Curly's Corner Shop, the blog!

South Shields premier political blog

Legislating on morality

with 2 comments

Three years in prison for just looking!

It is only during rare moments that I wander into The Guardian’s Comment is Free section, but today there is a real debate going on over NuLabour’s propensity to legislate over how we think and behave. This time they want to send us to prison for three years just for looking at “extreme” pornographic images!

What is extreme? Well that’s a question that only the Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to answer, so we will end up with an army of jobsworths working in a government department deciding what you can or cannot look at! It is time for Great Britain to reawaken it’s libertarian spirit and tell Labour’s thought police where they can stick this bill (and allow someone to take a picture.)

The new offence is included in section 94 of The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill;


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



an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,



an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in


serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,



an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a


human corpse,



a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or


oral sex with an animal,


where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or


appears to be real.

I guess that just about rules out any pictures taken in war zones, graphic images of firing squads, hangings, executions, or even some road accidents! Besides where is the evidence that looking at porn results in an uncivilised criminal society? Making the Kama Sutra or Lady Chatterley’s Lover more widely available hardly sparked a rush of sex crimes! Perhaps the people who kindly censor films for the BBFC on our behalf will turn into monstrous predators, unless we fail to protect them with this stupidly written and virtually impossible to police piece of legislation. Then there are the small army of murderers documented as bible carrying religious zealots to consider, perhaps we should consider banning the insidious book to satisfy NuLabour’s soul – I think not!

These idiots seriously think that the heavy hand of the law can change how people think, how people perceive, how people can make their own judgements, or how people can imagine, without the “help” of the state!

Jackanapes in the comments section sums up my attitude nicely;

Dear Government,

stop telling me what I can put into my body, how I may or may not intoxicate myself (and with what), what I may or may not choose to do with another consenting adult and what I may or may not view which involves other consenting adults voluntarily doing things to each other. Get the hell off my back, out of my face, out of my bedroom, out of my pub, out of my computer and understand that if you do not and you keep pushing it, the UK is a f*****g revolution waiting to happen.

Got that, you self-righteous, prudish, irrational, interfering damned creeps?


Written by curly

December 26, 2007 at 11:52 am

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This sounds like something our very own George W. Bush would think of. His Whine House staffers have some stupid ideas about things. This legislation reminds me that you can’t stick a prisoner laying on a gurney in prison, waiting to be injected with poison, using a dirty needle. It has to be sterilized first. Who ever dreamed this up should be forced to strip off naked and pose for photographs in the House of Commons.

    Abraham Lincoln

    December 26, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  2. It gets much more worrying, folks. While the ‘Dangerous Pictures Act’ makes its way through parliament, a paliamentary committee (culture, etc) is already launching an inquiry into ‘harmful content’.

    Essentially, they are seeking to gauge if there is a need to act on such content. Of course every single pro-censorship organisation is already lobbying them hard.
    ‘Extreme pornography’ is merely one subsection within the list of ‘harmful content’.

    So, it seems that no sooner that ‘extreme pornography is prohibited on English statutes, they’ll move to show that other, non-pornographic material is ‘just as bad’ and therefore needs to be banned, too.

    In short, the ‘extreme pornography’ law, known as the dangerous pictures act to those who oppose it, is just a staging post.

    It will set the precedent whereby they don’t need to provide any evidence of a material doing any harm. Of course it is easier to achieve this with porn, as few will be willing to oppose.
    Then once the principle is established, they broaden it to non-pornographic matter. To anything they choose to deem ‘extreme’ really.

    The list of possible material to be deemed harmful in the committee inquiry includes computer games, youtube content, ‘hateful’ websites, ‘extremism’ and so on.

    Undoubtedly we’re heading a very bad way here.
    Sadly non of the opposition parties are keen to throw their weight in behind any opposition to this law. They oppose it in private, but don’t want to be painted as ‘pro extreme porn’ by the tabloids.

    So, with the government being downright devious and the oppisition too embarrassed to oppose, I’m afraid we’re fairly screwed on this one.


    December 27, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Leave a Reply to phantom Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: