- This topic has 100 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated August 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm by fluffywuffyflump.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 3, 2007 at 11:19 am #1117021
glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaa
August 3, 2007 at 11:19 am #1137680glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaa
August 3, 2007 at 11:26 am #1117020april wrote:he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaacase closed. :rolleyes:
August 3, 2007 at 11:26 am #1137679april wrote:he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaacase closed. :rolleyes:
August 3, 2007 at 11:27 am #1117057Gott wrote:One thing that is going to be quite worrying is the arrival of new laws that make it illegal to look at or download stuff that is technically level 5 but is actually consensual..I know that it’s causing quite some concern in the S&M/Fetish scene given that a lot of the stuff that is passe to them could quite easily have jurors in tears.. but, it is consensual and that is the problem, one person’s meat being another’s poison..
The worrying thing is that in the name of protecting the innocent we could end up criminalising people and having ludicrous situations like the Bolton Seven again..
Well, it’s Level 1-5 (what does your ‘technically’ actually mean?) only if it involves children. And children can’t give consent, as you’re no doubt aware. If it’s adults, then it doesn’t qualify as child pornography full stop and as such wouldn’t be classified as 1-5.
I know about the concern amongst S&M-ers too, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever be convicted when consent could be proven, no matter how upsetting the material.
Bolton 7 were undoubtedly victimised for their homosexuality rather than S&M antics. And it all got overturned in the end, thus setting the precedent which will discourage any future silliness like that.
August 3, 2007 at 11:27 am #1137718Gott wrote:One thing that is going to be quite worrying is the arrival of new laws that make it illegal to look at or download stuff that is technically level 5 but is actually consensual..I know that it’s causing quite some concern in the S&M/Fetish scene given that a lot of the stuff that is passe to them could quite easily have jurors in tears.. but, it is consensual and that is the problem, one person’s meat being another’s poison..
The worrying thing is that in the name of protecting the innocent we could end up criminalising people and having ludicrous situations like the Bolton Seven again..
Well, it’s Level 1-5 (what does your ‘technically’ actually mean?) only if it involves children. And children can’t give consent, as you’re no doubt aware. If it’s adults, then it doesn’t qualify as child pornography full stop and as such wouldn’t be classified as 1-5.
I know about the concern amongst S&M-ers too, but I seriously doubt anyone would ever be convicted when consent could be proven, no matter how upsetting the material.
Bolton 7 were undoubtedly victimised for their homosexuality rather than S&M antics. And it all got overturned in the end, thus setting the precedent which will discourage any future silliness like that.
August 3, 2007 at 11:28 am #1117022erm …bit more too it than that if you read ALL the post….derrr 😉 :crazy_diz
August 3, 2007 at 11:28 am #1137681erm …bit more too it than that if you read ALL the post….derrr 😉 :crazy_diz
August 3, 2007 at 11:30 am #1117058april wrote:glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaaYeah fuckin sick fucks string em up hangings too good for em.
Canyoustayoutofthisthreadfromnowonpleasethanks.
August 3, 2007 at 11:30 am #1137719april wrote:glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaaYeah fuckin sick fucks string em up hangings too good for em.
Canyoustayoutofthisthreadfromnowonpleasethanks.
August 3, 2007 at 11:30 am #1117060april wrote:….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …AND THEY WERE BOTH NONSES!
I can see a pattern forming…
August 3, 2007 at 11:30 am #1137721april wrote:….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …AND THEY WERE BOTH NONSES!
I can see a pattern forming…
August 3, 2007 at 11:34 am #1117023you can see it too,..:weee: CooL
August 3, 2007 at 11:34 am #1137682you can see it too,..:weee: CooL
August 3, 2007 at 11:44 am #1117061april wrote:you can see it too,..:weee: CooLIs that a child’s arse in your avatar April?
August 3, 2007 at 11:44 am #1137722april wrote:you can see it too,..:weee: CooLIs that a child’s arse in your avatar April?
August 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm #1117062april wrote:glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaaI CAN’T BELIEVE YOU ARE A TEACHING ASSISTANT
I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU SPELL A WORD RIGHT
FREEWAY WHERES MY FUCKING FIVER YOU FUCKER 😉
August 3, 2007 at 12:15 pm #1137723april wrote:glad he has been charged the lieing bastard…..shame pete townsend who did exact same thing didnt get made a example an be locked up…..but i guess he paid off the judge or something….he looks like a nonse …so does this actor bloke……..sic fuks …should hang them …..raaaI CAN’T BELIEVE YOU ARE A TEACHING ASSISTANT
I HAVE NEVER SEEN YOU SPELL A WORD RIGHT
FREEWAY WHERES MY FUCKING FIVER YOU FUCKER 😉
August 3, 2007 at 12:18 pm #1117048april wrote:erm …bit more too it than that if you read ALL the post….derrr 😉 :crazy_dizWell, there’s more actual letters in it than was quoted…is that what you mean?
