c'mon, we know by now that any new law in the UK has to be suitable vague and all encompassing otherwise we might just start having crazy ideas about being innocent until proven guilty!!!

Is a complete and utter bastard.

That quote invoked quite the most nauseating mental picture that I've ever experienced. I feel the need to go and scrub my mind out with bleach-soaked brillo pads now and I will need more than the usual quantity of beer tonight to wash the taste of bile from my throat.

Ugh, ugh and thrice ugh.

Does this mean that the Reg's Playmobile dioramas will need pixellating*? Will the faces be blanked out to protect innocent children from assuming that half their toy collection is moonlighting, committing dubious acts for the pleasure of others?

Are we all fucked?

*spill chockker on FFox has four suggestions for 'pixellating' two of them are 'titillating' and 'flagellation'.

...with freedom and liberty for all*

*Providing you obey the rules and never do, say or think anything that the Miniluv has deemed unsuitable.

Honestly.

"However, if writers and artists believe their works may be illegal, they will tread more carefully, erring on the side of caution."

If only you had some kind of specific, legally enshrined protection for just that situation. Oh well, whatcha gonna do?...

Most of the mention, so far, seems, to be concerning printed material, books and magazines, which can be fairly 'easily' outlawed by taking them off the shelves.

What effect, if any, is this going to have on the millions, and millions etc etc.... of sites frequented on a daily basis by boys, lads, men and women up and down the land, will this make crims of us all....??

And most importantly what effect is this going to have on everybodys favourite french hotel..??

What I like about this law is that you are perfectly legal to say watch a horror movie that contains scenes of mutilation or forced restraint for example SAW I, II, III, IV etc.... but you cannot take a still from said movie and be in posession of it on your computer or in printed format (ignoring copyright issues obviously...)

Lovely, I see this law and another to give a carte blanche to pin something on pretty much everyone.

Anyone thinking of emmigrating?!?

voat - mines the one with a copy of Bizzare in the pocket (cos this law would probably outlaw some of the stuff in there too)...

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door."

Classic punnage, intended or no.

"However, if writers and artists believe their works may be illegal, they will tread more carefully, erring on the side of caution."

Cobblers. There will be an immediate rush to produce exhibitions of artworks specifically to fall foul of this (particularly stupid) piece of legislation, as publicity seeking artists scramble to be the first 'martyr' to our new pernicious censorship regime.

Nothing boosts an artists profile like controversy. The first person past the line will be assured of a place on the international gallery circuit for years to come. The tag line "So controversial that the British government banned it and imprisoned the artist" is a licence to print money for any gallery that hosts such an exhibition, and the fact that these will all be offshore is all the better for the artist, who will no doubt be up for a bit of foreign travel once they get out of chokey.

The publicity generated by al this will no doubt make the current government look even more like a bunch of spiteful childish puritan fuckwit control freaks than they already do, it's just a shame they won't be in power to suffer the consequences since galleries typically have their exhibition schedules planned 12 months or more in advance.

So well done New Labour, for yet another pointless, unneeded, poorly thought out piece of knee jerk legislation that poses a solution to a problem no one actually seems to have. This is what happens when you let the Daily Mail make policy for you. You get to look stupid. Again.

There isn't an icon that suitably represents the populace rounding up all those who would seek to be our moral guardians and stringing them up from lamp posts, but there should be.

"slip in the back door"

is that a case for the police to investigate ?

Paris as she doesn't like people slipping in the back door.

I'd like to know what parts of my collection would contravene the new policy. I'd e-mail it to them one item at a time for comment, if it weren't for the fact that by the time I was halfway through, they'd be thinking they were being DDOS'd....!

We're obviously not as easy to control now we know the terror threat isn't as bad as they wanted us to believe so they have to keep us scared with something else.

"careful what you read, it might get you arrested" without actually clarifying "what"

Imagine a developed country besides the US dealing with this rot! You can take the whole lot of puritans back if you'd like them. We're certainly tired of them here.

Cheers

it's censorship.

We have enough already.

This must be stopped, here and now, or it WILL spread further, on the back of the dailymailtard's cries of "Won't somebody think of the children!" and "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear!"

Bollocks.

IMHO she's an electoral liability, look at the news associated with her:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=jacqui+smith&btnG=Search+News

"Smith blames contractor for data loss"

"Smith bans Westwood bondage book"

"Jacqui Smith's 'Stasi': Now council posts 'Wanted' pictures of litterbugs"

"Cannabis: police seizures show drop in drug's strength" (i.e. evidence is opposite of what she says.)

"Our citizens, their law" (how US law is being directly applied to UK citizens)

"new maps won't tackle crime"

"Smith launches airport trial" (her biometric trail blazing)

"Jacqui Smith’s Secret Police Force’s Balls Up" (civilians given police powers)

"Smith's Stasi are a menace to freedom"

"MPs demand explanation from Home Secretary over prisoner data loss"

...

The one 'positive' thing is the Biometric airport trial, however that's going to blow up in her face because it doesn't work.

If she's asked them to detect just one item on the passport: is the face male or female? that system would fail. The facial biometrics are so bad they don't reliably identify even the sex of ordinary people.

So there's bad news, poor judgement, knee jerk legislation that backfires and trials done *live* that are doomed to failure. She is bad news, and Brown apparently can't sack her, so your Labour MPs will have to defend her choices at the next election.

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door".

Extreme contortionism, anyone? My mind is boggled.

I thought "extreme porn" was fairly specific:

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is 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 (whether dead or alive).

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_pornography</a>

These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society. It's a good law. Bring it on.

...is this idiotic idea was proposed by a prudish old woman and a blind man.

Yeah. They are both REALLY going to have a great perspective on this aren't they.

I'm not kidding.

"We cannot just lie back and watch this ludicrous Act slip in the back door."

Not without poppers we can't!

we all have about another four months to give our dirty books collection the once-over before we metamorphose, on the vinegar stroke of some as yet unspecified midnight

And what exactly is an act that threatens a persons life?

Crossing the road could threaten a persons life, being tied up could be a threat to ones life, being held at knife point could be a threat to a persons life.

The law makes fantasy illegal, and at the end of the day not even the Chinese make the actual fantasy illegal.

People who support this law are blinkered idiots.

Let's think of this another way. It's fairly well accepted that murder is bad. Killing people with no reason is not something we want people to be doing. But doing is very different from viewing recreations of...

Would you ban all tv shows, pictures, comics and books wherein someone is killed?

The four things you listed are considered bad but they are already covered by existing legislation. You're already not allowed to do them. What they are now banning is the viewing of people who appear to possibly be doing them. And the laws are suitably vaguely written to allow for project creep...

Are you seriously suggesting that the courts and the police use the Whackipedia.org article as a guideline on how to interpret the Law.

You must be joking!

Man am i glad i don't live there

"(a) an act which threatens a person’s life...."

"These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society. It's a good law. Bring it on."

Except it isn't defining any *ACT* at all it's defining an IMAGE of an act. You fall into the usual trap of confusing the act with the witness. So murder is bad, but witness seeing it is good. And a CCTV operator seeing it on a video is also a positive thing. The witness didn't murder the person, they witnessed the crime.

"These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society."

So the witness is inacceptable? That's what this law is about, it doesn't criminalize the making of it, it criminalizes the viewing of it..... so a slasher movie that's been approved by the BBFC is shown in movies, but the same movie BEFORE it was classified in a criminal offence that has no place in a civilised society?

.... Andrew Andrew Andrew.... tututut...

Whilst I agree with your definition of unacceptable things the law in question is more to do with the possibility that the picture in question could have been taken whilst causing someone harm. The grey area, for example, is pictures of someone in a light (or otherwise) BDSM scenario but the important part is that ALL PARTIES IN SAID PHOTO ARE CONSENTING to both the photo and the acts being portrayed. The holder of that photo would be breaking the law, not to mention that the people in the photo could be done for bodily harm etc... even if the people being "harmed" have no intention to prosecute, there are plenty of cases out there already on this one. The new law would add yet another layer to beat (pun intended) the "criminals" with.

