More Thoughtcrime legislation! Excellent.

Isn't 'Extreme' also covered by "Violent"? Don't we already have a law against that?

They wouldn't dare make les'ing out illegal, would they?

Say it ain't so!

This is whats keeping the average brit up at night? (no pun intended) So you must have solved all other societal problems then, and now you can concentrate on the real problem, what the `right` kind of porn is.

I am glad I live in Canada, you'll have to pry my extreme porn from my cold dead (although wonderfully soft) hands.

But seriously you brits are crazy.

Mines the one with all the tissues in the pocket, no that ones the Baroness Millers, the one with the Vaseline in the pocket.

Any danger of sparing a paragraph to explain or give the Bill's definition of 'extreme pornography'? Until then, I'll have to assume that the naked skydiving picture on my HD will put me in the clink.

Halo Bill, 'cos I'm really a goody goody

otherwise that would be Michael Winner removed from history.

I think people always get this backwards. Porn doesn't cause violence, but instead, people who have violent dispositions are more likely to like extreme porn. So:

--Many peaceful people like porn==this does not cause them to do violent acts, but suggestible (weak minded) people seeing dehumanizing images constantly may become desensitized, and think that this is "normal behavior" The same goes for any 'adult' entertainment, whether it be booze, drugs, gambling, violent video games, fundamentalist religions, etc.

--People who are already violent probably like extreme porn==the same angry (and often corrupted sexual) need that feeds violent urges, is perfectly suited to and finds expression in hardcore porn. Perhaps this 'outlet' may even give violent people some release (no pun intended) and actually reduce violence (but this is just my opinion)

So perhaps the answer is that people that are stable adults should be free to do what they want in life, as long as it isn't hurting anyone, but those that have proven to be a hazard to others should be counseled, locked up if need be, but permitted to have all the porn they desire.

THIS is why the various departments of gov.uk are so reticent in investigating the BT/Phorm issue.

Mass Internet Monitoring (and CENSORSHIP!).

All carried out 'independantly' by a "ligitimate e-commerce business".

How PHUCKING CONVENIENT would that be.

Even Orwell would be impressed by the deviousness.

How is anyone to know whether their porn collection is legal? Or is it like terrorism - call the police and let them make the judgement?

To the PTB, please define 'extreme'.

A list of medical terms will be fine.

I suppose soon I'll have to turn myself over as a danger to society.

What a bunch of ------- ----- I hate this country.

Thought crime central.

What about the stoning of the woman in Iran where she was topless? Does that count? It was on many news sites?

Is the problem there that she was stoned, that someone videod her being stoned or that someone is watching the video of her being stoned? Would it be OK, if her top hadn't ripped and her breasts stayed covered? What if it was still arousing to some people?

Is this from Jacqui Smith of the Home Office by any chance? The Jacqui Smith that gave USA access to live feeds from British CCTV cameras, and DVLA database access and didn't tell parliament? The loyal Blairite? Nanny Jacqui?

These are links to the proposed statute and the explanatory notes.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j400

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#index_link_104

There are going to be a lot of people who may wish to engage in or view images of BDSM activity who will now be in serious danger of being imprisoned for up to 3 years.

The act itself seems hypocritical if it's purpose is to prevent copycat violence (which is generally considered to be a minute problem anyway, see Bowling for Columbine) but still allows the very images it wants to prevent so long as they have been classified. Under the act possession of a copy of the particularly eye-watering scene in the new Casino Royal where Bond is tortured by whipping between the legs would be illegal and punishable by 3 years inside if it was in a pornographic context. What's to stop someone watching that film for sexual arousal and the deciding to go out and do the same thing to someone. Just because it isn't on the top shelf doesn't stop anyone getting sexual pleasure.

So, this government creates yet more law that it has no intention of enforcing. This will just be another tick-box charge that will be included should the coppers accidentally come across(!) someone with illegal porn. "OK lad, we've caught you selling nasty porn to kiddies. Have you a computer? Have you a modem? Right we've also got you for extreme porn."

Why does our stupid government think that the internet so different that it needs special laws?

One person's "extreme" includes BDSM & gimping. To another, it would include homosexual. Bukkake? BBWs? Anything more explicit than "Emmanuelle"...?

Do we have any actual definitions as to what is to be included in this classification?

I will withold opinion on whether this is good or bad until I know what it affects.

Paris, for what I should hope are rather obvious reasons!

"So perhaps the answer is that people that are stable adults should be free to do what they want in life, as long as it isn't hurting anyone,"

Don't be silly.

however I think you fall for the same trap as the people promoting the law - liking extreme pornography doesn't necesarily mean you're any more violence inclined then anybody else in society. It just means you like to fap to something different.

Much like liking gore movies, violent games, boxing, football, etc... doesn't mean that you're inclined to violence. It just means you like something different.

Then there is being inclined to violence, and then there is being weak of will.

O well... it's nice to see this once mighty land sink ever lower in the ranks of personal thought, freedom, expression and fantasy.

Of course maybe this will mean a healthy marketing for extreme literature?

So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life".

Doesn't waving a knife around threaten someone's life? They are not actually hurt. Merely the threat.

But a video of someone actually being raped seems to be okay. No threat to kill, just forceably restrained. No injury. And they are alive and human. No problem.

Did I fall asleep and wake up in China ?

So it is official then. No matter how completely out of whack you are with society's norms, no matter how gullible or weak minded you are, no matter how unattainable or stupid your ideals be, regardless of how impossible or expensive it will be to police... a law can be passed to force every last free thinking individual in the country to do exactly as you tell them eh? Just lets all wait for this, I see it now, the great UK Mass Debate during the 2008 summer porn rallys, fuelled with eco-rage, bankrupt banks and unemployed teachers.

Whatdowewant - gynocological accuracy

Whendowewantit - well, about midnight would be nice.

Against the hideous vagaries of the Obscene Publications Act, now there's this.

The Ministry of Justice turned to Catherine Itzin (a woman who has campaigned for years against pornography*) for its Rapid Evidence Assessment ("a tool for getting on top of the available research evidence on a policy issue, as comprehensively as possible, within the constraints of a given timetable") of the harm from "Extreme Porn":

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research280907.htm

and unsurprisingly gets the assessment it, in effect, asked for...EP is bad.

(Backgrounder - Itzin cited "sources" in her 1993 book that snuff films were not only in circulation, but available from video stores. This contrasts with the conclusion of all major agencies worldwide that no snuff films have ever been discovered.)

There are serious methodological errors in the compilation of the REA:

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/mislead.html

In other words, the assessment is inaccurate and unreliable; law and policy made upon its conclusions will be wrong.

This section of the CJB is frighteningly vague; it leaves the ultimate assessment of "extreme" (and indeed "pornographic") in the hands of the prosecution. If it's passed into law, anyone who enjoys anything beyond a photographic version of the Joy of Sex needs to download some plausibly deniable crypto tools and get themselves a good passphrase.

I think that's "Xtreme" Porn. Which is of course completely different to "Extreme Porn"

...from the Brits constantly bleating about the United States being a "police state"?

Also, whether or not the porn is extreme has nothing to do with whether it should be illegal - I find it rather shocking that people are using the vagueness as an argument, rather than the fact that *images* would be *illegal to posess*. The instant you start banning images - which, essentially, are thoughts - you're on a road with no exits.

This government in particular has been particularly bad for passing laws where the offences aren't clear - probably in order to give their lawyer chums work drawing the lines later on. When questioned, time and again we hear the relevant minster saying "it is not the intention of this act to ...". So it was with the religious hate crimes act: comedians were worried that they could be hauled up for the sorts of gags which Dave Allen thrived on.

And then, earlier this month, we hear that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act was being used by councils to spy on parent who had (shock horror) applied for places for their children in popular schools. During the passage of this act, Jack Straw used the "it is not the intention of this act" line whenever criticised for the lack of clarity and limitation in the powers. Repeat after me. It is not the intention of a piece of legislation which matters, it is the specific provisions. If you start talking about the intentions of a piece of law, it is almost certainly bad law.

I can see this act being used as a handy "we know he's a villain, let's find something we can bang him up for" catch all. Indeed, I'm sure that a picture of a naked child with terrible burns ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/TrangBang.jpg ) would fit the bill.

"Definition please"

"But what does it MEAN?"

I think that's the concern. It doesn't appear they've specified a definition, meaning it could be used as a "catch-all" for about anything more than soft porn.

Paris, because even her porn could be become illegal.

I'm sure there was a time where before a law was really considered you first thought

Who does this law protect based on the evidence available? Well nobody.

Who does this law prosecute? A large number of otherwise innocent people.

It's just another opportunistic law.

It's pretty sickening really.

This has everything to do with creating breathing space for the authorities to bring criminal charges against people that they just don't like.

The Government may have no intention of proactively policing this legislation, but it would come in mighty handy if you were to search someone's home under suspicion of, let's say, terrorism and in the absence of any real evidence stitch them up on having weird sexual tastes. Bring a microscope down far enough in to someon'es life and you're bound to find SOMETHING.

The only people who need to fear this are those that up until now could be confident that they are honest, law abiding citizens who's only 'crime' is to like a bit of B&D, or who just happen to be curious about it.

Look at RIPA, it was introduced to combat terrorism and is now used to spy on children (but it strangely doesn't apply to BT and Phorm).

In Russia, there is no legislation against criticising Vladimir Putin but look at the number of publications that get shut down for 'financial irregularities, 'tax fraud' or 'copyright infringment'. Just add 'unusual sexual tastes' to that list.

Mine's the one with the matching tinfoil hat.

> So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life".

I'm screwed, then.

Watching Bakes 7 is, for me, an act of arousal (and not just Servalan...). And they *frequently* have all sorts of guns & other weapons around.

So Blakes 7 is now Extreme Porn, and banned as a hazard to all subservient^Wright-thinking individuals :-(

Taking on armed criminals on the streets is dangerous.

Arresting a weedy geek for having "extreme porn" on their computer is, presumably, not quite so dangerous.

Besides, given the number of people who do have pics that *could* be classified this way if the arresting officer so decides (and "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, after all), just think of how the crime reduction figures will soar again - kind of like taking thousands of firearms "off the streets" by criminalising shooting enthusiasts and antique firearms collectors whilst still leaving the (real) criminals with the real threat to society still wandering around shooting people.

And how come such "dangerous" crimes as driving too fast on an empty motorway, refusing to pay the council tax or (soon) possessing "extreme porn" can garner you a spell in prison, but if you actually kill someone (either by careless driving or attacking them with a weapon) the gaols are suddenly too full for a custodial sentence?

I laughed the first time I saw 'Farenheit 451' - how could any society let itself get like that? Now I'm living it, it doesn't seem so funny...

So here's a suggestion - let's just declare that everyone in England is a criminal and save the government all the headaches of drafting ever more draconian, misguided and pathetic laws.

STOP! Do not pass go, do not collect your computer, and save your local police the risk of having to face down a spotty-faced nerd armed with an offensive cardigan...

Am I right in thinking that you can be done for using encryption and not handing over the passphrase if requested by the roz?

If I watch two adults making love, presumably that is acceptable. But outside my window I see two-dogs-fücking: "Ooooh Fido, das ist schön. Bark in my ear, big boy..". That might land me in court.

I like porn. It's a nice substitute for human company, which occasionally is not acceptable. Let's ban humans.

Although criminalising Paris Hilton might be a step in the right direction.

but even the crypto tools won't make you safe as it is a criminal offence not to provide the police with the passphrase or encryption key

looks like the best way is to build a pc with no harddrive, boot it off a knoppix disk or similar and stream the porn directly off pronographic youtube clones

...Lots of examples. What's just inside the law, and what's just outside the law. The government should provide these example on-line so that everyone can see them and understand the legal limit.

Anything that anyone other than you thinks is offensive.

A bit like the obscene publications act, even the coppers that are arresting you have no idea if you've actually comitted a crime, merely that you *might* have.

It's entirely subjective and should not be on the books.

Nah you yanks are way behind us on the formation of a thought police state

The labour party have realised that they are going to be booted out at the next election for being so crap, so they have made up this law to get most of the opposition MP's arrested and hold on to their power. Let's face it how many kinky MP's are actually out there.

The helicopter? Because it's being flown by Ceiling Cat.

Wow, can we get the current English Government imprisoned for late night viewing of George Bush and fantasizing about the UK bending over and taking it from the US?

I never thought that I would see that day that Labour would make this special relationship more special than Maggie could ever dream.

Coupling was right, Labour is the evil empire... the Tories are the goodies after all!

Is there a petition or something we can all get behind and actually have some "people power" here?

You forget that not handing over the password to your encrypted files when requested by the police, gets you banged up for, I think, 3 years.

This country is going mad. How long before we have to carry, the little red book of Chairman Brown, (RFID included) and the party card (Biometric ID).

Mine's the one with the body armour, and tinfoil lining.

get rid of the politicians....

mines the ironic coat

This sounds very similar to that guy who was raving about how video games caused violence.

Is there some kind of organization whose purpose is to spout nonsense about the causes of violence?

I'd rather trust psychologists to this sort of thing than some person with no evidence to back it up.

Hmmm, no comments on how they're trying to protect us, maybe they're starting to learn?

Be very sure that if you report anything to the IWF they will make sure that the MET know about you and you will get a visit.

what about being involved in the... errr.... filming of such things?

and can i know claim political asylum in holland because my life style choices are being repressed and made illegal by the British government?

There is a 3rd option. Massive civil unrest has always been a very effective way of catalyzing political change.

Just saying.

I can imagine a scenario whereby someone like 'Mary Whitehouse' is in charge of deeming what's extreme or not. This miserable old bag used to comlpain about anything on TV that slightly offended her moral values.

Laws make criminals

According to the terms of reference from the Ministry of Justice to a 3 woman "Rapid evidence assessment" panel, EPM (extreme pornographic material) is defined as

..... 'actual scenes or realistic depictions of: explicit intercourse or oral sex with an animal, explicit sexual interference with a human corpse, explicit serious violence in a sexual context and explicit serious sexual violence'.

Naked skydiving...

I'm actually going to look that one up out of curiousity.

Maybe naked bungee jumping...

Firstly, many thanks to El Reg for letting people know about these proposals for a "Dangerous Pictures Act".

I, and many others, including members of Liberty, Feminists Against Censorship and the Spanner Trust have been lobbying against them since they were first introduced, because they are a) completely vague and ill-defined, being based on someone's subjective opinion of what an image appears to show (ie if it is "grossly offensive or disgusting" and if they think it "risks serious injury to a person's breasts, genitals or anus", even if the participants are consenting adults and the acts shown are entirely legal) and b) introduce Thought Crime into English Law because they are based on the idea that "if people don't see this stuff, they won't try to do it!"

There is still time to lobby the House of Lords (the Government wants to force this Bill through by May 8th, so the odds are they'll guillotine the debate in the Commons meaning that MPs won't even get to discuss these proposals).

Visit http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php and scroll down for the thread "Just less than a month to go. Write to the Lords now." This thread contains a list (about the 8th post down) of all the Lords who have e-mail addresses. Also in that section you'll find a number of letters written by myself and others which have arguments you can use to base your letters on if you want.

There are other arguments such as those in the above article and ones that can be found on http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/index.html

The Lib Dems Lords are already onside, but we need to persuade the Cross Benchers, and Tories (if the Tories hadn't abstained, the proposals would have been voted out) and, indeed, the Labour Lords (who aren't as sheep-like as their MPs) that such a law has no place in this country (it belongs in places like China, Iran or North Korea!)

You can find more details of which party (if any) a Lord is part of by visiting http://www.theyworkforyou.com/peers/ and there's also links there that will let you send messages via the House of Lords fax machine.

Lord Hunt, for the Government said "I recognise that it would be anomalous for a person to be committing an offence by possessing an image of an act which he undertook perfectly lawfully. We intend to introduce at Third Reading a defence which addresses precisely that situation" but this seems to suggest it will cover only acts which the picture owner participated in such that any other images, even when featuring consenting adults, would still be illegal.

Since we are probably not going to be able to get these draconian laws thrown out, the next best thing is for them to include a defence that provided a reasonable person would assume that *any* of the participants were consenting, then an image is not illegal.

Please, people, lobby the Lords NOW! Be polite, be concise, be reasonable, but don't be a criminal for looking at "Dangerous Pictures!"

PS Re Mycho's comment "Sadly it excludes rated films", well, yes, but only *as a whole*! If you take a clip from a BBFC and, again in someone else's subjective opinion, it is "extreme" and you did it "for sexual arousal" then you've just committed a crime!

Castch-all laws intended to catch all -- all but their sheep are guilty.

Mine's the blunt-knife-in-the-small-artery-in-the-cold-in-the-wods proof one.

Fuck-it that's my last comment on here regarding the government. I just hope we get nuked by Kim Jong-Il soon, because this country is beyond repair.

If we want to find out how to behave on Britain's highways, we read the highway code. Here is a sample page http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069859

it shows how to clear a windscreen correctly. There are two images, one with a big green tick and one with a big red cross.

What we need now is a "Wanker's Code" booklet. This could have images of what is allowed (big green tick) and what is not allowed (big red cross).

We should, of course, teach this in schools and not allow children to proceed to puberty unless they achieve a pass in a practical exam.

Paris because most boys would like to be examined by her.

We're in a horrible half-way house. Huge rafts of legislative power are handed over to the EU already, so the provincial government (for that is what it is), not wanting people to realise that it is effectively no longer the de-facto or even de-jure government of this country, makes lots of big noises in the few areas it can still control by pushing through more and wide-ranging new legislation in those tiny, tiny areas and micromanaging everything where it still has the power to legislate. Why else the obsession with targets, with increasingly meddling in what were once personal, private matters and so on? It's because that's all they have left, and to satisfy the ego, the delusion of influence, or to simply con people into believing that they are still relevant, the entire political class goes along with it, because to admit otherwise would make people realise that there's simply no point in the Westminster parliament any more.

Laws like this are the result of all that. They criminalise what was once the domain of individual discretion, because that's pretty much all our political class can meddle with these days.

Does that mean I have to scrub that video of Max Mosley off my hard drive?

Mines the one with the swastikas on the lapels.

Dear George,

I am writing to you as a helpless citizen oppressed by an unelected dictatorship. Please will you bring Western Democracy and tanks to my country. We have very little oil, but we can give you Northern Rock (it's everything we have).

kthxbye

Any human image they don't like. I'll be deleting any and all images of Humans off my PC the day before it becomes law

Good grief here we go again with an other labour half wit idea borrowed from King Canutes' (remove some letters) advisors. A government bereft of good ideas so it has to think up some really really stupid ones.

Anyone know when the next Vogon constructor fleet is passing ?

GET ME OFF THIS LOONY PLANET !

You humans no nothing about Extreme Porn (tm) its the number one show in the intergalactic viewing charts - you want to see what the Gbrownians did on last weeks show !

"by Professor Catherine Itzin, Lincoln University; Professor Ann Taket, London South Bank University, UK and Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia; and Liz Kelly, London Metropolitan University."

Take a look at the report evidence. Firstly it's written by 3 women, no male view, which is different from every other time these have been done, both male and female opinions have previously been sought...

Then they ignore the reverse correlation, societies with more violent media and porn tend to have lower domestic violence, look at Japan, whereas more restricted societies like the UK tend to have more violence at home. UK is the most violent society in Europe BTW and now also the most people in prison in Europe.

Then I search on these people's name and they've been chosen to fit the agenda.

Ann Taket :

http://www.gsdm.com.au/newsletters/deakin/aug06/images/anntaket.jpg

'Tacklin Domestic Violence .. the role of heath care professionals'

So they chose her not because she's an expert on porn, she isn't. She was chosen to claim a link to violence.

Liz Kelly

http://www.redemptionblues.com/pictures/pk3.jpg

Liz Kelly is 'End Violence Against Women' campaigner, again chosen to make 'evidence' to back the bill rather than having any knowledge on the subject.

Catherine Itzin:

"Honorary Research Fellow in the Violence, Abuse and Gender Relations Research Unit"..

You get the idea, Jacqui needed to put forward evidence, so she chose 3 women with opinions designed to back her claim. No men, because men would realize that watching S&M sex videos does make you more violent, getting 'off' makes you more relaxed. It sex starved young males that are violent. But then any man would know this which is why they were not asked.

