So I write a letter to my MP...

[schmunk]

Sorry, I had to commit my post to the forum this morning as my laptop wanted to reboot to install a security update. Then a very busy day at work, Citrix problems and going out for a meal straight after work conspired to keep me away until now. I've run out of steam so only attacked a small portion of Saracen's post. Clearly I don't have as much free time...

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by schmunk

See s.63 'Exclusion of classified films, etc.'

Right. So if a studio makes the film and it gets a certificate, it's fine. But if a private individual makes exactly the same film, even for private use and it's never released to anyone else, then the self-same fictional material could get them a jail sentence. In the first situation, the material isn't illegal under those provisions, but in the second situation, exactly the same material is worthy of a jail sentence. And you're happy with that scenario?

This is supposed to be about "extreme pornography". Well, surely if it's that, it's that whether it got a certificate or not. The definitions of what is or is not "extreme" are vague and ill-defined .... which (appears to me) to be G4Z's original objection in his letter. It wasn't an objection to extreme porn being illegal - it was a vague and very loose way in which the definition is written.

Originally Posted by schmunk

But how can you prove it? Say a woman runs to the Police holding a video of her getting violently raped 12 months ago by the 'boyfriend' she has just escaped. There are no bruises on her body; her nose has clearly been broken in the past but is fine now; she walks with a slight limp. There's no evidence, other than her testimony, that the video is 'real'.

Well, I think you're getting a tad mixed up.

If a woman goes to the police with video evidence of a rape, do you think that the police are going to be concerned over whether that video is extreme pornography or not? The accusation they'll be looking at will be rape, not pornography. And the proposals in this bill being discussed are NOTHING whatever to do with the admissibility or otherwise of that evidence. There will, incidentally, be a whole series of issues over whether such a video is admissible or not, because to be so, it needs to meet various standards. It's not a simple situation. But either way, it's nothing to do with the case in point.

Originally Posted by schmunk

No, a jury of 12 people, whose personal views should generally regulate the decision to a common definition.

Maybe, but those views don't determine definitions. Consider the degree of force you're allowed to use to defend yourself. You can use "reasonable" force ..... but the precise nature of "reasonable" has been argued about for years, has been the subject of numerous appeals, and has been refined and amended.

So, if you're on the jury on such a case, the judge win his summing up will explain what, legally, "reasonable" means. For instance, it does NOT mean what you or I might think it means. It does NOT mean what the person being attacked thinks it means. If it did, Tony Martin would not have been convicted, since he clearly thought a shotgun was reasonable.

The term "reasonable" is interpreted by the succession of legal decisions and appeal court (and, IIRC, Lords) rulings, and you have to abide by that definition when defending yourself whether you understand it or not. I wonder, if you went out into the street and interviewed 1000 people, what percentage could actually give a half-decent description of the standards applied to "reasonable force".

The same applies here. The law will determine what terms like obscene mean. The difference is, if it refers to porn that is fictional rather than depicting actual events, then given the examples in the Bill, G4Z's example of various forms of body piercing could fall into the remit of "extreme", as could the type of auto-asphyxiation example I quoted earlier. And that was a situation where no-one was harmed, no-one could have been harmed, the whole thing was play-acting, for personal reasons in the privacy of someone's bedroom. But because they taped or photographed it, they could (in theory, at least) go to prison for several years for possession of the tapes or photos of their own private, consensual acts.

But, schmunk, even disregarding whether these definitions are appropriate or not, or tightly worded or not, you're missing the point. It's not really about whether the wording is right or not. There are issues regarding the phrasing of THAT section of the act. The point is, when receiving a letter raising concern about his voting for such material, the MP concerned ignored the concerns of his constituent and, instead of addressing the substantive issues and explaining them, or justifying his decision as to which way to vote, he threw a tantrum and told his constituent to "stick" his vote.

Whether G4Z was right or wrong, and to be frank, whether his letter was intemperate or not (and it was worded in a way I wouldn't have done), his representative couldn't see past the wording to the issues, and sent a rude reply to his constituent.

It's totally unprofessional. He's an MP. He's supposed to be better than that. They are, after all, the people that want to decide the rules and laws we must all live by. What an example he chose to set.

[schmunk]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Right. So if a studio makes the film and it gets a certificate, it's fine. But if a private individual makes exactly the same film, even for private use and it's never released to anyone else, then the self-same fictional material could get them a jail sentence. In the first situation, the material isn't illegal under those provisions, but in the second situation, exactly the same material is worthy of a jail sentence. And you're happy with that scenario?

It's not ideal, but there needs to be some way to protect 'artists' from being criminalised. You'll note that I simply answered your question and didn't provide a commentary. You have chosen, without any evidence, to infer/imply that I agree with the law.

This is supposed to be about "extreme pornography". Well, surely if it's that, it's that whether it got a certificate or not.

I believe the point of this section is to avoid double jeopardy - if it's passed the censors then it cannot be reassessed as illegal pornography.

The definitions of what is or is not "extreme" are vague and ill-defined .... which (appears to me) to be G4Z's original objection in his letter. It wasn't an objection to extreme porn being illegal - it was a vague and very loose way in which the definition is written.

As I said in my earlier email, I invite all to provide a better, less easily misinterpreted definition.

Well, I think you're getting a tad mixed up.

If a woman goes to the police with video evidence of a rape, do you think that the police are going to be concerned over whether that video is extreme pornography or not? The accusation they'll be looking at will be rape, not pornography. And the proposals in this bill being discussed are NOTHING whatever to do with the admissibility or otherwise of that evidence. There will, incidentally, be a whole series of issues over whether such a video is admissible or not, because to be so, it needs to meet various standards. It's not a simple situation. But either way, it's nothing to do with the case in point.

Why not, even though there may be another, more headline-grabbing charge, there will still be the potential offence relating to this act. The Police will never get a rape conviction - where's the evidence? Could they convict under this act? That was my suggestion.

Maybe, but those views don't determine definitions. Consider the degree of force you're allowed to use to defend yourself. You can use "reasonable" force ..... but the precise nature of "reasonable" has been argued about for years, has been the subject of numerous appeals, and has been refined and amended.

I refer you back to my invitation to redraft the wording of this law.

So, if you're on the jury on such a case, the judge win his summing up will explain what, legally, "reasonable" means. For instance, it does NOT mean what you or I might think it means. It does NOT mean what the person being attacked thinks it means. If it did, Tony Martin would not have been convicted, since he clearly thought a shotgun was reasonable.

A shotgun blast to the back is never going to be reasonable force.

The term "reasonable" is interpreted by the succession of legal decisions and appeal court (and, IIRC, Lords) rulings, and you have to abide by that definition when defending yourself whether you understand it or not. I wonder, if you went out into the street and interviewed 1000 people, what percentage could actually give a half-decent description of the standards applied to "reasonable force".

