Cameron disagrees with his shadow justice minister!
Justice shadow Garnier believes this legislation ‘would bring the law into disrepute’.
Yet Cameron disagrees, feeling any opposition to the law would not be 'naturally Conservative'.
Does this mean he is going to fire Garnier? Whose is the party line? Garnier’s as justice spokesman or Cameron’s as leader?
Any journalists in the house?
Mischievous? Moi?
Ok, fine we’re really putting words in David’s mouth. But then only because he’s effectively refusing to comment. – And has been refusing for quite some time now.
Fact is, since Garnier has been making his remarkable comments, Cameron’s verdict is of import. After all, what seemed to have been an official party position on a part of a ‘law and order’ bill appears to have changed. Yet the leader remains shtum.
Sure, Cameron doesn’t want to take up controversial positions, knowing that he only needs to lie back and watch Brown come undone.
Nonetheless, this is a question of actual policy. One seems to have one, but isn’t telling. It’s odd, no?
Having heard the justice shadow perform a 180 degree u-turn, I think it’s not that extra-ordinary to ask the party leader what the party’s position actually is.
But then it appears Gordon Brown is not the only one who bottles it once in a while, ey David? :)
I think the problem is many assumed that when the law would be drafted it would be sensible.
Real life torture videos and stills, e.g. a drill being drilled into women's breasts IN REAL LIFE or similar is what I think was originally thought to be EXTREME PORN but when they started including stills from films which can be bought from high street shops, it tended to discredit the intentions of the law.
I do not want to intentionally see people intentionally seriously harmed in real life for sexual gratification.
The law however has gone too far. It is too wide ranging and risks making criminals of any man under 35.
If there had been something which said something like:
An extreme sexaul image is where a person's body has been intentionally seriosly mutilated for sexual gratification purposes.
or
Proven non consentual sexual pictures in real life.
Exolusions: all must be satisfied
a)
Piercings (unless life threatening or causing long term pain or illness) or breast enhancements or sex changes.
b) Must have been done with the full consent of the adult whose body was being "mutilated".
c)This adult is medically sane.
Special Exclusion:
Any officially published material containing this if provided for criminal education, for example, documentation of actual crimes, to assist trainee police officers.
Special Exclusion:
Anything available in the mainstream media.
Then I would have been satisfied.
(I am sure someone will tear this to shreads but they spent months i spent 5 minutes)
Chulcoop,
I know what you mean.
If this would have been a law against people being seriously abused against their will for sexual gratification, it would have fared much better.
But that is not how it was ever really intended.
To my mind the protection of the abused is really a sideline to the main thrust of the argument for the law which is moral outrage. One need only read the original consultation document to understand the psychology behind all of this.
Essentially the position was that this material was ‘filth’ and one wanted it banned. There was more than a hint of puritan zeal to it.
Let’s face it, it’s impossible to read any government material on this issue without the word ‘abhorrent’ cropping up again and again and again. It’s their ‘buzzword’ on this issue.
The only connection to be made with this law and the ‘protection’ issue is of course that of the murder of Miss Longhurst by Graham Coutts. In fact this too is mentioned specifically in the consultation document.
Yet the alleged connection doesn’t exist. Clear evidence exists that Coutts was not driven to this murder due to ‘extreme’ internet pornography. Previous girlfriends reported that Coutts had a longstanding interest in asphyxiation, nooses and sexual violence, long before he ever had access to the internet.
But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story, ey? After all, it’s only a government document. The governments told bigger lies on official Whitehall paper, why shouldn’t they be intentionally misleading on this one?
Ironically, Scotland from whence the initial impetus for this law came, eventually drew back from this law, due to civil rights concerns. England and Wales are powering on regardless. What we know that the Scots don’t, given that it was a Scottish idea, I can’t tell. Especially given the somewhat obvious Scottish theme in the current UK government.
One of the problem is that – to use your example, Chulcoop – there are no examples of women having drill bits driven into their breasts in ‘snuff’ porn.
There is only one case I’ve ever heard of where anything ‘real’ would ever have been filmed, was with couple of seriously deranged individuals in Germany were caught prior to committing their horrid acts, but whose plans were subsequently revealed in investigations.