Penguin cos you're not allowed to with him either....

This act bans peircing porn... some people actually like getting peirced during sex. Some like to watch someone CONSENTUALLY being peirced during sex.

Then there's art itself, which often depicts things that are socially taboo for very legitimate reasons.

I'm gonna take Sarah Bee's invite and flame you, for to be as stupid as you there's no other possibility - you are Jacqui Smith.

Would you like your nipple peirced while we're here?

Rather than the child actors currently performing.

The other big problem with this law is in one word 'portrays'. So the video doesn't need to record something that actually happened, it is enough to portray it in fiction.

So we're locking people up for viewing fiction.

My biggest problem with the act is the inequitability of it.

As a poster mentions already it says something along the lines of -

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is 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 (whether dead or alive).

Hold on... wouldn't that ban almost every single movie ever? No it won't. The act has exemptions written into it so a Hollywood film studio could film necrophilia or a woman getting her breasts sliced off and that would be legal. If you or I made such a film that didn't actually result in physical harm but simply "appeared to" as amateur film-makers we would get arrested. Not only does it ban sex videos, it also bans amateur film-making. For example, are vampires corpses? They appear to be dead, or are they undead and therefore exempt?

We already know that the Government has no problems forcing prosecutions on people for completly consenting sexual activities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner). Now it will become illegal to own a picture of a legal act. Just what we need.

How many people that read this have been tricked into seeing the goatse image?

"(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,"

If you can fit a football in it I reckon it could constitue serious injury.

Now would you be willing to hand your computer over to the police and be utterly sure that there is nothing on it that might fall foul of a badly worded, vague attempt to criminalise even more people? How sure are you that you have never looked at an act that may risk someone life? You might not have done it with your dick in your hand, it might have just been a prank a friend pulled on you. The law doesn't care. You are going to jail.

Lets not forget where and how this law came about. A very nasty individual did some nasty things and rather than blaming him, or the mental problems he suffered from, a knee jerk attempt to blame it on the stuff he looked at arose.

What happened to plain old crazy? Why does it always have to be the bands they listened to or the porn they looked at?

Doug Stanhope said it best when he claimed "You can pass any law if you have a picture of a dead kid" Counts double if the dead person was hot.

ohh and can we have a death of civil liberties type image please?

Anyway I'm done ranting. I'm of to the pub.

If you can't punish the murderer because it was a fictional murder, then punish the film maker instead. (They did that, outlawed violent movies, it fixed nothing).

If you can't punish the film maker because he's in a different country and it's not a crime to make films there, then punish the distributor. (They did that, outlawed distribution of unclassified movies, nothing improved).

If there is no distributor in the UK then punish the viewer. (That's where we are now).

So that's where we are. It comes down to Jacqui's desire to see someone punished for every crime. The idea that there is a fix for every crime, even a fictional crime.

But to do that the viewer of this fictional murder has to be conflated with the fictional murderer in the movie.

Tough on crime, tough on viewers of fictional crimes....

Better to lock up 1 million innocent men than to let one fictional murderer go free.....

We do seem to keep doing this. A series of tabloid shock horror headlines, followed by a demand that the government does something to stop all this hideousness. Thus we get the Dangerous Dogs Act (Pit bull terrier panic); Criminal Justice Act (parties outdoors, often with drugs); Having information likely to be of use to a terrorist (crap terrorists, but on TV more often); taking your shoes off at airports (Richard Reid); No liquids on flights (Jury still out on TAPT bombers); Suitability checks based on rumour, not convictions (Ian Huntley); The list goes on, but this and prior governments interest in Law by tabloid has created a range of stupidity for the police to enforce.

The problem is that what is printed in the tabloids combines with peoples opinions to create an unholy mass of "public opinion". The only way out of this horror is to never buy the Sun and the Daily Mail ever.

