"“We have lent a huge amount of money to the U.S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.” "


Chinese premier Wen Jiabao 12th March 2009


""We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we'd like to do our best to preserve that system."


Timothy Geithner US Secretary of the Treasury, previously President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.1/3/2009

Friday, June 29, 2007

UK Minister of Justice to look at extreme pornography. Devlin Redux - Amazing Pictures


Macaulay said that the Puritans banned bear baiting not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.


The UK Ministry of Justice introduced this week a new bill which incorporates a change in the Criminal Law which contributors to , and users of the World Wide Web - and anyone else concerned with the Freedom of Speech, should very seriously consider. It also looks as though it could (if anyone bothers) - re-create the arguments that raged after Lord Woolfenden's report removed legal sanctions on male homosexuality and privately organised prostitution.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - Bill 130


Part 6 Criminal Law

Paragraph 64 Possession of extreme pornographic images

1. It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.

2. An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—pornographic and an extreme image

3. An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal


4. Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to— the image itself and (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

5. So,for example, where - an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

6. An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—


a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

7. In this section “image” means—a moving or still image (produced by any means); or data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

8. In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

9. Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or in Northern Ireland,

Whilst many people will see this as an extension (and possibly a desirable one) of restrictions on the production, possession and supply of images of paedophilia it provides complete distinction from such leglislation.

Paedophilia and all that it entails, is illegal, hence recording and distribution of such acts either still or moving is consequently illegal.

It might appear that Section 6 (a) "an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life, " might similiarly be seen as portraying an illegal act. Under this legislation it is grouped however with sections (b),(c), and (d) because the overriding concern is that the images were produced (Para 3) "produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal " - so CCTV of a fight outside a pub where someone, threatens to or succeeds in killing somone would not illegal under the act but a "snuff" movie would... as to the fillum of the the hanging of Saddam Hussein it may not have given sexual satisfaction but it certainly made a lot of people very happy.

It would of course trap fillums of alleged killings of hostages, quasi judicial killings by alleged terrorists, and covert filming of the effects of IED's etc., and no doubts of the bombing of mosques by US/UK air strikes which demolish mosques accompanied by wild expressions of joy etc.,

Whilst Lord Patel does not partake in the wilder shores of sexual gratification he is not unaware or ignoramt about it of it, nor like any other user of the WWW is he unaware of the enormous quantity of sites that provide for the self evident (and worldwide) demand.

b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals ...

Of importance in this category is the Appeal in the case R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75 dismissed by the House of Lords. The appellants had originally pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and unlawful wounding, contrary to s 20 of that Act.

Brown et al were a group of sado-masochistic homosexuals who over a 10-year period from 1978 willingly participated in the commission of acts of violence against each other, including genital torture, for the sexual pleasure which it engendered in the giving and receiving of pain. The passive partner or victim in each case consented to the acts being committed and suffered no permanent injury.

The activities took place in various private locations, including rooms equipped as torture chambers at the homes of 3 of the appellants. Video cameras were used to record the activities and the resulting tapes were then copied and distributed amongst members of the group. The tapes were not sold or used other than for the delectation of members of the group.

The appellants were tried on charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and unlawful wounding, contrary to s 20 of that Act. The Crown’s case was based very largely on the contents of the video tapes. Following a ruling by the trial judge that the consent of the victim afforded no defence to the charges, the appellants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

The appellants appealed against their convictions, contending that a person could not guilty be of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or unlawful wounding in respect of acts carried out in private with the consent of the victim. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals. The appellants appealed to the House of Lords.

On the 11th March 1993 LORD TEMPLEMAN, LORD JAUNCEY OF TULLICHETTLE, LORD LOWRY dismissed the appeal and LORD MUSTILL AND LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY accepted it so, their appeal was dismissed.

The very lengthy and detailed arguments covering everything from tattooing, surgery, rough horseplay, boxing and other violent sports is fascinating - as was the aside of the trial judge who when he was asked by one of the briefs for a defendant, in reference to film of the sandpapering of his client A's genitals by defendant B if he remembered the incident ......" Remember it Mr Jones, I don't think I will ever forget it!"

If you wish for a careful and forensic exegesis of this area of the law, it's rationale and the wellsprings of attempts by the state to control personal liberty on sexual behaviour in private it is excellent.

As this is settled law, it can therefore be understood that such films portray illegal acts, as in the case of paedophilia.

Curiously , films purporting to show rape and incest , equally unlawful, have not (yet) been included which may indicate confusion (or laziness) on the part of the authors.

c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,

Necrophilia (also described as thanatophilia and necrolagnia) is by definition non-consensual but is only illegal in 16 US States, it was disclosed in a celebrated case in Wisconsin in September 2006 (although the situation in Wisconsin is disputed) and it was only in September 2004 that Californian Governator Arnie introduced the required legislation after a two year lobbying campaign. (Until 1975 oral sex, even within marriage would earn you up to 15 years jail in CA)

In the UK it was introduced as a separate offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and involves penetration of either sex in any place - it appears in some US States that necrophilia is not illegal when performed on men.

Again such filming and films involve illegal acts - albeit with the proviso that it undertaken for the purpose of is for sexual arousal.

d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

Wikipedia tells us that the legality of bestiality is irregular , legal in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands , in the UK US Oz and NZ it is illegal. Belgium , Russia and Germany do not forbid it, but " strictly prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography." Of course it raises an important point about consistency , that the filming of say bestiality in Denmark is not illegal but the Act would make possession in the UK illegal.

Myths abound about it's practice, the Welsh being famous as sheep shaggers, although whether due to the unatractiveness of Welshmen or the attractiveness of Welsh sheep, many are uncertain.

The basis of the law of penetrative sex with animals in the UK is not based on abuse or ill treatments, for example it is perfectly legal to kill pheasants, grouse, partridges etc., for entertainment, to kill horses and greyhounds at the end of their sporting life, and to put them to work.

Docking of dogs tails, uses of harnesses, mouth bits, whips is also legal.

It can only be assumed that the basis of the law is simply to reflect a general sense of moral outrage that any human can obtain sexual arousal and maybe even obtain satisfaction out of sexual activity with animals.

Which takes us back to Macaulay.

Perhaps the outraged anti-libertarians who framed this extraordinary legislation didn't attempt to touch ..... er ... coprophily, a favourite pastime of both Bob Maxwell and Mark Outen MP....but we'll let that pass.

What is important is that the simulation of all these various bizarre and fetishistic pastimes, ( the role of cartoons in this is at best ambiguous (an "image" ..."produced by any means") in the legislation) is being forbidden - because

" (it) appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal ".
All this goes back to the Woolfenden Report on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in 1957 which took the view , derived from J S Mill that the law had no business interfering with private acts that harmed nobody. Patrick Devlin (Later Lord ) in " The Enforcement of Morals" published 1965 argued forcibly and with much public support that popular morality should be allowed to influence lawmaking, and that even private acts should be subject to legal sanction if they were held to be morally unacceptable by the "reasonable man", in order to preserve the moral fabric of society (Devlin's "reasonable man" was one who held commonly accepted views, not necessarily derived from reason as such).

“It is not possible to set theoretical limits to the power of the State to legislate against immorality. It is not possible to settle in advance exceptions
to the general rule or to define inflexibly areas of morality into which the law is in no circumstances to be allowed to enter. Society is entitled by means of its laws to protect itself from dangers, whether from within or without. Here again I think that the political parallel is legitimate. The law of treason is directed against aiding the king’s enemies and against sedition from within. The justification for this is that established government is necessary for the existence of society and therefore its safety against violent overthrow must be secured. But an established morality is as necessary as good government to the welfare of society.… There are no theoretical limits against the power of the State to legislate against treason and sedition, and likewise I think there can be no theoretical limits to legislation against immorality"

H.L.A. Hart the celebrated Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford ( and also wartime MI5 star - his wife was also widely spoken of as the mistress of Isiah Berlin) ) supported the report's opposing view in his books "Law, Liberty and Morality" published in 1963 "The Morality of the Criminal Law" (1965) and in speeches, articles etc., which he laid out a defense of the limits of law in regulating moral behavior and which drew on the concepts of legal positivism , drawn from Jeremy Bentham and Mill.

Legal positivists have 3 basic constructs ;

1. What the law is and what the law should be are two separate questions. Therefore legality and morality are unconnected. For example a law can be legitimized by a society but also be immoral - an evil regime can still institute a system of laws.

2. The analysis of legal concepts, such as a legal system, rules, and rights, is an important study.

3. Laws are commands issued by a sovereign whom the public obeys out of habit.

Hart however disgreed strongly with the last precept - Laws are not obeyed because of the coercive demands and punishments of government, he argued very much the reverse; rather, obligation stems from the social rules of a given society. Changes in society pre - date changes in the law.

No-one surely would support the production, possession, supply of the actual killing, rape, or incest with minors or dead bodies, which are in themselves criminal, but we are in a world swamped with violent, explicit images of killing on the news, torture (Abu Ghraib) and endless criminal dramas that involve obliquely perhaps but nonetheless violently the same acts.

We have increasingly alarming re-enactments on real crime TV programs (Crimewatch in the UK) which provide the viewer, perhaps not with sexual arousal but a vicarious and pleasurable sensation of barely concealed and pririent lust for personal violence.

Whilst many scoff that pornography is not a victimless crime, surely the second hand and probably (mainly) personal subsuming of desire has it's role in containing animal and anti-social lusts and desires ? It is a massive and well paid and highly productive industry which refelcts not only it's widespread popularity but it's role in sexual activity.

If the depictions of sucking a dog's dick, having hot wax splashed on your genitals, or quasi gynaecological or proctological examinations provide a handy (and harmless) , if solitary , but convenient form of arousal - how can their production, supply and possession be considered undesirable, and worse... illegal ?

This is not law, it is sanctimonius humbuggery.

Pic at header - provides a puzzle over necrophilia restrictions, the braindead being penetrated by the widely reported dead ?

2 comments:

Stef said...

...if solitary , but convenient form of arousal - how can their production, supply and possession be considered undesirable, and worse... illegal ?

yeah but it's bloody handy fallback option if your latest high-profile anti-terror raid draws a blank

Anonymous said...

...or could that be a man penetrating a dead animal ?

(C) Very Seriously Disorganised Criminals 2002/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 - copy anything you wish