts" in future.

    The tinfoil won't protect you. And if it's a "government issue" tinfoil hat...be very, very afraid :(

  71. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    The Goverment is Comming for you!

    The goverment is planning on releasing 500+ people from prison. Now i know why they need the space.

    Child porn

    extream porn

    any porn

    in your bedroom they come

    no extream sex

    no sex

    the goverment is comming for us.

    Hope my cell has a nice view!

  72. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you people?

    So very tired of the 'What about Juliet?' and 'What about Cherubs?' this is not about them. As much as it might be possible to misinterpret this to include them, it is not what it is aimed at. Do you really think CPS would agree a prosecution when someone is looking at a church ceiling?

    We are taking about cartoons, and some of the very, very realistic cartoon, of children being raped by adult/monsters/animals. How can that be acceptable? How is that brilliant fiction? How can people dismiss an image of a child being violated as necessary so we don’t have to repaint the chapel ceilings of the world?

    Surely you are not all that naïve to not understand what this sort of material is really being used for? Do you really think that the sort of person who views these images is thinking ‘What about the Cherubs?’, when they are alone in their basement and only have one hand free.

  73. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    rage

    'manga comics'

  74. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We're the minority here.

    You know what's really depressing about this whole thing?

    None of these anti-liberty measures that the government passes will be given a moment's scrutiny by the sensationalist tabloids or their millions of readers. People will see "Labour ban stuff that's bad!" and they won't think further than that. Freedom of speech is far less important to most people than their own perceived safety. And many, many people are more than willing to give up what they perceive as someone else's rights for virtually nothing at all.

    I don't know if Labour are as stupid as they seem, or if they're just cynically playing for sympathy here. Either way it's sick.

  75. Andus McCoatover

    Er, underage?

    How old was the "virgin" Mary supposed to be when Gabriel swooped down and without a "by-your-leave" gave her a good seeing-to?

    14?

    How d'ya put an archangel on the sex offenders reg?

    Bang up those donkeys, bet they watched the whole sordid event.

    Next thing, the'll be criminalising being born to underage mothers. Sins of the father, and all that.

    Law and Order? Nope. Just Order. 3rd Reich style.

  76. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Juliet

    Juliet was 12 when she married Romeo. Her loving father sensibly wanted her to wait a year before marrying Paris as he thought she was too young. I love the play, and have seen many film adaptations of it, along with live performances and I've studied the text. Should I hand myself in at the nearest police station now, or wait for them to come for me with tasers?

  77. Mike Richards

    Our five year mission...

    Since there are no real crimes being committed any more, New Labour is moving on to made-up ones. What fun they must have in the

    The Criminal Justice Bill in the Queen's Speech will make it illegal to be a member of Slitherin House beyond the confines of Hogwarts; to be a werewolf; to manufacture, use, possess or distribute the Philosopher's Stone; to cause nuclear explosions, or to hunt dragons without a licence and full professional insurance.

    Oh crap, I forgot, New Labour actually wasted time introduce and passing a bill making nuclear explosions illegal. 'Mr Dibbock, dressed in a hooded top and trainers, spoke only to confirm his name and address. The magistrates remanded him on bail to appear at the Crown Court next month accused of laying waste to most of the prettier parts of Suffolk, damaging a bird sanctuary, breaking a window in a listed property and causing half a million agonising deaths from radiation sickness.'

  78. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    off to pokey

    I wonder if this can be enforced retrospectively?

    In my younger days I was a big fan of Manga titles such as Akira, Tank Police, Fist of the North Star etc. I even watched Urotsukidōji, Legend of the Overfiend not realising the specific detail or nature of what was contained within.

    Does that mean that once this law has been passed I will have 'comitted a crime' and be eligible for persecution?

    Whatever next Mr Brown, barcoding people at birth, or perhaps tattooing your very own IPv6 number on your arm?

  79. Mike Richards

    Quick question

    (Sorry forgot to ask in my previous comment)

    Does this mean the 2012 Olympics logo is now illegal?

  80. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Better to lock up 10000000 Manga viewers....

    ... than let one kiddie get diddled as a result of not locking up 1000000 manga viewers.

    Seriously what causality are they calculating for this. How many of the people who view manga go to kiddie diddle?

    1 in 100k?

    1 in a million?

    1 in a billion?

    What number precisely and how was it calculated. It appears to me that the reverse is likely to be true, that it is an outlet to vent feelings that otherwise wouldn't be vented. And how many people who think 'well they'll lock me up anyway so it makes little difference if I break the law or not?'

    So what is the causality there

    1 in *MINUS* 100k?

    1 in minus 1 million?

    1 in minus 1 billion?

    As long as we're making laws based on faith departed from science, isn't it time they cracked down on evolution?

  81. Richard Evans
    Paris Hilton

    Winner

    1. Ban cartoons of sexual abuse

    2. ???

    3. Profit!

  82. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: What is wrong with you people?

    But... they are pictures. Doesn't matter what of. Doesn't matter how people feel when they look at them, either way. You route around these things in a free society. You don't ban. It is absurd.

  83. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No comment...

    >made it an offence to publish cartoons depicting crime, violence >or “incidents of a repulsive or horrible nature”.

    That's just about every cartoon I've ever seen from Tom & Jerry through to the Beano. The Bash Street Kids got up to some pretty rotten stuff.

  84. Tony
    Thumb Down

    Must get home now.

    Guess I'll have to leave work early today and incinerate my copy of Akira before someone spots it. (I'd been wondering how they were going to do that rape scene in the re-make - I guess it will be removed.)

  85. scott
    Stop

    Compulsory competence tests required

    I passionately believe that politicians should have to sit regular competency tests.

    Just about every area of modern life is regulated. If you as an employer let an untrained employee loose with a bit of heavy machinery - you'd get your @rse sued off and potentially go to prison.

    Your local kebab shop employee has to prove their competency more than your local MP.

    I remember a wisened old cop saying in the old days they had the "fresher rule". Would an arrest get past a 1st law student? If so, then there was the chance the arrest could lead to conviction.

    However, just because you put on a red or blue rosetta, and kiss the right fat @rses qualifies you to propse in laws so badly thought out that a bunch of nerds on a website can blow holes in it?? If they're so bad at proposing new laws - they're unfit to be anywhere near the statute books.

    I could argue the downsides of a meritocracy - but right now the upside in having administrators who are even moderately intellectually competent outweighs anything I can think of...

  86. Glyn

    Japanese thoughts on this

    As most of the Japs I've known in the past have partaken of manga to some degree or other I wonder how many are offended by the insinuation that they're all child molesters.

    Should be interesting at the g8 when the prime minister of japan cuts off Brown's head for insulting his family honour (presuming they still can have sharp objects in japan)

    P.S. the adult manga is called hentai...apparently

  87. Anonymous Coward
    Alien

    @Graham Dawson and others

    I am with Graham on this one, lets at least ban Hollywood films!

    obviously we have to let the EU soft pron and flesh flicks as it would probably be against EU rules.

    would an *artist* (of what ever medium) who produced this stuff for sale abroad also be creating a criminal act? or would it be just for domestic consumption?

    would the UK Border Agency be arresting Japanese Tourists and artists at heathrow based upon creative act carried out else where (like the laws for sex tourists?)

  88. Dave Bell
    Stop

    A wider perspective

    As it happens, I do have some knowledge of computer-generated porn, and how it's handled in the USA.

    First, US Federal law sets an 18 age limit, but it's an absolute defence to prove the model was over-18. It doesn't matter if they look younger. There's also laws requiring record keeping on the part of porn producers. And if it's a drawing, or computer generated, you're exempt from the record keeping.

    Second, it's harder than you think to make a convincing CGI image that could be mistaken for a photo. OK, if you want somebody to say than an image is a "pseudo-photograph", maybe I'm the wrong guy to ask. I'll notice the flaws in shadows and lighting that the average guy might not. And body-to-body contact is hard to get right. (Go on, roll your sleeve up and press your fingertip against your forearm: see how the dimple forms: sex involves a lot of squidgy bits in contact and deforming under pressure.)

    So there are websites which carry the stuff, and let users post their latest CGI fantasy. And they really don't want the hassle of anything that might be classed as child porn. They don't want to be dragged into a court case. Break that rule, and your account is dead.

    It's hardly surprising that even the cat-girls have big tits.

    Just don't tell them about Doug Winger.

  89. Stu
    Paris Hilton

    CCTV?

    So, if two 16/17 year olds have sex in front of a CCTV camera, will the CCTV operators be prosecuted? Let's hope so! ;-)

  90. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder if this can be enforced retrospectively?

    ...I imagine that based upon the proposed changes in UK Car tax rules - YEs it could!

    Based upon the reasoning that, the Government is proposing to punish you for buying a car in the last 7 years for which they now decide is evil.

    Obviously you should have had some sixth sense they were going to tax you on in the future ion the basis your obscene defilement of the planet?

    Maybe we could sumbit a class action against VW and Honda for seducing us with advertising, thereby leading us to sin?

    Then again, that was no excuse for war criminals.... how were they to know they were going to loose the war.

    ....maybe we could ask for our votes to be reallocated, based upon the fact that at the last election if we knew what a bunch of muppets the government where going to be be people wouldnt have voted for them.... and did i mention the war?

    ...

  91. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: No photograph should be illegal to possess...

    "Now, I find child abuse as abhorrent as the next man, but I'm afraid I have to agree with the AC at 11:38 GMT - no photograph should be illegal to possess, as it is merely an image of an event which has already happened."

    You have to consider how the photo was obtained. In many cases it is paid for either through subscription to web-sites, under the counter paper copies or other means. This is an active action on the part of the viewer to obtain child porn. Further, this money funds more abuse and is a case of supply and demand. So your statement is at best ill thought out.

    I would think that the number of actual cases of child porn photos being viewed innocently are almost negligible. If it can be shown that the possession has been sustained and not viewed and removed then it should be illegal. Let's face it, if you don't immediately destroy a child porn image that you inadvertently obtain then you are in possession.

  92. Simon Painter
    Coat

    I'm rather pleased with this...

    It's comforting to know that there are no real issues to deal with and the politicians have time to fix problems like 'toon porn now that they have fixed the public transport system, sorted immigration, reduced the burden of the welfare state, eradicated all crime, modernized the NHS and returned the armed forces to their former glory.

    Well done them

    oh, wait...

  93. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    New Is To Labour As National Is To Socialism

    There's a similarity between this "government" and the National Socialist government in Germany leading up to World War 2.

    Find something or someone you don't like. Demonise them under a campaign which claims to be for the betterment of others. Then outlaw the something or the someone, giving you the excuse to drive them away or lock them up.

    Gordongrad cometh.

    Imagine a country where people who ask awkward questions and challenge the stupidity of "government" or law enforcement will vanish without trace.

    I'm not talking about communist Eastern Europe, South American dictatorships or even Nazi Germany. I'm talking about this country. Sooner than you might think unless people mobilise and challenge this pathetic excuse for a "government".

  94. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    another thing

    It isn't a paedophiles fault they want to fap to children anyway - it is their fault if they can't control their urges and abuse a child (although there have been noted occasions of paedophiles begging to go on chemical castration but the law refusing - becouse they're yet to commit a crime). Much like just becouse you don't like group X for reason Y it doesn't mean you're going to put them in a gas chamber and kill them.

    I don't think people just wake up and go "jeez I'd like to hit an eight year old boy today." Much like being gay, you don't just wake up and go "You know guys - I'd like a good buggering."

    ------ Also

    Re: What is wrong with you people?

    I think you need to ask yourself what's wrong with your perspective - just becouse images are horrid, disgusting, and pattently wrong - they still arn't real. There is no difference between a drawing, a story or an image in your own mind. No we arn't talking about art - we're talking about smut, fap bait.

    No crime has been commited!

    No body has been harmed!

    and no link, despite the number of irrational over controlling nounses trying to prove one has been proved before viewing/reading/playing media and actual actions.

    You can't justify it. Destroying lives becouse of what turns them on is wrong. You take an other wise normal happy person and ruin them becouse of their sexual preferences.

  95. Joe
    Unhappy

    RE: What is wrong with you people? (AC 12:52 GMT)

    The CPS, much like the police, are the enforcers of the law. If they believe that they will make a successful prosecution based on the letter of the law and the evidence supplied to them by the police then they will prosecute.

    It's not their job to turn around and say "no, seriously this is a complete farce". Remember these are lawyers we're dealing with...

  96. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    LOL

    How are you supposed to tell if a cartoon is over 18? It's hard enough in real life!

  97. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Japanese thoughts on this

    There isn't just Hentai when it comes to pronz, and pronz is only a tiny subsect of Manga/Anime/Gaming.

    Hentai = generally harder core - tentical rape - molestation - machines - etc

    Eroge = basic porn type stuff can be a bit risque but all in all just pronz

    Ecchi = kind of pervy fun, no actual sex but lots of panties, innuendo and comedy.

    Guro = O my god...

    Sub sets

    Yaoi = adult gay stuff - most of the guys look like girls, but generally popular with girls.

    Shouta = loli boys. A fair amount of older woman with young boys interestingly enough.

    Yuri = lesbian stuff - the girls look like girls some times loli sometimes not, focus on cute - not necessarily pronz.

    Moe = girl is super cute clothes, some times loli sometimes not, focus on cute - not necessarily pronz.

    Lolicon = Tends to focus on pretty shaddy stuff - however an awful lot of moe gets lumped into the catagory. It's a rather broad catagory (unless you are interested in a part of the catagory and want to be dissasociated from one end of it) really going from your ewww grim right up to flat chested/small boobed teens/adults as far as outside observers are concerned. However again lolicon isn't necessarily porn, alot of it is just ecchi. Hell some of it isn't even ecchi (Nanoha/Shana.)

    Meh whatever.

  98. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Facts rights?

    I believe the Home Office mean "Hentai" but in fact are branding Manga, such as dragonballz illegal -- "Good on 'em" , I hate pokemons and dragonballz,

    unfortunately my copy of 3x3 eyes will surely be illegal ;(

  99. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    So very glad that I've already left

    Otherwise I would see myself getting very cross and reaching for the Guy Fawkes mask.

    Don't people care that they are being relieved of the very things that Britons were proud of - the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought and the right to make up our own mind, to make our own decisions (and take responsibility for them) whether they are good / bad / stupid / dangerous to my own health or whatever else thats not good for me.

    People are not generally stupid and are capable of knowing that just because they see something, they should not run out and do it - otherwise (as mentioned already) how many more murders would we have? how many more drug addicts? Following this through by what we see on TV - why don't we see more of the good things like nuns, and people singing hymn, and and increase in doctors & vets?

    I refuse to become a dumb animal, working in my appointed manner to make a profit for the government. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to hurt my neighbour, but I I want to LIVE my life, and people should have the right to do that without fear of being arrested for something that is not hurting anyone else. They might not like what I am doing but its my private business, and they can keep their sticky beaks out.

    Ok rant over.

  100. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: @Japanese thoughts on this (list of naughty naughtiness)

    Tentacle stuff goes way back, doesn't it (that list was very interesting, gosh, the Japanese are amazing, aren't they). A lot of books on the history of naughty art will be on the iffy list. Or will they? All of this extreme pron stuff is so hilariously (if disturbingly) woolly. You can't pin it down to what is intended to cause arousal, if people being aroused is what you are legislating to avoid (is it? I don't even know any more) - anything can do that.

    That's something to take comfort in, anyway - it'll be very, very hard to police a grey area like this which is the size of ooh, a million football pitches, I'd say. They're just setting themselves up to make fools of themselves, the govt.

    Thought - what if you had your first orgasm when Roobarb & Custard happened to be on, and now embarrassingly you just can't get off unless you're looking at a wibbly wobbly felt tip pen green dog? I think this is a legal point we must urgently address.

  101. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Distinction

    While I have little use for images of this nature (or people that enjoy them for that matter), surely there is an important distinction:

    -a photo of a child being abused or in a suggestive situation is evidence of an actual crime, or at least a real physical event that could be damaging to a child.

    -a cartoon is the embodiment of someone's fantasy (sick maybe, but not reality), and as such no harm has actually been done.

    You can't legislate "What if", you can only act on real events, or at least events you're reasonably sure have a chance of happening.

    God help us all if someone comes up with technology that can actually read minds.

  102. Paul

    Will the last person to leave the UK...

    ...please turn off the lights?

    My grandfather, and millions just like him, fought to avoid the sort of totalitarian-leaning government which the UK now has. If I was a surviving WW2 veteran I'd be mightily pissed off right about now, what with the wall-to-wall cameras, increasing censorship and general "we know best" attitude of the authorities.

    FFS start standing up for your rights before it's too late, if it isn't already.

  103. Mike Crawshaw
    Flame

    @ Sarah... "Govt looking like fools"

    "They're just setting themselves up to make fools of themselves, the govt."

    I think that we've established over the recent years that the govt don't really get that they look like fools to us, and wouldn't really care if they did.

    <sarcasm>After all, we're not qualified to judge, are we? </sarcasm>

    <-The House of Commons if Guy Fawkes had got away with it (and he would've too, if it hadn't been for them pesky MPs and that Scotsman!!!!)

  104. Harry Stottle

    Bring them on! Let Battle Commence

    Excellent Article.

    Strangely, I'm not particularly worried about this even though, as Lord McIntosh puts it in a previous related reg story: (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/)

    "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."

    The reason for my apparent complacency is that the British Juror has an excellent track record in this field. That's how we struck down the censorship in the 60's (They tried to prosecute book sellers for "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and the Jury said fuck off) and will no doubt do so again, when the first of these cases gets to court. Of course, I am annoyed by the totalitarian "thought crime" aspects of their attempt, but that has the useful benefit of illustrating just how incompetent and dangerous the bastards are and makes it easier for me to push my main message.

    http://www.fullmoon.nu/book/chap.php?id=c07_2

  105. Anonymous Coward
    Heart

    Re : Beyond Reasonable Doubt...

    "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." doesn't mean being tough to people who break the law, and being tough on those things that helped him to do it.

    It means "Be tough on people who break the law" - like yeah right.

    and "being tough on those things that made him turn into a criminal in the first place" like inequality of outcome.

    In short, set up society so criminals don't need to steal, by giving them money.

    Government could easily mandate mobile phones, televisions etc, which are difficult to use if stolen, but it doesn't because it knows that poor people find it easier to steal them from rich people than to buy them themselves, it's just like another tax. Less than a dozen or so people are murdered a year for their belongings, and they're just rich people, so why does new labour care?

    Thus we have marxism mascarading as law and order.

    What I'd rather hear is "tough on crime, and bollocks to the causes of it." I'm sick to death of bleating ponces saying "He's violent because he was bullied at school", "She had to steal, she's got kids," "It was ok to throw her daughter out the window, because she was depressed." or "He's underage he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong."

    Bring out the Rhino whips.

    Hearts because I just Luurve politicians.

  106. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    What next?

    Will we end up with a requirement for all published material to pass government censorship 'for the public good'?

    This sounds strangely familiar to me (sieg heil!)

    Maybe posts on sites such as ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚.❚❚.❚❚ will be censored "for the public good"

    Maybe ❚❚❚❚ ❚❚❚ ❚❚❚❚❚❚ ❚❚❚ ❚ ❚❚ ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚ ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚ ❚❚❚❚❚ ❚❚ ❚❚❚❚❚. Thank you Mr Censor!

  107. Kaitlyn Kincaid
    Boffin

    dang those are thick glasses....

    “This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic, images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society.”

    if you are seeing people who look like anime/manga characters you really need fewer pills, or more pills, I'm not sure.

  108. Pat

    Grateful for info links

    Some comments have made the point that:

    "countries with lax laws regarding pornography have lower rates of violent sexual crime than those with more oppressive laws".

    I copied that from an AC post, and I think it is likely to be true, but if any reader has a link to specific evidential reports or research conclusions confirming this then please post a link.

    Thanks.

  109. bobbles31
    Coat

    Where do you draw the line?

    One mans Pron is another mans art. Who gets to drawn the line of distinction between pron and art, artistic and acceptable vs pron and obscene.

    Are the images from Dante's Inferno artistic or obscene? It would appear from the discussion so far that the lines are drawn between whether the image was produced for religious or personal purposes. But then, who gets to say whether I have any particular image for one reason or another.

    Do you trust this Government or the current police force or even the Daily Mail to make a sensible balanced decision as to whether those images you have are for artistic enjoyment or for some one handed athletics. In the end, whats the difference?

    Time for a new system of governance, this one is broken.

  110. Kaitlyn Kincaid
    Joke

    waits for the ban on shoe catalogs

    title says it all... people getting off on images of peoples feet? well we cant have that, now can we?

  111. Jimmy

    Kudos to Graham Dawson

    The comments in this thread accurately reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of people in any society: child-abuse in any of its manifestations, sexual, emotional or physical is totally repugnant and unacceptable. We cherish and protect our kids because they are vulnerable and there are some seriously evil people out there.

    We are entitled to a reasonable expectation that our elected government will address the problem of paedophilia objectively and based on professional scientific evidence. Instead of which we have the sorry spectacle of a government minister executing the perfect knee-jerk response in order to placate the right wing tabloid press. How very NuLabour! And how totally and utterly ineffective.

    Legislating to make the possession of sexually explicit cartoon images illegal won't somehow magically make such material disappear. More importantly, it will not provide one additional iota of protection for vulnerable children. Just more smoke, mirrors and micro management from the same control-freaks who gifted unregulated free markets to their corporate friends while the rest of us are subjected to the most draconian form of authoritarian governance ever experienced in this country.

  112. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: Re : Beyond Reasonable Doubt...

    >>What I'd rather hear is "tough on crime, and bollocks to the causes of it."

    How sensible. Treat the symptoms, not the disease - win!

    Really, though, you don't have to be a hoodie-hugger to realise that raising happy and secure individuals means less crime. Contented people don't fuck other people over, on the whole (buy-to-let landlords aside, etc etc). It's nothing to do with being a bleeding-heart twat, it's just bald practicality. But then, spluttering outrage and retro fist-swinging is way more fun, I concede.

  113. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    Re: @Japanese thoughts on this (list of naughty naughtiness) - Sarah Bee

    Is there something you are trying to tell us here?

    What about the lego, are your reconstructions on dodgy ground?

  114. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: @Japanese thoughts on this (list of naughty naughtiness) - Sarah Bee

    You mean the Playmobil? That's Lester's look-out. I can confirm however that I consented to be represented in plastic toy form.

    I think they might have to add in an extra section for that.

  115. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re: Re: @Japanese thoughts on this (list of naughty naughtiness)

    I think if you fap to Roobarb & Custard that would mean you obviously wanted to abuse animals whilst bathing in jelly... That'd be exciting...

    Ironically the whole tentical thing was closely related to the Japanese government trying to ban porn by making it illegal to show the pubic region or erect penisis (hence all the mosaics in Japanese porn, hentai and games.)

    The law really does seem to be another ticky box police can use to ruin peoples live. Whilst people look good on TV

  116. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Question

    So if in traditional schoolboy fashion someone drew out a cartoon of a stick figure behind a crudely drawn sheep and labled it "Tim" in reference to the 15 year old sitting on the otherside of the classroom. He would technically, taking full account of the ideas behind the law, be liable for prosecution...

    Good indirect way to reduce teenage pregnancy I recon...

  117. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    as an aside

    As an aside - I think adults that watch lazy town are far more suspect then those that fap to lolipronz... But that's just a personal prejeduce - I hate that -------- pirate song.

  118. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Question

    >> Good indirect way to reduce teenage pregnancy I recon...

    What, shagging sheep?

  119. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Criminalise Hollywood!

    Does this mean that the movie Hounddog starring Dakota Fanning will be illegal in the UK as it includes a scene where said star is raped?

  120. Mostor Astrakan
    Flame

    Kind request...

    Would the government kindly stop pissing about and start working on the people who are, you know, actually molesting children? On the one hand we have small children being raped repeatedly under the eye of the camera. On the other we have some sad fucker fapping off to a drawing.

    Which is more important then?

  121. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Re: Re : Beyond Reasonable Doubt...

    >>>>What I'd rather hear is "tough on crime, and bollocks to the causes of it."

    >>How sensible. Treat the symptoms, not the disease - win!

    I think we in Britain have just given up all together on crime and the causes, the new mantra is, if you can't lock em up first time, write a new law and get some other git to make yourself feel better!

    People don't even know what causes crime anymore, people in charge have lost the plot, but they're not the only ones. The public is demented, and the media is little help when it comes to trying to be grown up about things. From juvenile crimes, to immigration, to peadophillia, to hardcore pronz, to environmentalism. Not many folk seem to have a clue.

    As a result I am waiting for the last hour of the day to go buy so I can go home and abuse my liver (although now I'm not allowed to do that, years of anti smoking stuff now they've moved onto the beer... no smoking, no beer, no porn, no tenticals, no raunchy literature... Cromwell eat your heart out.)

  122. Ferry Boat

    Ban cartoons - where will it end?

    Anyway, the Australians are way ahead of us. Police just removed two pictures of naked children from an art gallery. Not sexual pictures, just pictures. The artist who took them may be "charged with obscenity".

  123. Schultz
    Stop

    Is it too much to ask...

    That you all stop thinking about naked ladies and GET BACK TO WORK?

    And I thought Brits were somewhat reserved on the topic, takes legislation to make them talk, not to speak about their art, must have been ages since they depicted anything but dead cows, muttermuttermutter.......

  124. SteveMD

    Insane

    They clearly don't give a damn about reality or evidence. The fact is that there is stronger evidence that access to porn, of all kinds, causes a drop in sexual assaults than the opposite case (where there is no credible evidence).

    But what do they care? They can be seen to be 'doing something'. These new laws are more likely to cause crime, pain and suffering, if you assess the evidence with anything like a rational mind. More sexual assaults and more damaged children will allow them to say that they need to go even further and bring in more restrictive laws.

    They have long-since abandoned the promise to only make evidence led legislation and now seem to be working on the basis of some extreme ideaology and/or the need to do something, no matter how mad and ill-conceived it may be.

    The only charitable assessment of their actions would be that they have allowed themselves to be controlled by various self-serving lobby groups and have persuaded themselves that they don't need credible evidence, all they need is a 'feeling' that looking at something is wrong.

  125. peter

    While we are banning stupid things........

    Lets think of some other things....

    How about nything showing cars speeding, 'cos it might incite vulnerable persons to replicate it and crash into a queue of kids at a bus stop (Sob Think of the children etc).

    Oops. There goes F1, Touring cars, and every Worst Cop Chase Ever repeats (actually no great loss).

    Any other suggestions for out Great and Glorious Leaders to get in a tizzy about?

  126. wonton
    Alert

    How accurate do the inages have to be?

    This is starting to get pretty scary.

    For example, is this ilegal now:

    :o)=|-< --- Hello! My I am 14 years old, and I am naked!

  127. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    you are all to report for re-education.

    seriously. in the last 10 years they've gone mental. what the feck are they putting in the g&t at parliament? we've seen a new way to be a criminal on average every DAY! yet there's no more chance of catching actual crims.

    this utopia has indeed become a brave new world of CCTV, biometric ID, banned books, banned pictures, thought crime, repressive totalitarian madness.

    you cannot protest, or speak freely without "offending" or "inciting" unless you're part of a minority manipulated to install fear and loathing into the troglodytes. Stop thinking. Stop questioning. stop arguing. just switch on your 40inch plasma with rollerball every saturday and binge drink to oblivion leaving your betters to decide for you...

    Adam Munroe had the right idea.

  128. Sceptical Bastard

    Tyrannical hysteria

    Firstly (as I've felt bound to preface comments to similar stories), as a parent I abhor the abuse of children, sexual or otherwise.

    But equally, I am increasingly dismayed by the censorial instincts of this over-zealous overwheening government. However, to protest is to invite the Orwellian response "So you are in favour of kiddie porn, are you?" or "So you're on the paedophile's side?"

    As pointed out in the story, images of real (not photo-manipulated) sexual abuse of children mean actual abuse has taken place. It can be argued that if no market existed for these images, that *particular* act of abuse might not have taken place (but, note, it cannot be extrapolated from that premise is that if no market existed for images of sexual abuse then none would take place - for the obvious reason that sexual abuse of children predates the internet, home movies and the camera). Therefore, there is a case for making illegal the possesion of images of actual child abuse and certainly for making illegal their sale or distribution.

    The same argument simply cannot be advanced for cartoons, paintings, or drawings. No abuse has taken place. In fact, it could plausibly be argued that cartoons remove the necessity for actual abuse to take place. The "it incites perves to commit offenses" argument is simply not supported by any evidence: the numbers of child sex offenses, stranger-rape of children, and of child murder have remained more or less constant for decades. Brady and Hindley didn't have broadband; nor did Mary Bell.

    We are all constantly bombarded by newspapers, television and the internet with sexually explicit imagery and we live in a culture where sexual prowess and promiscuity are celebrated. But while a bout of coupling on late night TV or YouPorn may be mildly arousing to watch, it doesn't drive most of us to the nearest brothel or make us waylay the neighbour's missus.

    Cause and effect are simply not proven: and governments should never make laws on slight probabilities or in response to Daily Mail hysterics.

    Banning artworks (however cartoonish or distasteful) is moral censorship pure and simple: it is akin to book-burning. The government intends to penalise works of fantasy - in other words, it wants to censor thought and imagination.

    My strongly-held view of the proposed ban is summed up within the story itself: "This government won’t rest content until it has terrified people into viewing only material which bears the official seal of moral approval – an ambition which it shares with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China.”

    Exactly so. And what a disgraceful state of affairs for a nation whose freedoms and tolerance were once held as an example to the world.

  129. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is wrong with you people? Part II

    I can see the argument that as this are not real children then it is not really a crime. This doesn’t hold water as anyone who has done any research into pornography patterns will tell you.

    There is a joke which goes, the only thing better than porn is new porn.

    This seems to be the underlying theme to most situations where this sort of material is viewed. It is never viewed in isolation, it is always part of a collection that builds and grows, if this was not the case everyone who looked at this sort of porn would have one image or one video that did the trick and need nothing more.

    This is simply not the case, one of the character traits that seem to follow these types of people is the need to collect, to build a stash.

    Just because no one is hurt in that picture doesn’t mean the person viewing it will not move on to real images when it no long does it for them. It is called a spiral of abuse with good reason.

    A recent study of American prisoners, who had been arrested just for possession of Indecent Images, reported that when not faced with additional charges nearly 80% admitted touching children.

    It is not enough to say that as a decent free society we will shun this sort of thing and that sort of people, if this was true no one would break the law, it is a rather childish point of view.

    Of course, these is an emotive subject as some cartoons can be seen as funny and even an modern day equivalent of a seaside postcard but with Bart and Lisa playing ‘kiss me quick’, but the law has to deal in absolutes to stop people exploiting loop holes, surely the greater good is worth protecting, it is not as if society is going to be improved by making it acceptable to own cartoons of a baby being sadistically raped now is it?

  130. Daniel B.
    Black Helicopters

    Manga?

    I think by "Manga" they're actually referring to "Hentai", aren't they?

    Plus, if anything, "cartoon underage sex" might even ban V for Vendetta as well: Evey's offering her "services" at the beginning of the graphic novel, and she's 16!

    Its just as stupid as the "Extreme Porn" law, and as someone else already mentioned, some manga/hentai publications have already dodged the bullet. Example: one of the Bleach characters is a 400-year-old "death god", who happens to roam the "mortal world" as a 16-ish schoolgirl. Any "hentai" version would simply claim its a 400 y/o character, not 16 y/o. Bleh.

  131. C. P. Cosgrove
    Thumb Up

    Info Links on effects of pornographt

    Pat at 1459 asked for any info links on this subject.

    Having been advised in an earlier post not to Google 'Lolicon' I promptly did, not fully understanding the term, and took a look at the Wikipedia entry. Among many other references to be found under 'Notes', he may find this useful :

    "Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 22 (1): 1–22. Retrieved on 2008-01-06."

    Chris Cosgrove

  132. Morten Ranulf Clausen
    Thumb Down

    Those who ignore history...

    ...are bound to repeat it. Germany has just held memorials for the 75th anniversary of the Nazi book burnings, and here we go again. Just 75 years... *sigh* What have we done to have such idiots at the helm...?

    As for the press: forget it. They no longer watch the watchmen. They're watching their stockholders wallets. Perhaps we have to have another period of repression to make people understand how important freedom is...

