egafd.com

I do believe I started a thread on this many, many moons ago and everyone ignored it. Now it's on your doorstep you want to know. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

If the posts on this thread are anything to go by I can only say this response was predicted by the time it got out through the media.

This was discussed several times in connection with the BBFC Online and The Criminal Justice & Immigration Bill.

This is all happening beciase of the "TV without frontiers" thing that is going to be sweeping europe in the next couple of years so it was inevitable really.

I doubt it will affect anything you guys watch normally.

Right?

one eyed jack wrote:

> Right?

Nope.

Note that it will be an offence to hold an image of a sexual act covered by the law, even if such an act is itself not illegal!

The ban on extreme porn is analogous to child porn insofar as it is illegal to possess it therefore, for example, no investigative journalist could be in possession of it without being in breach of the said act. It is therefore primarily an artificial device to protect those in high places.
The Scottish Herald recently revealed that some members of the government where active paedophiles but this could not be proven by journalists in possession of incriminating images of child sexual abuse because they themselves would have been prosecuted for possession of illegal imagery.
Mike Freeman.

What with this extreme porn bollocks and Harriet 'Snotty Cow' Harman's pincer attack on purchasers of sexual services, does the panel think that this NuLabour government with it's shrill, middleclass, wimmin's libbers, presents a clear and present danger to fans of erotica and freedom lovers across the land? Should the bgafd and porn punters in general rise up as one and say, "Fuck off yer snoty middleclass twats! When it comes to matters sexual we'll not take any of your arrogant Labour lip. So fucking bollocks!"

Also, should we be advising them to dig out their P45?s - in light of this coming Thursday?s elections?



Officer Dibble

I warned many years ago that this would happen, and that they would move the goalposts as to what was 'acceptable'. The minute downloading a picture onto a computer screen became 'making an image' and it thus became illegal to look at a picture this was always destined to happen, especially if you throw in the media's obsession with labelling photographs of child abuse 'child PORN', thereby tarring all real pornography with that brush - it will be the key for the authorities ultimate attempt to control and further criminilise the internet. I'm sorry to say that the general public were once again played for pillocks, the emotive tabboo subject of 'kiddie porn' was used as a tool to bring in laws that screwed with privacy and will be ultimately, in one way or another, be used against us all. If looking at one pic is illegal, then all it takes is a wee campaign to convince the masses something else is 'distasteful' and, hey presto!, something else becomes illegal and more folk become criminals. And it has been a resounding success, as seen everytime someone is 'accused' of having some pics on their computer they automatically become the devil incarnate no matter what the circumstances or outcome