In the consultation document for the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, a ban was proposed for all sorts of "special interest" subjects such as golden showers and fisting. Even a woman urinating in the extras of a DVD you own could have landed you in prison for years.
However it looks like the bill now only bans:
(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,
The ban also only applies under specific circumstances, so art films, for example, aren't banned. Also if something arrives in your inbox (or letter box for that matter) you aren't liable until you find out about it.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 43-46.html
So it looks like ally your Max Hardcore European editions have been spared from the incinterator!
The only remaining issues it: when the gun laws are tightened, there is a compensation scheme for owners. Will the same kind of procedures apply to the above materials? If so, it's tempting to get hold of some bestiality films just to have the official receipt as a souvenir: "Here you are sir, your receipt for one copy of 'Debbie Does a Dog' and a cheque for the current market value."
BonerFriday
Good news: No need to incinerate your euro porn!
-
BonerFriday
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro por
Oh dear - I think you need re-education:
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro porn!
Also, choking on a male member!! However, I've seen that, anal gaping and double anal in a R18 DVD !confused!
-
andy at handiwork
- Posts: 4113
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro por
And there was me getting all excited. !sad!
-
BonerFriday
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro porn!
> Also, choking on a male member!! However, I've seen that, anal gaping and double anal in a R18 DVD
If they have acertificate they are excempt.
If they have acertificate they are excempt.
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro por
BonerFriday wrote:
> If they have acertificate they are excempt.
No they are not. Read the Bill and you will find that this applies to material which the BBFC would approve.
Please take a look at backlash and melonfarmers before giving ill informed advice.
> If they have acertificate they are excempt.
No they are not. Read the Bill and you will find that this applies to material which the BBFC would approve.
Please take a look at backlash and melonfarmers before giving ill informed advice.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro porn!
Simple,do your stuff by mail order,or better still download your British made porn via a foreign server.
Easy enough to get hosting in America,and as such you can make and sell whatever you want.
Just so easy to avoid all these silly laws.They're made to appease the Christian/Femminist lobby voters,not the general public.
Easy enough to get hosting in America,and as such you can make and sell whatever you want.
Just so easy to avoid all these silly laws.They're made to appease the Christian/Femminist lobby voters,not the general public.
Re: Good news: No need to incinerate your euro por
Quick summary:
Staged/fictional images are included; the threshold no longer requires "disabling" injury; even though classified works aren't covered, an extract from a classified work can fall under the law; their list of what could come under this seems to be worse than the more paranoid interpretations that people had; the Spanner case and "sado-masochists" are referred to when referring to "the material to be covered by this new offence".
The relevant bit, from section 64:
(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.
* The consultation response stated "serious disabling injury", and it was this which satisfied many who were originally opposed. The bill does not mention disabling at all. It's still "serious" at least, but that's undefined. We're basically back to the original proposal of GBH, with the addition that it now covers acts which would be likely to result in such injury!
* This covers images of fictional violence (staged acts or faked images). (See the repeated references to "appears to"; note that they refer to "image" (not "photograph" or "pseudo-photograph", as I believe is the case for child porn), and explicitly state "produced by any means"; also paragraph 803 of the explanatory notes refers to "staged activity"). It doesn't matter how "extreme" the definitions are, if it still covers simulated acts.
From part of the explanatory notes, we have a list of what will fall under this (paragraph 384):
* Acts which threaten or appear to threaten a person's life; this could include depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon.
* Likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals: this could include the insertion of sharp objects (yeah, done that one, I can't say I was seriously injured!) or the mutilation of breasts or genitals (unclear whether mutilation is broad enough to include cutting).
In addition, note section 65 "Exclusion of classified films etc.":
* Classified works are not counted (okay, makes sense, but why should there be a risk that classified works might come under the law? This would mean an image in a BBFC-approved film is legal, but an image of people reproducing the same scene could be illegal!)
* But, an extract from a classified work would still be covered by this law, if it was determined that the reason for extraction was for erotic purposes! Yes, make a set of stills from a standard Hollywood violent film, and get three years in prison!
In fact, what makes this point even more bewildering is that, for the possibility of extracts to be illegal, they are surely admitting that there must exist classified material which would fall under the proposed law!!!!
It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place.
Well, whilst it is true that the activities which appear to be taking place are illegal:
* This is irrelevant for any acts which "appear to" show harm - it's entirely legal to consent to acting in such a scene! (The document addresses "staged" acts in paragraph 804, claiming that this is because people who consensually act need protection from "participating in degrading activities"!)
* The response from supporters so far seems to have been that they don't want to criminalise BDSMers. But here you have the message - These S&M acts are illegal, and so they should be, and we want to base new laws upon that ruling.
As well as up to three years in prison, offenders will be included on the Sex Offenders Register.
I'm afraid you can't avoid this piece of nasty legislation.
Staged/fictional images are included; the threshold no longer requires "disabling" injury; even though classified works aren't covered, an extract from a classified work can fall under the law; their list of what could come under this seems to be worse than the more paranoid interpretations that people had; the Spanner case and "sado-masochists" are referred to when referring to "the material to be covered by this new offence".
The relevant bit, from section 64:
(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.
* The consultation response stated "serious disabling injury", and it was this which satisfied many who were originally opposed. The bill does not mention disabling at all. It's still "serious" at least, but that's undefined. We're basically back to the original proposal of GBH, with the addition that it now covers acts which would be likely to result in such injury!
* This covers images of fictional violence (staged acts or faked images). (See the repeated references to "appears to"; note that they refer to "image" (not "photograph" or "pseudo-photograph", as I believe is the case for child porn), and explicitly state "produced by any means"; also paragraph 803 of the explanatory notes refers to "staged activity"). It doesn't matter how "extreme" the definitions are, if it still covers simulated acts.
From part of the explanatory notes, we have a list of what will fall under this (paragraph 384):
* Acts which threaten or appear to threaten a person's life; this could include depictions of hanging, suffocation, or sexual assault involving a threat with a weapon.
* Likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals: this could include the insertion of sharp objects (yeah, done that one, I can't say I was seriously injured!) or the mutilation of breasts or genitals (unclear whether mutilation is broad enough to include cutting).
In addition, note section 65 "Exclusion of classified films etc.":
* Classified works are not counted (okay, makes sense, but why should there be a risk that classified works might come under the law? This would mean an image in a BBFC-approved film is legal, but an image of people reproducing the same scene could be illegal!)
* But, an extract from a classified work would still be covered by this law, if it was determined that the reason for extraction was for erotic purposes! Yes, make a set of stills from a standard Hollywood violent film, and get three years in prison!
In fact, what makes this point even more bewildering is that, for the possibility of extracts to be illegal, they are surely admitting that there must exist classified material which would fall under the proposed law!!!!
It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place.
Well, whilst it is true that the activities which appear to be taking place are illegal:
* This is irrelevant for any acts which "appear to" show harm - it's entirely legal to consent to acting in such a scene! (The document addresses "staged" acts in paragraph 804, claiming that this is because people who consensually act need protection from "participating in degrading activities"!)
* The response from supporters so far seems to have been that they don't want to criminalise BDSMers. But here you have the message - These S&M acts are illegal, and so they should be, and we want to base new laws upon that ruling.
As well as up to three years in prison, offenders will be included on the Sex Offenders Register.
I'm afraid you can't avoid this piece of nasty legislation.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes