egafd.com

The First Delegated Legislation Committee, discussed the proposed extension of the sex offenders register on January 29th.

The Crimes being added to the list of crimes liable to registration are:

* outraging public decency
* theft (e.g. underwear)
* burglary with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage
* child abduction
* harassment
* sending prohibited articles by post
* improper use of public electronic communications network

This is likely to be fast tracked into law within 2 weeks.

This effectively kills off any chance of R18 by mail order (won't AITA be happy?) and allows the BBFC to get their grubby little hands on the Internet, apart from the ambiguity of the proposals which could lead to abuse of the law.

NuSlaveLabour - New Danger

Well spotted, Jacques. Dont think I can add anything, apart from see you and just about anybody else, on the register. And to think we thought it was a register of serious sexual offences not misdemeanours or less.

Well see you all on the register!! Just what i need another reason to find it harder to get a morgage....hey then again looks like there is every chance my bank manager is gonna be on there as well. The sex register could become the new Freemasons at this rate. Bit concerned about the hand shake mind!! And who knows what you will have to expose....the days of just a nipple are long gone i fear

Cheers and fuck the system

BB

But the thing that makes the selling of R18 technically illegal is actually technically illegal itself, read SCHERER V SWITZERLAND Application No 17116/60 March 1994.

The BBFC expect that their certification of online content will be a key part in enforcing the new legislation and what is that new legislation? That's right the 'Dangerous Pictures Act'.

"People like Graeme Coutts", Coutts conviction has been quashed twice he is guilty of nothing currently. There is a very serious point here - what you are likening Coutts to is 'sub judice' and could get people into a whole lot of trouble - not just sued but criminally prosecuted for contempt of court. Please be careful.

As for the Government "not stupid enough to pick on ordinary perverts", well again have a look at the 'Dangerous Pictures Act'.

Another problem here is that your neighbour is I dunno.....Lolly Badcock. Now she is a bit of a babe I think you'll agree? It's Thursday afternoon and she's just done her washing and there it is on her washing line. You can't resist and nick a pair of pants to use as wank material. Turns out these were Lolly favourite keks and she reports them stolen. You get found out and Kablamo!! You are on the SOR. Now are you on the same scale as a nonce? Does your inclusion on the SOR somehow bring it down a level? If you are on the FBI's most wanted, well that's pretty notorious however if it's the FBI's most wanted 1,000,000 it's not so bad. The inclusion of this type of crime degrades the SOR.

And what the fuck is this "burglary with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm or do unlawful damage" doing there? what has this to do with the SOR?

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> Can the BBFC have any regulation over images downloaded from
> outside the British Isles though?

No.

Can they have any influence on it's regulation?

Yes.

I assume that the burglary bit is an error in drafting. You are right, the three acts shown which form the ingrediants for an offence of burglary would not qualify you for the SOR, the fourth which is not shown, an intent to rape, would.

What pisses me off isn't so much as 'slightly' pervy people will be regarded as sexual monsters but rather the register becoming 'luke warm' with normal people.

As it stands now, being on the SOR would be embarrassing and a big thing. People will know you're a person to avoid. The new regulations would make the SOR seem akin to a traffic offence with thousands of ordinary people passing it off.

Guys will be laughing about being put on rather than ashamed!

REAL sexual monsters could pass off being on the register by claiming they sent a mate a dvd through the post and got caught, rather than the admission of raping a 14 year old.

I feel it will make a mockery of the register itself.

This stuff your gov'ment is doing is rediculous! But you know it kinda reminds me of a law here where if you get caught picking up ladies of the night you get your car impounded, pay a fine and depending on the town you're in, get your name and picture splashed across the newspaper. Now if you're single it probably won't matter but if you're married.....?