Cameron's Nanny/Puritanical State

[andy at handiwork]

Jimslip wrote:'Interestingly, the...... possession of such a sequence would be illegal.'

I think you will find the reasoning behind this , espoused by Vernon Coaker, the odious shit who steered the legislation through to law, is that by making it dangerous for punters to possess it, it would remove the point of manufacturing it in the first place. Same reasoning behind it being illegal to possess sexual images of minors.

[Lizard]

"I am totally against the sexualisation of pre-teen children by inappropriate clothing etc. As far as I am concerned,"

Good, because that's the main message for me in this report, hence the mumsnet involvement, the rest of it has been trotted out more times than red rum by successive governments, I really don't know how many Labour MP's wanted this regulation instigating more quickly, because presumably they have chosen to remain annonymous as usual, as far as putting mags like zoo, nuts etc on the top shelf, I could not give a flying fuck about that, I do care about freedom and censorship, but I believe 'Adults' should be responsible for what minors should have access to.
As an aside, I was trying to access this site on a mobile device a few weeks back, only to find It had been blocked, I subsequently went into the phone shop and asked why, I was told in hushed tones that I would have too phone the service provider (even though I was in the service providers shop), so I did, at full pelt, I phoned them up from the counter of the shop and demanded to know why my phone had been blocked from accessing a PORN SITE, customers were ushered to one side and there was a 20ft exclusion site around me......thats cencorship for you, needless to say it was unblocked within 5 mins..oh how we laughed.

[David Johnson]

"I do care about freedom and censorship, but I believe 'Adults' should be responsible for what minors should have access to".

I guess my point is that "Adults" are not a homogenous group. I have absolutely no problem with any government preventing unscrupulous shops selling teeshirts to young kids with stuff like "I'm juicy" and "Kiss me" written on them. But when it goes into sticking mags that have women in bikinis on the front into brown "modesty" covers, that seems to be going too far. And I don't recall being psychologically damaged by watching Benny Hill sketches with busty women in them at about 7.30, but maybe I'm not the best person to judge!

Although I have no problem with some of this report, there is an underlying feeling I have which goes along the lines of....

Yes Adults should be responsible for what minors should have access to" so why the fuck are parents absolving themselves/being absolved from responsibility for allowing kids to wear unappropriate clothing that their parents have bought? Why have parents allowed their kids to stay up all hours to watch stuff? Why does the state decide exactly what should or should not be shown before 9 o'clock when crap parents will let their kids stay up all hours anyway, etc etc. Some parents might want their kids to watch challenging documentaries about violence in parts of the world for example whilst others do not and might result in these programmes getting shown way after the watershed.

There are some aspects of this report which as I said, are subsuming parents' responsibilities into state responsibilities/demands/rules. And if that isnt an example of a nanny state, I dont know what is.

Enjoy your Sunday
Cheers
D

[Lizard]

Cameron gave his backing to the report...he didn't write it, maybe he doesn't agree with all of it, who cares, maybe him and sam like watching a bit of porn, who knows?

"And why exactly do we have a Christian charity-who are going to be against anything slightly sexual, doing a report? Why doesn't supposed atheist Clegg tell them to get lost & demand a non-religious group prepare a report?"

I can answer that one, that's because he's a two faced contradictary useless arsehole, who will say and do anything to get votes and some vestage of power.

"Have Mumsnet also campaigned long & hard to banish magazines with women in bikins to the top shelf, or into brown bags? I would think a lot of these women watch a lot of the shows that would have to be moved to 9 pm or later under this legislation-do they support Eastenders going out when they are putting their kids to bed?"

I only know you won't find many tories involved with Mumsnet, get your missus to join and read the bile spewed out re Tories, puritanical they may be, tory supporters they ain't.

"Maybe parents should be more closely monitoring their childrens activities online then."

Could not agree more with you.

[andy at handiwork]

Its my understanding that the pictorial representation of anal intercourse is not proscribed by the legislation, but whole hand fisting is, as it is quite possible to cause severe damage that way. In addition, the law covers acts that can, do or might cause damage and bleeding to the vagina and breasts, as well as bestiality. Interestingly one of the first prosecutions for possession of animal material, found on someone's phone after he had been stopped for SOMETHING ELSE, was thrown out of court when the defence insisted the video be played to the end and it became obvious that the 'animal' was a man in a costume. What the law has failed to do is distinguish between torture porn where the intention is to cause pain to a non-consenting victim, and consensual 'heavy' stuff where pain and damage is not the intention, or even happens. You can be sent down for having pictures of someone having needles put through their breasts against their will, as soon as you can be for owing a video of consensual anal fisting between two adults.

[Deano!]

Hang on. If they ban having sex with an arsehole - that would mean most of our wifes and girlfriends would go to jail!