The same applies here. The law will determine what terms like obscene mean.

I don't understand your point here. The term 'extreme' may well also be interpreted by a succession of legal decisions and appeal / supreme court rulings in the future. We simply haven't got there yet, seeing as AFAIK nobody has yet been convicted under this section of the act.

The difference is, if it refers to porn that is fictional rather than depicting actual events, then given the examples in the Bill, G4Z's example of various forms of body piercing could fall into the remit of "extreme",

Not unless they cause 'serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals'. What freaky body piercing have you got swilling round your mind?

as could the type of auto-asphyxiation example I quoted earlier.

Potentially, as it threatens a person's life. It's a bloody stupid idea anyway.

And that was a situation where no-one was harmed, no-one could have been harmed, the whole thing was play-acting, for personal reasons in the privacy of someone's bedroom. But because they taped or photographed it, they could (in theory, at least) go to prison for several years for possession of the tapes or photos of their own private, consensual acts.

It that is the case, then the images do not fall under s62(7) and no offence has been commited.

But, schmunk, even disregarding whether these definitions are appropriate or not, or tightly worded or not, you're missing the point. It's not really about whether the wording is right or not. There are issues regarding the phrasing of THAT section of the act. The point is, when receiving a letter raising concern about his voting for such material, the MP concerned ignored the concerns of his constituent and, instead of addressing the substantive issues and explaining them, or justifying his decision as to which way to vote, he threw a tantrum and told his constituent to "stick" his vote.

Whether G4Z was right or wrong, and to be frank, whether his letter was intemperate or not (and it was worded in a way I wouldn't have done), his representative couldn't see past the wording to the issues, and sent a rude reply to his constituent.
.

It's totally unprofessional. He's an MP. He's supposed to be better than that. They are, after all, the people that want to decide the rules and laws we must all live by. What an example he chose to set.

It was a personal response to a personal letter received. It was G4Z's choice to run to the press (following an egging on by contributors here).

The letter contained a belligerent rant directly attacking Mr Clelland. Is he not entitled to respond with a somewhat angry tone? If you read the two letters together, David Clelland is actually quite restrained in his tone considering the haranguing received.

It is clear from the initial letter that it is unlikely that David Clelland would be receiving G4Z's vote in any near-future election, so he can be as dismissive of the vote as he wishes. **Not suggesting in any way that G4Z is racist ** What if Mr Clelland received a letter berating him for not voting to send the Pakis back to India? Would he not be justified in reacting dismissively to this constituent?

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by schmunk

It's not ideal, but there needs to be some way to protect 'artists' from being criminalised. You'll note that I simply answered your question and didn't provide a commentary. You have chosen, without any evidence, to infer/imply that I agree with the law.

I did no such thing. I pointed out the implication of the section you quoted. If, in the scenario I outlined in the post you picked me up on, the only thing that prevents it being illegal under the extreme porn provision is the section you mentioned, then the inference is the one I described - it's legal if it's classified and illegal if it isn't. I didn't infer or imply if you agreed with the law. I asked if you were happy with that. That's why there was a question-mark.

And why do "artists" need to be protected? If the material qualifies as obscene, etc under the provisions of the act, why would it be less obscene if an "artist" produced it than if an individual or couple produce exactly the same material?

But this is still missing the point. I didn't take these points up with G4Zs MP, but he did .... and the substantive issues were ignored.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I believe the point of this section is to avoid double jeopardy - if it's passed the censors then it cannot be reassessed as illegal pornography.

Which still leaves the above point wide open, even if what you believe the point of the section to be is correct.

Originally Posted by schmunk

As I said in my earlier email, I invite all to provide a better, less easily misinterpreted definition.

And anyone that wants to have a stab at doing so is welcome. But it's not our job to write laws. It's Parliament's. We are, however, perfectly entitled to expect our representatives to be able to justify the laws they seek to pass. Whether or not we can write better ones, or wish to try, is utterly immaterial. Parliament is there to, among other things, make law.

Being abler or willing to personally write better law is not a prerequisite for having an opinion that the one they're trying to pass is poor, is it?

And nor is it the point.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I refer you back to my invitation to redraft the wording of this law.

Invite away. But it's not my job.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Why not, even though there may be another, more headline-grabbing charge, there will still be the potential offence relating to this act. The Police will never get a rape conviction - where's the evidence? Could they convict under this act? That was my suggestion.

What has this got to do with the subject under discussion? The extreme porn offence G4Z raised relates to possession of the video. I suppose the police could charge this hapless fictional woman of yours with possession of illegal extreme video if they want, but it seems a bit harsh. Because, after all, she's the one possessing it in your scenario, isn't she?

It's got NOTHING to do with the issue we're talking about, which is the provisions of that Bill, and the letter G4Z wrote to his MP about them, and the reaction he got.

Originally Posted by schmunk

A shotgun blast to the back is never going to be reasonable force.

On the contrary, it most certainly could be. First off, if you don't believe me, consider reading Martin's appeal transcripts for the judges deliberations on the situation re: Martin.

But to save you the effort, I'll give you one example. You are allowed to use "reasonable" force to protect yourself, other people or your property. Suppose a burglar had a gun, and was pointing it at your wife and/or children and you had reasonable grounds to believe he was going to fire. You, on the other hand, have crept up behind him with a shotgun. If shooting an armed intruder in your home in the back is the only way you can see to save the lives of your family, it's reasonable force. Even if the shotgun was illegal, it'd STILL be reasonable force, though you'd face charges (and Martin did) for shotgun offences.

And again, it's got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I don't understand your point here. The term 'extreme' may well also be interpreted by a succession of legal decisions and appeal / supreme court rulings in the future. We simply haven't got there yet, seeing as AFAIK nobody has yet been convicted under this section of the act.

The point that it was not, as you said, 12 people on the jury that would determine that definition. In other words, a rebuttal of your claim.

And it'd be a bit surprising if anybody had been convicted under these provisions, since the Bill itself didn't receive Royal Assent until a couple of months ago, and the sections in question haven't, as of today, been given a date for commencement yet, so it's kinda hard to see how any convictions could have been achieved, as it isn't yet law.

But, once again, the point isn't whether the provisions are law, or whether they've been implemented, or whether any convictions have been made. It's whether G4Z had a legitimate point in the letter he wrote to his MP. In my view, he does have grounds for concern, and I've explained why I believe that.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Not unless they cause 'serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals'. What freaky body piercing have you got swilling round your mind?

Oh for pities sake. I haven't got anything freaky "swilling" around, and I'm not sure I like your inference.