  133. Brian Ribbon

    UK law is more extreme

    "Anyway, the Australians are way ahead of us. Police just removed two pictures of naked children from an art gallery. Not sexual pictures, just pictures. The artist who took them may be "charged with obscenity"."

    Non-sexual nude pictures of children are already illegal in the UK, in most cases. An image of a child is indecent (and therefore illegal) if it "offends the recognised standards of propriety", even to an insignificant extent. Clothed images can therefore be illegal too. See http://newgon.com/wiki/Indecent_images_of_children#Indecency

  134. Luther Blissett

    Sex, violence, and a coincidence from history

    There was a Marquis de Sade, who liked to write "extreme porn". The Powers that Were were outraged and put de Sade in pokey. Meanwhile, fed up with the civilities introduced by Catherine de Medici into polite society in the form of social dances, they invented for themselves a pr0n entertainment version called ballet. Shortly afterwards the peasants were told to eat cake, and then the Powers that Were succumbed to the kitchenware of Mme la Guillotine.

  135. Pyros

    Schultz...

    They're talking about UK taking the Goddess-given right to look at nekkid ladies (drawn or not) on the Internet at home, where it's *far* more private.

    Get on the program, and do what's (in)decent, man.

  136. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too busy to comment...

    I have to search my DVD collection for the one with the advert for Urotsukidōji.

  137. Owen Milton
    Flame

    Another log (law) on the fire

    So in short, this is a near unenforceable law that will get added to the books and largely forgotten about... Just like so many others that exist in the laws of pretty much every country in the world. Really all this is going to do is put another law on the books that can be hauled out when the police or black helicopter folk want to Make An Example of someone.

    They're not going to bust down the doors of schools for the sake of Romeo, they're not going to start a house-to-house search and arrest entire towns or cities. All that will happen is it will sit around until some local council member decides that he doesn't like the way you cut your lawn and orders surveillance on you, which turns up the fact that your computer once did a Bittorent search for Legend of the Over-fiend. Then the laws get hauled out, you are outed as a horrible child molester and whoever moves into your house mows his lawn the same way as everyone else. Granted, your life is over but you can always move to some place like Moose Jaw Canada and try to start over.

    Hooray for vague laws that only get enforced when someone in power has a grudge

  138. Bob Bobbins
    Thumb Down

    Irritated

    To quote from the article itself:

    At the consultation stage for this law, some Police Forces cited manga as material they would like outlawed. Manga is an essentially Japanese art form, which can cover some quite adult themes. “Tentacle porn” and abduction by aliens are common. Crucially some of the images include individuals whose age is indeterminate or seriously young. As Home Secretary, John Reid expressed his outrage that manga and similar material was not illegal.

    Whoa whoa whoa there Home Secretary John Reid. You're going to ban an entire literary genre based on the fact that there are some, an extremely small some at that, questionable contents out there. That's like saying CP is filmed on Camcorders, therefore we should ban everything that can record moving images, it's nuts! This is gonna give manga, and subsequently manga fans, a bad name. I've got a collection of over 300 manga, but I don't want to nail a six year old.

  139. Graham Marsden

    Re: What is wrong with you people?

    @Sarah Bee

    It's good to see that it's not just guys in here that think this law is absurd! To criminalise fictional images is to criminalise thought as the Government did with so-called Extreme Porn.

    Unfortunately it seems they think "hey, we got away with it that time, let's see if we can use exactly the same arguments again..."

    @Pat

    "if any reader has a link to specific evidential reports or research conclusions confirming this then please post a link."

    See "The effects of Pornography: An International Perspective" by Professor Milton Diamond PhD which concluded:

    "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims."

    <http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_ovrvw.html>

    Also Professor Todd Kendall who presented a paper to Stanford Law School which concluded "[...] the results suggest that, in contrast to previous theories to the contrary, liberalization of pornography access may lead to declines in sexual victimization of women."

    <http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf>

    Still, why should the Government let the facts get in the way of grabbing some headlines?

  140. Matthew Joyce

    I decline...

    I lost pretty much any respect for the general body of UK law when they passed the pile of rubbish that makes possible the following conversation:

    "Good morning, sir. I'm afraid we'd like you to accompany us to the station."

    "Oh? Why, may I ask, officer?"

    "Well, sir, you can *ask* - but we're not obliged to tell you. In fact, we're not obliged to have a reason. Suspicion is enough now - and I've been feeling suspicious ever since I started wondering about the freshness of my lunch."

    "Ah. Well, in that case, happy as I am to help you, I'm afraid that I must decline, officer."

    "In that case, sir, we shall simply have to arrest you and bring you anyway. Really, it's so much simpler if you just come along voluntarily."

    "Sorry, officer, I'm afraid I'm just not feeling very cooperative towards this New Lawyer approach."

    "Very well, sir. Handcuffs and into the back seat it is."

    "Under what charge am I being detained, officer?"

    "Today we've chosen 'suspicion of being a terrorist', sir. That's why all I need is to feel suspicious. And since you declined to come along without paperwork, I've been feeling much more suspicious about you."

    "Tell me, officer, how long will it be before I can speak to a lawyer? To my wife? Or try to arrange to have someone else meet my children two hours from now?"

    "Couldn't say, sir. It depends upon the mood of the officers at the station. Could be right away ... could be days. Or even weeks. I suppose it revolves around how cooperative you choose to become. Either way, you're a criminal now, because you've got an arrest warrant against you. Even if we let you go without further charges."

    This latest lot of rubbish is just yet another way to get an actual prosecution they can take to court afterwards no matter what evidence fails to exist. The fact that it can be successfully argued that this law *can* prosecute anyone with a postcard of a typical Renaissance cherub is proof enough that it isn't competent to be used as toilet paper, while its proposers either aren't competent to hold so much as a conversation, or that their intent was to subvert the process of law in the first place.

  141. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Spiral of lies

    "Just because no one is hurt in that picture doesn’t mean the person viewing it will not move on to real images when it no long does it for them. It is called a spiral of abuse with good reason."

    Japan has the most violent media and low violence society, Muslim countries have the reverse. 'Spiral of abuse' is just a catch phrase not backed up by evidence. If it was, why did Jacqui hire female researchers whose previous work claimed 'porn=violence' to write the report to back up her anti-extreme porn claim. I guess she did it because she couldn't trust unbiased researchers to back her claim.

    Having read the full reports those researchers cited, even he didn't claim a causal link! They even had to selectively quote his papers!

    "A recent study of American prisoners, who had been arrested just for possession of Indecent Images, reported that when not faced with additional charges nearly 80% admitted touching children."

    The search brings up nothing:

    [prisoners 80% touching children]

    So I call you a bullshitter Mr AC, since why would 80% confess to a crime they could face time for? There is no such thing as 'do not face additional charges', if they admitted to something then they can be prosecuted for it.

    To me this just proves yet again that the evidence does not back up the Taliban.

  142. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Milton Diamond and Ayako Uchiyama (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan"

    "The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography, without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."

    Well DUH, getting your rocks makes you less violent! Welcome to male sexuality 101, no wonder Jacqui only hired women researchers to write her 'research' paper.

    "In 1972, 33.3 % of the offenders were between 14-19 years of age; by 1995 that percentage had decreased to 9.6%. Thus, over the period in question, there was a major shift in the proportion of victims and offenders from the younger categories to older categories."

    Well DUH, their kids should teach them how to get porn. Remember, your kids know where the GOOD dirty filthy porn sites are old man.

    "Lastly, in Japan, while the total number of rapes decreased, the percentage of rapes by a stranger increased steadily from 61.6 % of the rapes reported in 1979 to 79.5% of the rapes in 1995. Thus, date rape and familial rape decreased significantly. Also gang rapes decreased markedly. In 1972, 12.3 % of the rapes by juveniles were conducted by two or more offenders. Over the years, the percentage decreased so that in 1995 only 5.7% of the rapes were of this category."

    Decreased, gee how could that be, Jacqui swears she's no incompetent and did all her homework before planning on locking up everyone.

    "As a statistical control measure of sorts we analyzed the cases of murder and non sexual violent physical assaults reported during the years 1972 to 1995 (Table 1). Here also dramatic decreases occurred over the period reviewed. Murders dropped by some 40 percent and non sexual physical assaults decreased by about 60 percent. In these last two categories of crime, however, there was no comparable shift in the age groups involved in these activities either as victim or offender."

    Yeh we get it, the reverse correlation we've seen again and again.

  143. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is wrong with you people? Part II

    > Just because no one is hurt in that picture doesn’t mean the person viewing it will not move on to real images when it no long does it for them. It is called a spiral of abuse with good reason.

    In which case you wait until they brake the law. That's how the world works.

    > A recent study of American prisoners, who had been arrested just for possession of Indecent Images, reported that when not faced with additional charges nearly 80% admitted touching children.

    A paper that was removed from the peer review process... That used a small sample of volunteers 155 of which 27% were convicted of child molestation already. A study in stark contrast to previous studies that showed 30 to 40%. A study that didn't cover none real images of child abuse? In the only institute in the states that caters for child sex offenders where often unstable and ill people with have opportunity to learn new stories and fantasies to tell their inquisitors?

    A single study should never be used to support an opinion, it must be repeatable, it must be repeated, and it must produce consistent results.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

    To quote

    "About every six months as part of an 18-month treatment program, they filled out a record of their sexual history, including a “victims list” tallying their previous victims of abuse. Therapists encouraged the men to be honest as part of their treatment, and the sexual histories were anonymous, according to the paper.

    The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26 percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims: 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the men were sentenced. "

    --------------------

    There is no control sample, no further analysis, just the mens "confessions" which they were "encouraged" to give.

    I remember a science paper where I wrote that I was a fish 100 times, just becouse I thought it would annoy the teachers. Anyway learn to check, double check and check again when citeing sources.

    As an aside the internet isn't a very good for researching such things as all the opinions are just that once it gets past the cold hard fact of a real child porn image is an image of sexual abuse and is wrong. From there on out it's speculation, opinion, delusion and personal belief.

  144. Shabble

    Religion and thought control

    In a secular society it is generally the case that the morality of a person is defined by their actions. If you act in a way that is harmful, then you have acted immorally and deserve some kind of punishment. If you can show that your activities are potentially beneficial, or at least neutral, then your activities will be protected by the State to prevent over-zealous 'moral guardians' infringing your liberties.

    In a religious society, the converse is true - and it is important to look into the psyche of the religious belief system to find out why. Religious people believe that humans have a soul that can be corrupted or purified. They believe that a moral person is a person with a clean soul, and an immoral person is a person with a dark soul. When people do bad things, it is because their soul is corrupted by sin (sin being a force analogous to gravity or magnetism). To a religious person, an individual who gains pleasure through thinking about sinful activities has a corrupt soul and can therefore be expected to carry out sinful activities.

    Now, draw a Venn diagram - one secular and one religious - depicting two groups. The first group is people who get turned on by looking at cartoons of physically mature topless 15 year old girls, the second is people who go out and rape 10 year old girls. Now, in the secular diagram it is pretty much impossible to get a cross-over for these two groups. You could try under 'distasteful activities' but paedophilia is far too horrific to be merely 'distasteful'. Both are taboo, but one is clearly a natural pleasure and the other is clearly an un-natural pleasure, so it’s a real stretch. As there is no evidence that getting turned on by the image is in any way harmful, there is no real possibility of cross-over.

    However, if we go to the religious diagram we see that there is plenty of cross-over. Firstly, both are basically pretty sinful, and as thoughts can be sinful, they can corrupt the soul (note: one of the Ten Commandments says its wrong to want to have sex with your neighbour's wife). Secondly, both involve taking pleasure from sexuality outside of marriage, which is deeply distasteful to many religious people. Thirdly, both involve 'spiritually pure' children – for religious people it is much worse to mix sin with children because children have purer souls than adults. In physiological and psychological terms, 10 year old girls and 15 year old girls are profoundly different in the sexuality stakes. In a Christian spirituality sense, the distinction is overwhelmed by religious sentiment. But most importantly, both activities are seen as directly leading the offender away from God and towards hell. Secular people draw a distinction between thoughts and actions, but religious people often do not. To a deeply religious person, getting turned on by the image is effectively a 'gateway sin' that inevitably leads on to much worse sins.

    There was recently a huge outcry in the UK when the Archbishop of the Church of England suggested we should integrate religious laws into the UK justice system. We are naturally a secular state, and the people of the UK do not tolerate god-botherers interfering with our way of life. However, the religious people at the top of our government are now using anti-paedophile sentiment to introduce religious concepts of justice by the back door. We must realise this law for what it is and get rid of New Labour post-haste.

  145. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Socialism and its not so distant cousin: Fascism

    I assume they are also banning adult school girl uniforms and any adult videos with them in.........

    The same government that makes it illegal to own books (terrorism) makes it illegal to own comics/"extreme" pornography (paedophilia).....

    Thought police anyone?

    Could someone please tell me how we ended up on this journey:

    New Labour -> Socialism -> Welfare State -> Nanny State -> Big Brother Society -> Fascism?

  146. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Response?

    145 comments down, I'm not sure how many will see this, but...

    Is there any organisation trying to fight this?

    Even someone vaguely famous expressing slight doubts, "...I am not entirely sure this has been properly thought through...", anything?

    I imagine all the usual ones took one look at it and thought "Pedos..., Porn..., -- not with a 10 foot pole..." which is unfortunately what .gov are counting on.

    Hopefully it'll at least be in the next Liberty newsletter, but I'm not optimistic.

  147. Dave Bell

    Thankyou for the citations.

    Thanks to all who have provided citations to scientic papers that so thoroughly contradict the assumptions behind these invidious proposals.

  148. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Teen pregnancy?

    So what happens to those pesky reports about teenage pregnancy? They imply underage sex,,,

  149. Mark

    The "Loophole" Is Already Closed!

    Under the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 69 (a few clauses after the "extreme porn" ones...) - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g69 :

    "References to a photograph also include- a tracing or other image, whether made by electronic or other means (of whatever nature)- which is not itself a photograph or pseudo-photograph, but which is derived from the whole or part of a photograph or pseudo-photograph (or a combination of either or both)"

    So not only is it absurd logic to suggest that all drawings need to be criminalised because pedophiles are allegedly converting child abuse images into them, this simply isn't a loophole anymore anyway!

    What if pedophiles start converting images of children into page 3 girls, will they need to be criminalised too?

    Thanks for your balanced and informative article - far more so than the rest of the press.

  150. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Pirate

    Tin foil hats please

    reading through at this late hour I notice you've all missed something

    The framing of this law like the extreme porn law is very vague and wooly

    Why?

    To catch the child abusers.... or is it ?

    Perhaps its worded in such a vague way to ensure plenty of court time for lawyers to argue over an image of a woman in a schoolgirl's outfit being attacked by tenticles is illegal or not to make sure the resulting court cases last as long as possible so that the lawyers are paid heaps of money from legal aid and the CPS for this sort of nonsense.

    Now why would MPs pass such laws?... because 80% of them are LAWYERS and therefore stand to benefit the most from such stupid laws.

    I might be paranoid... but am I paranoid enough?

  151. Fortunateson
    Pirate

    Reminds me off.....

    You know that scene in Austin Powers where Dr Evil askes everyone to leave and then gets to the last guy and goess "Not you guy turning knobs trying to make it seem like your doing something when youre not".

    Reminds me of the current goverment, this legislation looks big on paper, please the likes of Parents For Cottonwooling Kids and Parents for Driving theres kid to school so they dont fall over and scratch themself but in actuallity does nothing but tighten there control grip.

    And AnonymousCoward, no organisation will fight this as if they do they will be called "Paedos" and other such names.

  152. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: What is wrong with you people?

    That's exactly the point! This government has introduced several ill-thought out laws and when the deficiencies have been pointed out, the ministers concerned have always said "This law is not for that purpose, it would only be used for extreme cases, blah, blah....". Of course - all pf these laws have then been used exactly opposite to that described. RIPA is a good example.

    The government, police and judiciary are clearly mad as hatters.

    However, those in the current government have not realised that these crappy laws that they can direct at anyone they do not like will be used by a future government against them and their friends.

  153. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Response

    I'm sure that somewhere in the morass of new legislation brought in by this government under the pretence of fighting terrorism, it is illegal to form any organisation to fight any legislation brought in by this oppressive government.

    Heil Braun!

  154. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    @What is wrong with you people? Part II

    "Just because no one is hurt in that picture doesn’t mean the person viewing it will not move on to real images when it no long does it for them. It is called a spiral of abuse with good reason."

    Ah, the good old "gateway" theory, just like the claims that smoking a bit of cannabis will make people go onto "hard" drugs.

    But given that we have had quite a few of the Cabinet admitting to using cannabis in their younger years, how many of them do you think are hooked on hard drugs now?

    Because them being as high as a kite is about the only rational reason for them wanting to pass laws like this!

    And the only "good reason" it's called "the spiral of abuse" is that it's a good soundbite to justify these sorts of laws without actually needing to provide any proof of harm or evidence that it's "necessary and proportionate"!

  155. Edward Lilley
    Flame

    WTF is all this about socialism?!

    The whole point of New Labour is that they're *not* all nice and moderately left wing! New Labour is more of an awful corporate-friendly centre-right affair.

    But --- that's not even the issue here. Totalitarianism can come from both left- or right- wing governments... and in this case it is coming from New Labour. So a big Shut Up to everyone trying to implicate Socialism/Marxism/<insert irrational fear of political system here> with this stupid new law

  156. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    report everything

    Maybe we should try reporting every infraction we see / know to the police and flood them with paperwork. Or even better write your PM about every single infraction. Of course a separate letter for every case. And send follow up letters after 1 week to ask for updates.

    I guess it is time to start a revolution again.

  157. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Paedos: The New Jew, Black, Gay

    While I totally agree with many of the reasons for objecting to laws of this nature, I also believe that there is at least one more string to this bow.

    It's also about providing a "proper" state sponsored target for people's negative feelings, lest people actually start thinking independently and focusing on real issues. It's a way to take control of the mob and point it in a direction chosen by the powers that be, rather than one day waking up and finding the mob camped on their doorstep demanding accountability.

  158. Mr Larrington
    Black Helicopters

    @Luther Blissett

    Strewth! There's a bloke down there with no strides on!

    Ban this filth immediately and make the perpetrators live in Edmonton. And as for that Jodie Foster: Taxi Driver, The Verdict, Bugsy Malone etc. Where will it all end?

  159. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you people? Part III

    Mr MARSDEN, I can not comment on the drug taken habits of the Cabinet and do not want to distract from this debate with talk of other activities.

    I would like to say that I have seen the spiral of abuse, many times, I have seen the way this affects the people viewing this material and I have seen where it leads.

    I have not based my rant on opinion or my interpretation of the press.

    The law was changed to include pseudo-photographs because it was, in some cases, hard to distinguish what was real and was created. What would have happened when CGI images get to that stage?

    I still find it hard to believe that some many seemingly rational people are defending this, it is not a book burning exercise, it is not a thin veil to banning all pornography it is not some attempt to some artistic types from creating beautiful works of art, this is proposed to stop a loop hole in the creation/ possession/ distribution of images of children getting abuse.

    How can that improve society?

    Are will really going to argue over that this sort of thing will benefit us? You may be purely arguing that to impose any limits is wrong, but again this is flawed as people will exploit this.

    We have to protect the vulnerable; can we run the risk that this will lead to hands on abuse? Can you really think that it is ok for a single child to be abused so that certain sections of the population can convince themselves that this is art and no one is getting hurt?

    @ My reference to the American Study, having revisited this I can see that this brought nothing to this debate, I apologise.

  160. Jeff Deacon
    Black Helicopters

    Wow, what a lot of comments!

    I came a bit late to this article it seems! But as others have already said, credit must go to Graham Dawson early on in the thread for his well balanced assessment of the matter. Just a few other points to add:

    * As virtual images of naked children are specifically covered by this law, watch out for the exemption of CCTV operators, especially where they have "look through your clothes" cameras

    * If the London Olympics logo is to give rise to charges under this legislation, then surely the infamous, and now sadly withdrawn, Office of Government Commerce logo should also give rise to charges (Better known for "Nanny Knows Best", Ken Frost's site about the Orifice of Government Commerce has a few items of clothing that might in future be difficult to justify)

    * Quite clearly the British Home Office _did_ send a pantechnicon round to the Stasi's Closing Down (Everything Must Go) Garage Sale in East Berlin some years ago. It has just taken a little while to learn how to put all the bits back together again

    * The common sense of the British jury system that demolished the case against Lady Chatterley's Lover will not hold sway for much longer. Just look out for the moves to restrict jury trial, and have more cases heard by judges sitting alone. All in the cause of "efficiency", don't you know!

    * Elsewhere a blogger has noted that Mussolini spent the contents of the Italian treasury, and then went to the bankers to borrow money for specific projects, promising to pay them back a "rental" fee over the life of the asset. Any similarity to the PFI initiative made that author wonder what the "F" stands for in PFI! And as for spending the contents of HM Treasury? Broon achieved that fairly early on in his reign as Chancellor. All in keeping with some other points that have been made further up the thread

    As others have pointed out, the biggest danger here is function creep. And we all know that this NuLabour government has form on function creep. Enough form to secure a conviction by any jury.

    The only problem is that it is bound to get worse. EU and all. As a Christian, I know where my hope is to be found. If you also want to know, read the Book yourself, don't rely on others to pre-digest it for you, that's always messy and unreliable!

  161. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    >society improved by cartoons of a baby being sadistically raped?

    What if the availability of such material means that a troubled mind sticks to the cartoons and doesn't end up carrying out their fantasies on real people? Perhaps if they aren't stuffed forcibly into a secret world and the perverts have some release then they won't hurt actual people?

