So I write a letter to my MP...

[SiM]

Remember guys this is publicly viewable, no registration required... and its quite high up in a google search, so don't write what you don't want him or his supporters to see

[TAKTAK]

Originally Posted by SiM

Someone should update this page

I would, but I don't know how to make a new sub section...

i was actually in the process of doing it earlier......... but then i had to go out

edit: im doing it now.........
need to make it non biased though

edit2: i'm rubbish at this ..... my attempt is done (badly)

[mycarsavw]

G4Z, just got round to replying here - you know my views already

If you haven't already, one outlet who would be very interested is Private Eye - http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pages.php?page=contact&

[G4Z]

Well I had listen and yet again he went on about how 'abusive' my letter was and dodged the issues. I will listen again and type upa full transcript so that I can really pull him to bits. I have to work tomorrow so I might just call up radio Newcastle and see if I can get a spot on Monday morning.

[G4Z]

Here is the transcript, bit rough around the edges but you get the gist.

When your in office should you always rise above rude comment or should you in the case of Tyne bridge MP David Vlelland fight back when replying from abusive letter from a constituent

Ron Beadle : Well its a great pity isn't it that he ended the letter the way he did, it seemed to me from what I have heard that the main body of the letter was find but the last sentence... which goes into another area really. Its taste its vulgar and it probably in a sense pleased the letter writer
that his own comments had drawn blood.

Mike Parr : Good morning

David Clelland : good morning

Mike Parr : I think a lot of people are quite taken aback by this?

David Clelland : Are they really? Well I have had emails and letters in both directions. Let me just point something out to you, I don't like being talked down to and I am sure you don't either Mike
and when someone acuses me of stupidity, having no concience, not representing my constituents and having no principals, blindly voting with the party and not thinking for myself I do get a bit techy. But you know we have to put up with these things
My constituent made 2 substantive points, I dunno if you have seen the letter or if many people have. 1, he objected to the fact that I supported giving the police extra powers to detain suspects this is the 42 day thing. Well I think on that I am
in touch with my electors nad he is not, I think most of my electors would support that. The second point he made that he opposed to the clauses in teh criminal justice bill, he opposes the clauses dealing withe xtreme pornography.
he said that he thought these were wrong a breech of freedom etc etc. these are clauses which are not intended to ban the sort of thing you get off the top shelf in the newsagents or even the adult channels
late night on television but extreme pornography, violent pornography including indeed child pornography and paedophilia. Well again most of my constituents would agree that it should be outlawed I think I am in touch with them and he is not. If he had left it at that I would
have just wrote to him and told him what my views were and how I thought we differed. However your commentary there from the previous caller talked about teh last sentence and I am afraid the sting was in the tail of his letter too.
Because in a very sort of chest prodding manner he told me that he was gonna keep an eye on my voting record and unless I sort of shape up and start voting according to his views I could kiss his vote goodbye
Well I am afraid that is when the geordie came out in me and I told him what he could do with his vote.

Mike Parr : But David, I get that all the time you see in fairness, I mean you know sort of in the public gaze as well and people will often say look, you know, I dont agree with what you say I am gonna be keeping a close eyeon you and if your ratings don't improve, if you don't get your act together I am not gonna listen any more and I have to rise above it

David Clelland : yes, on the radio of course you could as I would but this is a letter between me and him and he was the one who decided to release the correspondence to the media and the press not me

Mike Parr : Do you get a lot of offensive correspondence?

David Clelland : Oh yes you do, and I dont make a habbit of answering in this way, but I thought it was particularly offensive the views he put across about teh 2 issues he raised and despite the fact he was keep telling me
I am out of touch with the electorate I think on those 2 issues in particular I am in touch with the electorate. But there was just this sort of threat that somehow his was gonna go else where, well it can go else where, if he
thinks there is someone gonna stand for election on those two issues supporting his views and they are gonna get elected, well fine. Why doesn't he do it himself?

Mike Parr : When you wrote this letter back, did you expect it to appear in the press?

David Clelland : Well, not normally, but if it does it does, it was his decision not mine

Mike Parr : Did it shock you and upset you when it did turn up in the paper

David Clelland : Not particularly, I am quite willing to defend my corner

Mike Parr : We got Ron Beadle here who is Liberal Democrat councillor in gateshead who I think wants to have a word

Ron Beadle : David, im gonna surprise you I think your absolutely right

David Clelland : Thank you very much

Ron Beadle : and I don't think it will damage you at all, I think politics lacks people who actualy say what they think. The suspicion about all of us just following the party line and we're not just targets people can
attack all the time who will never respond so I disagree with your 42 days as you would expect but in terms of your response it was honest and blunt and good on you.

David Clelland : Well I appreciate that thank you

Mike Parr : We need a bit more of this do we?

Ron Beadle : yes I think so, I think one of the real suspicions people have about politicians is that they are lying all the time and that I think David clearly on this issue is not and anything that does that is refreshing
people should say what they think.