Hee-hee-hee! Love it!

So glad my ancestors had the foresight to get off the island a couple of hundred years ago.

...no asian girls exchanging bodily fluids?....

...no interracial gang bangs?....

...no brasilian fart porn?....

time to 'boot up' the old simulator....

There is an old adage .........You get what you pay for.

The Government it appears means to criminalise the whole country in one way or another .The publishers of law books must think all their Christmas's have come at once in the last 10 years its been one useless law after another,and heres another one.

But if you've nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.......flap oink flap oink

In the words of the great Jim Royal .......my a**e

"How is anyone to know whether their porn collection is legal?"

Easy, ask your mother, she'll tell you.

UK sex laws seem to be stuck in the middle of a game of tug-of-war between the liberals and the prudes. The last Sexual Offences Act - which was supposed to tidy up all the bizarre inconsistencies in the statute book that had built up over more than a century - descended into farce as the Act described, in pornographic detail, which parts of one person's body were allowed to come into which parts of another person's body.

And the Act ended up introducing new inconsistencies of its own, such as it being legal to have sexual intercourse with a 16 or 17 year old, but possessing an image of such an act would get you on the Sex Offenders' Register as a child pornographer.

Actually, thinking about it, this new bill appears to be expanding the whole "you can do it, but you mustn't see it being done" idea. Perhaps the person coming up with this nonsense went to one of those long-established private schools where it was OK to bugger the first year boys senseless, but if you were caught masturbating, you'd get a damned good thrashing from the housemaster.

Incapability Brown can't have more than a few months left in charge of the country, and I think it's pretty unlikely that even New Labour will be able to sell the idea of having three different PMs between elections. Considering how bad Blair was, and that Brown is worse... how awfull will New Labour leader Mark 3 be!

So, the pertinent question is: what does Cameron think of this? He'll be in charge by this time next year.

P.S. Can anyone else hear that whooshing noise? Its the sound of legislation being secretly rushed through the system.

Exactly it's the definition that really matters here.

Consider that the highest rating offered by the BBFC is the R18 certificate and then consider what this allows for and you might have a fair idea what could become illegal (from the bbfc site)-

"The ‘R18’ category is a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit works of consenting sex between adults.

The following content is not acceptable:

any material which is in breach of the criminal law, including material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (eg paedophilia, incest, rape) which may include adults role-playing as non-adults.

the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent.

the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual activity. Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence.

any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong abuse, even if consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable.

These guidelines will be applied to the same standard whether the activity is heterosexual or homosexual.

"

The Internet Watch Foundation operatives receive their training from the police, with whom they are "in partnership" . Neither their guidelines or their decisions are published and cannot be challenged. There is no machinery for appeal.

As the author says, this bill gives the IWF (and indirectly the police) control of net censorship without responsibility or accountability.

The IWF remit extends to other illegal net content, including material that "potentially" incites terrorism. There was a suggestion that suicide sites be included also.

Third reading in the House of Lords and potential amendments are on 30th April.

Now that extreme porn has been defined as 'actual scenes or realistic depictions of: .... explicit serious violence in a sexual context and explicit serious sexual violence', I'm having to sell some of my DVD collection. Going cheap, 'The Accused' as its violent rape scene is probably a little too realistic (I blame OSCAR Winner Jodie Foster)

Yet more special interest groups getting disproportionate amounts of attention, and poorly conceived legislation to back their minority views.

And yet more things being that are otherwise legal being (seriously!) criminalised by the simple fact of having an image of them. Whereas most things are illegal to do, but it's generally OK to have a picture of the act itself - even if it can be used as evidence of the original criminal act.

And they can't even properly define what they actually mean - particularly important as standards of what is 'extreme' or legal in terms of porn shift constantly.

Bollocks to this legislation...

On the other hand, it does at least make the removal of various politicians a lot easier - I would assume the majority have some form of 'extreme' porn on their computers somewhere (in quite a few cases self made) which means they're ripe for a witch-hunt!

In the meantime can we please have a cull of the various people who campaign for this kind of thing? They're turds floating on the surface of the gene pool and need to be fished out for the greater good.

I'm sure I don't want to murder anyone, well not in a sexual context anyway!

Yet another nail in the coffin. Once upon a time, it was law for English Lords to rape - excuse me, sodomize and brutalize, oh dear me no I mean "visit" - the Scottish wifes on the first night of their marriage.

So excuse me if I'm a little tired of English law putting it's boot in wherever possible.

I'm confused, I don't know what extreme porn is, well Michael Winner and Paris, but anything between consenting adults can't be considered extreme. Yes, children and and vulnerable adults, animals.

The latter perhaps is my opinion, and the BBC's Love Soup and the Doggie episode should watch out, sadly I have to admit I fell off my chair laughing at that one.

If you saw that one, then would that be considered, even if all you saw was the dog mounting.

Now El. Reg I task you with starting a campaign to force the Ministry of Justice to publish a website of what they consider extreme porn, just so us law abiding citizens can determine what we can and can't look at on the internet. I'm sure they can take an airbrush to the really naughty bits, and I'm sure one of the the MOJ IT providers will help them with www.porn.gov.uk.

By the way I work in Criminal Justice, and the people who enforce these laws are allegedly the most narrow minded and repressed bunch of misfits you could hope to meet. For our North American contributors, so are yours.

I'm confused, I don't know what extreme porn is, well Michael Winner and Paris, but anything between consenting adults can't be considered extreme. Yes, children and and vulnerable adults, animals.

The latter perhaps is my opinion, and the BBC's Love Soup and the Doggie episode should watch out, sadly I have to admit I fell off my chair laughing at that one.

If you saw that one, then would that be considered, even if all you saw was the dog mounting.

Now El. Reg I task you with starting a campaign to force the Ministry of Justice to publish a website of what they consider extreme porn, just so us law abiding citizens can determine what we can and can't look at on the internet. I'm sure they can take an airbrush to the really naughty bits, and I'm sure one of the the MOJ IT providers will help them with www.porn.gov.uk.

By the way I work in Criminal Justice, and the people who enforce these laws are allegedly the most narrow minded and repressed bunch of misfits you could hope to meet. For our North American contributors, so are yours.

....that broke the camels back.

I'm leavning this country, even if I have to carry my kids through the tunnell, I'm leaving it. There is no Great in Great Britain, no United in the United Kingdom. It has died. Since when did this Island become a jail? Saying that, our prisoners have more rights than than those of us on the outside.

I hear that to become a full MP, you have to undergo a full frontal lobotomy - if not, then there are a lot of brain dead arsholes who beleive that just because they 'won' the vote gives then the right to infect the population with their psychological disorders.

Machiavelli would be proud. The Marquis de Sade would bow his head at the genius of it all - how to do evil while claiming to be good.

I would say "When the revolution comes", but they had killed them all back in 1914. Or why did you think that the First World War was fought in the first place ? Over a duke ? Over territory ? No, because revolutionary fever had taken europe at the rutn of the century, and the whole place was going to blow - Russia got there first, and tipped the imperialists hands. The German Royal family took a sideways promotion to headed the British Monarchy, and the rest carried on as normal.

Words fail me, there is no action possible to rectify the mistakes our glorius leaders have (blindley, stupidly, maliciously ?) made.

Hold on tight guys, it's going to be a bumpy ride - hope to see some of you when it's finally over.

That's me, exit stage left.

...remorselessly, the politically correct liberal prudes, the petty power hungry inadequates, the 'politicians' who aren't fit to be councilors - never mind Lords, Ministers and MPs, the unaccountable armies of the inadequate are winning their war against normal people.

Oh yes, things are getting very bad. But you ain't seen nothing yet.

Just waiting for the backlash...

"(6)

An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—

...

where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or

appears to be real."

...so Jordan can get away with anything then....

..if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Maybe if Gordo or one of his *pals* such as the hapless Jacqui repeat it often enough on R4, people might start to believe it?

hmm, I'm wondering if the next step will be to *link* porn with terrorism, so sex *offenders* (which will probably be everyone in the entire country soon) will be arrested under the burdgeoning anti-terror laws (hey, they can be used already for spying on whether folks are lying about what school their kids neeed to go to!) That way, Uk.Gov can have ALL our DNA samples on coppers databases and sell them off to the lowest bidder AND make sure that we're all being monitored by the rozzers everyday under sex offenders/anti-terror/whatever whipped-up scaremongering b*ll*x they can get on the front page of the Sun.

*links* has a multiple meaning. It is the term used to demonstrate how Saddam Hussein was really the mastermind behind the Sept 11th 2001 attacks, and is also a colloquialism for turds, so no difference in meaning there, just as there's no difference in meaning for the girl Jacqui's attempts to *link* porno vids on teh interweb with those evil dangerous sex offenders that lurl under every bush and round every corner, y'knaa, as long as the local *Al-Quaeda linked terrorists* make room for them. Maybe they can share a flask and exchange tips on how they're going to overturn British social cohesion?

"The people you are after are the people you depend on. They cook your meals, they haul your trash. We connect your calls, we drive your ambulances, we guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us."

You can see the problem here, an all women crew have been asked to review the evidence, they all have baggage (basically all are anti-violence campaigners and none has personal experience of pornography use).

They then took a set of papers that matched a criteria, which filtered out any that disagreed with them. So they only considered papers that claimed zero to major negative effects of pornography on domestic violence and rape.They then concluded based on those papers.

They quote 5 papers, 4 of which were written by the same person, the 5th was a study of other papers (including the previous 4).

They measure *attitudes* rather than *offending-rates*. So measuring the offending rate, Ireland with strict anti porn laws should come out as a very low sexual violence country, in fact it comes out as the worst in Europe with the highest rate of sexual violence.

The empirical studies of permissiveness vs sexual offending were all ruled out because they showed the reverse correlation. Sexual violence increases as sexual permissiveness decreases.

Because getting your rocks off makes you less violent, but then men know this. I guess that's why they were not asked.

Reading the 5 quoted papers it's clear that they only listen to the people interviewed when they give the required response, so for example when rapists explain their limited porn use, that was considered too low, and it was argued they have reason to lie and hence their view was discounted (on the contrary, they have a reason to blame pornography to lessen their sentence).

