It appears that the posted list is in fact from HM Customs and is their idea of a clear list of material that they would target.
Now it seems that the list is still not the list being suggested by the Home Office yet but we do know that the Government is keen to let the enforcement agencies dictate law (eg 90 day detention without charge).
Of course if they do listen to Customs then they will also have to build concentration camps to house all the imprisoned people.
Read the consultation document here: and respond to it.
Online html response form at:
There is also a Word response form.
Responses must be received by Friday 2nd December.
See for a well organised campaign against this nasty piece of legislation
Extreme Pornography
Re: Extreme Pornography
To be fair their proposals don't go as far as Keith's initial post suggests.
Content of material
39. We propose restricting the offence to explicit pornography containing actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context, and
iv) serious sexual violence.
40. In (c) above, "serious violence" will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm in a context or setting which is sexual - for example, images of suffocation or hanging with sexual references in the way the scenes are presented. In (d) above "serious sexual violence" will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm where the violence is sexual.
41. By "serious bodily harm" we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of grievous bodily harm could be brought in England and Wales or in Scotland, assault to severe injury.
42. Therefore the activities in a) and b) and the qualification of "serious bodily harm" in c) and d) bring this material within the scope of the OPA, and in Scotland, the CG(S)A, and ensure that what could be categorised as mainstream pornography (such as that classified R18 by the BBFC) is not included.
Many moons ago I worked for the Home Office and most of my (male)colleagues then enjoyed a bit of porn so I don't imagine they'd be willing to be hoist in their own petard by criminalising ownership of the less extreme stuff
Content of material
39. We propose restricting the offence to explicit pornography containing actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
iii) serious violence in a sexual context, and
iv) serious sexual violence.
40. In (c) above, "serious violence" will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm in a context or setting which is sexual - for example, images of suffocation or hanging with sexual references in the way the scenes are presented. In (d) above "serious sexual violence" will involve or will appear to involve serious bodily harm where the violence is sexual.
41. By "serious bodily harm" we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of grievous bodily harm could be brought in England and Wales or in Scotland, assault to severe injury.
42. Therefore the activities in a) and b) and the qualification of "serious bodily harm" in c) and d) bring this material within the scope of the OPA, and in Scotland, the CG(S)A, and ensure that what could be categorised as mainstream pornography (such as that classified R18 by the BBFC) is not included.
Many moons ago I worked for the Home Office and most of my (male)colleagues then enjoyed a bit of porn so I don't imagine they'd be willing to be hoist in their own petard by criminalising ownership of the less extreme stuff
[url]http://www.ukpussytalk.com[/url]
Re: Extreme Pornography
Can't see how fisting could be deemed obscene?? Not if its done right anyway. Lets face it, some birds have got pretty big fannies so what else can you do?!!
Seriously though...
Quite a few german productions have this in it as though its as normal as anal sex is now in every porn flick you see.
I can understand if it caused physical damage or the person receiving it hasn't consented but that wouldn't be allowed to happen by a normal porn production company anyway. They'd get completely battered for it. And I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense would put their performers safety first anyway.
Personally it does fuckall for me but I can't see how it could offend someone already used to watching hardcore porn.
As for the rest of this list....... Well, what else do you expect? I for one would be quite concerned about someone's mentality who got off on watching someone being raped or tortured. All this S & M stuff's okay as the people in them love all that bondage stuff. Again its not something that floats my boat but surely if Madam X and Slave 5 want to watch all that shite let them. More than likely they probably do to look at the kinky leather gear anyway!
As for animals...... For Fucksake grow up. Who the fuck in their right mind would want to a.) do that b.) watch it. Lock the barmy fuckers up I say! Only joking but you see what I mean? Animals?? Jesus wept....
I think the Law's major concern is the illegal underground films which appear to be made to order and might feature people taken against their own free will much like child abductors do. I'm sure if they have arrested someone or a gang for murder or abduction or torture or whatever, and one of the main pieces of evidence was a video made from their crimes, it would prove difficult to convict if the distinction between staged violence and actual violence wasn't clear.
