egafd.com

mrmcfister wrote:

>>


The government can't tackle proper (serious) crimes, so they simply invent some new ones - such as hunting foxes, smacking your kids, smoking in public and now this.

The phrases "soft targets" and "seen to be doing something" spring to mind.

planeterotica wrote:

> Flat_Eric wrote:
>
> > Bigoldowl wrote:
> >
> > > reaction by the government. A women was killed by a man who
> > viewed "violent porn" on the net - he is now appealing
> against
> > the conviction. The mother of the murdered women starts a
> > campaign and, hey presto, the government introduces a piece
> of
> > subjective "legislation".
>
> planeterotica wrote.

Surely the timing of this new legislation must interfere with the judicial system if this man is to be afforded a fair hearing at his appeal, as this law has been quickly put together on mainly the back of this one isolated case just think what would happen to this law if this man wins his appeal and his sentence is quashed or a retrial is ordered, but of course if the appeal goes against him then he can claim that it wasnt a fair hearing because of the possibility that pressure could have been put on the appeal court Judge to make sure he dosnt get off so that the Goverment dosnt yet again fall flat on their faces with more hurried through legislation, yes if i was this mans lawyers i would be looking very closely at this.

mart wrote:

> and I suspect most of you are
> getting unnecessarily paranoid about it

[edited]

Take a trip to Backlash and find out what this is actually about.

If only this wonderful piece of legislation had been introduced a few years earlier, we might still have Stephen Milligan and Michael Hutchence with us.

By the way, I seem to recall Hutchence was the lead singer for INXS, but what was it Milligan did for a living? Oh, that's right....

Good article Jaques !thumbsup!

Typical jacques comment.
Were you born a rude bastard or have you had to work at it?

Mart

I don't know how it's enforcable, like others have said.

I mostly agree with everyone, in that the governments just 'putting the feelers out', to see the publics opinion on this and they may decide to scrap the legislation anyway, but I always try to look at both sides fairly, so here goes.......

We already have a simular law in everyday life thats treated differently to sex, and no one sems to mind.

If 2 men have a punchup they can both be arrested and charged correct? If you filmed the punchup -some crews do this- then you can be charged for having the video. Even if they both consented to the punchup -ie organised hooliganism- then they're still charged. Now why are two consenting hooligans charged for punching eachother, yet when the guys get home they can 'donkey punch & strangle their consenting wives -during sex- pretty legally?

Ok you could say that hooligans cause a public disturbance....... Well if they hired a warehouse out to have their punchup in, would that then be ok legally? I doubt it.

So though I agree with all your views, isn't it hypocritical to condemn 2 consenting guys punching eachother, but not the guy strangling his consenting wife?

So if hooligans fought naked, with pvc masks on, they could say it's sexual foreplay and walk free? !laugh!

No, I'm a pure bred cunt to people who deserve it.

Jacques wrote:

>>


Don't worry about it, Jaques.

mart seems to specialise solely in two-line rubbishings of other people's comments, while making no meaningful or constructive contribution to discussions himself.

You've noticed it too?


But I am a cunt !laugh!