Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal

4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569

All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.

Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
Minister Maria Eagle today.

The proposals were announced as part of the Government's response to a
public consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual
depictions of under-aged children engaged in sexual activity.

It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.

Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.

"This is not about criminalising art or pornographic cartoons more
generally, but about targeting obscene, and often very realistic,
images of child sexual abuse which have no place in our society."

The distribution or sale of material is currently illegal under the
Obscene Publications Act, and possession of photos of child
pornography is unlawful, but it is not yet a criminal offence to
possess drawings and computer generated images of child abuse. The
proposals announced today will create a new criminal offence to
possess drawings and computer-generated images of under-aged children
in sexual activity.

"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message 
news:odqo341g8084n8js2lqs4uaaund354ne4o@4ax.com...
> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>
> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>
> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>

No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but as 
'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of paedophiles.

R. Mark Clayton  posted
>
>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>news:odqo341g8084n8js2lqs4uaaund354ne4o@4ax.com...
>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>
>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>
>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.

I predicted this some time ago, but I still can't believe it is 
happening.

>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>
>
>No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but as
>'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of paedophiles.

What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
of children and then wank over them?

-- 
Les Invalides

Cub Reporter wrote:
> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
> 
> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
> 
> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
> 
> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
> Minister Maria Eagle today.

You best delete all your pictures then.

"Les Invalides"  wrote in message 
news:+zjY6HWvhHPIFw3$@obviously.invalid...
> R. Mark Clayton  posted
>>
>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>news:odqo341g8084n8js2lqs4uaaund354ne4o@4ax.com...
>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>
>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>
>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled 
>>> illegal.
>
> I predicted this some time ago, but I still can't believe it is 
> happening.
>
>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and 
>>> up to
>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by 
>>> Justice
>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>
>>
>>No doubt the government will make a mess even of this 
>>legislation, but as
>>'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of 
>>paedophiles.
>
> What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty 
> pictures of children and then wank over them?

Cos it'll make them go blind and they'll then be a burden on the 
taxpayer.
Mike.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

<snip>

>
>The distribution or sale of material is currently illegal under the
>Obscene Publications Act, and possession of photos of child
>pornography is unlawful, but it is not yet a criminal offence to
>possess drawings and computer generated images of child abuse. The
>proposals announced today will create a new criminal offence to
>possess drawings and computer-generated images of under-aged children
>in sexual activity.

I could care less about the well-being of pedos, but this (like hate
speech laws) is just a hair's width away from the criminalization of
thought. Once they've established the precedent, who knows what
they'll go after next?
--
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

On 28 May, 01:15, "Mike G"  wrote:
> "Les Invalides"  wrote in message
 Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty
> > pictures of children and then wank over them?
>
> Cos it'll make them go blind and they'll then be a burden on the
> taxpayer.
> Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

=====================================

The important thing is to get these men to say their three Hail Marys
for purity every night at bedtime, followed by the incantation:
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY

OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY

OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY
OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
MY SOUL HOLY

And then the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, will enter the
souls of these depraved men while they sleep and purify their souls
with the power of her filthy stinking unwashed virgin cunt, as there
was no water for washing unmarried mothers' cunts in Palestine 2,000
years ago, and so the Virgin Mary's cunt is covered in yesterday's
piss and yesterdays vaginal juices.

On 28 May, 04:23, Ishtar  wrote:
> On 28 May, 01:15, "Mike G"  wrote:> "Les Invalides"  wrote in message
>
>  Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty
>
> > > pictures of children and then wank over them?
>
> > Cos it'll make them go blind and they'll then be a burden on the
> > taxpayer.
> > Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> =====================================
>
> The important thing is to get these men to say their three Hail Marys
> for purity every night at bedtime, followed by the incantation:
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
>
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
>
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
> OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> MY SOUL HOLY
>
> And then the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, will enter the
> souls of these depraved men while they sleep and purify their souls
> with the power of her filthy stinking unwashed virgin cunt, as there
> was no water for washing unmarried mothers' cunts in Palestine 2,000
> years ago, and so the Virgin Mary's cunt is covered in yesterday's
> piss and yesterdays vaginal juices.

And as for the Virgin Mary's anus.............. don't even think about
it............

On 28 May, 04:28, Ishtar  wrote:
> On 28 May, 04:23, Ishtar  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 01:15, "Mike G"  wrote:> "Les Invalides"  wrote in message
>
> >  Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty
>
> > > > pictures of children and then wank over them?
>
> > > Cos it'll make them go blind and they'll then be a burden on the
> > > taxpayer.
> > > Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > =====================================
>
> > The important thing is to get these men to say their three Hail Marys
> > for purity every night at bedtime, followed by the incantation:
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > And then the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, will enter the
> > souls of these depraved men while they sleep and purify their souls
> > with the power of her filthy stinking unwashed virgin cunt, as there
> > was no water for washing unmarried mothers' cunts in Palestine 2,000
> > years ago, and so the Virgin Mary's cunt is covered in yesterday's
> > piss and yesterdays vaginal juices.
>
> And as for the Virgin Mary's anus.............. don't even think about
> it............- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Roman Catholics will lick the shit off the Virgin Mary's anus when
they get into heaven. That is the ambition of every Roman Catholic, to
lick the shit off the Virgin Mary's anus, to show her how much we love
her for teaching us purity by getting fucked by Saint Joe while she
was unmarried.

"Cork Soaker" Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid.news:dfbug5-76h.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org...


You best delete all your pictures then.


What right have you got talking inane shite about Catholics eh !

What about all that embarrassing shite concerning the prophet Mohammed shagging women 
you heathen...


