I think I know what so and so, wotzisname somewhere up this thread meant by hypocrisy: Not a good choice of word to use. If I'm right, I took it he meant peoples attitudes being as base as the offender in their retribution. This is understandable. Which is why it is hard for a judge to be objective when dishing out a sentence to people who commit awful crimes. Therefore it stands, I must be a hypocrite too because if anyone hurt anyone close to me, animal, friend or family, I would feel I wanted to commit some awful act back to sate my sense of vengeance...
It's nice to see The Obscene Publications Unit doing what they were set up to do though, but I remember when I got nicked by this same outfit when they knew nothing about me, other than being a pornographer when they told me "It's a murky business you've got yourself involved in" Before telling me in short some of the things they have had to encounter.
Guys and girls fucking (or variations on that theme as it were to do with consensual sex)- A-ok. People doing it by means of violence- not okay. It seems even some forms of degradation is consensual, so a fine line there. Like I said, I'm in favour of the Obscene Publications unit when it comes down to things like this and people who make squish films should not be tolerated. I'd be more worried about what these people get up to when they're not squishing animals on film...This shit is not even interesting to be curious about.
O/T very disturbing What next?
-
Richard B
Re: O/T very disturbing What next? Er . . that s
"And remember, the fuckers who are making laws now only have a mandate from 25% of the population. So, 75% of the population do not give their consent."
No, Officer Dibble, that won't do. There was an election which everyone could vote in (indeed was almost begged to vote in) and the winners are now putting their policy programme into action and have a full mandate for doing this.
Given the three party split in the votes in Britain and that at every election, at least 20% of the population don't use their vote (yes, I know that was much more last year), no Government of whatever colour gets anything like the support of 50% of the entire voting age population.
It's up to those who want an alternative to the Government to come up with an alternative that can command enough support to win an election - when that happens (it will one day), they too will probably only have the actual votes of around 25% of the population and people like Officer Dibble are unlikely to be using their "No mandate" argument then.
This has gone well and truly O/T - but Officer Dibble launched on a very slippery slope with his argument.
No, Officer Dibble, that won't do. There was an election which everyone could vote in (indeed was almost begged to vote in) and the winners are now putting their policy programme into action and have a full mandate for doing this.
Given the three party split in the votes in Britain and that at every election, at least 20% of the population don't use their vote (yes, I know that was much more last year), no Government of whatever colour gets anything like the support of 50% of the entire voting age population.
It's up to those who want an alternative to the Government to come up with an alternative that can command enough support to win an election - when that happens (it will one day), they too will probably only have the actual votes of around 25% of the population and people like Officer Dibble are unlikely to be using their "No mandate" argument then.
This has gone well and truly O/T - but Officer Dibble launched on a very slippery slope with his argument.