G4Z raised piercings in his letter to the MP. When is an injury "serious"? If an assault, for instance, pierces the body, you could end up with a wounding charge. Would a injury sustained in a cosmetic piercing, and I'm given to understand that people have piercings in some 'strange' places, which after all rather implies it involves the body being pierced, be viewed as a wounding, and as such, as "serious"? Because, after all, the provisions of these sections relate to video or photographs that are "realistic". It doesn't require that they be genuine. So something that involves piercing the body, in the areas mentioned by the act, could be argued to be a realistic portrayal of a serious injury even if nobody was injured.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Potentially, as it threatens a person's life. It's a bloody stupid idea anyway.

No, it does not. If you're going to criticise, at least read what I actually said. Which was :-

Originally Posted by Saracen in previous post

There are, I'm given to understand, people that indulge in auto-asphyxiation as a way of heightening .... erm ... pleasure. Suppose I was into that (and I'm NOT, before anyone says it), and set up a photographic set that appears to show that. It might be 100% safe, it might involve zero danger to anyone and it might be a picture taken of myself or my partner for our own private purposes, but it portrays, in a realistic way, an act that threatens a person's life.

I've added the emphasis, seeing as you missed it last time.

That's one of the points of weakness. The act doesn't just deal with images of acts that DO threaten life, but those that portray it in a realistic way. Suppose the "set" I describe involve a simulated hanging, with a rope draped over a bannister rail. Out of shot, the only thing holding the rope up is a cotton thread. Put any weight on the rope and the cotton snaps. Risk = zero. Or, for all it matters, the rope is photoshopped in and never actually even existed.

Is auto-asphyxiation a stupid idea? Sure it is .... though it's not for me to say other people shouldn't do it if they're that stupid. But the realistic portrayal, in someone's own home? A criminal offence to possess what make be nothing more than a prank photo?

But again, the point isn't the photo. It's whether G4Z has a reasonable point in raising concerns over the way those provisions have been drafted, and whether he was right to raise it with his MP? My view - if he was concerned enough to raise, it, he was dead right to do so.

Originally Posted by schmunk

It that is the case, then the images do not fall under s62(7) and no offence has been commited.

They do fall under the Act. The requirement is not that the acts portrayed be real, but that they are portrayed to be so such that a reasonable person would believe them to be real.

Originally Posted by s62(7)

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

....... list removed......

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

This was a point I made very carefully in the post you challenged. That's partly what the point about Hollywood films was about, though the case is far wider than just that. It's part of the reason I think those provisions are very poorly and loosely worded, and appears to be part of the reason, from the content of his letter, that G4Z did too. If it was only real events, real hard, real life-threatening images that were so classified, I doubt anyone reasonable would have an issue. But the scope of those provisions goes WAY beyond that, including the scenario I painted where they were totally safe situations created by a private couple for their own purposes.

Originally Posted by schmunk

It was a personal response to a personal letter received. It was G4Z's choice to run to the press (following an egging on by contributors here).

No. It was a letter from a constituent to his elected representative

Egging on? Maybe. It was certainly suggested. And, in my view, a perfectly valid suggestion. After all, G4Z had taken the trouble to write to his MP, and we've all seen the response. It was that response from an MP to a constituent, that made the story newsworthy and, frankly, largely the "stick your vote" remark. But "personal"? Nope. Constituent to MP and MP to constituent. If it had been a non-constituency matter addressed by G4Z to Mr Clelland, and he just happened to also be the MP, then yes, it'd be personal. But it was constituency business. And that is why the response is so unprofessional.

Originally Posted by schmunk

The letter contained a belligerent rant directly attacking Mr Clelland. Is he not entitled to respond with a somewhat angry tone? If you read the two letters together, David Clelland is actually quite restrained in his tone considering the haranguing received.

Belligerent rant? I don't see it that way. Angry letter? Yes. But G4Z raised a series of points relating to voting habits, support for various issues, support for erosion of civil liberties, apparent blind support for party not constituents, and so forth.

Could the wording have been more polite? Sure. But not everyone is either diplomatic or eloquent. But he DID raise a number of serious concerns. He could have put it more gently, but Mr Clelland put himself forward for election to a public office, to represent people. If he can't deal with a letter as mild as that, how would he handle real criticism?

Originally Posted by schmunk

The letter contained a belligerent rant directly attacking Mr Clelland. Is he not entitled to respond with a somewhat angry tone? If you read the two letters together, David Clelland is actually quite restrained in his tone considering the haranguing received.

No, he isn't, in my view. He's elected and PAID (and paid pretty well at that) to represent his constituents. One of them obviously doesn't feel he's being properly represented, and the response he got to a complaint was to be blown-off, 'flipped the bird', told to "stick his vote". That is absolutely not the act of a professional. All it needed, as someone (directhex I think) pointed out was a form letter saying "your points have been noted". Or better yet, a letter with a mild admonishment for the tone of G4z's letter, and a polite, non-patronising explanation of his position. In other words, it's not even mainly what Mr Clelland said that is so unprofessional, it's the arrogant, dismissive and patronising tone in which he said it.

Bear in mind, G4Z is the constituent. Mr Clelland is supposed to be representing. He works for his constituents. Should G4Z have worded his letter less pointedly? Yeah, he should. But was that the response of a professional? A member of our ruling party? Well, it shouldn't have been. And had he played it using either of the two approaches I mentioned, there'd have been no point in a thread here, no story for newspapers and no interest by radio stations. It is, in my view, a clear case of an MP opening mouth and inserting foot ..... up to the hip.

Originally Posted by schmunk

It is clear from the initial letter that it is unlikely that David Clelland would be receiving G4Z's vote in any near-future election, so he can be as dismissive of the vote as he wishes.

Only if he wants to look like an arrogant pillock.

Originally Posted by schmunk

**Not suggesting in any way that G4Z is racist ** What if Mr Clelland received a letter berating him for not voting to send the Pakis back to India? Would he not be justified in reacting dismissively to this constituent?

What has that to do with this thread? G4Z didn't suggest anything like that, so what does my opinion of what Mr Clelland might or might not have done, or be justified in doing, in a highly inflammatory hypothetical situation, have to do with it. I'm entitled to an opinion on what one of our public servants actually did, but to speculate an opinion on what he might have done? Pointless.

And, as a technical point, if he was to advocate sending them anywhere, wouldn't it be Pakistan? Unless he's got a time machine and wants to send them back 60 or 70 years too.

[schmunk]

Originally Posted by Saracen

I did no such thing. I pointed out the implication of the section you quoted. If, in the scenario I outlined in the post you picked me up on, the only thing that prevents it being illegal under the extreme porn provision is the section you mentioned, then the inference is the one I described - it's legal if it's classified and illegal if it isn't. I didn't infer or imply if you agreed with the law. I asked if you were happy with that. That's why there was a question-mark.

Your phrasing in your earlier post implies that I have already stated support for this section of the act.

“………, and you are happy with this?” will make a third party’s baseline assumption be that I am happy with it. “…………, are you happy with this?” would be a straight question, less likely to provoke misinterpretation.