Rob

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:27:46 -0700, Igor Alexander wrote:

> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter  wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
>>The distribution or sale of material is currently illegal under the
>>Obscene Publications Act, and possession of photos of child pornography
>>is unlawful, but it is not yet a criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>computer generated images of child abuse. The proposals announced today
>>will create a new criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>computer-generated images of under-aged children in sexual activity.
> 
> I could care less about the well-being of pedos, but this (like hate
> speech laws) is just a hair's width away from the criminalization of
> thought. Once they've established the precedent, who knows what they'll go
> after next?

I'm half-listening to today on R4. I'm sure I heard a minister claim
that cartoon images would give peedifiles "dangerous thoughts" about 10
mins ago (~06:40).

-- 
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK

"Ishtar"  wrote in message 
news:403919b8-3e79-4bed-a8de-6b24ae2d4da5@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 28 May, 04:28, Ishtar  wrote:
> On 28 May, 04:23, Ishtar  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 May, 01:15, "Mike G"  wrote:> "Les 
> > Invalides"  wrote in message
>
> > Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty
>
> > > > pictures of children and then wank over them?
>
> > > Cos it'll make them go blind and they'll then be a burden on the
> > > taxpayer.
> > > Mike.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > =====================================
>
> > The important thing is to get these men to say their three Hail Marys
> > for purity every night at bedtime, followed by the incantation:
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
> > OH MARY, BY THY PURE AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, MAKE MY BODY PURE AND
> > MY SOUL HOLY
>
> > And then the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, will enter the
> > souls of these depraved men while they sleep and purify their souls
> > with the power of her filthy stinking unwashed virgin cunt, as there
> > was no water for washing unmarried mothers' cunts in Palestine 2,000
> > years ago, and so the Virgin Mary's cunt is covered in yesterday's
> > piss and yesterdays vaginal juices.
>
> And as for the Virgin Mary's anus.............. don't even think about
> it............- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Roman Catholics will lick the shit off the Virgin Mary's anus when
they get into heaven. That is the ambition of every Roman Catholic, to
lick the shit off the Virgin Mary's anus, to show her how much we love
her for teaching us purity by getting fucked by Saint Joe while she
was unmarried.



The horn of Gabriel was also blown.

Les Invalides wrote:

> R. Mark Clayton posted:
>> "Cub Reporter" wrote:

>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
 
>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.

>> No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but as
>> 'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of paedophiles.
 
> What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
> of children and then wank over them?

Much of the problem lies not in the heads of paedophiles, 
but in those who excite themselves and others about what 
goes on in paedophiles' heads.

On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
uk.legal :

>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>
>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>
>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>Minister Maria Eagle today.

Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
the only thing that would have any effect.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

Igor Alexander wrote:
>
> I could care less about the well-being of pedos, but this (like hate
> speech laws) is just a hair's width away from the criminalization of
> thought. Once they've established the precedent, who knows what
> they'll go after next?

Indeed.  It's 'thoughtcrime' plucked straight out of Orwell's 1984.  As a 
manifesto for Labour in 2008, it's astonishingly accurate.  He just got the 
year wrong.

There's a difference, though, with 'hate speech' laws.  You're entitled to 
hold the relevant opinions but just not allowed to incite others into 
violent action on the basis of them.  That doesn't seem too unreasonable to 
me, whereas criminalising some private pecadillo, whatever its nature and 
however repulsive, but where there is no victim, seems utterly repressive.

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2008.05.28.05.51.57.47893@stovell.org.uk...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:27:46 -0700, Igor Alexander wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>The distribution or sale of material is currently illegal under the
>>>Obscene Publications Act, and possession of photos of child pornography
>>>is unlawful, but it is not yet a criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>>computer generated images of child abuse. The proposals announced today
>>>will create a new criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>>computer-generated images of under-aged children in sexual activity.
>>
>> I could care less about the well-being of pedos, but this (like hate
>> speech laws) is just a hair's width away from the criminalization of
>> thought. Once they've established the precedent, who knows what they'll 
>> go
>> after next?
>
> I'm half-listening to today on R4. I'm sure I heard a minister claim
> that cartoon images would give peedifiles "dangerous thoughts" about 10
> mins ago (~06:40).

They should ban all cartoons or drawings which show armies on the march. 
I'm sure it must have been such a picture that caused Tony Blair to embark 
on his war against Iraq.

And since the main threat to society is violence in our streets, I trust 
they will ban all cartoons and drawings which depict stabbings, the use of 
guns or people punching each other.

Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
> uk.legal :
> 
>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>
>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>
>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>
>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
> 
> Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
> the only thing that would have any effect.


Presumably the next "loophole" we will have to close is adult women 
dressing up as school girls for the sexual gratification of evil wanabe 
paedos. Will it still be legal to watch Britney Spear's "Baby one more 
time".

Out of curiosity, over the last 15 years we have lived through a massive 
increase in all types of porn including kiddie porn, has anyone studied 
how this has affected actual cases of physical sexual abuse against real 
life children? I would expect detection to go up due to all the extra 
evidence but has the actual act of abuse itself risen significantly.

If there hasn't been any significant change why do we need to stop the 
odd vicar rubbing one out, in private, over some computer generated 
pictures of kids? Would society be damaged if we just let them get on 
with it.

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:AutcgcbaxQPIFwBh@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
> uk.legal :
>
>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>
>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>
>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>
>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>Minister Maria Eagle today.
>
> Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
> the only thing that would have any effect.


Presumably the objective is to make more arrests and achieve more 
convictions. Although our gaols are currently somewhat overcrowded, what we 
really need, right now, is a few thousand extra prisoners whose only crime 
is to draw an indecent picture of a child.