This isn't about censorship or such images (whatever they are) would be illegal in all forms of media. Its really about creating a catch all offence for putting away people those in authority don't like. If you've come to some officials attention for creating a nuisance, such as vocally protesting against some government policy, the all encompassing anti-terror laws can be used to drag you in, giving them 42 days to dig up something on you. If fingerprint and DNA don't match anything, a quick trawl of your computer is bound to reveal something dubious. Obviously they were inexplicably finding a few people didn't have any kiddie porn, so instead they've criminalised anything that the rotting corpse of Mary Whitehouse might find offensive.

Now reading that back, I sound like a foaming at the mouth conspiracy nutcase banging on the twat-o-thon, but can anyone honestly say with such laws now on the statute, anyone disagreeing with the government is any safer from arbitrary prosecution than a Chinese citizen?

Leave the definitions vague enough, and you can hit anybody and anything with it.

I can't see Brown doing anything about this - one tiny undemocratic change of leadership and the puritans are in through the back door (now there's an image).

Looks like we can kiss goodbye to freedom of expression while we're on...

Paris - if you have to ask you don't need to know...

Should create a cascading effect very soon, that will hit the taxation feeder, and a lot of government jobs will be lost.

Now, in a time of recession people like to take their mind off things, perhaps with a good natured five finger shuffle, or watching a bit of hardcore porn with the nearest and dearest, before / whist or hell why not both and keep the light on, making the two backed beast.

If you remove this and make it illegal in society, you will create very annoyed and very pissed off people, not to mention the jobs lost in the porn industry. I think the current government is going to put themselves in the unenviable position of either having their heads hoisted on pikes across of all the major cities in the UK to serve as a warning to others, or having them and their families living in permanent exile, with the national debt liability transferred directly to them and any of their descendants.

I suspect things will get so bad, that the various politicians of today will have to make ends meet by parading in the sickest most grotesque form of pornography, reserved only for the lowest of the low, namely POLITICAL PORN, the sort of anti fluffer of the porn industry for when you have taken one viagra too many and you need your Miss Jenna Jamison to turn into a Mrs Jacqui Smith.

Really when you google for Jacqui Smith it should show just a limp dick, and the driest of dry gussets; the sahara of parched flange, I suspect the porn industry which now operate primarily abroad will have some retort to this, and boy do they have a lot of computing power.

Is that any porn involving Jacqui Smith is too extreme for my tastes and as for the Opus dei lassie well that's taking extreme to the ridiculous

as soon as i can afford it, i'm getting the hell off this island and going somewhere less of a police state, i hear east germany is much nicer these days...

a-d are pretty straightforward in themselves, as long as you don't get into the entire "appears to be" bit. E.g. you take a mobile phone pic of your mate on his stag night, pissed up and shagging one of those inflatable sheep - is that covered under (d)?

So. Is "Girls with Guns" covered? Strictly speaking, yes, as lives are *portrayed* as being threatened. But in reality? We don't know. It'll all depend on who decides whether the portrayal is "realistic" and who decides whether it is realistic or "offensive / disgusting / obscene".

"Fairly specific"? Not at all. It's all going to be judg(e)ment calls, and the results will be entirely subjective based on the interpreter. When our legal "professionals" are split as near to 50-50 as you can get with 5 people, it doesn't bode well.

"grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character"

Will the Beeb be placed under sanctions for recording the Prime Minister's questions and shipping then to C-SPAN on the western side of the big pond?

"Not without poppers we cant"

Fucking class....

Well you have a lot of "or seems to". To whom must it "seem" to be sex with a corpse? My gran? Yours? My 5 year old nephew? Judge Judy? Madonna?

Pictures of what may SEEM to be an illegal act should NOT be illegal. They may be enough to warrant investigation to see if the "may seem to be" is "is". BUT NOTHING MORE.

@Andrew Thomas: "These acts are all unacceptable in civilised society. It's a good law. Bring it on."

Did you not read the rest of the Wikipedia article? It covers fictional images and images of role-played acts between consenting adults. If fictional depictions of "unacceptable" acts should be criminialised, that would criminalise most 18+ films (and, come to that, screenshots from a legal film can come under this law).