And why do "artists" need to be protected? If the material qualifies as obscene, etc under the provisions of the act, why would it be less obscene if an "artist" produced it than if an individual or couple produce exactly the same material?

But this is still missing the point. I didn't take these points up with G4Zs MP, but he did .... and the substantive issues were ignored.

Which still leaves the above point wide open, even if what you believe the point of the section to be is correct.

Censors will only classify material that is not obscene. Therefore, the receipt of a classification guarantees that the work as a whole will not be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.’.

You will note that there is an exclusion from the exclusion for images extracted from a classified work ‘solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.’.

This section exists to stop people being prosecuted for owning a copy of ‘Psycho Magicians 16’ just because a freeze frame on frame 11432 appears to show a woman having her breast cut off with a breadknife. The existence of frames 11500 – 12000, where it is made clear that the knife is a prop, would have allowed the film to pass the censors and would also clear any holders of the work as a whole from being prosecuted under this act. A person found to have a printed still of frame 11432, stored in his ‘me time’ box along with copies of Night of the Giving Head and There’s Something About Mary’s Ass, would risk prosecution under the act.

And anyone that wants to have a stab at doing so is welcome. But it's not our job to write laws. It's Parliament's. We are, however, perfectly entitled to expect our representatives to be able to justify the laws they seek to pass. Whether or not we can write better ones, or wish to try, is utterly immaterial. Parliament is there to, among other things, make law.

Being abler or willing to personally write better law is not a prerequisite for having an opinion that the one they're trying to pass is poor, is it?

And nor is it the point.

I was trying to make the point that law writing is not easy, as however it is drafted there will be room for people to complain that it either does not represent their own personal views, or is too open to misinterpretation (these are opposing arguments, of course).

I would expect a large majority of the population to support the criminalising of possession of images showing somebody actually having their breast cut off which has been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. (i.e. the Channel 4 documentary on Mammectomies escapes this legislation)

I would expect only a small minority of the population to support the criminalising of possession of images of somebody having their breasts hit with a table tennis bat in a set of images produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

I don’t think it is fair to berate Parliament (or any of its individual members) for the wording of the act unless a better wording can be suggested. I define better as being more representative of the whole population’s views and less open to misinterpretation by somebody holding views distinct from the ‘average’.

Invite away. But it's not my job.

You will note that I made the invitation to anyone reading my post, not just you.

Even so, I would have imagined that such a challenge would be right up your street. Go on – give it a try.

What has this got to do with the subject under discussion? The extreme porn offence G4Z raised relates to possession of the video. I suppose the police could charge this hapless fictional woman of yours with possession of illegal extreme video if they want, but it seems a bit harsh. Because, after all, she's the one possessing it in your scenario, isn't she?

It's got NOTHING to do with the issue we're talking about, which is the provisions of that Bill, and the letter G4Z wrote to his MP about them, and the reaction he got.

Fair point, a bad example. She would most likely escape charge under s.64(2)(a).

On the contrary, it most certainly could be. First off, if you don't believe me, consider reading Martin's appeal transcripts for the judges deliberations on the situation re: Martin.

But to save you the effort, I'll give you one example. You are allowed to use "reasonable" force to protect yourself, other people or your property. Suppose a burglar had a gun, and was pointing it at your wife and/or children and you had reasonable grounds to believe he was going to fire. You, on the other hand, have crept up behind him with a shotgun. If shooting an armed intruder in your home in the back is the only way you can see to save the lives of your family, it's reasonable force. Even if the shotgun was illegal, it'd STILL be reasonable force, though you'd face charges (and Martin did) for shotgun offences.

Even on appeal, Tony Martin was found to be using unreasonable force, hence the manslaughter charge. “Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were surely correct in coming to their judgment that Mr Martin was not acting reasonably in shooting one of the intruders, who happened to be 16, dead and seriously injuring the other.”

Again in Tony Martin’s appeal, it was said “It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances in which they found that Mr Martin believed himself to be in.”

And again, it's got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You brought it up, not me.

The point that it was not, as you said, 12 people on the jury that would determine that definition. In other words, a rebuttal of your claim.

My point was intended to be that it is 12 people on a jury that interpret the definition. Apologies, I should have said ‘common interpretation’ in my earlier post.

And it'd be a bit surprising if anybody had been convicted under these provisions, since the Bill itself didn't receive Royal Assent until a couple of months ago, and the sections in question haven't, as of today, been given a date for commencement yet, so it's kinda hard to see how any convictions could have been achieved, as it isn't yet law.

I’m correct, then.

But, once again, the point isn't whether the provisions are law, or whether they've been implemented, or whether any convictions have been made. It's whether G4Z had a legitimate point in the letter he wrote to his MP. In my view, he does have grounds for concern, and I've explained why I believe that.

I personally don’t think there are grounds for concern, but then I don’t wish to possess images that can “reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.” and “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 these are the only images which will result in conviction under this act.

Oh for pities sake. I haven't got anything freaky "swilling" around, and I'm not sure I like your inference.

G4Z raised piercings in his letter to the MP. When is an injury "serious"? If an assault, for instance, pierces the body, you could end up with a wounding charge. Would a injury sustained in a cosmetic piercing, and I'm given to understand that people have piercings in some 'strange' places, which after all rather implies it involves the body being pierced, be viewed as a wounding, and as such, as "serious"? Because, after all, the provisions of these sections relate to video or photographs that are "realistic". It doesn't require that they be genuine. So something that involves piercing the body, in the areas mentioned by the act, could be argued to be a realistic portrayal of a serious injury even if nobody was injured.

What I am asking is what are you (or G4Z, or anyone else) imagining when you imagine a simple genital piercing to be adjudged ‘serious injury’?

A standard piercing could not ever be adjudged ever by anyone ever to ever be a ‘serious’ injury, ever. Seriously…

No, it does not. If you're going to criticise, at least read what I actually said. Which was :-

I've added the emphasis, seeing as you missed it last time.

That's one of the points of weakness. The act doesn't just deal with images of acts that DO threaten life, but those that portray it in a realistic way. Suppose the "set" I describe involve a simulated hanging, with a rope draped over a bannister rail. Out of shot, the only thing holding the rope up is a cotton thread. Put any weight on the rope and the cotton snaps. Risk = zero. Or, for all it matters, the rope is photoshopped in and never actually even existed.

Is auto-asphyxiation a stupid idea? Sure it is .... though it's not for me to say other people shouldn't do it if they're that stupid. But the realistic portrayal, in someone's own home? A criminal offence to possess what make be nothing more than a prank photo?

But again, the point isn't the photo. It's whether G4Z has a reasonable point in raising concerns over the way those provisions have been drafted, and whether he was right to raise it with his MP? My view - if he was concerned enough to raise, it, he was dead right to do so.

Apologies, I tend to skim through your posts.

You’re right, this is a weakness in this section of the act, although it’s not the supposed weakness that G4Z mentioned in his letter and, of course, as you mention, we are supposed to be discussing G4Z’s concerns, not your own.