"Jon Thomas"  wrote in message 
news:td6dnYEZoMQFlaDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Les Invalides wrote:
>
>> R. Mark Clayton posted:
>>> "Cub Reporter" wrote:
>
>>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>
>>> No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but 
>>> as
>>> 'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of 
>>> paedophiles.
>
>> What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures
>> of children and then wank over them?
>
> Much of the problem lies not in the heads of paedophiles,
> but in those who excite themselves and others about what
> goes on in paedophiles' heads.

No the real problem arises when they try and turn what is in their heads 
into reality - sometimes they use trickery, sometimes they use force, 
sometimes they use intoxicants, but however you slice it many children are 
gravely harmed by paedofiles.

> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.

Isn't this already the case?

In article <+zjY6HWvhHPIFw3$@obviously.invalid>, Les Invalides 
 writes
>R. Mark Clayton  posted
>>
>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>news:odqo341g8084n8js2lqs4uaaund354ne4o@4ax.com...
>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>
>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>
>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>I predicted this some time ago, but I still can't believe it is 
>happening.
>
>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>
>>
>>No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but as
>>'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of paedophiles.
>
>What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
>of children and then wank over them?
>
If it saves just one image of a child..... ;-)
-- 
Sean Black

R. Mark Clayton  posted
>
>No the real problem arises when they try and turn what is in their heads
>into reality - sometimes they use trickery, sometimes they use force,
>sometimes they use intoxicants, but however you slice it many children are
>gravely harmed by paedofiles.

Perhaps, then, what we really need is a law against harming children. 
You know, I hadn't realised it was legal.

-- 
Les Invalides

Rob-Latchford wrote:
> "Cork Soaker" Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid.news:dfbug5-76h.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org...
> 
> 
> You best delete all your pictures then.
> 
> 
> What right have you got talking inane shite about Catholics eh !
> 
> What about all that embarrassing shite concerning the prophet Mohammed shagging women 
> you heathen...
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> 


What the fuck are you talking about?

Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:27:46 -0700, Igor Alexander wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> The distribution or sale of material is currently illegal under the
>>> Obscene Publications Act, and possession of photos of child pornography
>>> is unlawful, but it is not yet a criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>> computer generated images of child abuse. The proposals announced today
>>> will create a new criminal offence to possess drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of under-aged children in sexual activity.
>> I could care less about the well-being of pedos, but this (like hate
>> speech laws) is just a hair's width away from the criminalization of
>> thought. Once they've established the precedent, who knows what they'll go
>> after next?
> 
> I'm half-listening to today on R4. I'm sure I heard a minister claim
> that cartoon images would give peedifiles "dangerous thoughts" about 10
> mins ago (~06:40).
> 

well thats where this is going then, to outlaw anything that may lead to 
'dangerous thoughts', thoughtcrime is alive and well I see.

and with these muppets in charge expect soon to see that crewe was 
actually a labour win, and any one with evidence otherwise getting a 
boot through the door at 2am

The Todal wrote:
> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:AutcgcbaxQPIFwBh@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
>> uk.legal :
>>
>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>
>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>
>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>>
>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>> Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
>> the only thing that would have any effect.
> 
> 
> Presumably the objective is to make more arrests and achieve more 
> convictions. Although our gaols are currently somewhat overcrowded, what we 
> really need, right now, is a few thousand extra prisoners whose only crime 
> is to draw an indecent picture of a child. 
> 
> 

expect to see a 'low level' offence handled with just a fine, or 
possibly an FPN, you know to avoid having to actually prove anything. 
pay up or it will get in the court listings...

could be a money spinner

On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>
>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>
>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>Minister Maria Eagle today.
>
>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's response to a
>public consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual
>depictions of under-aged children engaged in sexual activity.
>
>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>
>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>

As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do, and
even why.

But this is just getting stupid.

It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is throwing
out the whole family, and the bath too!
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
MS Windows -- From the people who brought you EDLIN!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:09:03 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>R. Mark Clayton  posted
>>
>>"Cub Reporter"  wrote in message
>>news:odqo341g8084n8js2lqs4uaaund354ne4o@4ax.com...
>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>
>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>
>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>I predicted this some time ago, but I still can't believe it is 
>happening.
>
>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>
>>
>>No doubt the government will make a mess even of this legislation, but as
>>'cub reporter' frequently shows, the problem is in the head of paedophiles.
>
>What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
>of children and then wank over them?

While that is undoubtedly what the law *will* catch, it is not the
stated intention of the new proposals.

The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
the images.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
COMMAND: A suggestion made to a computer.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 28 May 2008 10:04:26 +0100, "Aidy" 
wrote:

>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>
>Isn't this already the case? 
>

Almost.

But at the moment, they have to look like photographs, even after any
digital manipulation, before they are classed as "pseudo-images".

Even ones which are very obviously drawings will be caught by the new
proposals.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Error: Keyboard not attached. Press F1 to continue.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

I'm talking about A SCUMBAG CATHOLIC HATERS CALLED ISTAR & SMALLEY SLAGGING OFF 
CATHOLICS WITH THEIR BELOW SHITE.  So now we know why certain muslims spout there 
shite but that's allright to hate us catholics and christians but muslims can preach 
hate an kill innocent people that's against the law.  An no I'm not a racist.

SMALLEYS INANE DRIVEL

Roman Catholics will lick the shit off the Virgin Mary's anus when they get into 
heaven. That is the ambition of every Roman Catholic, to lick the shit off the Virgin 
Mary's anus, to show her how much we love her for teaching us purity by getting 
fucked by Saint Joe while she was unmarried. The horn of Gabriel was also blown.

ISHTAR'S INANE DRIVEL

((And then the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Queen of Heaven, will enter the souls of 
these depraved men while they sleep and purify their souls with the power of her 
filthy stinking unwashed virgin cunt, as there was no water for washing unmarried 
mothers' cunts in Palestine 2,000 years ago, and so the Virgin Mary's cunt is covered 
in yesterday's piss and yesterdays vaginal juices.))

Rob


"Cork Soaker"

Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid.news:2n70h5-k9l.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org...


What the fuck are you talking about?

Alex Heney  posted
>
>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>the images.

Where does it say that? And how can an exception be honestly described 
as a "loophole" when it was specifically and intentionally excepted by 
Parliament in the first place?

-- 
Les Invalides

On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>
>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>the images.
>
>Where does it say that? And how can an exception be honestly described 
>as a "loophole" when it was specifically and intentionally excepted by 
>Parliament in the first place?

The loophole is that they have found some paedophiles who aren't
breaking the law.

-- 
Cub Reporter

Rob-Latchford wrote:
> I'm talking about A SCUMBAG CATHOLIC HATERS CALLED ISTAR & SMALLEY SLAGGING OFF 
> CATHOLICS WITH THEIR BELOW SHITE.  So now we know why certain muslims spout there 
> shite but that's allright to hate us catholics and christians but muslims can preach 
> hate an kill innocent people that's against the law.  An no I'm not a racist.

Nothing to do with my post, troll.

In article ,
Alex Heney   wrote:
>But at the moment, they have to look like photographs, even after any
>digital manipulation, before they are classed as "pseudo-images".
>
>Even ones which are very obviously drawings will be caught by the new
>proposals.

Impressionist renderings, Fauvism, Cubism, schematic diagrams -
where will the new line be drawn?

Francis

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:4qfr34tiejjhdcag7to2insv1tfk37tdhj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
> wrote:
>
>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>
>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>
>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>
>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>
>>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's response to a
>>public consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual
>>depictions of under-aged children engaged in sexual activity.
>>
>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>
>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>
>
> As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do, and
> even why.
>
> But this is just getting stupid.
>
> It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is throwing
> out the whole family, and the bath too!

I suppose poor old Grayson Perry may have to smash up many of his art works, 
and retire.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>
>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>the images.
>
>Where does it say that? 

In the statement of the minister in the article referenced above.

>And how can an exception be honestly described 
>as a "loophole" when it was specifically and intentionally excepted by 
>Parliament in the first place?

It wasn't specifically excepted.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Barium: what you do with dead chemists.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 29 May 2008 08:55:35 GMT, fburton@nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:

>In article ,
>Alex Heney   wrote:
>>But at the moment, they have to look like photographs, even after any
>>digital manipulation, before they are classed as "pseudo-images".
>>
>>Even ones which are very obviously drawings will be caught by the new
>>proposals.
>
>Impressionist renderings, Fauvism, Cubism, schematic diagrams -
>where will the new line be drawn?

Anywhere they feel like, unless the legislation is drawn up *very*
carefully (which is unlikely with this government).
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Shift key? this keyboard is an automatic!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney  posted
>On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
>wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>
>>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>>the images.
>>
>>Where does it say that?
>
>In the statement of the minister in the article referenced above.

Exactly what are you referring to? I don't see such a statement in the 
referenced story.

>>And how can an exception be honestly described
>>as a "loophole" when it was specifically and intentionally excepted by
>>Parliament in the first place?
>
>It wasn't specifically excepted.

The Act, for all its faults, gave a careful and intelligible description 
of what it meant by photographs. This did not and could not conceivably 
have been taken to mean drawings derived from photographs; and therefore 
the draftsman specifically intended to exclude drawings.

-- 
Les Invalides

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:28:19 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>>What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
>>of children and then wank over them?

>While that is undoubtedly what the law *will* catch, it is not the
>stated intention of the new proposals.

>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>the images.

You are correctly describing the mental gymnastics that have been
conducted in order to justify the new law.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that is *not* the real
reason behind the law.

IME the most prolific culprits when it comes to making crude, sexually
explicit drawings of children's genitalia, are children.

The next step will be to prohibit textual stories of a paedophillic
nature.  In fact I'm surprised that they are still legal. 

Despite being legal, AFAIAA there is no significant commercial market
in such stories, though I believe they are freely available on certain
Internet sites.

-- 
Cynic

On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:23:30 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>
>>>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>>>the images.
>>>
>>>Where does it say that?
>>
>>In the statement of the minister in the article referenced above.
>
>Exactly what are you referring to? I don't see such a statement in the 
>referenced story.

--------------------------------------------------
It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.

Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
---------------------------------------------------


OK, she isn't actually a minister, merely a Parliamentary under
Secretary of State.


>
>>>And how can an exception be honestly described
>>>as a "loophole" when it was specifically and intentionally excepted by
>>>Parliament in the first place?
>>
>>It wasn't specifically excepted.
>
>The Act, for all its faults, gave a careful and intelligible description 
>of what it meant by photographs. This did not and could not conceivably 
>have been taken to mean drawings derived from photographs; and therefore 
>the draftsman specifically intended to exclude drawings.

In which case you could say that anything not included is
"specifically excepted".

I don't accept that. To be "specifically excepted", it must be
mentioned as NOT being included, rather than just be outside what is
included.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
So simple, a child could do it. (Child sold separately)
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:52:29 +0100, Cynic 
wrote:

>On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:28:19 +0100, Alex Heney 
>wrote:
>
>>>What problem? Why should anyone care if paedophiles draw dirty pictures 
>>>of children and then wank over them?
>
>>While that is undoubtedly what the law *will* catch, it is not the
>>stated intention of the new proposals.
>
>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>the images.
>
>You are correctly describing the mental gymnastics that have been
>conducted in order to justify the new law.
>
>I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that is *not* the real
>reason behind the law.