    These types are rarely have the level of self control that the rest of us do.

    That is, yes, society could be improved by such cartoons.

  162. Bob Bobbins
    Joke

    @ Graham M.

    "how many of them do you think are hooked on hard drugs now?"

    More than have been reported on, that's for sure.

  163. Spleen

    @Edward

    Any political philosophy that involves establishing a government to save the people from themselves inevitably leads to this. Doesn't matter whether you call it fascism or communism or theocracy, or whether you start off applying the dead hand of the state to ensure societal harmony, income equality or spiritual grace; once you establish a state it does what any living entity does. It expands, as far as it can, wherever it can. People go into government to seek power and once there they seek more power. For ever and ever, amen.

  164. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The last piece of the jigsaw?

    So, now the police have (almost) everything they wanted. Once this becomes law, probably almost every pc (that's the computer, not the plod) will have an image on it somewhere that could be illegal. Then, if you fall under any suspicion for anything, a simple forensic trawl of your pc will probably find something actionable.

    A few points of information, though. As already pointed out, an image of a child doesn't have to contain nudity to be indecent. On the other hand, nudity does not automatically make an image indecent. The BBFC have consulted widely with lawyers, psychologists and other professionals, and they still certificate films containing images of naked children as long as the image is not sexualised. Also, the proposals outlined in the so-called "consultation" were to criminalise possession of drawn images showing children engaged in sexual conduct with adults, and BDSM type material.

    And oh sh*t, I hadn't noticed that about the London 2012 logo. Oh well, to the pure all things are pure...

  165. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @What is wrong with you people? Part III

    But they arn't pictures of children being abused.

    They are drawings that someone has imagined.

    It is a law banning imaginings. It is a law based on opinion.

    Without the American study there is little documented evidince to support your observations.

    At the end of the day just and civil civilizations operate under the basic principle that one should not send a person to jail who has commited no crime. And you can't assume on guess work and opinion that a person will commit a crime simply becouse they have done something similar to someone else who had commited a crime.

    It isn't right or just to arrest a person for doing a: a being look at drawings of sexual abuse becouse 25% of people who look at such images may go on to look at real CP and a further 30% may then go on to commit an offence.

    Just as the law against extreme pornography is wrong.

    This is a proposition to turn opinion into law, and it is wrong.

    Law is rarely about prevention. It is about how you deal with things once they have happend, the threat of prision and social isolation combined with common sense, morale decency and a definate idea of the difference between reality and fantasy are what keep people from breaking the law.

    So I value all life equally, and there will be far more innocent adults harmed by this law then children saved. Making it wrong.

  166. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    sieg heil! - paedos and terrorists are the new jews

    anyone who still laughs at the notion that we're walking blindfolded into a fascist state must have the intellect of a plankton.

    * detention without trial

    * kidnapping [sorry - 'extraordinary rendition']

    * torture [oops! - i mean 'waterboarding']

    * illegal to express anti-western viewpoints [remember the woman who was arrested for writing piss-poor jihadist poetry]

    * illegal to read the wrong thing [likewise with the students arrested for possessing 'the anarchists' cookbook']

    * compulsory ID cards

    * face recognition CCTV cameras

    * numberplate recognition CCTV cameras

    * govenrment access to your email and web-surfing records

    * and now apparently, it's going to be illegal to draw something illegal

    so joe public loses his human rights one by one in the name of protecting us from the ravaging hordes of [mainly fictional] paedophiles and jihadist terrorists.

    meanwhile his mother cowers in the house, too afraid to walk down the street and his kids run the gauntlet of the knife-wielding gangs of local teenagers on the way home from school. gangs who the law won't touch, because having them on the streets keeps the people afraid - and an afraid people are so much easier to persuade with the lie 'just surrender us more of your human rights and we'll protect you from all this'.

    at least [whatever their half-arsed views on operating systems!] the majority of the reg readership seems to have the intellect to see through this curtain of crap. the sad thing is tho' that we're in a minority. have this debate on one of those radio four phone-ins and the odd dissenting voice who manages to get through will be drowned out by the hordes of brain-dead fuckwitts howling "well, if you're not doing anything wrong - you've nothing to worry about!"

  167. Glyn
    Happy

    LZ

    Is my Led Zeppelin Houses of the holy CD going to get me arrested too?

    That's got naked kids on the Giants causeway (I think) all over it

    Rock n roll is rebellious again

  168. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'll own up...

    I'll own up, I'm the AC from yesterday 11:48 and I've had enough.

    This article yesterday was the last straw. I've given up on the MoJ. Downing Street havne't bothered to reply and the MP's/Lords, Ladies, Barons, Dames, whatever, have gone silent.

    I've passed what I've got to the BBC Home Affairs News team yesterday. They're currently reviewing what I've given them which includes Police and Customs and Excise abuse of powers and also how the MoJ fixed the REA report by not asking the critical question. We'll see where they go from here.

    Someone wanted links yesterday ... here's one http://life-of-a-stranger.blogspot.com/ and I'll post more links and bits and pieces there sometime tonight. Also here http://www.realbondage.co.uk/cjai.htm or for those of you behind content filters this will get you to it withouth tripping off the censor alarms http://www.msknight.com/realbondage/cjai.htm - that will be updated sometime tonight also. Sorry, El Reg, but I've quoted the article anonymously - I'll correct that tonight.

    Someone hand me a gun ... I must be comitting suicide.

  169. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you people? Part IIII

    @JonB

    ‘These types are rarely have the level of self control that the rest of us do.’

    Your argument is self defeating here; it is that lack of self control which causes them to not stick with drawn images and move on to live images/abuse.

    @ AC 10:12

    A pseudo image is not an image of a child being abuse, it is an image portraying abuse, just as these are, this is the loop hole and that this why it should be fixed.

    I am not assuming on guess work, I am speaking from direct experience, everyone and that is everyone I have seen with these types of images also had live images of child abuse. Please to not generalise from self.

    We are not talking about the law against extreme pornography and I will not comment on it.

    Your last statement worries me, how can you declare something right or wrong purely based on numbers? Surely one child abuse is too many? Would you care to explain a child who had been abused that is was ok because the numbers of ‘innocent adults’ is high?

    Let us not forget we are not talking about perfectly legal adult pornography, we are talking about graphic images portraying child abuse, and anyone who imagines that to be art needs to seek professional help.

  170. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: What is wrong with you people? Part IIII

    @ AC 15:26

    Question ... who is qualified to decide what is and isn't art?

    There is a definition that I would not like to be trying to argue in a court of law. Also, I would opine that we ARE talking about what is perfectly legal adult pornography at present.

    I know people who have irrational responses; arousal occurs on sight/smell of American style sneakers, dangly earrings, etc. they don't understand why they have these responses. You don't see them attacking women who are wearing said foot garmets or jewelry in the streets ... they are actually quite honest people who are of benefit to society.

    Your closed minded view is doing nothing but drawing a hard line that doesn't recognise any gray; that is the kind of view that would assign people who are not criminals straight behind bars without any second thought or understanding ... in fact the people I have met with that kind of attitude have apalled me with their smug attitude in thinking that they have done society some big favour by believing they have stopped some form of abuse before it has happened ... even though there is actually no proof that such abuse would have happened anyway.

    Just as something can not be judged right or wrong based on numbers, someone can not be judged right or wrong based on their thoughts ... or they should not be judged right or wrong based on their thoughts.

    The reality is that people with such leanings are born, not made. Opression puts them in to a corner, like an animal. Who knows what the result would be? If you allow some form of dignified existance (such as drug adicts who are prescribed replacement drugs) then everyone is a winner.

    Why do some people like to make things a right and wrong ... so long as it them on the right side?

  171. Peter

    Olympics 2012

    Damn, they just banned the Liza Simpson giving head logo.

    Expect another pointless waste of money on another logo.

  172. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    @What is wrong with you people? Part IIII

    What is wrong with people rejecting laws based on opinion without fact or proven basis? Allow me to attempt to inform you.

    "Your argument is self defeating here; it is that lack of self control which causes them to not stick with drawn images and move on to live images/abuse."

    There is no empirical evidence that suggests that is the case, subsequently you should not base a law on something that has a lack of evidence supporting speculative and subjective opinion.

    "A pseudo image is not an image of a child being abuse, it is an image portraying abuse, just as these are, this is the loop hole and that this why it should be fixed."

    A pseudo photograph includes an image of a REAL child, let me try and get that through to you, as you seem to be having a difficult time understanding the concept of reality.

    Drawings do not, they are expressions of fantasy, fantasies are ideas, ideas are protected under article 10 of the European Convention of Human rights. Those drawings that are traced from actual images or derived from actual images are already covered under the Justice and Immigration bill, in short this will only criminalise depictions involving non real people, fantasies, which are none of the governments business. To criminalise a fantasy, regardless of context is a THOUGHTCRIME. This has already been proven to be unconstitutionally broad in the US, and should also be proven as such in the UK. There are more than enough laws covering this subject to cover for all eventualities of ACTUAL abuse with REAL people, this is not a loophole cover, that has been covered, this is simply controlling expression of a subject that alot of people find objectionable and as such, in Labours dying breaths, they believe that pandering to the usual "won't someone please think of the children" crowd, it will garner votes.

    "I am not assuming on guess work, I am speaking from direct experience, everyone and that is everyone I have seen with these types of images also had live images of child abuse. Please to not generalise from self."

    Please do not generalise from self experience, your personal experience is irrelevant when you consider the scope that this legislation covers. If these people have real images, then prosecute those. How the hell does having real and fake together neccesitate overreaching legislation? Hunting down real porn would be more productive yes?

    "Your last statement worries me, how can you declare something right or wrong purely based on numbers?"

    Morality is based on subjective opinion, if your opinion is part of the majority, it is considered right. The majority considered homosexuality to be wrong, it is now right. how can you create a law the PUTS PEOPLE IN PRISON based on anything other than objectively gathered fact. That is how you base something on evidence. Evidential law is alot more sound because it has grounding in fact, opinion based facts are neither sound nor moral.

    "Surely one child abuse is too many?"

    Agreed, but a drawing does not constitute abuse. There is also no evidence to connect drawings with abuse, therefore you cannot ban it on the principle that it 'might' be used to groom. You certainly dont expect anyone to believe that fantasy drawings have been abused, or refused consent?

    No Victim

    No Abuse

    No Crime

    No need for a law.

    "Would you care to explain a child who had been abused that is was ok because the numbers of ‘innocent adults’ is high?"

    I'm pretty sure you are attempting to state a direct causal link to abuse via a fantasy drawing again, would you care to provide this 'obvious' causal evidence from a non subjective and objectively empirical source?

    In any case, banning all outlets for this will not reduce the number of people who abuse, or stop abuse. Why look at porn when you have the real thing? Why look at drawings when they are illegal anyway, surely its worth the risk to look at the real thing? hell its only 2 years more, the fine is the same, as is the sex offender registry. Care to justify sending someone to prison for commiting no crime?