They do fall under the Act. The requirement is not that the acts portrayed be real, but that they are portrayed to be so such that a reasonable person would believe them to be real.

This was a point I made very carefully in the post you challenged. That's partly what the point about Hollywood films was about, though the case is far wider than just that. It's part of the reason I think those provisions are very poorly and loosely worded, and appears to be part of the reason, from the content of his letter, that G4Z did too. If it was only real events, real hard, real life-threatening images that were so classified, I doubt anyone reasonable would have an issue. But the scope of those provisions goes WAY beyond that, including the scenario I painted where they were totally safe situations created by a private couple for their own purposes.

Apologies, another mixture of skim-reading your wordy posts and the fact I was posting at 01:45 after an alcohol-fuelled night out.

No. It was a letter from a constituent to his elected representative

Egging on? Maybe. It was certainly suggested. And, in my view, a perfectly valid suggestion. After all, G4Z had taken the trouble to write to his MP, and we've all seen the response. It was that response from an MP to a constituent, that made the story newsworthy and, frankly, largely the "stick your vote" remark. But "personal"? Nope. Constituent to MP and MP to constituent. If it had been a non-constituency matter addressed by G4Z to Mr Clelland, and he just happened to also be the MP, then yes, it'd be personal. But it was constituency business. And that is why the response is so unprofessional.

It was a personal letter, mano-a-mano. The identities of the parties concerned are immaterial, other than to make the subsequently-published letter newsworthy.

Belligerent rant? I don't see it that way. Angry letter? Yes. But G4Z raised a series of points relating to voting habits, support for various issues, support for erosion of civil liberties, apparent blind support for party not constituents, and so forth.

Could the wording have been more polite? Sure. But not everyone is either diplomatic or eloquent. But he DID raise a number of serious concerns. He could have put it more gently, but Mr Clelland put himself forward for election to a public office, to represent people. If he can't deal with a letter as mild as that, how would he handle real criticism?

Interpretation, eh? It keeps coming back to interpretation. I agree G4Z raised those points, but would argue he did so in a belligerent manner.

Try applying your defence of G4Z’s letter to David Clelland’s letter. “Could the wording have been more polite? Sure. But not everyone is either diplomatic or eloquent.” Hmmm? Is there a rule-book for MPs which says that one must be diplomatic or eloquent? If so, how did John Prescott get in?

[schmunk]

No, he isn't, in my view. He's elected and PAID (and paid pretty well at that) to represent his constituents. One of them obviously doesn't feel he's being properly represented, and the response he got to a complaint was to be blown-off, 'flipped the bird', told to "stick his vote". That is absolutely not the act of a professional. All it needed, as someone (directhex I think) pointed out was a form letter saying "your points have been noted". Or better yet, a letter with a mild admonishment for the tone of G4z's letter, and a polite, non-patronising explanation of his position. In other words, it's not even mainly what Mr Clelland said that is so unprofessional, it's the arrogant, dismissive and patronising tone in which he said it.

Bear in mind, G4Z is the constituent. Mr Clelland is supposed to be representing. He works for his constituents. Should G4Z have worded his letter less pointedly? Yeah, he should. But was that the response of a professional? A member of our ruling party? Well, it shouldn't have been. And had he played it using either of the two approaches I mentioned, there'd have been no point in a thread here, no story for newspapers and no interest by radio stations. It is, in my view, a clear case of an MP opening mouth and inserting foot ..... up to the hip.

As above, re style of letter.

As David Clelland quite clearly wrote in his letter, he is representing his constituents as a whole, not each constituent individually, as they have differing opinions on all issues. It is clearly Mr Clelland’s opinion that G4Z’s views on the matters discussed are different from those of the majority of his constituents, and that should be the reason why he voted as he did. Whether this is the actual case cannot be determined from the information provided.

Only if he wants to look like an arrogant pillock.

Irrelevant name calling.

What has that to do with this thread? G4Z didn't suggest anything like that, so what does my opinion of what Mr Clelland might or might not have done, or be justified in doing, in a highly inflammatory hypothetical situation, have to do with it. I'm entitled to an opinion on what one of our public servants actually did, but to speculate an opinion on what he might have done? Pointless.

Let me introduce you to my little friend ‘analogy’.

And, as a technical point, if he was to advocate sending them anywhere, wouldn't it be Pakistan? Unless he's got a time machine and wants to send them back 60 or 70 years too.

Joke <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Saracen

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by schmunk

Your phrasing in your earlier post implies that I have already stated support for this section of the act.

Nope, though you seem to have inferred it.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Censors will only classify material that is not obscene. Therefore, the receipt of a classification guarantees that the work as a whole will not be ‘grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.’.

Then there's no need for a section to exclude classified films, is there? Since it couldn't fall under the scope of these provisions.

I've already stated why I think G4Z raised valid concerns, and I'm interested in the letter and the response of the MP, not a detailed argument about the interpretation of the clauses. My views on that are already in earlier posts, and an argument about the content of the Bill itself is for another thread. This is about the letter and the response. The only relevance, to me anyway, of the clauses is :-

- was there grounds to be concerned?
- was Mr Clelland correct in his remarks about child porn, or it it just a very nasty tactic to smear G4Z?

In my view, G4Z was certainly justified in having concerns, and I've stated why I think that, and I'm not interested in further detail of those clauses, not in this thread anyway.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I was trying to make the point that law writing is not easy, as however it is drafted there will be room for people to complain that it either does not represent their own personal views, or is too open to misinterpretation (these are opposing arguments, of course).

I understand that, and agree. But that's precisely why a constituent is entitled to express their concerns to their representative, when they feel bad law is being passed, and especially when they feel that it's been done again and again on the basis of supporting the party line, not constituent's views. Which is precisely why G4Z wrote, and was right to do so.

It's also Parliament's job to write laws, and to do a decent job of it. Question is, at least in this example, are they?

Originally Posted by schmunk

I would expect a large majority of the population to support the criminalising of possession of images showing somebody actually having their breast cut off which has been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. (i.e. the Channel 4 documentary on Mammectomies escapes this legislation)

I would expect only a small minority of the population to support the criminalising of possession of images of somebody having their breasts hit with a table tennis bat in a set of images produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

I would expect the vast majority of people to oppose such material too. But this legislation goes FAR beyond that. It is very vague as to what acts are covered, and criminalises material that realistically portray things, whether they happened or whether they were just simulations, and because it's so vague as to what's covered, it extends it's scope far beyond such overt material. That is a large part of why it's possible to object - the scope.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I don’t think it is fair to berate Parliament (or any of its individual members) for the wording of the act unless a better wording can be suggested. I define better as being more representative of the whole population’s views and less open to misinterpretation by somebody holding views distinct from the ‘average’.

On the contrary.

If that were the case, we the people would have no grounds for objecting to bad laws if we weren't highly competent with the written word, and the often obtuse phraseology of legalese. It's quite possible for someone totally illiterate to know bad law when they hear it. And some bad laws need to just be scrapped, not reworded.

We aren't lawyers, or lawmakers. But we're entitled to have an opinion if we think a law is bad without having to draft a better one before being entitled to that opinion. That is, after all, the job of Parliament.

If a laws bad, it's bad and individuals are quite entitled to say that to their representatives, or to post here about it, or to write articles for papers, without needing to skill set to write laws themselves.

Originally Posted by schmunk

You will note that I made the invitation to anyone reading my post, not just you.

Even so, I would have imagined that such a challenge would be right up your street. Go on – give it a try.

Yes, but then you quoted my comments about bad law and said it again. I take from the context that it was a challenge to have a go. And no, it's not right up my street. I can think of few things more tedious.

A comparison .... I hear a lot of music I'd consider to be poor, without wanting to release songs of my own.

And as for laws on extreme porn, I don't personally care if they criminalise it all, other than on the philosophical grounds that the state ought to impinge on our freedoms only as much as necessary, and even then, only by as much as is necessary. This government, on the other hand, seems to have a mania for wanting to micromanage. That's why I object to these provisions. Because a private person could make an image with their partner, in perfect safety and fully consensually, in the privacy of their own home, and be criminalised by these provisions if they're ever found to have it. In other words, my objection is that it seems to have been phrased as widely as possible, not as tightly as needed to control what really ought to be controlled.

And, on the assumption that G4Z's objections are much the same, seeing as he also said he wasn't affected by these provisions, then his objection appears to be on a similar principle, which makes that child porn linkage all the more nasty and poisonous.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Even on appeal, Tony Martin was found to be using unreasonable force, hence the manslaughter charge. “Mr Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself and his home, but the jury were surely correct in coming to their judgment that Mr Martin was not acting reasonably in shooting one of the intruders, who happened to be 16, dead and seriously injuring the other.”

Well, firstly he wasn't charged, or convicted, or manslaughter. He was charged and convicted of murder. That was then reduced, after medical evidence (diminished responsibility), to manslaughter by the appeal.

As for the correctness of the jury's decision, well, evidence came to light (both forensic and in terms of the way the defence was conducted) in the appeal that meant the jury didn't get to hear some aspects of the story, and evidence that would have cast a very different perspective on other evidence (like Fearon's testimony) was never heard by them either. The appeal court judges rules that, on a legal basis, they could not second-guess the juries decision on certain facts. So we can never know if the jury got it right, because they didn't have all the evidence they could have, or that my view of fair play (though not the technical aspects of the law on appeals) says they should have.

But we've had the Martin thread many times before.

Originally Posted by schmunk

You brought it up, not me.

As an example to refute your remarks about juries and definitions, on which, incidentally, you were wrong as you were about the shotgun blast to the back never being reasonable force.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I personally don’t think there are grounds for concern, but then I don’t wish to possess images that can “reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.” and “portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— ....

Nor do I, and have said so several times.

But, just because legislation doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on whether it's right or not.

For instance, how about legislation to make homosexuality a criminal offence (again)? I'm not gay, so it doesn't affect me, but I'm still of the view that such legislation would be very wrong.

Whether I'm personally affected or not isn't the only basis on which I decide if I think laws are right. If nothing else, it sets a bad precedent, because it would mean that I wouldn't oppose any anti-minority legislation if I wasn't a member of that minority. And that would be a very nasty "I'm all right, Jack" road to go down.

Originally Posted by schmunk

What I am asking is what are you (or G4Z, or anyone else) imagining when you imagine a simple genital piercing to be adjudged ‘serious injury’?

A standard piercing could not ever be adjudged ever by anyone ever to ever be a ‘serious’ injury, ever. Seriously…

As I said, define "serious". Legal definitions don't always mean what the common-sense definition would suggest. We've already mentioned "reasonable" in the context of self-defence, which very much doesn't mean what many people might think it does.

Also as I said, if you get involved in a fight, for instance, anything that ends up piercing the skin could result in a wounding charge. And "assault" is also a wide-ranging offence that doesn't even have to involve touching, let alone injury. A mere threat can, in some situations, constitute an assault. So, you can end up facing an assault charge much more easily than might be apparent, and if the skin gets pierced in even a relatively trivial way, you could (not necessarily would, but could) be facing not only assault but wounding charges. That kind of body piercing involves, naturally, piercing, so does that, for instance, constitute "serious" injury? Suppose something went wrong with the piercing, and I'm given to understand that infections aren't unknown. What about that?

All this type of thing are grounds for concern, and valid for a constituent to express to his MP. He might, incidentally, have groundless concerns in some areas, but then surely the correct response would be to justify the MPs position, perhaps allay those concerns, not a self-serving justification and a suggestion to "stick his vote"?

Originally Posted by schmunk

You’re right, this is a weakness in this section of the act, although it’s not the supposed weakness that G4Z mentioned in his letter and, of course, as you mention, we are supposed to be discussing G4Z’s concerns, not your own.

Indeed. But G4Z did comment earlier in this thread that the points I was making did indeed echo his own concerns. I can't know what was in his head, beyond what he's said here. But nor can Mr Clelland, especially after his intemperate response.

Originally Posted by schmunk

It was a personal letter, mano-a-mano. The identities of the parties concerned are immaterial, other than to make the subsequently-published letter newsworthy.

Absolutely not.

If it had been a personal letter addressed to a private individual that happened to be an MP, and at his home, not at Parliament or his constituency office, then I'd agree. But it wasn't .... and Mr Clelland replied to G4Z on his official House of Commons letterhead, as an MP. It was a constituent-MP exchange, not a private one.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Interpretation, eh? It keeps coming back to interpretation. I agree G4Z raised those points, but would argue he did so in a belligerent manner.

Try applying your defence of G4Z’s letter to David Clelland’s letter. “Could the wording have been more polite? Sure. But not everyone is either diplomatic or eloquent.” Hmmm? Is there a rule-book for MPs which says that one must be diplomatic or eloquent? If so, how did John Prescott get in?

I said right at the start that I wouldn't have worded in in the way G4Z did.

As for whether it's belligerant or not, well, pointed yes, beliigerant? Not in my view, but clearly it is in yours. And as Mr Clelland said .... "long and offensive"? Well, I suppose sometimes things can be true and yet people can take offence, so I guess it could be offensive to him. In this case, I don't know as I don't know Mr Clelland. But I see it more as poorly written than offensive, and regardless of tone, the substantive points were ignored.

As for how Mr Prescott got in - Union power and backing?

One of the points I made earlier is that in, for example, Mr Clelland's case, with a huge Labour majority, the real battle is to ge the Labour nomination. After that, getting elected is close to a formality in a hugely safe seat. Perhaps the same was true with John Presscott?