In which case, you can, presumably give us some grounds for your
certainty that the "real reason" is something else, and tell us what
that reason is.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Check book: a book with a unhappy ending.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Not being overlay rude here, what the fcuk has calling me a troll got too do with the 
price of fish I've only defended my faith. You should know by now It takes a troll to 
know a troll.  I'm a catholic and I am not ashamed of it in fact i'm proud of it, I'm 
not a god-botherer.  I was however  brought up to respect other people and there 
religious views but not when they start spouting disrespectful use of the sacred name 
of jesus's mother, Mary what the heck has she done, nothing but good from where I'm 
standing.  Please explain why these heathen NAZIS feel so very good about slagging 
off someone they hardly no nothing about.  I repeat again, I'm not a god-botherer, I 
don't pretend to preach the gospel according to Saint Whoever to people who really 
don't want to know about something they obviously could never understand in a million 
years anyway people like these just want too be ignorant and furthermore god wasn't 
being slagged off or blasphemed.   My point being why should someone of another faith 
disrespect catholics and spout hate and complete shite of anyone else's faith for 
that fact.  Maybe they are just plain jealous becuase they just like to destroy and 
cause pain to anyone who has some form of faith to believe in that they will never 
have........

Rob

"Cork Soaker"
Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid.news:nv71h5-nan.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org...


Nothing to do with my post, troll.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:16:52 +0100, Claire Rand
 wrote:

>The Todal wrote:
>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:AutcgcbaxQPIFwBh@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
>>> uk.legal :
>>>
>>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>>
>>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>>
>>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>>>
>>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>> Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
>>> the only thing that would have any effect.
>> 
>> 
>> Presumably the objective is to make more arrests and achieve more 
>> convictions. Although our gaols are currently somewhat overcrowded, what we 
>> really need, right now, is a few thousand extra prisoners whose only crime 
>> is to draw an indecent picture of a child. 
>> 
>> 
>
>expect to see a 'low level' offence handled with just a fine, or 
>possibly an FPN, you know to avoid having to actually prove anything. 
>pay up or it will get in the court listings...
>
>could be a money spinner.

I womder if i took a photo of my erect penis held against the face of
a lifesize plastic doll would that image be illegal  ?

D

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Wed, 28 May 2008 20:16:52 +0100, Claire Rand
 wrote:

>The Todal wrote:
>> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:AutcgcbaxQPIFwBh@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 at 21:08:32, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
>>> uk.legal :
>>>
>>>> Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>>
>>>> 4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>>> http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>>
>>>> All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>> computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>>>
>>>> Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>>> three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>>> Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>> Changing the law will not change the mindset of paedophiles - *that* is 
>>> the only thing that would have any effect.
>> 
>> 
>> Presumably the objective is to make more arrests and achieve more 
>> convictions. Although our gaols are currently somewhat overcrowded, what we 
>> really need, right now, is a few thousand extra prisoners whose only crime 
>> is to draw an indecent picture of a child. 
>> 
>> 
>
>expect to see a 'low level' offence handled with just a fine, or 
>possibly an FPN, you know to avoid having to actually prove anything. 
>pay up or it will get in the court listings...
>
>could be a money spinner.

I womder if i took a photo of my erect penis held against the face of
a lifesize plastic doll would that image be illegal  ?

D

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:53:51 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>>You are correctly describing the mental gymnastics that have been
>>conducted in order to justify the new law.

>>I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that is *not* the real
>>reason behind the law.

>In which case, you can, presumably give us some grounds for your
>certainty that the "real reason" is something else, and tell us what
>that reason is.

The reason I an certain that it is not the real reason is that I
cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that such a problem exists to any
significant extent.  And even if it did, then the new law should not
be including images that could not possibly have had a photographic
origin.

The real reason I suspect is primarily to appeal to popular prejudice
by playing on the fact that most people will be in favour of any law
that they perceive is aimed at paedophiles and other sexual deviants.

Any new law that increases the scope of the police and an excuse to
control the Internet will naturally be welcomed elsewhere for those
reasons.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic  wrote:

>On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:53:51 +0100, Alex Heney 
>wrote:
>
>>>You are correctly describing the mental gymnastics that have been
>>>conducted in order to justify the new law.
>
>>>I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that is *not* the real
>>>reason behind the law.
>
>>In which case, you can, presumably give us some grounds for your
>>certainty that the "real reason" is something else, and tell us what
>>that reason is.
>
>The reason I an certain that it is not the real reason is that I
>cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that such a problem exists to any
>significant extent.  And even if it did, then the new law should not
>be including images that could not possibly have had a photographic
>origin.
>
>The real reason I suspect is primarily to appeal to popular prejudice
>by playing on the fact that most people will be in favour of any law
>that they perceive is aimed at paedophiles and other sexual deviants.
>
>Any new law that increases the scope of the police and an excuse to
>control the Internet will naturally be welcomed elsewhere for those
>reasons.

Sounds quite plausible. Also, as paedophiles appear to have become the
modern equivalent of witches, relatively easy to whip up support for
such measures.