These types of films are deemed pornographic by the Law. The stuff you lot watch - R18, XXX, Jenna Jameson shags the entire city of New York etc, are just adult entertainment films as far as the Law is concerned nowadays and they are not in the least bit interested in them. Even a fair chunk of that really tasteless shit John Thompson and his GGG lot produce. Much like seizing a load of Disney films really - Pointless. And as far as sending and receiving them via the post - They mainly have better things to do with their time than keep shutting down a few online dvd stores. They will however try to scan every item sold on the internet from adult stores to make sure no one is manufacturing or distributing material which shows anyone against their own free will or persons under the age of consent engaged in sexual activity, assaulted, abused, raped, battered or killed.
I would suggest before voting against a government bill to ban these kind of films you make yourselves aware of the fact that the Moors Murderers recorded their crimes. Something that will upset you for a long time to come if unfortunately you ever have to hear them.
Jimmy, Manchester.
Seriously though...
Quite a few german productions have this in it as though its as normal as anal sex is now in every porn flick you see.
I can understand if it caused physical damage or the person receiving it hasn't consented but that wouldn't be allowed to happen by a normal porn production company anyway. They'd get completely battered for it. And I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense would put their performers safety first anyway.
Personally it does fuckall for me but I can't see how it could offend someone already used to watching hardcore porn.
As for the rest of this list....... Well, what else do you expect? I for one would be quite concerned about someone's mentality who got off on watching someone being raped or tortured. All this S & M stuff's okay as the people in them love all that bondage stuff. Again its not something that floats my boat but surely if Madam X and Slave 5 want to watch all that shite let them. More than likely they probably do to look at the kinky leather gear anyway!
As for animals...... For Fucksake grow up. Who the fuck in their right mind would want to a.) do that b.) watch it. Lock the barmy fuckers up I say! Only joking but you see what I mean? Animals?? Jesus wept....
I think the Law's major concern is the illegal underground films which appear to be made to order and might feature people taken against their own free will much like child abductors do. I'm sure if they have arrested someone or a gang for murder or abduction or torture or whatever, and one of the main pieces of evidence was a video made from their crimes, it would prove difficult to convict if the distinction between staged violence and actual violence wasn't clear.
These types of films are deemed pornographic by the Law. The stuff you lot watch - R18, XXX, Jenna Jameson shags the entire city of New York etc, are just adult entertainment films as far as the Law is concerned nowadays and they are not in the least bit interested in them. Even a fair chunk of that really tasteless shit John Thompson and his GGG lot produce. Much like seizing a load of Disney films really - Pointless. And as far as sending and receiving them via the post - They mainly have better things to do with their time than keep shutting down a few online dvd stores. They will however try to scan every item sold on the internet from adult stores to make sure no one is manufacturing or distributing material which shows anyone against their own free will or persons under the age of consent engaged in sexual activity, assaulted, abused, raped, battered or killed.
I would suggest before voting against a government bill to ban these kind of films you make yourselves aware of the fact that the Moors Murderers recorded their crimes. Something that will upset you for a long time to come if unfortunately you ever have to hear them.
Jimmy, Manchester.
Re: Extreme Pornography
IMO, you are deluding yourself Jimmy – Customs regularly confiscate anything in excess of R18 because importation (as well as distribution) is illegal, hence the reason for the existence of the list, as posted by Keith; at the moment, purchase within the UK, or ownership, is not illegal; if the Home Office & Scottish Executive accept the Customs list as the basis of their new law (and when contacted, they said that they are open to suggestions other than those listed in the consultation), then it will be illegal to merely own ANY consensual, adult porn that is in excess of R18, which means, fisting, urolagnia etc. Even a mainstream US porn film that happens to have some pseudo S&M, that makes use of a ball gag, is in excess of R18, so you would be liable to imprisonment for possessing it. Even if you recorded a film from one of the mainland European porn channels (which all show material in excess of R18) that, say, had some fisting, you would be breaking the law – It may not be very likely that the authorities would know that you are now in possession of legal material, but with severe jail terms proposed, would you take the risk???
Personally, I don’t think people realise just how censored R18 titles still are; according to BBFC figures (which are artificially low because distributors are not legally required to state whether they have censored material prior to submission to the BBFC), they have so far censored 23.6% of all R18 titles this year, and they are consensual, adult porn, as available in the US, and mainland Europe, not bestiality etc.
Make no mistake, this is the most serious threat to the extension of the already considerable censorship in the UK, in modern times, IMO.
