Not sure if this has been brought up before, but tomorrow legislation which could outlaw the possession of "extreme pornographic images", with a maximum punishment of 3 years in prison, and a place on the sex offenders register.
BBC News article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7364475.stm
While it's not directly related to sploshing, the principle that you can be investigated on the suspicion of possessing these images which might be illegal could affect anyone related to fetish scenes.
Having only found out about it today, it's a little late for me to anything, but I might send an email to my MP. I'd encourage anyone else to do the same if they feel that the legislation is not acceptable.
(off-topic...ish) Government Legislation?
Previous topicNext topic3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
by eden » 29 Apr 2008, 17:10
I emailed this to one of the lords. If you go via the backlash site, you can find a 'suitable' Lord.
Dear Lord Hunt of Kings Heath,
I would like to write regarding my disagreement with the proposed criminal law, Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images.
This is for two reasons. Firstly, I feel that making illegal the possession of images of any kind which were created by consenting adults is a breach of the Human Rights act. Criminalizing staged fantasies and scenarios between consenting adult is wrong.
Secondly, many if not all of the claims made in support of this legislation are dubious if not outwardly false.
It has been said that most respondents support the proposal, for example, where in actual fact, the government cited 241 against, 143 in favour. Also, the Jane Longhurst trusts 50,000 strong petition was strongly worded in favour of not promoting violence to women, when the scope of legislation is much wider than this.
Also the government has been unable to cite a website where actual abuse was found. Much of the relevant material is produced in America where actors have to sign release forms giving their consent. Also, these sites often use a small amount of actors regularly which suggest no harm and continuing consent.
The justification that this material encourages violent behaviour is both misleading and difficult to prove, which the government has since admitted since the original consultation papers.
Lastly I would like to highlight that this will not break the cycle of demand for these images. Peoples fetishes and sexual preferences cannot be demolished by legislations, and I would like to address the issues that may arrive from stemming the flow of violent images between consenting adults - if there is still a demand, the chances of these images being produced by non-consenting adults grows, which is surely the more real issue here.
Thankyou for your time in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Theres lot of stuff to use on the website if you need help. Bastards.
Dear Lord Hunt of Kings Heath,
I would like to write regarding my disagreement with the proposed criminal law, Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images.
This is for two reasons. Firstly, I feel that making illegal the possession of images of any kind which were created by consenting adults is a breach of the Human Rights act. Criminalizing staged fantasies and scenarios between consenting adult is wrong.
Secondly, many if not all of the claims made in support of this legislation are dubious if not outwardly false.
It has been said that most respondents support the proposal, for example, where in actual fact, the government cited 241 against, 143 in favour. Also, the Jane Longhurst trusts 50,000 strong petition was strongly worded in favour of not promoting violence to women, when the scope of legislation is much wider than this.
Also the government has been unable to cite a website where actual abuse was found. Much of the relevant material is produced in America where actors have to sign release forms giving their consent. Also, these sites often use a small amount of actors regularly which suggest no harm and continuing consent.
The justification that this material encourages violent behaviour is both misleading and difficult to prove, which the government has since admitted since the original consultation papers.
Lastly I would like to highlight that this will not break the cycle of demand for these images. Peoples fetishes and sexual preferences cannot be demolished by legislations, and I would like to address the issues that may arrive from stemming the flow of violent images between consenting adults - if there is still a demand, the chances of these images being produced by non-consenting adults grows, which is surely the more real issue here.
Thankyou for your time in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Theres lot of stuff to use on the website if you need help. Bastards.
Love, Eden
On fetlife as eden_blue
On fetlife as eden_blue
by T-34 » 30 Apr 2008, 21:14
The 2 that spring to mind when I read this are furry hentai (antropomorphic animals, very hard to explain unless you're familiar with it) and some of the quicksand shoots where people end up sinking. Seems that the thin blue line has once again developed a large blurry grey section 
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests