No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
of child sexual abuse

This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
to make its possession an offence.

Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
(including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
websites advertising this sort of explicit material.

Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.

Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
the authorities.

The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
the possession of these images an offence.

The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.

Responses should be sent to:

Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
of Child Sexual Abuse
Criminal Law Policy Unit
2nd Floor, Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

Tel: 020 7035 6981
Fax 0870 336 9141

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse

-- 
Dissenter

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
>
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.

This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
to display or own without a special licence from the government and
that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
frightning and that theyll next try to ban books abd magazine and
cartoons that show or talk about Mahomed shagging his nine year old
wife

Sasha_Klamp wrote:
> On 13 Jun, 10:15, Dissenter  wrote:
>> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
>> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
>> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
>> of child sexual abuse
>>
>> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
>> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
>> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
>> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> This also came up last night when we was havibng a drink and my
> boyfriend and his best mate both agreed that it was another step along
> the road to the eventual aim of making any pictures of people illegal
> to display or own without a special licence from the government and
> that new labour is more like new taliban in so many ways its
> frightning and that theyll next try to ban books 

In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

The government is more like the one found in the film 1984 than like the 
Taliban.

It may not be a bad thing to strengthen religious hatred laws.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:23:18 +0100, Kevin Parkins
 wrote:

>In Sweden there is moves to make it illegal to publish a photo without 
>the consent of the person who was photographed, I have mixed feeling 
>about this, I think it is both good and bad to have such a law

That might make things quite difficult.  A photographer takes a
photograph of  a train crash, or a festival, or any of a host of other
newsworthy events that have crowds of people involved.  How can they
even hope to contact every one of the people in the crowds to ask
permission?

Or a holiday resort takes a photograph of its facillities to use in
its advertising.  Will it need to obtain permission from all the
people shown enjoying themselves, or limit its advertising photographs
to sterile shots of empty swimming pools and beaches taken in the
early hours when nobody is about?

Even if the law is limited to asking permission only of people who are
the main subject of the photograph, that will mean that newpapers
could not publish photographs showing celebrities in unflattering
situations, or of criminals, because the people would be unlikely to
give permission for publication.

-- 
Cynic

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.

Dissenter wrote:
> No doubt this consultation will be packed with the usual religious and
> 'child advocate' pressure groups, the same ones which lead to the
> abortion that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions
> of child sexual abuse
> 
> This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic
> visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated
> images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals
> to make its possession an offence.
> 
> Under current law it is an offence to possess indecent photographs
> (including videos) and pseudo-photographs of children. However, it is
> not an offence to possess non-photographic visual depictions of child
> sexual abuse. The police and children's welfare groups report a
> growing increase in interest in these images, including an increase in
> websites advertising this sort of explicit material.
> 
> Police and children's welfare groups are concerned that these images
> could fuel the abuse of real children by reinforcing abusers'
> inappropriate feelings towards children. These images, particularly as
> they are often in a cartoon or fantasy style format, could be used in
> 'grooming' or preparing children for sexual abuse.
> 
> Under current law owners of these explicit images could not be
> prosecuted for their possession, nor could the images be forfeited by
> the authorities.
> 
> The purpose of this paper is to seek a wide range of views on the
> issues set out in the document and in particular the proposal to make
> the possession of these images an offence.
> 
> The closing date for responses to the consultation is 22 June 2007.
> 
> Responses should be sent to:
> 
> Consultation On The Possession of Non-Photographic Visual Depictions
> of Child Sexual Abuse
> Criminal Law Policy Unit
> 2nd Floor, Fry Building
> 2 Marsham Street
> London SW1P 4DF
> 
> Tel: 020 7035 6981
> Fax 0870 336 9141
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-depiction-sex-abuse
> 
I personally don't like loli (yes, it has a name), but to each his own. 
I stand by "Fuck censorship", including here. Let the freaks have their 
drawings. No child was harmed to make them. And if it's every their 
intention to harm a child, they don't need a boost from some drawing.