"Meta-analytic study one – The effects of pornography: aggression after exposure, Allen, D’Alessio,...."

Gets teenage students horny on violent porn, does not let them relieve themselves, then concludes they're frustrated and likely to be violent. Seriously they were allowed to get excited but not jack off.

"Meta-analytic study two - Exposure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths, also written by Allen"

This paper is worthless, it attempt to measure *attitudes* to rape not offending rates. Your proposing to lock people up for having an attitude you don't like??

"Meta-analytic study three – exposure to pornography and acceptance of rape myths (RMA) in non-experimental studies" Allen again, the same as paper 2 but done using interviews on *attitudes*. Seriously, they're going to lock your teenage son up on papers surveying *attitudes* to rape.

"Meta-analytic study four – reactions of criminal sex offenders to pornography Allen, D’Alessio and Emmers-Sommers"

Allen again, see a pattern here?

Here they concluded that criminals are more likely to jack off after viewing porn than normal men, yeh because normal men view porn for the excellent plot lines and well rounded characters actors.... r-i-g-h-t.

They then interviewed battered woman to determine a link to pornography (choosing the cause, then interviewing for that cause). See this pink rock? Scares away bears, interview people near the pink rock if they've seen bears (no), then interview bear attack victims to see if they've seen any pink rocks (no), ergo pink rocks protect against bears!

"Meta-analytic study five – published research on the effects of pornography 1962-1995"

"In the US, Public Hearings were held by the City of Minneapolis in 1983 to support the introduction of civil rights legislation. Testimony was given by 57 individuals, the majority of them female victims of pornography. They included Linda Marciano known as Linda Lovelace, the ‘star’ of the film Deep Throat."

Have you seen her dog sex movie? Perhaps you should see it, then judge if her smile and enjoyment is fake. I know you won't be allowed to make up your own mind, if this law passes, but perhaps you should see it now before it becomes a crime with 3 years in prison.

Keep in mind she later claims she was prisoner for 2 years and held at gunpoint forced to smile. Which is bullshit since she appeared at conventions and in several playboy shoots, and Equire shoots. So basically they're quoting someone who regretted her porn career and covered it with a made up fantasy the couldn't possibly match reality. But then you can see that for yourself when the dog gives her a good licking.

Isn't it sad, that some rabid feminist will call my comments 'acceptance of the rape mythology' because I ask you to view the porn and suggest she clearly enjoys the dog licking her clitoris. And that after this law is passed seeing for yourself will be a 3 year crime in prison, because you too might change your 'attitude' to their world view.

Man you need to kick these fooking liars out of power.

Here is the meat of the bill in terms of definition, I don't know if there any clauses that widen this any further

(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in

serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a

human corpse,

(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or

oral sex with an animal,

where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or

appears to be real.

There are some defences, in that you can claim to have been sent an image or to have stumbled upon it accidentally and then not kept it for an unreasonable time, so the browser cache is not going to lead to strict liability.

There is also a clause that increases the maximum penalty for breaking the Obscene Publications Act from 3 to 5 years. Here's hoping that no one serving on a jury would have the gall to view anything as being able to corrupt or deprave its intended audience, so no convictions would be possible under that ridiculous and outdated piece of legislation.

Hope that spells it out reasonably well, so now you can all work out which of your wonderful pervy fetishes fall foul of the thought police.

I pointed out that Linda Lovelace testimony (she claimed she was forced to do porn and held prisoner for 2 years and force to smile at gunpoint) is clearly false and you should see her dog sex movie for yourself to judge with your own eyes.

(Her testimony is quoted as fact in their supporting argument for these laws).

After this law is passed, saying that you watched Linda's dog sex movie, would be admission of a crime with a penalty up to 3 years. Whereas some rabid feminist saying 'Linda lovelace was raped at gun point for 2 years' will be legal, even though it's clearly false once you see the movie and know the history of LL.

So we can never really discuss the reality anymore, because the discussion itself would be the admission of a crime.

There's something else too. Two of the 5 studies considered 'acceptance of rape myth', Linda Lovelace's video is considered as rape in these studies. You then view these videos and determine that it isn't rape. But then under these terms, you're now in the deviant category, because you accept the rape myth of this video (by denying the rape)! So it's a no win, either the porn is bad (because it's rape) or the porn is bad (because it made you deviant into thinking it wasn't rape).

UK has the highest violent crime rate in Europe and Ireland the highest sexual crime rate, both have the most sexually restrictive governments. So whatever they're doing in comparison to the rest of Europe is clearly the wrong thing.

Really see it for yourself, then judge for yourself and see this for what it is.

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ write to your mp now before it's too late!!!

sample letters can be found on the website. Even what you consider to be completely consensual photo's will land you in trouble.

Think of the Children!

ahem ... er ... maybe not then.

Mines the one with the see-through panels.

. . . but I already have . . . here . . .

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/24/home_office_phorm_fipr_bt/comments/!!

Sorry for the boredom (can I say that?!) . . . Oops, wrong type of 'dom' I was thinking of !!

Trust you have all read down to . . . 'They are all bitter ones' !!??

I will let you into 'My Secret' !

In all the sunrises and sunsets I have witnessed and seen with my own eyes, I have only ever voted once!!

It was 1 day after my 18th birthday and I went into the polling station, my hands sweaty and clammy, holding on to my voting card. I handed it over with much anticipation of marking my 'X' in the box.

I looked at my voting slip and did it have a choice of 3 boxes to cross?? Conservative, Labour or Liberal party??

Err no, and I still feel the embarrassment to this day!! What I saw was 'candidates' from all 3 parties and I didn't know who represented who!!

I scrawled my mark on it somewhere (honest) and left the booth pretty rapidly, very hot and flustered & thankful I could feel cool, fresh air as I walked sheepishly home!!

That was my first time voting experience . . . I have had many times to vote between then and now. Have also had plenty of time to reflect too!

On reflection, I'm glad my 1st impression of 'The Vote' went so badly!! . . . Why?

Because you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!!

There's so much more I could go on to say (and write) but I feel compelled not to go any further for fear of losing you all . . . but will sign off with this comment . . .

It's the 1st time I have used El Reg's icon facility and if you're seeing it before reading this . . . then read the rest!!!

If you're seeing it after you've read it . . . then read again!!

"That's my index finger switching the light off as I exit the planet!! Although it could be construed as something else!!

So, which pill !! Red, Blue or None??!!

Before you shout "thought police", have a read of the bill, which says that "extreme" means one of the following: snuff movies, genital mutilation, necrophilia and bestiality. These are all things that most of society would agree are extreme and shouldn't be lawful. Aren't they?

I see that the laws of Britain and those of the US are becoming (somewhat) akin to each other. When did we (USA) start exporting far-right, religious zealotry overseas to Mother England?

So, I'm a user of Second Life, On there I've been involved with BDSM and been with an anthropomorphic 'animal', would this then be illegal?

It's a fucking joke..

*sigh*

Mike Judge's movie "Idiocracy" is truly a portent to the future in a world totally dumbed down , all because all our insane politicians to last person elected are such dumb stupid blind idiots you have to wonder how natural selection got it all wrong ?

"Bit of a leg man meself , what? best hide my expensively BOUND copy of

Victorian Table Legs , could cause a bit of a rumpus down at the club, what ?

Never touched the tat like Bowl Turning for Beginners, absolutely disgusting ,

its just not NORMAL, nanny wouldn't have approved y'see , very , very strict....

ahem .......uhh uhh i think i have something stuck in my throat ..........."

"Yes your worship , its the truth , now be a good boy and cough it up ........."

ffs , shakes head .........

I've been telling people that anti-kiddieporn laws are a form of template. We, as programmers, should have recognized this from Day 1. Its normal when you start a controversial process to apply this to a minority who are socially unacceptable. Kiddie porn fans fit the bill nicely -- there's not a lot of them and they're weird. Once you have the system in place, though, you can apply the template to anything.

You should never assume that "This never affects me". I'm not into porn -- soft, hard, kiddie or whatever -- but it still affects me because I know that they'll eventually be coming for me. Its just a matter of time.

We send all our porn collections to Parliament to get their opinion about whether it is still legal.

They won't get any work done for decades.

Mine's the one with the packs of dirty postcards in the pockets. 10 quid a dozen for you sir.

you're quite right as regards the things you have mentioned but this law is much further reaching than that. It also covers photographs of consenting adults taken in their private home for their private use. They have not given strict guidelines on what will and will not be seen as non-consenting and as such cover themselves while covering the rest of us in effluence. What I do in the privacy of my home that hurts no-one else is my business and my business alone, the same applies to everyone else in the country. This bill says otherwise as it will be at the will of a panel of people who may or may not be sympathetic to your inner desires regardless of consent. If you ever want the opportunity to decide for yourself what you can and cannot do consensually, now is the time to do something about it before it's too late.

Hang on "risks someones life", well blow jobs are out in case she chokes on you. Next they will want you to wear Hi Vi jackets so you can be seen, what a joke.

Seriously check out

http://www.writetothem.com/

in the UK and send your MP a note. Porn made the net popular, its still one of the only profitable areas on the net, so hand off.

In order to avoid the hassles of the RIP act, you need plausibly deniable crypto, allowing 2 passwords. One to the "honest officer these are my encrypted files" area, and the other to the real encrypted content.

There's no mathematical way do prove the existence of the real content, hence its plausibly deniable.

Read New Nazi.

"Achtung! Achtung! Schpiptfuer. Knancker, Knacker, Knacker"

WTF are they doing to this country? Where are the resistance?

Oh yeah in Iraq and Afganistan fighting extreme regimes!

Mine's the floor length leather one with matching hat.

Yes and if it outright said that it would be fine, sadly it wraps it up in weasel words and insists that although it might cover Bettie Page's vintage pinups it will only be applied to bad things, the same way nobody would EVER use anti-terrorism laws to spy on people over primary school applications.

Oh but they did and it will.

Honest, guv. I was only having clean thoughts whilst lookin' at them pics!

Mine's the dripping sou'wester in the back room.

Not sure you can send R18 porn through the post.