It’s worth pointing out that this was an isolated case of two mentally deranged people. They intended to sell it. That is not to say they had any buyers for it. Well – they were just gaga. In fact, their confused inquiries with one or two porn producers regarding possible sale of this stuff, was what I think blew the case.
But please note, it was the pornsters who shopped them. The ones whom we apparently need protecting from.
I stress we can’t really pass any laws which will protect from the actions of completely irrational psychopaths. Bizarrely though, our MPs’ minds seem to work on the same frequency.
You see, Chulcoop, with no known case of drill bits porn in existence, the necessity for this law – apart from that of moral prurience – is put into question.
If to our knowledge nobody is threatened by such acts for purposes of production, then why do we need a law to deter it?
After all, like this we only get side effects, yet without reaping any intended benefit.
The plain truth is there is no need for this legislation, if the aim is to protect from abuse, as no real abuse videos of the nature described are known to exist.
So I‘d say scrap the whole thing.
Meanwhile, yes, if need be at least neuter this thing to ban the possession of such real abuse porn. It will be a statue which will be dead at birth, as it will outlaw something which apparently doesn’t exist. But at least no people will be sent to jail merely for having a sexual fetish.
Yet as it stands - and there can be very little doubt about that – a significant number of people will go to prison for being fetishists, being in accidental possession without the ability to prove so, or merely for the ‘crime’ of sexual curiosity.
Personally, I think this is the most sinister law of the past 25 years.
As I have said repeatedly. The supposed reasoning for this legislation makes so little sense, I suspect the government of ulterior motives.
I agree with you Phantom, it is not an extraordinary question to ask DC what his position is, but the question is unlikely to be even acknowledged, let alone answered.
If any answer were forthcoming it would probably be some anodyne generalisation like "We should do all we can to prevent sexual abuse, but we need to balance that with the rights of the individual". Says nothing.
The only way he is going to give a definitive answer is if he is backed into a corner and I can't see that happening. Who is pressuring him over this? It's obvious he doesn't feel any pressure from this forum, this is, by far, the biggest and longest running thread, yet not a peep from DC or his staff on this.
Perhaps if some journalists were monitoring this forum they may conceivably find a way of using his dodging such issues to embarrass DC or other Torys, but I don't see much interest from those quarters and, to be honest, that would be a double edged sword. We hear good and sensible comments from lots of columnists, but news editors would be just as likely to take a more rabid right wing approach and call for even tougher measures.
So we are back to the basic question; what's in it for Dave? He has no reason to become involved yet. Maybe it would be nice to see the Government bill defeated, but I doubt that is on the cards. DC most likely has no problem with Garniers throwing spanners in Labours works, as long as it doesn't pull him into any difficult situations.
Steve,
I think we need to be careful not to be too kind toward Mr Cameron.
It may indeed be politically convenient for ‘Dave’ to ignore the issue and bury his head in the sand.
Yet, let’s face it, this man wishes to be leader of the country. He wishes to be the man who makes decisions on such matters.
On matter of principle therefore, his outright bottling out this subject is hence reprehensible.
One thing is clear. A serious wrong is being done by the government. Cameron is the leader of the opposition. This is not merely a decorative title.
His duty (yes, his duty!) is to oppose where he sees the government failing to serve the people, or where he sees real harm being caused by bad governance.
His own justice shadow has now made it clear what for a pig’s breakfast this legislation is. And Cameron? He’s hiding somewhere in a closet humming ‘Land of hope and glory’ to himself, hoping the issue will go away.
True, once people start getting locked up on this odious law it will be Brown (and Blair!) who principally will be to blame. Yet an opposition which refuses to speak out against a known wrong is effectively colluding in the creation of knowingly bad law.
So, some may declare it to be politically astute for Cameron to keep his trap shut on matters regarding the ‘extreme’ porn law, lest he offend Anne Widdecombe’s fanclub.
Yet standing by silently while government introduces the principle of thought crime onto the statutes, is hardly the mark of a man with much of a spine. Nor does it indicate much of a purpose.