This doesn't just affect porn (BDSM or otherwise), it criminalises consenting adults role-playing or practicing BDSM in their bedroom, who decide to take a photo for their own amusement.

@Anonymous Coward: "Are you seriously suggesting that the courts and the police use the Whackipedia.org article as a guideline on how to interpret the Law."

Actually, the Wikipedia article is referenced directly from the Government documents. Unfortunately, he decided to ignore the bits that note it covers consensual and staged material, or the bits that explain just how vague the definitions are (e.g., that threats to a person's life can include simply pretending to threaten someone with a weapon).

...is a very good movie along these exact lines, but taken to the absolute thought crime extreme. Rebellion against such appalingly repressive government is indeed necessary, here's hoping Jacqui Smith is the first up against the wall when the revolution comes - oh no, i just imagined someone being shot, arrest me!

The sight of Jack Straw and Jacqui Smith bound and gagged needs to be created in El Reg's favourite childrens' toy.

As for it being the most disturbing image possible - n'ah, just think of David Miliband lashed to Hazel Blears; cheek to cheek with only a small meringue between them - now THAT'S scary kinky!

I quite like my unspeakable acts, thank you. I am not really into pornography myself but if someone wants to watch a BDSM scene, I am perfectly fine with that. I find it deplorable that the government is trying to legislate the nations sex lives. Soon they will be criminalising us for thinking about it. If the man I am with consents, then I will do whatever gets our rocks off - I will not stop and say "Hmm, you know, darling - the government doesn't approve of me choking you while we are at it on top of the garden shed dressed in spandex so let's not do it anymore."

Also, here is some loving for Sarah Bee. <3

It is too long to post in this comments page, but if you go to http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=803 on the Backlash forums you can read a letter that I wrote to Harry Cohen MP (the only Labour MP with the balls to stand up to this ridiculous law) asking him to get Maria Eagle MP and the Ministry of Justice's answers to some very pertinent and relevant questions.

I sent it on the 18th of July and Harry Cohen acknowledged it a few days later. As yet, however, there has been no response from Maria Eagle or the MoJ...

AT: I thought "extreme porn" was fairly specific:

AT: (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

Okay, since nobody else will stick their head in this particular lion's mouth, let me ask: is fisting "likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus"?

To answer my own question, no it isn't Fisting sometimes results in very serious injuries but these are to the colon, not the anus proper, and are alarmingly often linked with the use of crystal meth. Ergo, fisting porn is not extreme porn.

But I have full faith that Ms. Smith, prudish control-freak bitch that she is, would say "yes it is, yes it is, yes it is, because I say so, oooooh, how awful, how obscene, one pervert inserting his/her hand inside another pervert's bum!"

[I am reminded of the nonsense the Andrea Dworkin crowd ("all intercourse is rape") spewed when asked about boy-boy porn and why it objectified women.]

A more general comment: isn't there some kind of legal principle that you're innocent if the law under which you are charged is so vague an average citizen couldn't tell if he was violating it or not? I'm waiting for lots of people to challenge the validity of these police state laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally vague, Ms. Smith's twisted knickers notwithstanding.

Cripey, here I live in distant Canada, and even I despise that woman. <vomit> Where does she get her power from? Does she have a safe full of incriminating pictures of Brown, perhaps? Or did she and the late and not so great Tony have an Interesting Connection? If so, did Dear Cherie take a part too? Now *that* would be obscene!

Anyone else think Sarah Bee might make a much better Home Sec?

Additional legal principle: English law is founded on the principle that statutory law merely spells out what everyone already knows in their hearts to be The Law. Statutory law is a mere dotting the i's, crossing the t's, and filling in the details.

Mike, your imagination is worrying.

The image you bring to mind is so disturbing I can't stay up to browse El Reg any longer, but have to retire to a darkened room to seek oblivion.

Please reply with your full name & address so my solicitors can sue you for damages for the mental trauma you have caused me to suffer.

"There isn't an icon that suitably represents the populace rounding up all those who would seek to be our moral guardians and stringing them up from lamp posts, but there should be."

Oh yes there is.

"(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,"

No CBT or boob bondage?

To hell with that.

Die.

To all of you thinking about leaving England.

Come to Canada.

We need more educated and skilled people here. Especially, as our education and health systems are going to hell. Our Old Age Security pensions will soon be bankrupt and we'll like;y be taken over by the US of A for the oil in our western and northern provinces.

Oh wait, if you come here does that mean there'll be a spot for me over there.

EP is any image that a "Reasonable Person" (ie a random clueless individual) believes looks like it "risks" doing "serious harm" to a person's anus, genitals or breasts.

Frankly, have you ever watched a woman waxing down there? I assure you there are plenty of "Reasonable people" who would wince at that and argue that to them yes it does indeed look like it risks doing serious harm to her genitals. Just hope that they're not in the jury if you took a photo of it and forgot.

Risks serious injury to breasts: Bulgarian airbags

Risks serious injury to genitals: Piercings, riding a big cock.

Endangers a person's life: nude bungee-jumping, sex while driving (yes, I know it's bluescreened but a "Resonable Person" has never heard of a bluescreen let alone being able to understand the concept), that Paris Hilton video with people doing cocaine in the nude.

Risks serious injury to anus: Anything anal at all. "Reasonable People" will be ~90% heterosexual and a jury only needs a ~90% majority to pass verdict. These "Reasonable People" will find anal porn painful to watch and thus conclude that it must hurt the recipient as badly as it does their eyes.

Who here is in favour of action against child porn ?

The idea is that by restricting access to such images, less images are produced and therefore less children are harmed to make the images.

"But but but that's different " I hear you cry - " kids aren't old enough to consent to these acts and are being abused".

Yes that's true, but have you ever heard of the "white slave trade" ?

How do you *know* that the extreme porn you are looking at is performed by "willing" participants ?

Answer - you can't, unless you're in the pictures and so is your wife/boyfriend/dog.

So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids.

Let's extend your argument slightly.

How do you know whether the model on Page 3 of the Sun consented to being photographed topless? How do you know whether any porn star consents or is being sexually abused?

Your argument is an argument for a total ban on porn, not a selective one on the type of porn you don't like.

Alan:

Sex with children is, and should be, illegal. Images of sex with children are illegal.

Sex between consenting adults is legal. Images involving consenting adults should be legal.

Now sure, there is some argument that if images of non-consensual sex between adults was widespread, that should be an argument for criminalising all of them. But:

Firstly, this would be an argument for criminalising depictions of adult sex, on the grounds that they might not be consensual or staged. This law does not target hardcore porn, instead focusing unfairly on acts that might be practiced by sadomasochists. Similarly, it would be an argument for banning all violent films, in case the participants hadn't consented and people were really being harmed.

Secondly, not a single example of "extreme porn" involving non-consenting adults has ever been produced (adult sexual slavery is a serious issue, but no link has been shown between this and the "extreme porn" sites). It certainly is not widespread. We might as well criminalise any film that shows someone dying, out of fear that it's a mythical snuff film.

Thirdly, there should at least be a defence where it can be proven that the participants consented. But under the new law, sadomasochists who photograph their own acts will be criminalised (the defence for participating in the image would not apply to sadomasochists, because the law does not consider their consent valid); you might have cases where only one partner is in the image, and it would be illegal for their partner to possess - not to mention say, a threesome where two of them decide to make a kinky picture, and then give to the third. Other examples would be images from BBFC legal films, or legal porn sites that are regulated, keep records, and where the participants turn up to court to say they consented (if you are going to quibble "what if they were threatened into it" - well, again that's an argument for criminalising _all_ pornography). Also consider staged acts - it can obviously be shown that the participants were in fact unharmed.

I would be more than happy with such a defence, even if the burden of proof was on the defendant - but the Government refused to allow such a defence, because this law is not about protecting participants, but about the depictions themselves:

"So someone please explain the difference in intent between this proposed law, and the law against indecent images of kids."