You would have to arrange for the MOJ or your MP to meet up in a sex shop to supply it. Might be illegal due to the last "panic" in the early 80s orchestrated by a certain newspaper.. and the same thing happens all over again..

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." ~Ayn Rand

I'm honestly surprised it's not the USA... By the way, would extreme go in the 2girls1cup category or just something anal?

It might cut down on on the spam, and streaming traffic from certain websites, making t'Internet a faster experience for all.

Will I now get arrested watching porn staring a collection of playboy bunnies?? whilst undenialbly cute, including bunny ears and a pompom tail, we would under the new law be simulating beasitiality....

and the goths are in for a hard time... dressing up as vampires and stuff... white makeup to give a pallid lifeless illusion, heres your necrophillia role play...

Porn has never made me want to commit violence, until now! i would relish taking the law makers out on my boat and allowing them to test my new concrete life vest....

Do the ladies whistle on the way down? Or is that another urban leg-end?

OK, I gather that this law is to be put into place because "extreme" pornography allegedly encourages violent crime. If that's the case then why stop at porn? Do not advertisements for the latest mobile phone/mp3 player/ipoddy, tech gadget thingy encourage certain members of society to commit crime to obtain such goodies? The government should look at banning advertising for such desirable objects. If those inclined to commit a mugging for the latest tech do not know about the existence of that tech and are not made to feel that they actually need it to be someone, they are less likely to beat the shit out of some poor sod for his/her phone or ipod. Thus the banning of advertising for these desirable electronic goods will result in a reduction of violent crime.

This government is...... I'm lost for words to be honest. Although wrong, broken and self serving comes to mind.

Can anyone recommend a country where civil liberties are respected and upheld please, I am preparing to leave and take my collection of 70's and 80's porn films with me.

Excellent!!

-Andy

What are legal acts?

The results of Operation Spanner went all the way to the ECHR, and the government won there, so it's pretty solid. S&M leading to Actual Bodily Harm is illegal.

So what about "ordinary" bondage?

According to Wikipedia (and, while we know how reliable that can be, do the politicians?), quite a few just-tied-up procedures have risks. "Postural asphyxiation" is one term. You know, fasten somebody onto a cross, and eventually as their legs give way, the weight on their arms compresses the chest and stops them breathing.

Oh, and I gather that people have been producing Kirk/Spock porn since before there was an internet. Is Spock human or animal? Well, they were arguing that sort of question in the 9th Century, and back then the reasoning would have classed both Spock and Florence Ambrose as human.

But what would a modern court do, and who would dare take the chance on the test case?

...all you MUPPETS who voted for these criminally incompetent, corrupt, ineffective MORONS called new labour, might, just possibly might admit that you actually ARE muppets, and that we (the sane poeple who didn't vote for this shower) were right all along.

No..?

MUPPETS !!!

And it was almost worth the wait. Patronised and ridiculed for so long, we long-suffering IT consumers always knew it but lacked the essential proof ..... until now.

It has taken all these postings (and your scarely concealed full and frank confessions) to finally confirm our longest held suspiscion:

That the entire self-serving IT industry; and you Register readers in particular; are nothing more than a BUNCH OF WANKERS!

To most of us, you're more despised than Politicians!

Now sort your confidence-trick-of-an-industry out, once and for all, then go out and get yourselves some real jobs!

Phew, that feels better.

Beer goggles can now get you into some serious trouble boys and girls.

"Have any of you actually read it?"

Yes, I have, more to the point, I have read *ALL* of it.

You, unfortunately have fallen for the "oh, well I don't like that stuff, so I don't mind if they ban it" gloss that the Government have put on it to sucker people into supporting a law which is based on the premise that "if they don't see it, they won't want to do it".

What "extreme porn" did Jack the Ripper view? For that matter, what about the Yorkshire Ripper? Oh, that's right, he didn't, he read the Bible!

You said it "says that "extreme" means one of the following: snuff movies, genital mutilation, necrophilia and bestiality" but actually snuff movies and genital mutilation aren't mentioned, only "an act which threatens a person’s life" or "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals" or "an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse" or

"an person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal".

These terms are, however, extremely vague, if I take a picture of a naked woman pointing a gun at a naked man that is "an act which threatens a person's life" and it can be argued is "for sexual arousal" even if it's a posed photo using a fake gun shot by consenting models. Is that *really* something which is "extreme and shouldn't be lawful"? No, but it would be caught by this law.

It then goes on to say "and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real" meaning that you created a photo-realistic CGI image (which can be done on any reasonably powerful PC these days) you would be in possession of "extreme pornography" even if it was entirely fictitious!

The Government have been clever with this one, because they've couched it in terms of "extreme pornography" to get people like you on their side and you don't realise that this will set a precedent that they can then say, for instance, "well, people approve of this law, so let's extend it to video games that show 'extreme violence'..."

This is why we need to lobby the Lords RIGHT NOW and convince them to amend this law, because the odds are that the Government (who want to force this through by May 8th) will, as I have said, guillotine debate such that our MPs will never even get to discuss this part and people will risk being jailed based on someone else's subjective opinion of what an image looks like.

Close to a hundred comments in under 24 hrs. My, that's impressive.

In the short time that I have been aware of ‘The Register’ I have noticed a bit of a trend. The subjects of paedophilia and pornography seem to get all of you a bit hot under the collar. You can certainly tell which contributors were only using one hand to type.

Is yours the one with the crispy tissues in the pocket?

The porn provisions don't appear to apply to Scotland. The extreme porn sections, 62 to 66 and Schedule 14, are England, Wales and Northern Ireland only.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.107-113.html#j997

It looks like Knoppix and RAM cache aren't going to be necessary in Scotland to surf the pink.

Paris, because we can still watch her north of the Tweed.

How hard is it to get something rated? How about if you don't own the rights to redistribute it?

Get any BBFC classification and it's exempt.

The BBFC will decide not to issue a classification because they follow the law

when classifying.

What about those with no BBFC works in their collection? They only buy non-BBFC.

What about readers of Empire magazine and film collectors?

What about the films from the 1970s that STILL TO THIS DAY do not have a classification?

Do the BBFC have to 'get rid of' those 1970s works that don't have a BBFC classification?

I stopped reading about halfway down to post this so I apologise if it's a dupe post.

If it's legal to beat the shit out of your partner if they agree but illegal to film it and thus possess the images; is it not likely to INCREASE sexual violence? Surely instead of being able to download and live out their fantasy of rape people will now be more inclined to perform the act? Chuck in a few rohypnol and you can even claim it was consensual!

"Here's hoping that no one serving on a jury would have the gall to view anything as being able to corrupt or deprave its intended audience, so no convictions would be possible under that ridiculous and outdated piece of legislation."

As happens quite a lot when people are arrested for having "child porn" on their computers (even if they can prove their innocence - we'll come to that argument later) they accept a police caution rather than fight (and almost certainly win) in court as the court proceedings themselves would have enough of an effect on their lives to not want to take part.

The caution in this case also places them on the sex offenders register as they accept the caution which is pretty much the same as pleading guilty.

I would be rather surprised if the mass majority of cases where people are charged under these laws actual make it to a jury trial. And even then the jury is selected from people enough of whom managed to vote for the party that is making up these laws in the first place.

This will seriously effect people who like to customise themselves, and show off the results

www.bmezine.com for example.

Now what these people get up to is not for me, I dislike pain, and I'm quite happy with what the good lord gave me in the way of dangly bits, and the amount of holes I have.

However, body modifiers take a lot of time and care researching what they want to do to themselves, and have been known to take a DIY approach that you won't hear about in the free leaflets at B&Q or Home Depot.

So they can't now show pictures on the internet, or talk to people who are considering a mod, and advise them on the safest way of doing it?

Goes against all the health advice and harm reduction that all of their paid do gooders want to advocate don't it

Joined up Government? If it involves lamp posts and ropes I'm all for it!

Or is that too extreme?

Yes there is a petition for all the good it'll do.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

Petitions do damn all good. At http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ you can find one that I started, signed by over 1,800 people who were willing to put their heads over the parapet and say "I object to this law".

All we got was a "fob them off" non-answer from a Government that doesn't give a damn what people think.

That is why people need to lobby the House of Lords NOW (see my post above) because they're the only ones who can actually do anything about this ridiculous law and the last chance is probably going to be on April 30th at the Third Reading of the Bill.

Re: AC Erm: "If it's legal to beat the shit out of your partner if they agree but illegal to film it and thus possess the images; is it not likely to INCREASE sexual violence?"

See the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD from the University of Hawai'i

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

He concludes: "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"

Still, why should the Government let the facts get in the way of a good old Moral Crusade?

New Labour is sinking in the polls like a luxury liner in the North Atlantic circa 1912. They need to win people back, so they need to win opinion-formers back. How to do that? Why announce an eye-catching initiative that on the surface no one could object to.

This law hands the country over to the Melanie Phillips wing of the Daily Mail.

Haha.. yes like the whole ID card thing... they really listened there, didn't they.

Here's an idea. Protest your petition in the streets next time, see how much more you're heard. Be on the media, in the news, on the papers, with peoples thoughts. The lay man doesn't care about the internet, or how to vote/etc on the internet. Why on earth do you think there was a huge push to make internet voting happen.. it's in private, behind closed curtains where you cannot verify the results truly impartially (please, show me the software that cannot include a back door and I'll show you a nice bridge going cheap).

Because like it or not, the internet may be a great sounding board... all a politician has to do is stand up and say... "We listened to the MAJORITY, and this is what the people WANT". No onus of PROOF that they have any majority (or is that anus, I get the two mixed up when it comes to government figureheads).

What about if you use the popular extension for Firefox, Fasterfox - if you have it set to load links in the background before you even open them, does this would mean you were guilty of downloading porn without even opening the web page.. even if you had typed something legit into Google.. seams like opening the Pandora's box to

I know a few Manga films that could possibly be caught up in this law Legend of the Demon Womb would be one.

@ Jeremy

Anyone that thinks the Tories will be better than New Labour is sadly mistaken it's like they are both in a relay race to control our lives and its been going on for decades.

It's a sad path we are heading down and no amount of voting is going to solve it direct action might but their is such a divide between military and the public that it would most likely end in a slaughter.

The criminals in power need to be removed and the system reset where is our Neo...