Personally, I don’t think people realise just how censored R18 titles still are; according to BBFC figures (which are artificially low because distributors are not legally required to state whether they have censored material prior to submission to the BBFC), they have so far censored 23.6% of all R18 titles this year, and they are consensual, adult porn, as available in the US, and mainland Europe, not bestiality etc.
Make no mistake, this is the most serious threat to the extension of the already considerable censorship in the UK, in modern times, IMO.
Re: Extreme Pornography
Interestingly the document from their site specifically states in Para 50
The offence would not generally be relevant to
broadcast material since we already have
controls in place to prevent such material
from being available on television.
Broadcasting such material on television
would already be an offence under either
the OPA or the CG(S)A. The Department
for Culture, Media and Sport also has the
power to issue a Proscription Order to
deal with any such material broadcast from
elsewhere in Europe.
Like the fact they've never successfully proscribed any European channel so far. They can issue an order, but that's as far as it ever goes - the last channel they had a go at just changed it's name and carried on as before. They can't stop anyone watching because of their obligations on cross border TV transmissions when these channels are legally licensed in another EU state. Tough luck on that point. But satellite transmissions don't bother them too much because it's not a thing too many people are involved in and you need to go out of yout way to receive it.
The thing they really want to get at is the Internet, where the mass access occurs, but the really vindictive thing about these proposals is they acknowledge themselves that there is no supporting ecidence that vieving this material leads to criminal behaviour, but never the less prefer to treat it like child porn and criminalise it, because it has no place in our society.
I'm surprised they don't throw in that it would offend Muslims as well - and would be grossly offensive to chav mothers who have all day to surf the net with their bunch of multi-cultural children, all paid for from benefit of course.
The offence would not generally be relevant to
broadcast material since we already have
controls in place to prevent such material
from being available on television.
Broadcasting such material on television
would already be an offence under either
the OPA or the CG(S)A. The Department
for Culture, Media and Sport also has the
power to issue a Proscription Order to
deal with any such material broadcast from
elsewhere in Europe.
Like the fact they've never successfully proscribed any European channel so far. They can issue an order, but that's as far as it ever goes - the last channel they had a go at just changed it's name and carried on as before. They can't stop anyone watching because of their obligations on cross border TV transmissions when these channels are legally licensed in another EU state. Tough luck on that point. But satellite transmissions don't bother them too much because it's not a thing too many people are involved in and you need to go out of yout way to receive it.
The thing they really want to get at is the Internet, where the mass access occurs, but the really vindictive thing about these proposals is they acknowledge themselves that there is no supporting ecidence that vieving this material leads to criminal behaviour, but never the less prefer to treat it like child porn and criminalise it, because it has no place in our society.
I'm surprised they don't throw in that it would offend Muslims as well - and would be grossly offensive to chav mothers who have all day to surf the net with their bunch of multi-cultural children, all paid for from benefit of course.
-
middle_aged_dutchman
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Extreme Pornography
If the possession of anything on your Customs' list will be illegal in the near future, than make sure your copy of 'Salo, or The 120 Days of Sodom' has disappeared into the dustbin before the proposal has turned into law. 'Salo' shows simulated violence, sado-masochism, scatology, urolagnia, corporal punishment, ...
And are you sure there isn't any footage of the Al Qaida beheadings left on your computer?
With a law like this anyone possessing anything will be punishable.
(By the way, the dustbin is an adequate place for 'Salo'. My copy went that way long ago, as I couldn't watch it without puking. But this doesn't mean that the possession of that film should be illegal.)
And are you sure there isn't any footage of the Al Qaida beheadings left on your computer?
With a law like this anyone possessing anything will be punishable.
(By the way, the dustbin is an adequate place for 'Salo'. My copy went that way long ago, as I couldn't watch it without puking. But this doesn't mean that the possession of that film should be illegal.)
Re: Extreme Pornography
You may be interested in this:
Donner: geen verbod op bezit extreme pornoUitgegeven: 3 november 2005 16:02Laatst gewijzigd: 3 november 2005 16:42DEN HAAG - Minister Donner (Justitie) voelt er niets voor om hetdownloaden en bekijken van extreme porno strafbaar te stellen. Daarbijgaat het om beelden van seks met dieren en lijken en ernstig seksueelgeweld die via internet worden verspreid.Een duidelijke afkeuring daarvan is gewenst, maar daar is de wet nietvoor, meent de CDA-minister. Hij stelde dat donderdag in antwoord opschriftelijke vragen van Tweede Kamerlid Van der Staaij van de SGP naaraanleiding van een Brits voorstel om het bezit van extreme pornografiestrafbaar te stellen.Volgens Donner zitten daar diverse haken en ogen aan. Zo zou het in depraktijk moeilijk zijn om de wet te handhaven, omdat de handelingen zichafspelen in de privésfeer. Daardoor dreigt symboolwetgeving.'Gruwelporno'De SGP toonde zich in een reactie verbaasd over de "wel erg afhoudendeen lauwe houding" van Donner. Van der Staaij vindt het ookonbegrijpelijk dat de minister meent dat de strafwet er niet is om"gruwelporno" af te keuren. De SGP zal het onderwerp binnenkort aan deorde stellen bij de behandeling van de begroting van het ministerie vanJustitie.MisbruiktDe fractie wijst erop dat de "beestachtige praktijken" ook in Nederlandvoorkomen, zoals in 2004 in de zogeheten Kraggenburger pornozaak. Eenbende had toen in een loods in het dorp in Flevoland drie jongeAfrikaanse vrouwen misbruikt en mishandeld. De slachtoffers werden ondermeer gedwongen tot dierenseks.Ook bestonden er plannen voor een zogeheten snuffmovie, waarin eenslachtoffer daadwerkelijk voor de camera wordt verkracht of vermoord.CelstraffenDe 37-jarige hoofdverdachte in de zaak, volgens het Pieter Baan Centrumeen psychopaat, werd vorige maand door de rechtbank in Lelystadveroordeeld tot veertien jaar cel. De vier andere leden van de bendehadden eerder al celstraffen van tien en vijf jaar opgelegd gekregen.
http://www.nu.nl/news/619763/11/Donner% ... htmlDonner
or if you want the English translation from
Dutch Minister fights sexual violence censorship plans
: No ban on possession extreme porn
The Hague - Minister Donner (Justice Dept.) has no intention of criminalising the downloading and viewing of extreme porn. This involves pictures of sex with animals and extreme sexual violence spread throughthe internet. A clear rejection of such material is wanted, but that is not what thelaw is meant for, says the (Christian Democrat) Minister. He said on thursday in a response to written parliamentary questions by Van deStaaij MP (SGP) in a reaction to a British proposal to ban extremepornography.
According to Donner there are several problems with such laws[1]. In practice it would be difficult to enforce, as the acts occur in the private sphere. That incurs the threat of symbolic legislation. Gruesome pornThe SGP was surprised by the "very withholding and lukewarm" reaction ofDonner. Van der Staaij finds it incomprehensible that the Ministers beleives criminal law is not meant to reject gruesomepornography. The SGP will soon raise the issue when the budget of theJustice Department is discussed in parliament.AbusedThe faction points out the "beasly practices" occur in The Netherlandsas well, like in 2004 in the socalled Kraggenburger Porncase. In thatcase a criminal gang had abused and assaulted three young African womenin barn in a small village in Flevoland. Amongs others, the victims wereforced into acts of bestiality.Also, there had been plans of making a socalled snuffmovie, in which avictim is actually raped or killed in front of the cameraPrison sentencesThe 37yo prime suspect in the case, according to the Pieter Baan Centruma psychopath, was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment by the Flevolandcourt last month. Other gang members had already received sentences of 5and 10 years.[1] Dutch saying means literally "there's a lot of nuts and bolts attached"