The Government themselves explain this - this law is not about protecting participants, it's about the claim that looking at images turns people into violent criminals. The Government's own Rapid Evidence Assessment couldn't find any evidence of people harmed in the production of "extreme porn", and instead focused on alleged affects of viewing material. The law came about after Graham Coutts murdered Jane Longhurst, because Coutts had access certain sites - that are known to be staged with consenting adults. Please read some of the House of Lords debates:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-04-21a.1336.2

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

In responding to criticisms, Lord Hunt's justification is basically that these images are "disgusting". In particular, he states:

"I do not take this very liberal approach of "If it does no harm to the people taking part, why should we worry about it?" I do worry about it, and about the access that people have to that kind of disgusting material."

When asked if a crime is committed in their production, he states: "some would be covered by offences in this country and some would not, but they were all disgusting."

Whether people are harmed or not is irrelevant, because the Government's position is to do with the depictions themselves, not how they are produced.

Also see the Government's justifications under the ECHR ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-n.htm#index_link_206 ) - only one of the clauses refers to protecting participants (and even there, it states staged activities - not a single clause claims the existence of non-consensual injuries); the rest are about controlling images of consenting sadomasochists; that the material "may be harmful" to viewers; that the depictions should be banned because the activities are "not considered acceptable"; and Please Won't Somebody Think Of The Children...

If you wish to believe that viewing some material turns people into violent murderers, that's up to you - but please don't think that this is about protecting participants.

Consider, can you explain why a BBFC film is exempt from the law, but a screenshot from the same film isn't exempt?

What about the millions of Catholics who worship the image of a young man who suffers a prolonged and agonising death at the hands of sadistic perverts who get their rocks off by nailing him to a couple of planks of wood? Do they fall within the ambit of this legislation?

Jacqui, put the dunce's cap on and go stand in the corner, you gormless idiot.

You are as thick as those two planks.

From the article: "The ambiguities inherent in the Act were highlighted when pictures from Madonna’s once controversial Sex book were laid before five lawyers, and two declared them potentially illegal."

I'm staggered that three lawyers were prepared to get off the fence.

I express my gratitude for the invitations to flee to Canada - though it should be noted that even Scotland will be safe for this law. Nevermind getting an international consensual on "extreme images" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3515797.stm) - extreme porn will in fact still be legal in Gordon Brown's own constituency!

(The new law will apply to England, Wales and NI, but *not* Scotland. As yet, they do not appear to have decided whether to introduce a similar law.)

"an offence to possess material that was "pornographic", depicted "explicit realistic extreme acts" as well as being "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" ... hmmm - better keep my pants on then. Hang on - that statement is entirely written in the past tense... "material that *was* 'pornographic'" ... so anything that becomes permissible in the future will STILL be illegal.

So, the age old joke rears it's ugly head again, to wit: A sadist and a masochist meet in the pub, the masochist says, "hit me, hit me" and the sadist replies, "No!". Here comes another ill-conceived rule from the deranged puss ball known as Jackie Smiff's brain ... where the masochist, being of (debatable) sound mind is acting entirely within the law in making the (arguably) obscene request whilst the sadist, by refusing to participate, could be seen to have acted offensively towards the masochist... and thus, by doing nothing, has broken the law. Or am I mistaken and it is only when the situation is described in typeface (OMG - what have I done?)

I for one welcome our new cotton-wool encapsulated narrow minded bigot overlords - and urge them to phuk off before I staple their tits to a table. (Note that the act of stapling is not an offence, only the photo I take afterwards to remind me of how much fun it was.

Oh, sh**! Just last week I was playing with my 3-year-old nephew and he pointed a bright orange (kiddie-sized) 'Colt .45' at me and made "bang-bang" noises! Since he's a James Bond fan and was pretending to be "Meester Bont" at the time, HE IS NOW A WANTED CRIMINAL!

Gun crime - check, it's a replica firearm.

Violent & Antisocial behaviour - check, he's disturbing the peace (making noise).

Terrorism - check, he "shot" me.