It isn't necessarily legal to "beat the shit" out of your partner (irrespective of whether you film it or not). House of Lords case of R v Brown (and others) highlights this, as do R v Emmett. Just because there is consent doesn't make extreme violence legal.

The problem is the vagueness of the bill not the target of extreme material. Since when has forced sex at gunpoint (whether fake or not) been worth defending? At the very least it's fair to say that "rape fantasies" propagate misogynistic myth.

On a separate point It's good to see some Lib Dem peers picking holes in half-hatched legislation. Maybe more people will consider voting at the next general election.

Here we come

The only way to stop this seems to be to get a lot of politicians arrested... This is good for so many reasons.... If you work in an ISP and you have any government officials as customers, it's your civic duty to inform on any extreme browsing! This is a crime that should be stamped out ;).

That all depictions of Jesus Christ on the cross will be illegal? I think that the Church will resist! Strongly!!

to his local politician after he's just spent three years inside, watching his children go to the breadline, due to his lack of earnings, because some manhating politician decided he had to be happy, celibate, and relief free as his missus loses her sex drive as she got older?

I find it completely unsurprising that Harriet Harman felt the need to wear a stab proof vest while out walking her constituency.

What is it with these polticians? Why do they despise their voters so much?

...we can purge our country of those pesky furries/fursuiters. For far too long they have had their own way dressing up in Disney'eque costumary and cavorting (Sometimes most publicly) and displaying their clearly homoerotic tendencies.

Cast them out. Kill it with fire!

/sarcasm off

Mook says

At the very least it's fair to say that "rape fantasies" propagate misogynistic myth.

It may be 'fair', but it isn't true. Or at least, the research that claims this fails to explain:

The demonstrable inverse relationship between porn availability and sex crime

The increased willingness to help a woman in distress after exposure to porn shown by research

The fact that of the millions who indulge in 'rape fantasies' in real life, a HUGE proportion are women.

If they really wanted to deal with the media-stimulus for violence in society, gun-worship, roadrage, terrorism, you name it, then they'd ban Hollywood. Job done.

-Oh but wait a minute, there's big money in that outfit. Sorry, nice idea but no can do.

-I know, let's ban pr0n instead. At least that way it looks like we're 'doing something' to control the problem. Even if we know it won't do anything useful at all.

First porn, then dissent.

I can't believe this has got as far as it has, we're supposed to be a free country. This law wouldn't solve anything and just criminalize something that would otherwise be regulated.

It would drive production underground and endanger everyone involved. Anyone who agrees with this is a complete frackwit.

This is about those in authority applying psychological methods to make us compliant at all times, privately and publicly.

No going over the speed limit - ever! We're watching!

No dropping litter - ever! We're watching!

No raising your voice in public - ever! We're watching!

No going anywhere without us...watching!

In public, we're watching you; now we must control your private life. If you look at anything we don't want you to look at, we're nicking you! With Phorm installed on all the major ISPs, it's easy to know what you're doing. You may have harmed no one, you may be harmless, but we need to psychologically control the population, so we're watching and we're arresting!

Eventually, we won't have to watch you all the time, because we will have conditioned you to obey at all times. Then we will finish the job, and condition you not to think.

You obey authority, and, in particular, you obey the government. You are OUR PROPERTY, so you obey - OR WE'RE NICKING YOU!

After all, lobster must surely class as extreme prawn.

Mine's the one with the ticket to Cuba in the pocket, legistation against crap jokes can't be far away now...

Normally this govenment just taxes everything. Nice to see them doing something different for a change. Totally wrong and misguided, but at least they are consistent in their stupidity.

Roll on the Election so we can get the buggers out!!!!!

Or should that be - Roll on the erection so we can bugger them?

Go on Smith, piss off you Moron! If think that loading a panel will pass right under the pubics noses without detection, you're sorely mistaken. How ever you think you can out-smart the public i'll never know. Come on woman, just stick to you guns and keep trying to have the internets turned off for criminals. Bloody pest, I feel sorry for her children :(

PS el reg, can we have a Jacqui smith looking puzzled logo please? She domminates the intollerable idiot stakes at the moment.

Exclamation, as this exactly at what appears in her mind when the crusade alert goes off.

an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life...

that rather puts a big fuckup clause against every arnie film, every stallone film, eevery willis film, every tarrantino film... "dirty harry" anyone, OM(F)G - he's POINTING A GUN AT SOMEONE - SOMEONE MIGHT GET KILLED.

apathetic bloody planet.

We have always have a 'great' tradition when it comes to recognizing what belongs to the extreme 'category'. Here's criminal life in the UK to you - as in your own private bedroom - never mind pictures...

Not OK Historically:

Two men in the same bed (two women was ok).

A sexually ambitious and experienced woman (an experienced man was ok).

Dressing up in leather with accessories (dressing up in school uniform was ok)

Not OK Today:

Three men in the same bed (three women is ok).

A sexually ambitious and experienced woman (an experienced man is still ok).

Dressing up in leather with accessories (dressing up in school uniform is still ok)

Maybe we should not be surprised after all - in the UK we have derived our current cultural grand moral from the beloved and locally prized bastion of Victorian enlightenment. As anyone who knows anything about UK sex education at school will be able to confirm... (what education?)

Paris - because even she could do a better job in this matter...

Are you using a nail gun by any chance? You hit so many nails on the head so fast with that one.

Yes I have been thinking that Phorm is a spy system for the government for a while. It does fit in well with Jaqui Smiths anit-paedo plans as does this claus.

As for Canada and other countries, you're next, this is a global adgenda, stop thinking it's only the UK or only the USA. Look up New World Order for some sort of reasoning behind this madness. It's not mad it's just horrible and well thought out.

Safety glasses for power tools.

the irony is, of course, that our best protection against the insane police-state legislation passed into law by our own sleeping parliament is the euro law you so despise. This extreme porn bollocks might well be unusable in view of the EU human rights legislation already in place.

Anyone else wonder how the measures to be taken are not targeted against violence as such, but depictions of (real or staged) sexual acts involving (real or staged) violence? Snuff films and other depictions of actual violent crimes would still be perfectly legal to possess, as long as there is no sexuality involved.

This smells like puritanism. It's as if they think sexual acts (or depictions thereof) are something especially vile and horrifying, making a criminal offense out of something that would just be disgusting and morally opposable (by their standards) if there was no sexuality involved.

We need another sexual revolution, like in the mid-late sixties. Only we need it now and can not afford to wait till 2060s.

I'm a married man. Porn is the only sexual gratification I get these days.

Paris.. Been there, seen it, done it.. who hasn't?

I remember hearing about this law a couple of years ago, and i actually thought it wouldnt get this far. It looks like the adage, "they came for the (insert minority here) but i wasnt one, so i did nothing" is actually true.....

It is actually scary that our government could pass a law like this. Time to get them out.

As a lot of peeple have said , email the lords, its our only chance to stop the thought police. Even if you dont like, view or care about the subject matter, the consequences of this law are far-reaching.........

But we can still be shafted up the ass against our will by the governement!!!

Democracy at its best :-)

So now that this deranged feminazi has decided that an adult in possession of an image of other adults engaging in consensual sex is to designated as having commited a criminal offence can we now look forward to government sponsored public book-burning taking place in front of the Houses of Parliament.

First to go, obviously, would be anything by George Orwell depicting an authoritarian government whose systematic surveillance intrudes into every aspect of the lives of citizens, even to the extent of censoring what IMAGES they are permitted to watch.

New Labour, same old Nazis. Neue Arbeit macht frei.

Nice to have a law that is likely to include MPs among its first trangressors. Unless they've managed to arrange an exclusion...

I am a Canuk living in what was once a true free land. I own some Hentai, and Manga movies, plus others like I Spit on Your Grave, all of which I purchased legally. So if the pigs in Westminster cannot get me for one thing, they change the law to get me for something else.

Long Live Guy Fawkes.

It is spooky how I was always taught in school that if we do not learn from histroy we are doomed to repeat it. Seems to be more in line with this gov't than ever before.

Make sure I wear a blindfold next time I bang the wife, wouldn't want the FEDs on my ass.

"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives." - Robert A. Heinlein

Great. First it was laws to protect us from ourselves (drug laws with little to no scientific backing) then it was laws for our safety ( anti-terrorism laws and measures, largely agreed to be innefectual and unjust), now it's laws to protect our moral sensibilities.

I wish Nanny would just leave us alone. And I wish one of the main parties would at least try to make some sort of stand against this creeping totalitarianism.

Is there anywhere on the planet left to move to where this isn't happening?

A friend of mine (ahem) has some home made "films" stored on his hard drive. Would these be counted as being illegal.

Both participants (on the occasions when it was not a solo performance) were performing acts that are perfectly legal (if a little shady), but could by the vague definition of this law be considered worthy of prosecution.

I know he could say that they are of himself and for his own personal use, but how would he identify himself in the video... "Yes officer, I am the one in the blue gimp mask, wearing the nipple clamps".

Mines the one with the KY in the pocket.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter if it was home made and consentual.

As an aside I'm pretty sure that everyone that let dodgy regimes into power thought it was a good idea at the time (Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Germany, Macarthy) nothing like a good witch burning to get the plebs in order.

Mary Whitehouse, campaigner against porn. Did she do this so hubby Ernest had no other release? Horny old thing...

Jacqui in the same boat? Poor hubby.

Who knocks on your door if you put "Jacqui" and "deathwatch" in the same sentence?

Cloning? Bring back the best of Guy Fawkes...as an exploding sheep if you like.

After all isn't this the 'naugties?

Go...just go.

This legislation was drafted before Smith took office so though I'm certainly not a fan of any NuLab politician I think the blame for this invasion of peoples private lives goes to Martin Salter MP for Reading, he might like to hear your views on the subject.

Also for our Scottish reader(s) the same legislation is being passed in Scotland under a different name but it's still the CJP so no you haven't got away "Scot Free"

if you cannot stop it from passing. The day after it becomes law everyone should go down to the local police station and turn themselves in for the crime. The system will just implode and that will be the last time anyone will hear of this nonsense.

Such Biased papers, most people realise that given an "outlet" for certain ...alternative titilation....it's part of quite a normal life.

