If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid.
Almost unreported, the UK Criminal Justice Bill is slowly wending its way toward becoming law. It includes a section (Clause 63) on "extreme pornographic images" that may, or may not, affect a very large proportion of the adult population in the UK. But that – the Bill's uncertain scope – is part of the problem.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
sex crooks
The only way they could do this realistically is to have filters on electronic exchanges which respond to key words or images.
Not always perfect though.. I remember after 9/11 such filters were were in use by the security forces when they were trying to intercept references to Osama Bin Laden flying through the ether and the alarm bells went into overdrive when they found a reference to a waste bin laden with something or other to overflowing which needed emptying
The Statute Books are full of new pieces of legislation which should never have seen the light of day and are completely unenforceable.
Not always perfect though.. I remember after 9/11 such filters were were in use by the security forces when they were trying to intercept references to Osama Bin Laden flying through the ether and the alarm bells went into overdrive when they found a reference to a waste bin laden with something or other to overflowing which needed emptying
The Statute Books are full of new pieces of legislation which should never have seen the light of day and are completely unenforceable.
Sex God
Quote by Phuckers
no wonder the prisons are full to bust 82,000 by yesterday ....what next?will they ban doggy sytle
_________________
I support decriminalization. People are smoking pot anyway and to make them criminal is wrong."
Sir Paul McCartney
Have you read the report? It's not law yet, so won't have contributed to the numbers in prison.
And it's about extreme pornographic images - I can't imagine that doggy-style would be extreme enough. Unless it were with a dog, of course.
Sex God
1984 here we come!!
John & Shel
John & Shel
Sex God
Quote by H-x
What would be classed as 'extreme'? I can understand child porn, but what else comes under th heading?
H.x
I would imagine at least . 'Snuff' porn also.
De_Sade started a thread about this not long ago, I think.
Quote by Freckledbird
no wonder the prisons are full to bust 82,000 by yesterday ....what next?will they ban doggy sytle
_________________
I support decriminalization. People are smoking pot anyway and to make them criminal is wrong."
Sir Paul McCartney
Have you read the report? It's not law yet, so won't have contributed to the numbers in prison.
And it's about extreme pornographic images - I can't imagine that doggy-style would be extreme enough. Unless it were with a dog, of course.
what in my statements implies that the law has been implemented..the author has provided a link,why do you have to challenge every word i say???
Sex God
Quote by flower411
What would be classed as 'extreme'? I can understand child porn, but what else comes under th heading?
H.x
I would imagine at least . 'Snuff' porn also.
De_Sade started a thread about this not long ago, I think.
And it disappeared without trace !!
Unless I`m going blind !:shock: I can't find it either, thought it was me!
Quote by Freckledbird
What would be classed as 'extreme'? I can understand child porn, but what else comes under th heading?
H.x
I would imagine at least . 'Snuff' porn also.
De_Sade started a thread about this not long ago, I think.
And it disappeared without trace !!
Unless I`m going blind !:shock: I can't find it either, thought it was me!
If you're referring to yesterdays thread- I posted in it & it's not showing in my posts so I think it was removed due to it's subject matter :thumbup:
But I have a sneaking suspiscion that you're referring to something a bit further back- regarding the law?
Sex God
Quote by winchwench
If you're referring to yesterdays thread- I posted in it & it's not showing in my posts so I think it was removed due to it's subject matter :thumbup:
But I have a sneaking suspiscion that you're referring to something a bit further back- regarding the law?
I don't know about a thread from yesterday - the one I meant was a bit further back, yes.
A little bit out of the story-line:
Anyway, why worry....
On the other hand, experts reckon that up to two million people could have such images on their computers – often unaware that they breach the law. In many instances, pictures could be downloaded to cache the moment an individual opens a blog. They might not even be aware of what they had downloaded: but they would have a very hard time proving that. This raises the spectre of police unable to prosecute someone on another unrelated matter taking a peek at their hard drive to see if they can get them for possession of porn.
Anyway, why worry....
Quote by de_sade
What would be classed as 'extreme'? I can understand child porn, but what else comes under th heading?
H.x
I would imagine at least . 'Snuff' porn also.
De_Sade started a thread about this not long ago, I think.
And it disappeared without trace !!
Unless I`m going blind !:shock: I can't find it either, thought it was me!
You have a PM
Wants one too.....please
Sex God
Quote by de_sade
You have a PM
Oooooo, so I do!
Sex God
'peer Baroness Miller brought forward a set of amendments that would effectively have removed the extreme porn clause from the Bill.'
I just bet shes a member of SH
along with
Labour peer, Lord McIntosh of Haringey added: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about." :lol:
I just bet shes a member of SH
along with
Labour peer, Lord McIntosh of Haringey added: "What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about." :lol:
Quote by Stormwalker
Still unclear as to what would constitute 'extreme pornography', although it's ahrdly likely that anyone will ever check my pc, I have a sneaky feeling some of my collections runs a little close to the wire.
H.x
You get the beer, I'll bring the popcorn....
I hope you're not squeemish.......
H.x
Quote by H-x
Still unclear as to what would constitute 'extreme pornography', although it's ahrdly likely that anyone will ever check my pc, I have a sneaky feeling some of my collections runs a little close to the wire.
H.x
You get the beer, I'll bring the popcorn....
I hope you're not squeemish.......
H.x
As long as there are no bellybuttons involved, I’ll be fine…besides I can always hide my face in your cheek if it gets too much for me.
Quote by H-x
What would be classed as 'extreme'? I can understand child porn, but what else comes under th heading?
H.x
whatever they want to. Note : Even a previously BBFC certified film *could* be classed as "extreme".
Ever since the obscene publications act became neutered, due to European precedence, HMG has been itching for a way to stick their morality down the throats of the Great British public. (Not for nothing does the word "dour" and "puritan" follow Gordon Brown around).
One of the absolute touchstones of any law is that you must be able to know in advance whether you are breaking it or not. The OPA failed that miserably, and I suspect this law will too, and be thrown out when it gets appealed to the European Court of Justice. However in the meantime, spare a thought for the people who will lose their liberty, jobs, famlies, and in some cases lives, when the police decide to charge them with possession of extreme pornography after finding a copy of "In the realm of the senses" or "Straw dogs" in their video collection.
I haven't seen either film but after reading up on them, both seem worth a view. It's crazy that films depicting gore are deamed less harmfull.
So, if I understand you correctly, this law is in place until people with a bit more common sense can over-ride it in the European courts? How screwed up is that?
And completely irrelevant, I just came across the phrase 'sexually omnivorous'. Fabulous.
H.x
So, if I understand you correctly, this law is in place until people with a bit more common sense can over-ride it in the European courts? How screwed up is that?
And completely irrelevant, I just came across the phrase 'sexually omnivorous'. Fabulous.
H.x
Quote by H-x
I haven't seen either film but after reading up on them, both seem worth a view. It's crazy that films depicting gore are deamed less harmful.
So, if I understand you correctly, this law is in place until people with a bit more common sense can over-ride it in the European courts? How screwed up is that?
H.x
It's part of the nuLab way of doing things. Media kick up a stink. Government rush in with tough "laws" (ignoring anyone who tries to speak sense) and then see the laws struck out by either Europe, or the House of Lords (or both, if they're being really stubborn.)
Don't believe me ? Asylum seekers ? Terrorist control orders? Assets seizing laws ? Home Secretary deciding life prisoners parole eligibility ?
Wait till they start the rumour that "terrorists" are into "wife swapping" as an excuse to seize the swinging heaven servers and subscription list.
If they haven't already, that is.