Identity Theft - check, last time I looked, "James Bond" was not a 3-year-old wearing Spiderman wellies.

Just as well we've played this game many times, so neither my wife or sister-in-law were taking pictures this time...

What's that, this new (proposed) law is retroactive? Gulp...

.

.

(And is it just me, or has anyone else noticed how Godrun Brown has suddenly found a brilliant way to get even more money from overburdened taxpayers - not only is he adding new taxes and increasing existing ones, he's making the changes retrospective even when he promised not to (mumble mumble car tax, cough cough))

I've got a John Williams Waterhouse print hanging in my front room of 'Hylas and the Nymphs' that I bought from Manchester art gallery, young guy on land looking at young naked girls (proof of age not on file but they all have small breasts) in water. The story is they entice him into water where they turn into monsters and consume him (Jason and the Argonauts).

Knowing the story, and how young the girls look, have I broken any laws?

I'm gay so the girls don't do it for me, but Hylas is cute, and knowing his grisly outcome could be constituted as extreme porn.

Anonymous - just in case...

It's well known that Godawful Clown does not tax the stuff he enjoys (e.g. price of beer and wine goes up in budgets, but strangely whiskey does not), so it looks like his underlings do the same.

As the bill refers to "...an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals" it leaves off one obvious area of sexual pleasure.

From this, it is easy to deduce that Jacqie is a cock-sucker (QED).

(Please - I really need an image of being sick here - poor vulture is closest.)

"Anonymous - just in case..."

Oh no you're not... better start running!

Hylas and the Nymphs wouldn't be affected, as the law covers "realistic" depictions. So films and other images of staged acts are at risk, but paintings are fine.

However, you should be more worried about another (proposed) law to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images of under-18s: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/ . As you say, those paintings of naked young girls do not have their proof of age on file, and who can be sure that they are really 18 or older?

Jacqui Smith with her eyelids stapled to her forehead being forced to watch Andrew Thomas having his tiny little John Thomas nailed to a bench fare under this legislation? I thought so, but how about we just do it now anyway, while we can and just burn the evidence after?

Like the terrorism laws it will be of Phi Alpha use for what the government PRETENDED it was for, and Not used for that at all, but will be used instead to stop people mocking Nu Labour politicians (beware, Bo Beau D'Or?) or even to close down public events they don't care for. It won't be possible to prevent anything (crooks don't obey the law, right?) , but it will be useful to stop us going about our business.

Rather like ID cards

I don't think they will use this new Act to rid DailyMailLand of rude pictures that make the children twisted.

They will use it against people who are already in strife with the law.

For example, if a driver doesn't have tax, they likely don't have insurance.

If a cannabis dealer is caught with cannabis in his home, there is a fair chance he may have something harder.

The scenario I'm trying to paint is this - people won't be arrested for simple possession of whichever material your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like. They will have been picked up or raided for something else, and a charge of possessing said materials will be tacked on the end.

Jails will then be fuller for longer. But that's another can of worms. :)

"Jails will then be fuller for longer. But that's another can of worms. :)"

Meaning I suppose, that as most jails are already at about 150% of capacity, many more thugs, muggers, blaggers, terrorists & burglars etc., will be released early to make room for those found with naughty pictures.

Still, I suppose they will be company for the ultra-dangerous subversive OAP prisoners who've said "Stuff your council tax"...

Alien because there are obviously no intelligent life forms within the confines of Downing Street...

"The scenario I'm trying to paint is this - people won't be arrested for simple possession of whichever material your average Daily Mail reader doesn't like. They will have been picked up or raided for something else, and a charge of possessing said materials will be tacked on the end."

More worringly though I think is the possibility of police raiding your computer for whatever reason, but when they can't find any evidence for what they originally suspected you for, this law is something they could do you for instead.

the Prime Dictator^H^H^H Minister and commandants^H^H^H loyal troops whipped to shreds with a razor embedded cat-o-9-tails and then dipped in vinegar... mmmm lovely. The image in your mind is legal - but this post isn't.