On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:47:51 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:


>The loophole is that they have found some 

people TPTB believe to be

> paedophiles who aren't breaking the law.

spam@example.com wrote in news:8p734493jvf8goopp0aau1625rqjakdds5@
4ax.com:

> On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:47:51 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
> 
> 
>>The loophole is that they have found some 
> 
> people TPTB believe to be
> 
>> paedophiles who aren't breaking the law.
> 

But of course if there really were any people drawing diagrams as a 
memento of their criminal assaults on real people (children or 
otherwise) it would make more sense to prosecute them for the assaults, 
and, perhaps, use the drawings as evidence:  the idea of prosecuting 
them for possessing the drawings seems a little contrived.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:51 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>spam@example.com wrote in news:8p734493jvf8goopp0aau1625rqjakdds5@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:47:51 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>The loophole is that they have found some 
>> 
>> people TPTB believe to be
>> 
>>> paedophiles who aren't breaking the law.
>> 
>
>But of course if there really were any people drawing diagrams as a 
>memento of their criminal assaults on real people (children or 
>otherwise) it would make more sense to prosecute them for the assaults, 
>and, perhaps, use the drawings as evidence:  the idea of prosecuting 
>them for possessing the drawings seems a little contrived.

The same considerations apply to all child porn laws.

-- 
Dissenter

*plonk*

Alex Heney  posted
>On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:23:30 +0100, Les Invalides 
>wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>>
>>>>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>>>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>>>>the images.
>>>>
>>>>Where does it say that?
>>>
>>>In the statement of the minister in the article referenced above.
>>
>>Exactly what are you referring to? I don't see such a statement in the
>>referenced story.
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>
>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>---------------------------------------------------

That's not the same as saying "photographs are taken, and then drawings 
made using those photographs, which are then
destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of 
the images."


-- 
Les Invalides

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:21:23 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Thu, 29 May 2008 22:23:30 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>On Wed, 28 May 2008 22:34:16 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The *intention* is to close the "loophole" where photographs are
>>>>>>taken, and then drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>>>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>>>>>the images.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where does it say that?
>>>>
>>>>In the statement of the minister in the article referenced above.
>>>
>>>Exactly what are you referring to? I don't see such a statement in the
>>>referenced story.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------
>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>
>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>---------------------------------------------------
>
>That's not the same as saying "photographs are taken, and then drawings 
>made using those photographs, which are then
>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of 
>the images."

Sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to quote them saying
exactly the same words I had used.

Twat.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Common sense is what tells you the world is flat.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney  posted
>On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:21:23 +0100, Les Invalides 
>wrote:
>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>That's not the same as saying "photographs are taken, and then drawings
>>made using those photographs, which are then
>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>the images."
>
>Sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to quote them saying
>exactly the same words I had used.

Was it too much to ask that you provide a ministerial quote that clearly 
implied what you claimed, rather than just a vague generalisation about 
"closing loopholes"?

>Twat.

Bottom.

-- 
Les Invalides

Les Invalides  wrote in
news:A4Pn4IBgs5QIFwJI@obviously.invalid: 

> Alex Heney  posted
>>On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:21:23 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>wrote:
>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State
>>>>for Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a
>>>>loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images
>>>>of child sexual abuse. 
>>>>--------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>>That's not the same as saying "photographs are taken, and then
>>>drawings made using those photographs, which are then
>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the
>>>production of the images."
>>
>>Sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to quote them saying
>>exactly the same words I had used.
> 
> Was it too much to ask that you provide a ministerial quote that
> clearly implied what you claimed, rather than just a vague
> generalisation about "closing loopholes"?
> 

As a matter of interest, the rather convoluted and unlikely process 
whereby somewhat who had assaulted a child might keep a drawing of 
his original photos (perhaps to remind himself after he came out of 
prison 10 years later - the logic presumes we know he has committed 
the crime) and the suggestion that this would be a Very Bad Thing 
was in the original consultation paper for the proposals. That 
patent absurdity, apart from general knowledge, convinced me they 
were not looking for constructive assessment of their proposals.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney 
wrote:

>On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
>wrote:
>
>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>
>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>
>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>
>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>
>>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's response to a
>>public consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual
>>depictions of under-aged children engaged in sexual activity.
>>
>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>
>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>
>
>As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do, and
>even why.
>
>But this is just getting stupid.
>
>It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is throwing
>out the whole family, and the bath too!

To be swiftly followed by the digital camera !!!

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:02:56 +0100, Les Invalides 
wrote:

>Alex Heney  posted
>>On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:21:23 +0100, Les Invalides 
>>wrote:
>>>Alex Heney  posted
>>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>That's not the same as saying "photographs are taken, and then drawings
>>>made using those photographs, which are then
>>>destroyed, leaving no images for which the possessor can be
>>>prosecuted, even though real abuse did take place in the production of
>>>the images."
>>
>>Sorry, I didn't realise you were expecting me to quote them saying
>>exactly the same words I had used.
>
>Was it too much to ask that you provide a ministerial quote that clearly 
>implied what you claimed, rather than just a vague generalisation about 
>"closing loopholes"?
>

I think it did clearly imply what I claimed.

You snipped the first part of what I quoted from the article.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
We give nothing as willingly as our advice.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney  posted
>On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:02:56 +0100, Les Invalides 
>wrote:
>>Was it too much to ask that you provide a ministerial quote that clearly
>>implied what you claimed, rather than just a vague generalisation about
>>"closing loopholes"?
>
>I think it did clearly imply what I claimed.
>
>You snipped the first part of what I quoted from the article.
>

I snipped it because it wasn't a quote, ministerial or otherwise. It was 
a sentence invented by the reporter and not attributed to any spokesman.

-- 
Les Invalides

On Wed, 28 May 2008 08:46:29 +0100, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>There's a difference, though, with 'hate speech' laws.  You're entitled to 
>hold the relevant opinions but just not allowed to incite others into 
>violent action on the basis of them. 