August 3, 2007 at 12:18 pm #1137708april wrote:erm …bit more too it than that if you read ALL the post….derrr 😉 :crazy_dizWell, there’s more actual letters in it than was quoted…is that what you mean?
August 3, 2007 at 12:27 pm #1117016andy ridgeway wrote:i remember there was some tv awards ceremony shortly after langham’s initial arrest, and The Thick Of It were nominated in some category.they read out the other 5 shows that were nominated to rapturous applause, but the words The Thick Of It were greeted with utter, stony silence, the camera cut to the cast and crew members who looks shocked and deeply embarrassed.
i wonder if any one had clapped whether they would have been bottled out of the room to shrieks of noncelover!
re: rebuilding your career after something like this, i dunno, pete townsend seems to be doing ok by just Pretending It Never Happened, but if you’ve actually done prison time for it the options seem to be move to thailand, or brazen it out as a celebrity nonce, a la Jonathon King.
there is still something that makes me uneasy about sending people to prison for looking at an image on a computer screen though, it is a touch ThoughtCrime, isn’t it? i understand the arguments regarding the corrupting nature of the material and that without a market for it, it wouldn’t exist.
but at the same time, i’ve seen some terrible stuff (none paedophile related, i hurry to add!) on the internet, like russian soldiers being decapitated for instance.
does having viewed that material make me a murderer? should i do prison time for murder?
You raise a very good point there.
August 3, 2007 at 12:27 pm #1137675andy ridgeway wrote:i remember there was some tv awards ceremony shortly after langham’s initial arrest, and The Thick Of It were nominated in some category.they read out the other 5 shows that were nominated to rapturous applause, but the words The Thick Of It were greeted with utter, stony silence, the camera cut to the cast and crew members who looks shocked and deeply embarrassed.
i wonder if any one had clapped whether they would have been bottled out of the room to shrieks of noncelover!
re: rebuilding your career after something like this, i dunno, pete townsend seems to be doing ok by just Pretending It Never Happened, but if you’ve actually done prison time for it the options seem to be move to thailand, or brazen it out as a celebrity nonce, a la Jonathon King.
there is still something that makes me uneasy about sending people to prison for looking at an image on a computer screen though, it is a touch ThoughtCrime, isn’t it? i understand the arguments regarding the corrupting nature of the material and that without a market for it, it wouldn’t exist.
but at the same time, i’ve seen some terrible stuff (none paedophile related, i hurry to add!) on the internet, like russian soldiers being decapitated for instance.
does having viewed that material make me a murderer? should i do prison time for murder?
You raise a very good point there.
August 3, 2007 at 12:38 pm #1117049andy ridgeway wrote:there is still something that makes me uneasy about sending people to prison for looking at an image on a computer screen though, it is a touch ThoughtCrime, isn’t it? i understand the arguments regarding the corrupting nature of the material and that without a market for it, it wouldn’t exist.but at the same time, i’ve seen some terrible stuff (none paedophile related, i hurry to add!) on the internet, like russian soldiers being decapitated for instance.
does having viewed that material make me a murderer? should i do prison time for murder?
I think the difference is there that people aren’t specifically setting out to murder someone for someone elses viewing pleasure or sexual gratification. If they did, that would make it a snuff film, wouldn’t it? And i think the general concensus is that snuff (and by that i mean proper snuff, not just footage of someone being shot or whatever) is a bit of an urban myth.
It doesn’t make you responsible for that persons death, just makes you a bit of a wrongun ;op
August 3, 2007 at 12:38 pm #1137709andy ridgeway wrote:there is still something that makes me uneasy about sending people to prison for looking at an image on a computer screen though, it is a touch ThoughtCrime, isn’t it? i understand the arguments regarding the corrupting nature of the material and that without a market for it, it wouldn’t exist.but at the same time, i’ve seen some terrible stuff (none paedophile related, i hurry to add!) on the internet, like russian soldiers being decapitated for instance.
does having viewed that material make me a murderer? should i do prison time for murder?
I think the difference is there that people aren’t specifically setting out to murder someone for someone elses viewing pleasure or sexual gratification. If they did, that would make it a snuff film, wouldn’t it? And i think the general concensus is that snuff (and by that i mean proper snuff, not just footage of someone being shot or whatever) is a bit of an urban myth.
It doesn’t make you responsible for that persons death, just makes you a bit of a wrongun ;op
August 3, 2007 at 12:40 pm #1117014He’s a bent ref, he’s a shrub rocketeer, he’s a buntyman, he’s a small bean regarder, he’s the crazy world of Arthur Brown.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.