Mike Parr : David good to talk to you

David Clelland : Thank you Mike

So, what do you all reckon?

I really fancy responding to that on the radio...

[dave87]

Not quite the political dynamite some were making it out to be, however I'm sure he'd be on the back foot in any reasoned debate.

[schmunk]

TAKTAK, your spelling is not so good. Also, MPs and Cllrs are different. Finally, it's clear from G4Z's transcript that Mr Clelland does not make any substantive accusation of G4Z being pro-child pornography.

I've fixed the wiki for you

[G4Z]

No but he implies that I am against a bill banning child pornography.

As far as I am ware that bill has nothing to do with CP, and its illegal anyway so why on earth would he mention it if not to tag me with the label?

[G4Z]

Relevant clauses in that bill here : http://www.publications.parliament.u...6-51.html#j400

Can't see any mention of child pornography...

[schmunk]

Having finally read page one of this thread from home, rather than at work where I can't see the scan of David Clelland's letter, I now struggle to see what all the fuss is about. I would have written a similarly annoyed letter if confronted by a Daily Mail style rant attacking me personally. Other than the final sentence, which in itself is hardly shocking, the letter is a well-written defense of a very reasonable position, and I would argue that it shows less arrogance than the letter to which it replied.

[schmunk]

Originally Posted by G4Z

Relevant clauses in that bill here : http://www.publications.parliament.u...6-51.html#j400

Can't see any mention of child pornography...

You have him there - child pornography's already illegal - e.g. http://www.publications.parliament.u...06067.i-i.html.

I'm not sure what the real fuss is about the 'possession of extreme pornographic images' legislation anyway. If you read the description of what constitutes an 'extreme' image:

(6)
An “extreme image” is an image which—

(a)
falls within subsection (7), and

(b)
is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(7)
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a)
an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b)
an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c)
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d)
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive),


and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

It doesn't cover anything that a reasonable person would want to possess.

[G4Z]

That is not entirely the case, there are people out there who like to have people whip them and stamp on their balls and all manner of things. As far as I am concerned people should be free to do and view whatever they want so long as its all consensual.

under this legislation possessing any of that will get you in bother.

[schmunk]

Originally Posted by G4Z

That is not entirely the case, there are people out there who like to have people whip them and stamp on their balls and all manner of things. As far as I am concerned people should be free to do and view whatever they want so long as its all consensual.

under this legislation possessing any of that will get you in bother.

Simple solution - less viewing, more doing.

[G4Z]

yeah, and if you want to take a picture of said doing for posterity that makes you what... a criminal?

[directhex]

Originally Posted by schmunk

the letter is a well-written defense of a very reasonable position

which part of labour policy for the past five years or so is reasonable?

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by schmunk

.....

It doesn't cover anything that a reasonable person would want to possess.

Well, the problem is in interpretation.

For a start, as has been pointed out, there's nothing in there in relation to child porn .... the creators, purveyors and customers of which could be condemned to the deepest circles of hell for all I care. So it appears that Mr Clelland is either mischaracterising the legislation for sensationalist purposes, or doesn't understand the legislation he's voting on. I'm not sure which is worse. Where's the relevance in that to child porn?

But secondly, so much in that legislation is wide open to interpretation, and the risk is that the courts won't interpret it as the legislators intend.

For instance, s6(2) requires it to be "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character".

In whose judgement? And by what standards? Who decides .... a porn producer or a modern day Mary Whitehouse? A liberal '60s free-love advocate or a puritanical clergyman? Each of those are likely to have a very different standard about what is either grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene.

Then, there's the sense of what s.7 means when it says ".... portrays, in an explicit and realistic way ..."

Okay, so if it "portrays" in a "realistic way" a given image, then it's clear that it does not refer to just photographs of actual acts that might fit the given criteria, but ones that simply portray it in a realistic way. It could all be mere play-acting. And if so, is it wrong?

Suppose, for example, that in this day and age of gritty, realistic film making, a Hollywood producer makes a film of the style of Silence of the Lambs, but instead of it being about a serial killer, it's about a sexual predator. Would possession of a copy of that film be covered by the quoted sections of this act? It looks like it to me.

But then, para 2 requires that the image be both "extreme" and "pornographic". Again, it begs the question, who defines "pornography"? A Mary Whitehouse fan?

I have no interest, personally, in what would by my definitions be extreme pornograhy. It's ... well, sick. But .... that doesn't mean I like the notion that our elected representatives are passing legislation that could, depending entirely on subjective interpretations of very vague phrases, be used to criminalise me for possessing a mainstream Hollywood movie, just because it offends the puritanical streak of whoever is entrusted with interpreting loose legislative phraseology.

If this legislation was about images that DID involve serious physical harm, that might be different ....though perhaps very hard to prove. But by opening it