    "Let us not forget we are not talking about perfectly legal adult pornography"

    At the moment we are talking about prefectly legal adult pornography that is restricted from being distributed and sold under the obscene publications act. But not the possession of.

    "we are talking about graphic images portraying child abuse"

    We are talking about drawings that can only be subjectively proven are images of child abuse. What they contain is irrelevant, as someone earlier stated, a stick man and a stick child humping like wild rabbits is a portrayal of 'child abuse'. However, as no child is actually involved, and no harm is done, im pretty sure there is no abuse. Unless ink lines or pixels have feelings now?

    "and anyone who imagines that to be art needs to seek professional help"

    This is totally irrelevant, unless you are in favour of minority report style laws that lock people up before commiting a crime. Guilty before even committing a crime. This is why its called a thought crime.

    1) If its fantasy its thought, you cannot regulate thought.

    2) It's none of your business, the governments business, my business what anyone does in their own home that neither harms anyone or creates a victim. Therefore a fantasy drawing, cannot be considered a crime.

    3) Just because you personally dislike something, doesnot make it a legitimate reason to ban it when there is no evidence of a victim or a crime.

    4) You cannot arrest and imprison someone for something they have not commited (eg child abuse)

    5)Given the lack of objective evidence surrounding this as to the causal links, purely creating a law that criminalises and destroys peoples lives cannot be tolerated in a free society. Even if there were causal links that support the idea that it encourages paedophilic thoughts, thoughts cannot be regulated and should never be regulated. Unless you want Orwellian Britain to become fully fledged, anyone who would want that needs professional help.

    6)"anyone who imagines that to be art needs to seek professional help", so a punitive punishment and social rejection will help someone will it? Do you really think that destroying someones life for a few fantasies is either a moral or ethical decision? Do you really think that will save children? I fail to see the logic in criminalising something and punishing in order to help.

    Not only are fantasies and thoughts not in the public domain, but the basic principles of freedom of expression cover them, especially for private use (such as possession).

    There is simply no solid evidence to support the claims made in order to enforce this proposed legislation. It is all opinion and subjective reasoning, which im pretty sure are not the best reasons to create a custodial sentence on, and destroy a persons life. Peoples thoughts and private lives are not the domain of governments, neither is creating legislation that protects no victims and criminalises no actual harm or crime. What is wrong with these people??? What sir is wrong with you.

  173. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    re: what is wrong with people? part 3

    "I am not assuming on guess work, I am speaking from direct experience, everyone and that is everyone I have seen with these types of images also had live images of child abuse. Please to not generalise from self."

    Yes ofcourse and so with this reasoning if everyone who has been caught out as a child abuser has a car we should definitively ban cars also. Oh you can see the flaw in my reasoning - how about the "reasoning" cited above?

    I do not think that AC referenced has any idea of what she / he is talking about. Did you completely miss the reference to "comics"? If you are seriously suggesting that people who have these comics also have live images of child abuse? We are talking about perfectly legal adult pornography mainly imported from other democratic countries. The references were NOT made to some underground and illegal publications. Those comics which were referred to have not been modelled on any child abuse since child abuse is illegal also in countries like Japan. Do you really believ that Japanese are uncivilized and uncultivated - just because their taste is different then your personal judgmental one? IN any case some of these comics are made in Europe and they are LEGAL in those countries also.

    Your comment worries me, how can you justify the means with the goals? In Europe we supposedly have moved beyond the darkness of the middle ages and asociated problems with the spanish inquisition - but apparantly not all of us.

    Try this:

    1. Do you think it should be legal to make adult pornography with adult actors that look like they were under age?

    2. Do you think it should be legal to make pornography with cartoons that look like they were under age?

    3. What is the exact definition of under age when it comes to comic book figures?

    As many have commented before - this legislation has NOTHING to do with targeting the problems related to child abuse - but EVERYTHING to do with uninformed prejudice and ignorance.

  174. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: What is wrong with you people? Part IIII

    > Your last statement worries me, how can you declare something right or wrong purely based on numbers? Surely one child abuse is too many?

    Using that logic then, surely one child hit by a car is too many? Let's completely ban cars then so we make sure no kids are hurt!

    "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither" - Benjamin Franklin

  175. heystoopid
    Unhappy

    Oh no

    Oh no , the evil puritans have come back to haunt us in their new variant of the village idiots , assorted me too morons , throwbacks , wankers and wowsers crying to the tune of " wrap them all up in cotton wool brigade" , but how can any child grow up and learn in such a stunted imaginary yet imperfect "Garden of Eden" like environment to be able to live and cope in a real wider modern world outside those artificial garden walls of heavy duty cotton wadding !!

    But since graven images have been with us since the first time in recorded history when man picked up a crayon and started to decorate the first cave home wall way back in the mists of time !

    Or , is it best summed up as “Nobody can be perfect unless he admits his faults, but if he has faults how can he be perfect?”

    Choices , life just got a little more complicated as the rule books expand in size to infinity and common sense no longer exists as it is not in the rule books under any listing !

    "Idiocracy" rules in the 21st century !

  176. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Interesting

    For all those defending this "legislation" saying it will protect children etc etc etc. I want you to define what is and isnt a part of this "legislation". This is the problem area, will it just be very extreme versions of Lolicon (Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon) or will you go to the other extreme and ban such things as Tenchi Muyo (Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenchi_Muyo) and Love Hina (Wiki Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Hina) because they contain sexual inuendo towards younger looking girls.

    What about Dragonball Z, one episode during the Cell Saga has Gohan (the main characters son) rescuing a girl from a river and when he comes out his hand is over her Breast. Should this be banned for simply suggesting the fact?

    Leading from this what about a lot of todays more modern "western" cartoons that you let your kids watch? Some of them contain some rather good hidden Innuendo (Totally Spies is a good example)

    As you can tell, im a fan of Anime and Manga and i do have Hentai and Lolicon in my collection, it comes with the territory but not once have i ever had the urge to think "Hmmmmmm this looks interesting perhaps i should do this to a real girl".

  177. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Grow up you bleeding heart liberals

    What is it about the register that attracts such distorted views of right and wrong?

    “Using that logic then, surely one child hit by a car is too many? Let's completely ban cars then so we make sure no kids are hurt!”

    Grow up! A car is a device designed for a legitimate purpose. A cartoon of a child being raped by one or more adults is not. Any arguement that relies on such fundementally flawed reasoning is equally flawed (good work you).

    Very few of the posters here appear to actually know what they are talking about, there is much talk of Manga, Hentai, and of comics. None of this is what this is designed to combat, there is a very real problem that you have not experienced whilst reading the guardian and sharing a skinny latte with your 'life partner'. May I suggest you take you pseudo-intellectual arguments and emigrate to some-place where they view child-welfare with the same cavalier disregard that you all seem to?

    It appalls me that those of you who have decided to flex your intellectual/ liberal muscles in this thread actually do so with such assumed authority, when in actual fact you are just spouting unoriginal set pieces that professionals who actually work in this area deplore.

    This is not some intellectual game; ultimately the welfare of children is at stake. The Police officers and staff who enforce these laws should be revered for what they have to endure and not be despised to satisfy some intellectual, but morally repugnant, view point. Before you judge them walk a mile in their shoes – I doubt any of you have 1st hand experience of the actual issue you have all waxed so lyrical about, and I doubt any of you could stomach it.

    Shame on all of you. When you are mature enough to parent children I sincerely hope you A) protect them better than your ‘opinions’ would indicate, and B) Instill a better moral backbone in them than you have displayed here.

    Paris, because she has as much grasp on reality as 99.9% of posters in this thread.

  178. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you people? Part IIII

    My mother always told me to never argue with an idiot, really wish I had listened.

    You win, I have been brow beaten by a ship of fools.

    I understand that you believe there is nothing wrong with cartoons of children being raped.

    Happy now? I hope you are ashamed of yourself for arguing about keeping freedom whilst another piece of decent society dies. At least I stood up and made a comment when a everyone else was running about shouting at the sky.

    Last points I will make:

    THOUGHTCRIME? Really? are you like 12 or something?

    'Opression (sic) puts them in to a corner', ah bless, I didn't mean to rape that child I was being oppressed.

    I better go, I have to go to school in the morning.

  179. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    @What is wrong with you people? Part III

    > Mr MARSDEN, I can not comment on the drug taken habits of the Cabinet and do not want to distract from this debate with talk of other activities.

    Mr COWARD, I suggest you look up the word "irony".

    > I would like to say that I have seen the spiral of abuse, many times,

    I'm sure you would like to say that, but without some more credible evidence, I cannot take your word that this law will benefit anyone, let alone protect children.

    Unfortunately neither you, nor the Government, have provided any such evidence, only your and their personal "beliefs" which, in a discussion like this have as much weight as "I heard it from a bloke down the pub".

    > The law was changed to include pseudo-photographs

    A "pseudo photograph" simply means a photograph like image, ie a .jpg or similar file on a computer instead of printed on paper. Unfortunately this has been creatively mis-interpreted to convict people of crimes when the "image" was clearly a photo-montage with absolutely no basis in reality.

    > I still find it hard to believe that some many seemingly rational people are defending this [...] this is proposed to stop a loop hole in the creation/ possession/ distribution of images of children getting abuse.

    I still find it hard to believe that many seemingly rational people believe this nonsense.

    The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act already *closed* that loophole where paedophiles were tracing over photographs of *actual* abuse so they still had the image, but it wasn't a photograph or pseudo photograph.

    What this is doing, however, is criminalising entirely *fictitious* images. Ones that have *no* basis in reality. Ones that do *not* show real children being abused any more than a film really shows someone being shot or tortured or whatever.

    As you said yourself "How can that improve society?" Answer, it cannot.

    > We have to protect the vulnerable; can we run the risk that this will lead to hands on abuse? Can you really think that it is ok for a single child to be abused so that certain sections of the population can convince themselves that this is art and no one is getting hurt?

    Oh dear, it's the good old "Appeal to Pity" fallacy. Unfortunately I've seen it too many times in discussions to fall for this nonsense.

    Neither you, nor the Government, have proven the case that this *will* protect any children in the slightest. You, however, gloss over this with a Precautionary Principle argument that if we *don't* ban this stuff a child *might* be abused, so we should ban it anyway, just in case.

    You are arguing that it is ok to criminalise something based on *no* evidence, based on nothing more than supposition and belief, in the vague hope that criminalising many people who would never harm a child by creating a Thought Crime might somehow stop an act of abuse and then it would be justified.

    If that is how you think laws should be written I can only hope you never come to political power.

  180. Graham Marsden

    @I better go, I have to go to school in the morning.

    Good, then maybe they can teach you about things like Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty or how about "evidence based" laws instead of ones based on opinion or maybe not resorting to or Ad Hominem attacks when you can't win an argument because you have no facts to base your beliefs up.

    Oh and can I suggest you take Mr "Grow up you bleeding heart liberals" Anonymous Coward with you since he also appears to have as little grasp on such things as you do.