The problem is that these laws are rarely if ever used against people
who are explicitly advocating violence against protected minorities.
They are usually only used to silence people who want immigration
reform, who are skeptical about the holocaust, who want to discuss
racial differences in an honest way, etc. In fact, the laws
specifically criminalize the 'incitement of hatred,' not the
'incitement of violence,' if I'm not mistaken. This means that if I
tell my neighbours, "I think blacks are less intelligent than whites
and commit more crimes," I could be charged with attempting to incite
hatred.

There's also a huge double standard in the way these laws are applied.
You can be sure that only heterosexual white males will ever be found
guilty of 'hate speech,' while it's perfectly acceptable for the
groups protected by these laws to bash heterosexual white males as
much as they please. I doubt Daniel Goldhagen is going to be
prosecuted for hate speech anytime soon for writing a book that
attempts to incite hatred against Germans.

> That doesn't seem too unreasonable to 
>me, whereas criminalising some private pecadillo, whatever its nature and 
>however repulsive, but where there is no victim, seems utterly repressive.

Well, if you believe that it's OK to prosecute people for 'hate
speech' on the grounds that such speech may lead to people getting
hurt, I don't see why you would then turn around and claim that these
types of drawings are harmless and shouldn't be made illegal. After
all, they could incite a pedophile to sexually abuse children.

Being in favor of the former but opposing the latter doesn't seem like
a very consistent stance, unless you happen to believe that minorities
are more in need of protection than children.
--
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

In uk.politics.censorship Igor Alexander  wrote:

["hate speech" laws]

> The problem is that these laws are rarely if ever used against people
> who are explicitly advocating violence against protected minorities.
> They are usually only used to silence people who want immigration
> reform, who are skeptical about the holocaust

Folks have been prosecuted for Holocaust denial in foreign countries
with less respect for freedom, but in Britain?

> who want to discuss
> racial differences in an honest way, etc.

Chris Brand got kicked out of Edinburgh University (though ostensibly
for another reason, it's hard not to assume his views on IQ differences
weren't what put the ball into play). However, he was never prosecuted
for hate speech or anything similar. Ditto for the cancelling of Jim
Watson's recent lecture for having what seemed to be similar views.

> In fact, the laws
> specifically criminalize the 'incitement of hatred,' not the
> 'incitement of violence,' if I'm not mistaken. This means that if I
> tell my neighbours, "I think blacks are less intelligent than whites
> and commit more crimes," I could be charged with attempting to incite
> hatred.

I see no evidence for this. If I were to make such statements in public
though, I'd couch them more as "The evidence shows that...". Moving the
debate onto evidence rather than opinion would put any prosecutors on
the back foot.

> There's also a huge double standard in the way these laws are applied.
> You can be sure that only heterosexual white males will ever be found
> guilty of 'hate speech,'

Except for those halal halfwits who have been prosecuted for it?

> Well, if you believe that it's OK to prosecute people for 'hate
> speech' on the grounds that such speech may lead to people getting
> hurt, I don't see why you would then turn around and claim that these
> types of drawings are harmless and shouldn't be made illegal. After
> all, they could incite a pedophile to sexually abuse children.

Perhaps a more logical approach would be to prosecute only on the basis
that something did in fact lead directly to harm against another, and
prove that link in court?

FoFP

-- 
Perhaps one day he will be considered a free thinker with radical views
and deep insight. However today he is seen more as "not all there"
       -- Comment in the Evening News

wrote in message 
news:je7844l3ijep225p38ot7gefeqg5qf28ve@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney 
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>
>>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>
>>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled illegal.
>>>
>>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up to
>>>three years in prison under new proposals announced by Justice
>>>Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>
>>>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's response to a
>>>public consultation on the possession of non-photographic visual
>>>depictions of under-aged children engaged in sexual activity.
>>>
>>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing the
>>>law by using computer technology to manipulate real photographs or
>>>videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>>
>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for
>>>Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a loophole that we
>>>believe paedophiles are using to create images of child sexual abuse.
>>>
>>
>>As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do, and
>>even why.
>>
>>But this is just getting stupid.
>>
>>It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is throwing
>>out the whole family, and the bath too!
>
> To be swiftly followed by the digital camera !!!

David Hockney has spoken:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/childprotection.art

"The suggestion that drawings of children should now be prosecuted is 
mind-blowing in its ignorance (This loophole is real. But the remedy is 
really perverse, May 31). I am out of step with the mean spirit of our age. 
I told a friend I had been to a house in Lincolnshire where in three rooms 
there must have been pictures of a few hundred naked children and a lot of 
naked adults as well. He looked shocked until I told him they were painted 
by Antonio Verrio between 1688 and 1698, at Burghley House in Stamford. I 
detest the cultural vandalism that contaminates New Labour. I hope they go - 
and soon".

and the article on which he was commenting is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/31/justice.ukcrime

"Under planned legislation, Eagle hopes to imprison for up to three years 
those found possessing drawings or computer-generated images of child abuse. 
The change in the law would collapse the existing distinction between 
material showing actual abuse of actual children and simulated or imagined 
pictures. Let's be clear that Eagle, though wrong, is not mad. The loophole 
she identifies is a real one. The Justice Ministry will have been influenced 
by recent cases in America in which those in possession of revolting 
paedophile images were cleared because their lawyers were able to show that 
the images seized from hard drives might have been fantasies created in 
cyberspace rather than situations filmed in a warehouse in New Jersey. So 
there's little doubt that sick and twisted people are benefitting from the 
possibilities of new technology. Yet the reason that American attorneys have 
been able to use this defence is that in 2002 the US supreme court struck 
down an attempted federal ban on offensive computer-generated images. The 
judgment argued that such a prohibition restricted free expression" 
...SNIP...  "It is right and vital that no art of any kind should involve 
the actual abuse of children. But if people are jailed for an image they 
have made with a pencil or Photoshop software then we have allowed the state 
to patrol imagination in such a way that 2008 would have to be renamed 
1984..   Nothing will prevent the existence and activities of paedophiles. 
So better, surely, that their depravities are enacted in their computers or 
imaginations than in reality. And even better that we do not open up to 
moralists and busy-bodies the argument that simulation is no different from 
reality: whether the Bullingdon snap or an erotic movie.  The ingenuity of 
the human mind allows both the creation of art and the misuse of images. The 
twisted mind will always find loopholes - and the government has correctly 
identified one - but, if closing a loophole threatens other legitimate forms 
of expression, then it is wrong. The Eagle scheme is like some brilliant new 
mousetrap which, while annihilating some mice, also takes out the family cat 
and the songbirds sitting innocently on the kitchen windowsill. Perverse 
legislation is not the right response to perverts."

"The Todal"  wrote in
news:6anhe3F38nfojU1@mid.individual.net: 

> wrote in message 
> news:je7844l3ijep225p38ot7gefeqg5qf28ve@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>>
>>>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>>
>>>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled
>>>>illegal. 
>>>>
>>>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up
>>>>to three years in prison under new proposals announced by
>>>>Justice Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>>
>>>>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's
>>>>response to a public consultation on the possession of
>>>>non-photographic visual depictions of under-aged children
>>>>engaged in sexual activity. 
>>>>
>>>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing
>>>>the law by using computer technology to manipulate real
>>>>photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>>>
>>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State
>>>>for Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a
>>>>loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images
>>>>of child sexual abuse. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do,
>>>and even why.
>>>
>>>But this is just getting stupid.
>>>
>>>It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is
>>>throwing out the whole family, and the bath too!
>>
>> To be swiftly followed by the digital camera !!!
> 
> David Hockney has spoken:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/childprotection.art
> 
> "The suggestion that drawings of children should now be prosecuted
> is mind-blowing in its ignorance (This loophole is real. But the
> remedy is really perverse, May 31). I am out of step with the mean
> spirit of our age. I told a friend I had been to a house in
> Lincolnshire where in three rooms there must have been pictures of
> a few hundred naked children and a lot of naked adults as well. He
> looked shocked until I told him they were painted by Antonio
> Verrio between 1688 and 1698, at Burghley House in Stamford. I 
> detest the cultural vandalism that contaminates New Labour. I hope
> they go - and soon".
> 
> and the article on which he was commenting is here:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/31/justice.ukcrim
e
> 
> "Under planned legislation, Eagle hopes to imprison for up to
> three years those found possessing drawings or computer-generated
> images of child abuse. The change in the law would collapse the
> existing distinction between material showing actual abuse of
> actual children and simulated or imagined pictures. Let's be clear


If this is a fair summary of the Guardian article it shows 
breathtaking ignorance of UK law.  The possession of realistic 
images, "pseudophotographs", has long been been illegal in the UK.  
This is the type of material referred to in the American case (note 
there was "doubt" as to whether they were real photographs!).  
Whatever one may say about the Americans I doubt if they would ever 
make drawings which were obviously drawings illegal.  So the 
"loophole" the Guardian "journalist" is talking about does not exist 
in the UK.

"Lets be clear" there is no distinction in current UK law between 
pictures of actual abuse and realistic pictures of imagined or 
simulated abuse.  Contrary to what the Guardian "journalist" may 
have gathered from watching CSI, we do not operate under American 
law in the UK.


-- 
Percy Picacity

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:22:20 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"The Todal"  wrote in
>news:6anhe3F38nfojU1@mid.individual.net: 
>
>> wrote in message 
>> news:je7844l3ijep225p38ot7gefeqg5qf28ve@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:25:03 +0100, Alex Heney 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 May 2008 21:08:32 +0100, Cub Reporter 
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Proposals Will Make All Obscene Child Images Illegal
>>>>>
>>>>>4RFV, UK: 27 May 2008
>>>>>http://www.4rfv.co.uk/nationalnews.asp?id=76569
>>>>>
>>>>>All pictures of child sexual abuse, including drawings and
>>>>>computer-generated images of child abuse will soon be ruled
>>>>>illegal. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Offenders holding such images will face criminal charges and up
>>>>>to three years in prison under new proposals announced by
>>>>>Justice Minister Maria Eagle today.
>>>>>
>>>>>The proposals were announced as part of the Government's
>>>>>response to a public consultation on the possession of
>>>>>non-photographic visual depictions of under-aged children
>>>>>engaged in sexual activity. 
>>>>>
>>>>>It acknowledges the view that paedophiles could be circumventing
>>>>>the law by using computer technology to manipulate real
>>>>>photographs or videos of abuse into drawings or cartoons.
>>>>>
>>>>>Commenting, Maria Eagle, Parliamentary under Secretary of State
>>>>>for Justice, said: "These new proposals will help close a
>>>>>loophole that we believe paedophiles are using to create images
>>>>>of child sexual abuse. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As usual with these laws, I can understand what they want to do,
>>>>and even why.
>>>>
>>>>But this is just getting stupid.
>>>>
>>>>It isn't just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is
>>>>throwing out the whole family, and the bath too!
>>>
>>> To be swiftly followed by the digital camera !!!
>> 
>> David Hockney has spoken:
>> 
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/04/childprotection.art
>> 
>> "The suggestion that drawings of children should now be prosecuted
>> is mind-blowing in its ignorance (This loophole is real. But the
>> remedy is really perverse, May 31). I am out of step with the mean
>> sp