[schmunk]

Originally Posted by Saracen

Nope, though you seem to have inferred it.

Certainly did, from the particular form of language you used.

Then there's no need for a section to exclude classified films, is there? Since it couldn't fall under the scope of these provisions.

You're now just arguing for argument's sake.

I've already stated why I think G4Z raised valid concerns, and I'm interested in the letter and the response of the MP, not a detailed argument about the interpretation of the clauses. My views on that are already in earlier posts, and an argument about the content of the Bill itself is for another thread. This is about the letter and the response. The only relevance, to me anyway, of the clauses is :-

- was there grounds to be concerned?
- was Mr Clelland correct in his remarks about child porn, or it it just a very nasty tactic to smear G4Z?

In my view, G4Z was certainly justified in having concerns, and I've stated why I think that, and I'm not interested in further detail of those clauses, not in this thread anyway.

And I don't think G4Z is justified in being concerned about the example he gave in his letter to Mr Clelland.

I would expect the vast majority of people to oppose such material too. But this legislation goes FAR beyond that. It is very vague as to what acts are covered, and criminalises material that realistically portray things, whether they happened or whether they were just simulations, and because it's so vague as to what's covered, it extends it's scope far beyond such overt material. That is a large part of why it's possible to object - the scope.

On the contrary.

If that were the case, we the people would have no grounds for objecting to bad laws if we weren't highly competent with the written word, and the often obtuse phraseology of legalese. It's quite possible for someone totally illiterate to know bad law when they hear it. And some bad laws need to just be scrapped, not reworded.

We aren't lawyers, or lawmakers. But we're entitled to have an opinion if we think a law is bad without having to draft a better one before being entitled to that opinion. That is, after all, the job of Parliament.

If a laws bad, it's bad and individuals are quite entitled to say that to their representatives, or to post here about it, or to write articles for papers, without needing to skill set to write laws themselves.

I still haven't seen from anybody even a suggestion of a better form of wording of this act which would tighten up the scope and remain effective for all reasonable situations.

Well, firstly he wasn't charged, or convicted, or manslaughter. He was charged and convicted of murder. That was then reduced, after medical evidence (diminished responsibility), to manslaughter by the appeal.

So, you would agree that after appeal, which we were discussing, he was charged with manslaughter, which is what I said?

As an example to refute your remarks about juries and definitions, on which, incidentally, you were wrong as you were about the shotgun blast to the back never being reasonable force.

So, you brought up something which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread, whilst in the same post berated as "pointless" the similarly 'nothing to do with the topic of the thread' analogy I made.

Juries/definitions was a mistype, as I previously mentioned. I have still to see any evidence that a shotgun blast to the back has ever been adjudged to be reasonable force. Ball’s in your court.

But, just because legislation doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on whether it's right or not.

For instance, how about legislation to make homosexuality a criminal offence (again)? I'm not gay, so it doesn't affect me, but I'm still of the view that such legislation would be very wrong.

Whether I'm personally affected or not isn't the only basis on which I decide if I think laws are right. If nothing else, it sets a bad precedent, because it would mean that I wouldn't oppose any anti-minority legislation if I wasn't a member of that minority. And that would be a very nasty "I'm all right, Jack" road to go down.

And here we continue with the 'nothing to do with the topic of the thread' analogies... You just don't know if you're coming or going, do you?

Guess what, whether I'm affected or not isn't the only basis on which I decide if I think laws are right either. That makes two of us! We could be a team!

You have made an invalid extension of my assertion (that I don't worry about this act, and also that I do not expect to be affected by it) to state that you don’t (and therefore by implication I do) make this the basis of your approach to any such legislation. I’m sure you’ll come back with another assertion that you’re not implying anything about me personally and that any negative stereotyping is purely an inference on my part, but the language and phrasing you have used is clearly making a thinly veiled comparison between the values you claim to uphold and (by implication) the opposite values I must hold.

As I said, define "serious". Legal definitions don't always mean what the common-sense definition would suggest. We've already mentioned "reasonable" in the context of self-defence, which very much doesn't mean what many people might think it does.

Also as I said, if you get involved in a fight, for instance, anything that ends up piercing the skin could result in a wounding charge. And "assault" is also a wide-ranging offence that doesn't even have to involve touching, let alone injury. A mere threat can, in some situations, constitute an assault. So, you can end up facing an assault charge much more easily than might be apparent, and if the skin gets pierced in even a relatively trivial way, you could (not necessarily would, but could) be facing not only assault but wounding charges. That kind of body piercing involves, naturally, piercing, so does that, for instance, constitute "serious" injury? Suppose something went wrong with the piercing, and I'm given to understand that infections aren't unknown. What about that?

I don’t know. It’s not my job to write laws and I don’t want to write laws.

All this type of thing are grounds for concern, and valid for a constituent to express to his MP. He might, incidentally, have groundless concerns in some areas, but then surely the correct response would be to justify the MPs position, perhaps allay those concerns, not a self-serving justification and a suggestion to "stick his vote"?

I still am unsure why any third party not directly involved in this correspondence, particularly any third party who is not a constituent of Mr Clelland, has any cause for concern about the language he uses to respond to angrily-written letters personally addressed to him.

Indeed. But G4Z did comment earlier in this thread that the points I was making did indeed echo his own concerns. I can't know what was in his head, beyond what he's said here. But nor can Mr Clelland, especially after his intemperate response.

Intemperate? Yes. Unjustified? Maybe.

Originally Posted by schmunk

It was a personal letter, mano-a-mano. The identities of the parties concerned are immaterial, other than to make the subsequently-published letter newsworthy.

Absolutely not.

If it had been a personal letter addressed to a private individual that happened to be an MP, and at his home, not at Parliament or his constituency office, then I'd agree. But it wasn't .... and Mr Clelland replied to G4Z on his official House of Commons letterhead, as an MP. It was a constituent-MP exchange, not a private one.

He could have written it on Mr Men Fan Club headed paper, it’s still a personal letter between two individuals, which is what I stated.

[G4Z]

Originally Posted by schmunk

I still haven't seen from anybody even a suggestion of a better form of wording of this act which would tighten up the scope and remain effective for all reasonable situations.

Why should anybody do this, imho its up to the people suggesting the new legislation to justify it. As far as I am concerned the whole extreme porn section is bad law because it makes people who are not hurting anybody else criminals. If you think that is a good thing to do then you should be the one to provide the justification.

I will simply say that I am against stopping consenting adults doing or watching whatever they hell they want so long as they are not hurting anybody without consent.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by schmunk

Certainly did, from the particular form of language you used.

No, it did not. And this is pointless, as it's going to a "yes you did", "no I didn't" pantomime.

Originally Posted by schmunk

You're now just arguing for argument's sake.

Me?

Originally Posted by schmunk

And I don't think G4Z is justified in being concerned about the example he gave in his letter to Mr Clelland.