  181. Ade
    Alert

    Hieronymus Bosch

    ... The Garden of Earthy Delights

    Art or Extreme Pron?????

    Just as a starter for 10 (years inside)

  182. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    What is wrong with you people? Part IIIII

    Mr MARSDEN.

    Always nice to see people complaining about changes infringing on peoples human rights and never how this sort of material erodes a decent societies values.

    I can not share my experiences as I am sure by now you have realised my job is linked to this subject, rather remiss of you to try and push for that and be dismissive of the lack.

    Nice to see that you believe the someone's rights to be so pure that you are willing to overlook what they are actually doing.

    'I don't want to know what they are doing but you can't stop them doing it'

    Well done, well done you.

  183. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @AC 21:32

    "Grow up! A car is a device designed for a legitimate purpose. A cartoon of a child being raped by one or more adults is not. Any arguement that relies on such fundementally flawed reasoning is equally flawed (good work you)."

    I think it is you that needs to grow up. Read this http://life-of-a-stranger.blogspot.com/2008/05/moj-play-god.html (I finished the final version it at midnight last night) and if you still think that cartoons serve no legitimate purpose and that we don't live in an oppressive society, then I pity you.

  184. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Marsden = Incorrect...

    Mr Marsden, it is you who have no grasp on things, you clearly believe you are the font of all knowledge on this (and I’d imagine any issue you come across). You are sadly deluded.

    I don't have time to correct all the 'errors' you made in your rush to be smug, I'll settle for this fundamental one:

    "A "pseudo photograph" simply means a photograph like image, ie a .jpg or similar file on a computer instead of printed on paper. Unfortunately this has been creatively mis-interpreted to convict people of crimes when the "image" was clearly a photo-montage with absolutely no basis in reality."

    No it doesn't, this is a common miss-conception amongst those who really don't know what they are talking about.

    From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

    ‘adjective: not genuine; fake, pretentious, or insincere.’

    Doesn’t say anything about ‘stored on a different format’, in fact the term Pseudo perfectly describes the ‘photo-montage’ images you incorrectly claim this has been miss-interpreted to include. Oh, and for the record, the vast majority of such images are NOT ‘CLEARLY’ photo-montages, I am interested to know how you would have such an authoritative knowledge of such things, or is it simply more empty opinion dressed up as fact Mr Marsden?

    Having been working in this field back when this amendment was made I can inform you that the 'pseudo' part refers to the manipulation of a photograph to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child. It stems from a case where someone was distributing images that looked 100% like an indecent image of a child. When his computer was examined the various stages involved in their creation was revealed. He had taken adult pornography and reduced the breast size, removed pubic hair, etc to make the body child-like. He had then stitched the head of one of his own step children onto the person. The resulting image was indistinguishable from that of a real child (this was in the day when a 640 x 480 image was huuuuuge, and these were much smaller, so artifacts of the process were negligable). It is this type of image that ‘Pseudo’ image refers to, not computer based images in general.

    “Oh and can I suggest you take Mr "Grow up you bleeding heart liberals" Anonymous Coward with you since he also appears to have as little grasp on such things as you do.”

    Whilst I appreciate your sentiment that no-ones opinion but yours can be tolerated, it is you (as illustrated above), not I, that have little grasp on even the fundamentals of this subject.

    If you do wish to brush up on this subject may I recommend “Child Pornography: An Internet Crime” by Max Taylor and Ethel Quayle of the Copine project in Ireland as a starting point? “Images of Abuse: a review of the evidence on child pornography” by Emma Renold and Susan Creighton is another good starting point as it contains many references to other relevant research. You can get the former on Amazon, the latter is an NSPCC publication.

  185. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Re: What is wrong with you people part n

    >I understand that you believe there is nothing wrong with cartoons of children

    >being raped.

    Right or wrong in a moral sense have no place in this argument. By the metrics of the law there is nothing "wrong" with the images in question, because it has not and can not be demonstrated that mere possession of such will lead to actual demonstrable harm.

    It may well be inevitable that the overwhelming majority of offenders against children also possess child pornorgraphy in one form of another. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that possession leads to active deed, indeed what evidence that exists suggests the exact opposite.

    >Happy now? I hope you are ashamed of yourself for arguing about keeping

    >freedom whilst another piece of decent society dies.

    So from this it can be assumed that ALL freedoms should be made subordinate to "decency". Pre/extramarital sex, homosexuality, miscegenation, all forms of pornography or erotica? Should those be recriminalised because according to many those too are "indecent".

    >At least I stood up and made a comment when a everyone else was running

    >about shouting at the sky.

    No, you got up on a soapbox (just as the framers of this law have done) and demanded that the nation conform itself to your personal concept of morality.

    >Last points I will make:

    >THOUGHTCRIME? Really? are you like 12 or something?

    Yes thought crime. Until a person does something that brings actual definable harm to another, no crime has been committed. What this legislation would do is make it a crime to think certain thoughts and harbour certain desires, no matter what a persons actual actions might be.

    Consideration is being given to making even dirty stories illegal.

    >'Opression (sic) puts them in to a corner', ah bless, I didn't mean to rape that

    >child I was being oppressed.

    Try looking at it from another direction. When in the public eye the crime is the same whether it was an inappropriate tickle or a violent assault there is no

    incentive to stop when a person catches themself stepping over the line.

    And having stepped over the line where thought becomes deed, your hatred gives them every incentive to cover up their crime by whatever means necessary.

    When told time and time again how evil they are, is it any wonder that some indeed do become as evil as they have been painted?

    Or how about this? Effectively a paedophile can only seek professional help to manage his or her desires by declaring himself a criminal.

    It's difficult to get any hard numbers on the subject, but from what I have been able to gather from discussions like this one and infer from the few figures that can be found, the majority of those harbouring paedophilic desires never offend against an actual child in their own person. It is true that a good many do collect images, but even there, most avoid images of actual children being abused or engaged in explicit sex, and limit themselves to images that show no sexual contact. And as the definition of what child porn is has broadened over the years, most have pruned their collections to comply with the law.

    This latest move would close off the last legal outlet for their urges. Are you so stupid that you can not see what happens when you put someone in a position where they have (in reality or even in their own minds) nothing left to lose?

    Criminalising thoughts will not make the world one whit safer for children, indeed it can be credibly argued that the path we have taken already has made it less safe than it bucolically once was.

    (Below I am excluding women, partly because their "natural" sexual urges generally run differently to men's and partly because there is not enough data to even begin to guesstimate prevalence. Further I will add the caveat that a good many of the numbers are nebulous at best, since the numbers from which I derived them are themselves highly suspect. IIRC it is claimed the "average" paedophile offends against something like 200 (thats up from about 80 a few years ago) victims in his lifetime. And yet the most likely offender is a family member or someone close to the family. It is very difficult to reconcile those two assertions unless we assume that the non-family members notch up truly staggering totals, whilst familial offenders limit themselves to only those victims immediately at hand.)

    Calculating (guesstimating) from what figures I have been able to glean, the number of men who harbour sexual desires for prepubescent children is roughly 1 in 10. Some 40% admit to finding pubescent, but not physically mature adolescents sexually appealing, and all bets are off when the only criterion left is calendar age.

    Now, of the above, about 1 in 100 (perhaps as many as 1 in 50) is a serious serial offender. Of the remainder I would guess that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5 have acted out on a small number of occasions or with only one or two victims over their lifetime.

    By the standards of the mob, as they exist at this moment, roughly 5% of the general population should be locked away for life for the crime of actually touching a child or adolescent. By all means society needs must do something to contain those serial offenders, but branding the remainder for life will do very little towards providing additional protection for children, since the likelihood of them committing further offenses is very low.

    And that mob has no desire to distinguish between thought and deed. Any actual evidence that such thoughts exist is enough to condemn a person if not TO life then FOR life. So let's placate the mob and trawl the records of every ISP to find all those with a history of downloading suspect material, and lock up at least that number again, who use pictures or drawings to keep their demon at bay.

    But let's not stop there, after all it's "for the sake of the children". Someone way upthread expressed a fear about machines that can discern a person's actual thoughts. Well we're not quite there yet. However, we are close enough with functional MRI to discern what a person finds sexually stimulating. Simply flash images before their eyes and see what parts of the brain light up.

    40% of men admit to finding jailbait (or younger) sexually stimulating. And (as we all know) the thought might lead to the deed. So to be properly sure of protecting the children, all men should be screened and those who fail separated from society. Bonus, we can weed out those who lied, as some inevitably did.

    NOW WHAT THE F*CK SHOULD WE DO WITH ALL THOSE MEN (about 1/2 the post-pubescent male population) WHO ARE "TOO POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS" TO BE ALLOWED NEAR CHILDREN?

    Flames, because the road to Hell is paved with ...

  186. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    "because you have no facts to base your beliefs up"

    Or indeed a command of the English language it would seem.

    Where are the facts in your own posts, I see nothing but opinion and spin?

  187. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    "not resorting to or Ad Hominem attacks"

    Comedy Genius!!

    You acuse someone of making Ad Hominem attacks then make one yourself against AC (GUYBHL)!!

    Keep it coming Graham, you may be deranged but you make me laugh!

  188. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Michelle Knight

    "and if you still think that cartoons serve no legitimate purpose and that we don't live in an oppressive society, then I pity you."

    Keep your pity, it's meaningless to me.

    If you have to misquote someone to make your point, then you really don't have a point to make.

    I didn't say cartoons serve no legitimate purpose, I am a big fan of cartoons and comics, I have a number on display in my home. I was quite specific in what I said:

    "A cartoon of a child being raped by one or more adults"

    How have you twisted this into an affront against cartoons in general? I hope you are a better cartoonist than you are a debater!

  189. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    what do we do with them?

    "NOW WHAT THE F*CK SHOULD WE DO WITH ALL THOSE MEN (about 1/2 the post-pubescent male population) WHO ARE "TOO POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS" TO BE ALLOWED NEAR CHILDREN?"

    Apparently give them relative annonimity, a computer, and an account to post on the register!!

    :-)

  190. Anonymous Coward
    Heart

    A bridge too far

    It's interesting to note how many comments this story is provoking. Could it be that Joe (and Joan) Public is finally waking up after a sustained period of sleepwalking? The whole basis of the proposed legislation seems to be "it's morally wrong, vile and disgusting, so it should be banned". I'm afraid that once this becomes law then the precedent will finally and conclusively have been made that legislation can be framed simply on the basis of feelings rather than evidence, and that law-abiding members of society can be criminalised almost at a whim.

    I also hope to God (and yes, I do believe in God) that none of the "what is wrong with you people" correspondents ever find employment in a field where statistical prowess is required, because they clearly can't tell the difference between correlation and causation.

    A heart, because I'm clearly a liberal and therefore mine must be bleeding.

  191. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: Correlation and Causation

    OK, folks, we're gonna wind this one up now, but it's been very interesting, hasn't it?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019