The ban on "extreme" porn is soon.

[Trumpton]

I haven't seen or heard any debate on this subject. !confused!

[Flat_Eric]

It's been in the pipeline for a while now. More NuLabour thought-police madness.

So beware - because taking a photo of the Mrs wearing pink fluffy handcuffs and a ball-gag while having her backside smacked could (at least in theory) land you inside and on the sex offenders' register with a baying mob outside your door.

They also talk about the depiction of sexual activity that is "likely to result in serious injury to the anus" falling into the new (outlawed) "extreme" category.

Given the fact that the female anus basically isn't designed to accommodate 9-inch hard-ons pumping in and out and so is - at least arguably - "likely to be injured" during the course of said activity, that would pretty much outlaw a sizeable percentage (perhaps even most) MAINSTREAM porn - basically anything including anal sex.

The wording of the legislation is very vague - and intentionally so. It's nothing but thinly disguised catch-all censorship that people should be VERY concerned about.

As one of the comments posted in response to the article that Trumps links to points out, it's another case of dictatorship by the "moral minority".

- Eric

[Peter]

Flat_Eric wrote:


>
> They also talk about the depiction of sexual activity that is
> "likely to result in serious injury to the anus" falling into
> the new (outlawed) "extreme" category.
>




Presumably the aspect of homosexuality will be made illegal then? If 'depiction' is outlawed, surly 'actual' must go too?

[Flat_Eric]

Peter wrote:

>>>Presumably the aspect of homosexuality will be made illegal then? If 'depiction' is outlawed, surly 'actual' must go too?<<<


Apparently no - and that's one of the many absurdities of this law.

The acts themselves are not to be criminalised - only the POSSESSION OF IMAGES of said acts will leave you liable to prosecution!!

So while it will remain perfectly legal to indulge in these so-called "extreme" activities, you could find yourself banged up for possessing pictures and video material of them.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

>>

Once again NO (see above).

You can happily "distress" as many female anuses as you like and the law can't touch you.

Likewise Isabel Ice and Angel Long would have nothing to fear for allowing you to do so.

But woe betide you if the Old Bill break down your door and find a copy of "Meat Pushin' In The Seat Cushion" in your DVD rack.

- Eric

[Flat_Eric]

... so in a nutshell, people are going to end up criminalised for possessing images of activities that are perfectly legal.

Crackers or what?!

- Eric

[Peter]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> ... so in a nutshell, people are going to end up criminalised
> for possessing images of activities that are perfectly legal.
>
> Crackers or what?!
>
> - Eric
>
>

Well, this government and the cops have got to invent some more 'easy nicks' to get their crime figures up.

[Trumpton]

Flat_Eric wrote:

> ... so in a nutshell, people are going to end up criminalised
> for possessing images of activities that are perfectly legal.
>
> Crackers or what?!

It will be interesting to see what occurs when, or if, the first criminal case under these new laws comes to court. Will the defence use one of the many European Union Human Rights Directives (as used in cases by alleged terrorists), or will the jury just simply repudiate the charges brought buy the Crown? Either way it's going to be a legal minefield to navigate through.

[muswell]

This law wont turn back the clock or change peoples tastes although it may make more of us criminals.-if it becomes law at all.