As soon as you try to supress it and go round telling these people what bad bad bad people they are, you start getting the really freaked up people that you are trying to avoid in the first place....

Hell just look at some of these religious nut jobs that never had a ..roger...in their lives and who's idea of porn was seeing a flash of ankle on the way up some stairs...after so long they just crack.

For the sake of taking it to an EXTREME example, Japan has a industry in cartoons and comics depicting minors in expicit ways yet have one of the lowest rates for child molestation iirc? but according to this lot the Island should be Kiddy fiddler central.

Sources needed which I'm not about to go trying to look up at work.... and no I'm not abdicating we start the industy up here! no thanks >_<, it's only a short step from there to having used panties in vending machines and It's annoying enough getting the Twix instead of the kitkat when I hit the wrong button .....>_<

IT's another pointless MP making their job sound good, when the real work is being ignored (streets no longer safe, the prison association said prisons have no go areas for staff, underfunded hospitals, schools, shite armed forces...)

Just like the Phorm debacle and them voting themselves out of the DPA...

I pity the canvassing person that reaches my door with me in the house...

And the fact the house of lords has it proves the point, half of them cant get it up and can pay for anything they wanted anyway so what is the point of them helping pass laws. They aren't in the real world anyway.

After all haven't at least two male MP's been found dead in ladies undies and died in mysterious sexual perversions over the years. So famous one was on the front of "have I got news for you" as the animated shenanigans, surely that could be construed as arousing by some. So everyone who watched that series should be arrested....

Who are they protecting??????

Guy fawkes was right.

Mine is the one that has the "I am now flagged for being an anti governmental protaganist who could be a danger to the society and should be watched" written on the back.

Anonymous because I probably now am on an offenders list, can't even hate MP's for real reasons.

>>"the Minister is in danger of leading his Government into becoming the thought police

I thought the govt. ALREADY ARE the thought police !! Gordon We-are-watching-you Brown will have it no other way !!

No mate, China does *NOT* criminalise the individual for watching porn !! They just (try) to block the porn sites !! It is only in "DEMOCRATIC" Britain that individuals are criminalised for watching *undefined* porn because porn is whatever *THEY* say it is !! Of course, this gives a lot more work to our lazy, underutilised police forces especially when their pay has not only been capped but fiddled to be less than bargained for while the MPs blow millions on *their* expenses !!

I'm sure this will do Brown's election prospects an immense amount of good !!

"See the work of Professor Milton Diamond PhD from the University of Hawai'i

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

He concludes: "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"

"

So this law does the opposite. Ofcourse this is what the Government intended. They want a massive INCREASE in sexual crimes. You have to understand that it is the intention of the government to make our lives worse.

Hey.. look on the bright side.. with a law like this, everyone might be spared the pain of encountering two girls, one cup. That might almost make it worth it...

Wow, I hate my "friends" who expose me to such horrible things.

This will be, to some extent, ok, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (who is pushing this for the Government) has introduced an amendment which will allow a Defence of Consent but *only* as far as it says:

"(2) It is a defence for D to prove—

(a) that D directly participated in the act or any of the acts portrayed, and

(b) that the act or acts did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person,"

In other words, if you take a photograph of two people engaged in a legal and consensual act, but which would still fall under the definitions given, you would not be "directly participating" in the acts shown, so whilst the people in the picture would legally be allowed to own a copy, you would not and would, thus, still be a criminal.

I have written to Lord Hunt pointing out that all he needs to do is change the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) to "or" to correct this anomaly.

Also Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace have brought forward an amendment to include a test of obscenity. Since Labour have been saying since the start that they wanted to make this law part of the Obscene Publications Act, I'm hoping that they won't oppose it.

For the details of the law as it stands see Clauses 62 - 66 here <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/08051.i-vii.html>

For the Amendments currently being put forward see: <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/051/amend/am051-a.htm>

For how to lobby the Lords, see <http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=630>

... have arrived at last in the UK.

>(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—

>(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

and all that springs to mind is all the images in The Bill of armed police threatening a suspect. Cops with guns are definitely life threatening!

Does this mean that they ( the ubiquitous 'they') are going to ban all those violent cop shows where guns are aimed in a threatening manner at suspects?

While I agree totally with the anger against the loss of freedom we are suffering, don't forget that the labour party descend from the puritan 'roundheads' by way of methodism, a little quakering and a wonderful excuse (the EU) for changing our law and freedom (that we can do anything that is not expressly forbidden) to the european napoleonic code ( you can only do what the law specifically permits). This means masses of spies (wardens? who report to the police anything you do to the police;) (about that bit of paper you put in the waste bin etc) who then have to follow it up (burglars? sorry we're busy) surveillance every where ( soon in your TV). The law only works on the continent because the police ignore it until someone is suspected of real wrongdoing, then they can hold anybody for as long as they like.

The government are committing treason with their current actions but no-one seems to want to charge them. They know it and one of them let out the other day that the law of treason will be changed soon.

Don't blame me...I didn't vote for them because I have seen them mess up the country every time they took it over!

Best last minute hope now is to write to the Lords ( http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/doitnow.html ) before Wednesday 30. Or write to your MP. The Government want this to be law by May 8.

Dennis: "So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life". Doesn't waving a knife around threaten someone's life? They are not actually hurt. Merely the threat.""

Yes - in fact, the Explanatory Note of the bill gives as an example a (possibly staged) depiction of "sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon." So this is just not life-threatening injuries, just a roleplay with a knife will be illegal, if the image is sexual.

AC: "I can imagine a scenario whereby someone like 'Mary Whitehouse' is in charge of deeming what's extreme or not.".

In fact, mediawatch-UK - the organisation set up by Whitehose - has been campaigning in favour of this law, and even wants any image of adults having sex to be illegal to possess.

AC: "Two of the 5 studies considered 'acceptance of rape myth', Linda Lovelace's video is considered as rape in these studies. You then view these videos and determine that it isn't rape. But then under these terms, you're now in the deviant category, because you accept the rape myth of this video (by denying the rape)! So it's a no win, either the porn is bad (because it's rape) or the porn is bad (because it made you deviant into thinking it wasn't rape)."

The Rapid Evidence Assessment also referred to Linda Lovelace as evidence that people were harmed in the production of pornography - it stated her claims as fact, without any alternative viewpoint offered, nor did it point out that "Deep Throat" is now a legal BBFC film in the UK.

Jeremy: "Before you shout "thought police", have a read of the bill, which says that "extreme" means one of the following: snuff movies, genital mutilation, necrophilia and bestiality. These are all things that most of society would agree are extreme and shouldn't be lawful. Aren't they?"

No it doesn't, it covers staged and consensual acts, most notably those practiced by those into BDSM. The Government has yet to produce a single example that anything like snuff films or adult porn involving non-consensual violence exists at all - it's an urban myth.

Mook: "At the very least it's fair to say that "rape fantasies" propagate misogynistic myth."

There are more problems than just the vagueness of the bill. Whether or not rape fantasies propagate any myths, should people be locked up for their fantasies? Much of the problem with this law is that all of the anti-porn arguments (which may or may not be valid) are being used as support for a very bad law. Should consenting adults who roleplay something like sex at gunpoint not be "worth defending"? However much I may personally dislike it, I will always defend someone's right to do it.

AC: "I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter if it was home made and consentual."

It would certainly fall under this law.

Dave Morris: "Hey.. look on the bright side.. with a law like this, everyone might be spared the pain of encountering two girls, one cup. That might almost make it worth it..."

Although note, you risk being criminalised for now possessing the image - it's a law on possession, not publication.

...when you need him?

It sounds like the UK Government are using their own form of terror tactics. Bunch of Gestapo thugs.

Anyway - the enforcement should be on the side of the provider, not the recipient. How many times have you been duped by an insidious link that takes you to some whacked out page?

If you've any sense, get out of the UK and live somewhere else (as I did). YES, the grass IS greener on the other side. You'll find there are better things in life than Walnut Whip's, Curly Whirlies and Paxo Stuffing (but a good curry is hard to come by).

Tonto Popaduopolos wrote: "The subjects of paedophilia and pornography seem to get all of you a bit hot under the collar. You can certainly tell which contributors were only using one hand to type."

Tonto, where is your evidence that anyone on here is a paedophile?

You are innocent until proven guilty. And to be guilty, you must commit a crime - that is, you must harm someone.

You don't imprison people who have done nothing wrong. If someone views an image or video online - that they didn't pay to have made, and that they didn't place there - then regardless of its content, it should not be an offence.

People view executions online, beheadings, war atrocities, suicides caught on camera, etc.

According to your logic, these are all murderers salivating at the prospect of killing someone.

While the government tells us what is crime and what is not a crime, it can wage wars with impunity. Many children in Iraq - and those that fled Iraq - are now having to prostitute themselves to survive, while U.S. and U.K. corporations rake in billions.

This is about those in power having free rein to commit appalling crimes against humanity, to impoverish millions, to inflict serious psychological trauma on thousands upon thousands of children, while the masses are labelled deviant, and in need of control.

www.markcurtis.info for an analysis of the deviant behaviour of our government (Mark Curtis is a British historian and journalist).

Are we soon not going to be allowed to have sex a certain way?

If it's not the missionary position you're having EXTREME sex!

They're trying to stop us playing the games we like, drinking the amount we like, the porn we like, eat the food we want to, smoke the things we want to.

The goverment must save us from ourselves by wrapping us in cotton wool and making us a carbon copy of the person next to us till we have no individual character.

"If think that loading a panel will pass right under the pubics noses without detection, you're sorely mistaken. How ever you think you can out-smart the public i'll never know."

It looks very much like The Party have succeeded in doing both those things. "The Public" are unaware of the loaded panel and are a much larger group than those who've read this comment page.

Fuck, they ignored a million people marching in the streets. Do you think they'll take any notice of people they can conveniently label as "deviant"?

@Previous poster: So the Act will criminalise the depiction of activity "which threatens a person’s life".

Added to the idea that the scenes should have some form of non-educational sexual context, and Voila, the James Bond scene where the hot chick suffocates guys between her legs becomes illegal.

I am typically inclined to think that those who think up these f***wit ideas are misguided, mistaken fools who are simply wrong, but the rate at which civil liberties are being sewn up certainly suggests something more sinister...

...what is it?

Is this one to stop illegal porn (i.e. kiddie porn) or is it to just "clean up" our stree- I mean internet for the conservatives?

I'm a little lost.

It won't really stop all the (actually) illegal stuff anyway, that's all done on the peer-to-peer networks already - and that's pretty damn hard to police.

...so what was the point again?

> ...so what was the point again?

The point was that, after the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts, the Government's knee jerked as certain puritanically minded MPs saw the opportunity to grab some headlines by exploiting a mother's grief and, at the same time, bring in a law to ban "filth" which they don't like.

The fact that even they admitted there was no evidence to prove a link between viewing "violent porn" and this crime (and, as has been mentioned above, the work of Professor Milton Diamond has shown the opposite is actually the case) was dismissed as irrelevant.

This law will be debated for the final time in the Lords tomorrow, see my links above for how to lobby them to ensure that at least there's some sanity included by introducing a test of obscenity with the Amendment proposed by Baroness Miller and Lord Wallace.

You cannot legislate morality. Work on acts which directly damage individuals, instead of acts which may disgust you because you are an imbalanced know it all.

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,

Would make it illegal to watch a whole raft of mainstream movies that I can think of:

Clockwork Orange and Reservoir Dogs come to mind.

Stupid, unenforceable laws just make the Government look stupid.

Anyway, isn't there a potential conflict with the human rights act, maybe a Lawyer can give their opinion.

**IDEA**

Let's put a ban on selling left-handed computer mice....After all, what possible purpose can they serve except helping viewing pr0n to "enhance the users Internet Experience"TM (unless you're pretending it's with someone else)?

-apologies to all southpaws, though. They'll just have to make do.

(It's the dirty mac)

Actually, we've seen Paris "south of the tweed" if you get my drift...

This reminds me of the old'un: <Groan_filter>

Newlyweds, members of a church sect ask one of the elders about which "sexual positions" are acceptable to our church?

After a moment's thought, he replies "Well, all are. Except standing up, for that might lead to dancing"

</Groan_filter> (I said "groan", not "grumble")

Obviously. 168 replies, Christ Almighty, you guys must spend a lot of time typing one-handed.

Personally, I think that some people are just too damn frigid. It should be made a crime NOT to possess pr0n, extreme or not. That Harriet Harman for instance. She needs a damn good seeing to that one and force fed a diet of Ben Dover for good measure.

Harriet Harman, phoar, never mind the coat, pass the kleenex.

Let me just put my dishdashas on.... Saudi here we come !

No women on the street alone, no drinking, no porn. Government web filtering.

Welcome to 21st Century Britain (or is that 16th?)

Doubleplus good.

As I see it, if you import a copy of Madonna's cheap Basic Instinct ripoff "Body Of Evidence" now you get put on the sex offenders' register whereas if you buy it here you're fine because that release has passed the censors. Doesn't matter if the import version is cut more, it's not the version with the BBFC classification so it's illegal.

"Obviously. 168 replies, Christ Almighty, you guys must spend a lot of time typing one-handed."

169, including your comment.

170, including mine.

Ho hum.

That's very close to the much shorter joke:

Why don't Free Presbyterians like sex?

They're afraid it will lead to dancing.

With this legislation I see a market in Scotland for server farms which serve remote users in the rest of the UK who VNC in for "educational" images. No local storage and remote lonely users means legal $$$.

Paris, because once you get south of the Tweed it starts to get sticky.

What about violent films? They sometimes involve acts of hideous violence that "threaten lives", and do far more than appear to result in "serious injury". In fact they go to lengths to be as graphic as possible and very often exalt those performing the violence. And what of computer games such as the newly released Grand Theft Auto? If the threat of copy-cat violence is true then what singles out pornography as the greater threat to society?

your cellphone your wallet your time your ideas

no barcode no party no iodine no beers

your bankcard, your license, your thoughts, your fears

no simcard, no disco, no photo, not here

your blood, your sweat, your passions, your regrets

your office, your timeoff, your fashions,your sex your pills your grass your tits, your ass your laughs your highs, we write it all

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

Tell us Your Habits, Your Facts, Your Fears

Give us your address, your shoe size, your years

your digits, your plans, your number, your eyes

your skedule, your desktop, your details, your life.

Show us your children, your photos, your home.

Here, take credit, take insurance, take a loan.

Get a job, get a pension, get a haircut, get a suit.

Play the lottery, play football, play the field, sports on two

well show you things well show you swings

we'll buy you things,drugs,big yard birds

well sell you crap well charge you fat

were gonna find big guns & a drunk in your kitchen

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

Your thoughts Your emotions Your loves Your dreams Your checkbook Your essecnse Your sweat Your screams Your security Your soberiety Your innocence innocence society your self Your place Your distance Your space

go back to bed america your government is in control again here watch this shut up...you are free to do as we tell you.....you are free to do as we tell you

We want your soul

Here's boy bands here's matters, here's Britney, here's Cola

Here's pizza, here's TV, here's some rock and some roller

Watch commercials, more commercials, watch Jerry, not Oprah

Buy a better life from the comfort of your sofa

Here's popcorn, here's magazines, here's milkshake, here's blue jeans

here's padded bras, here's long cars, here's football shirts, here's baseball caps

here's live talk shows, here's video games, here's cola lite, here's Timberlake

here's fingertips, here's colegen, here's all night bars, here's plastic hips

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

go back to bed america your government is in control again here heres amerikan gladiators watch this shut up...go back to bed america heres amerikan gladiators here is 56 channels of it, watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin skulls together & congratualte you on living in the land of freedom here you go america you are free to do as we tell you.....you are free to do as we tell you

We want your soul x 5

We want your soul x 5

Your Cash, Your House, Your Phone, Your Life, Your Cash, Your House, Your Life

no cookies no stray no drop-outs no gays no leftys no no lunnies no opinions no way no bankers no teachers no facts no freaks

no skaters no tweekers no truth

We want your soul x 5

I thought all of those damned puritans were shipped over the pond to the US. They sure make life hell over here. We only get violence, and hillbilly reality shows no nudes on the tube unless you have skinamax.

fire because they like to burn things............

Erm... Feminists Against Censorship? Now that has GOT to be the top organisational oxymoron of the age! What will we see next? Marines Against Guns? Police Against CCTV? The mind boggles...

On second thoughts though, Marines could be against guns if they wanted to be the only ones to have them, and police would be against CCTV if it's not under their control, so Feminists Against Censorship may not be such a surprise after all...

Paris because she doesn't know whether she's for or against anything either.

April 30 is over. Deafening silence.

You have a particularly blinkered view of Feminism, Mr Roper.

I suggest you do a little thinking and a little research before you make yourself look even sillier.

Feminism is about women saying "we have the right to make up our own minds about what we say and do, and that includes what we do with our bodies".

FAC object to other women saying "no, you shouldn't appear in porn because you're pandering to men and letting the side down", their view is that if a woman chooses to view or appear in porn that's their business, why should anyone else (including any other "feminist") tell them that they shouldn't?

And, FYI, when I put a petition against the Extreme Porn laws on the Number 10 Downing Street website, it was signed by over 1,800 people and at least 25% of those signatories were women.

See http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/ for more details.

ISTM that there is a straightforward scheme that should sort this out nicely.

First, we identify which sanctimonious authoritarian faulty reasoners in the Commons and the Lords were daft enough to vote for this harmfully stupid legislation.

Then, we e-mail them all with attachments containing images prohibited by the proposed legislation -- those dinosaurs without e-mail we post USB sticks containing same.

The instant the legislation passes, we bring prosecutions under the new act against every single one of the venomous gobshites who voted for it.

All it needs is a bit of organization and a massive fighting fund for legal fees.

All the best,

John.

I think the problem with the public perception of feminism is that certain self proclaimed feminists have taken the name to push their own agenda, which is not what necessarily what the original idea was all about.

I would think that most people would agree that feminism in its simplest state is generally agreed to be a good thing (Women should be treated equally to and have the same opportunities as men)

Where it gets messy is when it becomes a religious fervour, and fundementalists get involved. Thats when it really goes to crap.

Religious fundementalism is as similar as it is bad. The intial tenet of most religions is" Play nice boys and girls or (Insert deity of choice here) will punish you either in subtle ways in this life, or in the next"

Trouble is the emptiest vessels make the most noise, so both these reasonable ideas become soiled.

Mines the coat with the sticks of semtex and the detonator trim

Better option. This law prohibits owning versions of many legal films other than the version passed by the bbfc which is surely an illegal trade restriction.The US release of Madonna's Body of Evidence (aka cheap Basic Instinct ripoff) may be tamer than the UK release but it still contains people fucking on broken glass and isn't exempt due to bbfc classification.

Trade restrictions people take seriously.

...And here I thought I was safe, with pictures of my pets on my hard drive.

--Glenn

"Erm... Feminists Against Censorship? Now that has GOT to be the top organisational oxymoron of the age!"

Believe it or not, there are some feminists who are anti-censorship, and not anti-porn, and so on.

The radical feminists would have us believe otherwise - they claim that to be a feminist, you must oppose porn, support this law, support criminalisation of all sexual images, and tell women what they're allowed to do with their bodies, and anyone who doesn't can't be a feminist, and therefore support oppression of women. So the last thing we should do is give into this idea, and let a vocal minority of radical feminists dictate what feminism should be about. If we accept that idea, then we accept a world where sexual images are criminalised in the name of "equality".

Several of my friends are feminists, but strongly oppose this draconian law.

"April 30 is over. Deafening silence."

The law was passed, without only minor next-to-useless amendments by the Government. The sane amendments to restrict the bill, proposed by Lord Wallace and Baroness Miller, weren't voted on.

The debate is at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-30a.245.0 .

Approx 1 week until images showing staged acts between consenting adults can be a criminal offence to possess.

I have a photo of me taken 39 years ago, i had some 1 or two weeks of age, and was on bath by mom, and my father took the picture... I guees it's extreme porn in voge... so, I better settle some bussiness before going to jail, as this is how it's getting all this situation...

On the other hand, I better call my lawyer, as it were some coercion on my acts, I swear good I didn't wanted to bath that day!!