Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State

[David Johnson]

This doesn't surprise me at all.

The Tories have had a PR re-branding in the shape of David Cameron who in many ways apes Blair. But it is the same old Tories underneath and many will remember the virulent opposition to all things porn under Thatcher and co.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

There are some on this forum who were naive enough to believe that Cameron and co and their Lib Dem supporters would

1. Reduce the nanny state. The only aspects of the nanny state that I can see Cameron and co gettng rid of are ones that inconvenience big business.
2. Get rid of the restrictions on civil liberties brought in by Labour.

One year in and I can see very limited signs, if at all, of the government meeting those aims.

A bit like the scenario whereby I can see very little sign of Cameron's promise to protect front-line services from budget cuts being met or alternatively his statement that there would be no top down reorganisation of the NHS being implemented.

Cheers
D

[Lizard]

You need to read the post properly, this is not coming from Cameron, all he has done is give his backing to the report,

"The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union, finds "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations"

Also Mumsnet, who you could hardly accuse of being Tory biased, have campaigned against suggestive children's clothes for a long time, and welcomed the report

Also this "Some Labour politicians have, however, called for regulation to be put in place faster, and in evidence to the review the Advertising Association federation pointed out: "There is no existing mechanism to verify the age of a child ... which means children can lie about their age and register as a user".

So again you try to turn it into a baby eating tory discussion, when in reality the Labour party would have acted a lot faster had they been in power.

One can only conclude that you don't have a problem with the real issues involved here, ie : the "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children.

[jimslip]

"The Dangerous Pictures Act" in a way says what it's all about. It's all in the word, "Dangerous". It was added to the Criminal Justice Act to combat the influx of nutters and psychos who were making extreme porn and calling it, "Art" etc. Also to combat flaky, victims saying, "It's ok, I don't mind being violently raped and brutalised!" The law basically said, "Well you might not mind, girlfriend, but WE fucking well do!" (Not that judges actually speak like this!)

Here's an example of a scenario that would be now illegal. A person regardless of his/her apparent consent, has a polythene bag placed over his/her head and his/her head brutally shoved under water in a bath. His/her head is held under water while he/she frantically kicks. Psychotic nutters love stuff like this. Now, thankfully, lhe law would see this quite clearly as a scenario, that if enacted in reality, "Could result in death". Interestingly, the the making AND possession of such a sequence would be illegal.

Likewise an anal scene, where a person was depicted (again consensual or not) having his/her anus ripped apart in a brutal manner and then with agression, which whether depicted as fantasy, or as reality, is irrelevant, brutally raped by any number of men, or over sized objects, tools, implements, or in any way that deliberately titillated, by virtue of it's inherent enactment of violence, would be illegal to make and possess.

The Dangerous Pictures addition to the CJA, is a good bit of legal writting since it is pretty unambiguous and I think you are being a little churlish in attempting to alarm the good and righteous folk of BGAFD, into thinking that their enjoyment of sexual acts that couples and groups enjoy all over the country, at any one time, could render them vulnerable to arrest and imprisonment. The sex act in itself is dangerous, a woman in a reverse cowgirl position could slip and break someones penis, as has happened on a number of occasions. You presumably would suggest that the woman could be arrested and charged under this legislation?

No, the key phrase is, intentional, wanton and ritualistic violence for the sole purpose of providing for perverted sexual titillation of the viewer.

I would suggest Ravis, if you are that convinced of your argument that ALL anal sex is possibly illegal, you should leave the BGAFD forthwith and advise others to follow, since your involvement on this forum could be seen as, "Aiding, abbetting and inciting people to participate in criminal acts!" !wink!

[David Johnson]

I understand where you are coming from, however...

Firstly you state....

"You need to read the post properly, this is not coming from Cameron, all he has done is give his backing to the report,
"The report, which was prepared by Reg Bailey, the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union, finds "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children are the biggest concerns for parents and many non-commercial organisations"

Lizard, given that Cameron had previously made many of the criticisms made in this report, prior to its commissioning by Cameron with "the chief executive of the Christian charity Mothers' Union" at its head, then we can hardly be shocked/horrified/surprised that the report agrees with his views and he backs the report!

If I commissioned the Head of Tourism in Blackpool to write a report on whether Blackpool was a great place to visit, I would not be hugely surprised if the report was in the affirmative.

Secondly, "Some Labour politicians have, however, called for regulation to be put in place faster,"

1, 2, 200? Besides, I thought this was a post about the Tories? Aren't they in government now and can't we judge them against their election promises to sweep away the nanny state and all the restrictions on civil liberties etc etc.? Or is that illegal now?

Then you finish "One can only conclude that you don't have a problem with the real issues involved here, ie : the "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children."

This is a false conclusion and nowhere have I stated in this thread that I have no problem with the "sexualised and gender stereotyped clothing, products and services for children."

Perhaps I could suggest that you "need to read the post properly". I am totally against the sexualisation of pre-teen children by inappropriate clothing etc. As far as I am concerned, children should be allowed to have a childhood. I generally agree with Ravis's comment here

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=246176&t=246163

i.e. there is a mix of good and bad in the report recommendations.

Putting a magazine like FHM in a brown cover seems to me over the top. Re. music videos on television, isn't there already a government body that deals with that e.g. the review of the Rhianna video and the x factor performances of Christina Aquilera etc.?

I can remember as a kid looking forward to watching Benny Hill music videos on the box for obvious reasons. I guess in the new world of Cameron, this stuff would be at 11pm with a warning about explicit material.

I think the bottom line is that some of this report I agree with. Other aspects as mentioned seem to be part of the nanny/puritanical state where the responsibilities of the children's parents i.e. don't buy, never mind let your child wear an inappropriate piece of clothing for their age e.g. a padded bikini bra for a 7 year old, don't let them watch a tv programme if you think it is inappropriate (use the bloody on/off switch if need be, apparently all TVs have them), are subsumed into a state responsibility for providing endless rules in this area.

Cheers
D

[jimslip]

Mr Lizard, I should warn you that argument with David J is futile. He suffers from a rare condition known as, "Tory Party Obsessional Neurosis", or TPON. It is a condition, where the sufferer, will rationalise any negative World event, whether it be as a result of Man, or Act of God and assign blame for this event on, "The Tories".

So, if asked what caused the Tsunami in 2005, a TPON sufferer, will robotically answer, "It was obviously as a result of Tory cuts to the green budget that set off a chain of events that resulted in the Tsunami!"

In extreme cases, the TPON sufferer will assign fault to The Tories for events that have occurred before time itself and even events that have occurred in Outer Space.

A good example that baffled experts, was when a group of TPON sufferers where asked the following question:

"What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?"

The TPON sufferers all answered in unison:

"Tory cuts!"

When challenged as to the fact that neither Man, let alone The Tories existed at the time, they simply answered:

"That's what they want you to think!!"

There is no cure for this condition, apart from kind words and sympathy. Experts warn against leaving knives or firearms in the vicinity of a TPON sufferer, as they are often known to hallucinate mobs of Tories on the march in bowler hats, with giant pairs of scissors chanting, "More Tory cuts! More Tory cuts!"

A typical TPON sufferer:
[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lld0eqp3X51qez0jt.png[/img]

[David Johnson]

Anything to do with the subject? No? Your usual, sad arse crap!

!wink!

D