Donner: geen verbod op bezit extreme pornoUitgegeven: 3 november 2005 16:02Laatst gewijzigd: 3 november 2005 16:42DEN HAAG - Minister Donner (Justitie) voelt er niets voor om hetdownloaden en bekijken van extreme porno strafbaar te stellen. Daarbijgaat het om beelden van seks met dieren en lijken en ernstig seksueelgeweld die via internet worden verspreid.Een duidelijke afkeuring daarvan is gewenst, maar daar is de wet nietvoor, meent de CDA-minister. Hij stelde dat donderdag in antwoord opschriftelijke vragen van Tweede Kamerlid Van der Staaij van de SGP naaraanleiding van een Brits voorstel om het bezit van extreme pornografiestrafbaar te stellen.Volgens Donner zitten daar diverse haken en ogen aan. Zo zou het in depraktijk moeilijk zijn om de wet te handhaven, omdat de handelingen zichafspelen in de privésfeer. Daardoor dreigt symboolwetgeving.'Gruwelporno'De SGP toonde zich in een reactie verbaasd over de "wel erg afhoudendeen lauwe houding" van Donner. Van der Staaij vindt het ookonbegrijpelijk dat de minister meent dat de strafwet er niet is om"gruwelporno" af te keuren. De SGP zal het onderwerp binnenkort aan deorde stellen bij de behandeling van de begroting van het ministerie vanJustitie.MisbruiktDe fractie wijst erop dat de "beestachtige praktijken" ook in Nederlandvoorkomen, zoals in 2004 in de zogeheten Kraggenburger pornozaak. Eenbende had toen in een loods in het dorp in Flevoland drie jongeAfrikaanse vrouwen misbruikt en mishandeld. De slachtoffers werden ondermeer gedwongen tot dierenseks.Ook bestonden er plannen voor een zogeheten snuffmovie, waarin eenslachtoffer daadwerkelijk voor de camera wordt verkracht of vermoord.CelstraffenDe 37-jarige hoofdverdachte in de zaak, volgens het Pieter Baan Centrumeen psychopaat, werd vorige maand door de rechtbank in Lelystadveroordeeld tot veertien jaar cel. De vier andere leden van de bendehadden eerder al celstraffen van tien en vijf jaar opgelegd gekregen.
http://www.nu.nl/news/619763/11/Donner% ... htmlDonner
or if you want the English translation from
Dutch Minister fights sexual violence censorship plans
: No ban on possession extreme porn
The Hague - Minister Donner (Justice Dept.) has no intention of criminalising the downloading and viewing of extreme porn. This involves pictures of sex with animals and extreme sexual violence spread throughthe internet. A clear rejection of such material is wanted, but that is not what thelaw is meant for, says the (Christian Democrat) Minister. He said on thursday in a response to written parliamentary questions by Van deStaaij MP (SGP) in a reaction to a British proposal to ban extremepornography.
According to Donner there are several problems with such laws[1]. In practice it would be difficult to enforce, as the acts occur in the private sphere. That incurs the threat of symbolic legislation. Gruesome pornThe SGP was surprised by the "very withholding and lukewarm" reaction ofDonner. Van der Staaij finds it incomprehensible that the Ministers beleives criminal law is not meant to reject gruesomepornography. The SGP will soon raise the issue when the budget of theJustice Department is discussed in parliament.AbusedThe faction points out the "beasly practices" occur in The Netherlandsas well, like in 2004 in the socalled Kraggenburger Porncase. In thatcase a criminal gang had abused and assaulted three young African womenin barn in a small village in Flevoland. Amongs others, the victims wereforced into acts of bestiality.Also, there had been plans of making a socalled snuffmovie, in which avictim is actually raped or killed in front of the cameraPrison sentencesThe 37yo prime suspect in the case, according to the Pieter Baan Centruma psychopath, was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment by the Flevolandcourt last month. Other gang members had already received sentences of 5and 10 years.[1] Dutch saying means literally "there's a lot of nuts and bolts attached"
Re: Extreme Pornography
An easy source of prosecutions, should this ever become law, would be producers. The police probably already know which producers film material above R18 (and potentially illegal to possess) for distribution outside the UK. If they own the original footage and keep it in the UK, they will be guilty of possession. Two birds in one stone ... a guilty verdict under the new law and a producer taken out of the market while he sits in prison. British Justice, best in the world!
-
middle_aged_dutchman
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Extreme Pornography
I don't like our minister Donner, but this time he gave the right answer. If people are being abused, the abusers should be prosecuted in the first place. The film showing the abuse is less important.
By the way, the SGP (2 out of 150 seats in our parliament) is a party on the extreme right-wing. The party is even opposed to women's voting rights, as they are against God's will.
By the way, the SGP (2 out of 150 seats in our parliament) is a party on the extreme right-wing. The party is even opposed to women's voting rights, as they are against God's will.
Re: Extreme Pornography
I see what you mean ... I'd not heard of them before, but they have some 'interesting' views Most people would stop reading their statute at Article 2 out of 44, with the phrase "De partij stelt zich op de grondslag van Gods Woord"