Fine, you don't. And I do. And you're entitled to your opinion. As I'm entitled to mine. But I'm bored with arguing about it.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I still haven't seen from anybody even a suggestion of a better form of wording of this act which would tighten up the scope and remain effective for all reasonable situations.

I suspect you'll have a long wait. I certainly don't intend to try, just because you want someone to try. But good luck with that, because I still haven't seen a good reason why any of us should try.

Originally Posted by schmunk

So, you would agree that after appeal, which we were discussing, he was charged with manslaughter, which is what I said?

No I wouldn't agree with that, because it isn't correct. He wasn't charged with that. He was charged with a series of offences, none of which were manslaughter.

He was charged with :

Count 1 - murder (Fred Barras)
Count 2 - attempted murder (Brendan Fearon)
Count 3 - wounding with intent (as an alternative to Count 2)
Count 4 - possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life
Count 5 - and possession of a firearm without a certificate.

He pled guilty on Count 5.

He was acquitted on Counts 2 and 4.

He was convicted on counts 1 and 3, and given life on count 1, and 10 years on count 3.

On appeal, the murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter, and life reduced to 5 years. The wounding conviction stood, but the sentence was reduced to three years. With the 12 months for the shotgun offence (count 5), and all sentences to run concurrently.

He was not charged with manslaughter - he had his conviction reduced to it. Charging is a very specific process, and it didn't happen with Martin for manslaughter.

Originally Posted by schmunk

So, you brought up something which had nothing to do with the topic of the thread, whilst in the same post berated as "pointless" the similarly 'nothing to do with the topic of the thread' analogy I made.

You made a claim was which incorrect. I pointed that out, using that as an example of the point I was addressing. It was directly relevant to that point.

But your statement

A shotgun blast to the back is never going to be reasonable force.

is a completely separate issue, not related to the points under discussion. It's an assertion about a specific aspect of reasonable force, and an incorrect one.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Juries/definitions was a mistype, as I previously mentioned. I have still to see any evidence that a shotgun blast to the back has ever been adjudged to be reasonable force. Ball’s in your court.[

At no point did I say it had ever been adjudged so. Nor was that the statement you made, as per the above quote, that I refuted.

You said it's never going to be reasonable force. I disagree, and gave you an example of when it would be, and why. I haven't seen you refute that. Just try to move the goalposts. But if you want a discussion about whether it's reasonable force, why not start a thread on it? I'll have a go at that one with you.

Originally Posted by schmunk

Guess what, whether I'm affected or not isn't the only basis on which I decide if I think laws are right either. That makes two of us! We could be a team!

You have made an invalid extension of my assertion (that I don't worry about this act, and also that I do not expect to be affected by it) to state that you don’t (and therefore by implication I do) make this the basis of your approach to any such legislation. I’m sure you’ll come back with another assertion that you’re not implying anything about me personally and that any negative stereotyping is purely an inference on my part, but the language and phrasing you have used is clearly making a thinly veiled comparison between the values you claim to uphold and (by implication) the opposite values I must hold.

I don’t know. It’s not my job to write laws and I don’t want to write laws.

Again, you infer something that isn't there.

You said ....

Originally Posted by schmunk

I personally don’t think there are grounds for concern, but then I don’t wish to possess images that can “reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.” and “portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— ....

I pointed out that I am no more affected than you are, but that whether I'm affected or not isn't the basis on which I judge whether a law is good or bad. At every part of that stage, I referred to "I" .... whether I was affected or whether it affected a decision "I" would make. I said nothing, and implied nothing, about your view. I very carefully kept it to my personal view. I don't know what your stance would be. I have no way of knowing, and would be very careful about what I implied, even if I did know. Which is why, on that kind of issue, I keep it to MY opinion or view, and if you read through my comments over a long period, you'll see a distinct difference between when I'm asserting something is a fact, and when I'm expressing a viewpoint or opinion.

I'll argue facts as facts .... such as what Martin was charged with. But with opinions, it's a different story. I won't tell you you're wrong, but I will probe what that opinion might be and disagree with you. Case in point - many death penalty arguments. I'll argue whether people are right or wrong over facts, such as what it costs, but when people say they thing the DP is right or wrong because it's what they believe, I might agree or disagree, but I won't tell them their belief is wrong. It's the same here, schmunk. If you read that passage as inferring or implying anything about your position, then I assure you you read it wrong, because there was no such intent. That isn't the way I debate.

In other words, I stated my position, and was not implying your position was any different. I simply responded to a possible inference from you stating "but then" you don't wish to possess such images. My point, my sole point, is that a wish to possess such images is not a prerequisite for having an opinion on whether that law is good or bad.

Originally Posted by schmunk

I still am unsure why any third party not directly involved in this correspondence, particularly any third party who is not a constituent of Mr Clelland, has any cause for concern about the language he uses to respond to angrily-written letters personally addressed to him.

Because Mr Clelland is an MP, a public representative, and this was not personal correspondence but constituency business. And G4Zs letter wasn't sent to Mr Clelland as a private individual, but to him as an MP.

Originally Posted by schmunk

He could have written it on Mr Men Fan Club headed paper, it’s still a personal letter between two individuals, which is what I stated.

If he had written it on Mr Men notepaper, maybe it would be viewed as personal, because he wouldn't do that if it was constituency business .... or at least I certainly hope not. Mr Clelland's profession is an MP, and House of Commons paper is his 'business' paper.

Let me put it this way. A close relative of mine is a former Labour leader. If I write to that person, at their home, as a relative, it's a personal letter and I get a response on personal notepaper. If I write to them at their office, and as my representative in Parliament, it's constituency business and I get a reply, as a constituent, on official notepaper.

My dentist is also a close personal friend. If I write to him at home, it's as a friend and is personal. If I write to him at his surgery, it's about business, not personal matters.

G4Z wasn't sending a personal letter to Mr Clelland in his private capacity. He was sending a letter, as a constituent, to his MP, which happened to be Mr Clelland, about his activities as MP. If he'd lived next door to me, he may well have sent the same letter, given the same circumstances, to his MP which would have been someone other than Mr Clelland. The letter was sent to Mr Clelland because of his role as MP. It was constituency business, and was about Mr Clelland's role as an MP not his personal activities (such as his golf handicap, etc) as was the response ... which is why it was on Commons notepaper.

It is clearly a letter between two individuals, but not individuals. It was not written, nor responded to as individuals, but as constituent and representative MP.

[GoNz0]

quote fest, you should all be politicians

[schmunk]

Saracen, almost all of our disagreements have now boiled down to semantics and subjectivity, so I'll stop now.

Right, anyone want to discuss religion?

[GoNz0]

only if we can drag tom cruise into it

[iranu]

Originally Posted by GoNz0

only if we can drag tom cruise into it

That shouldn't be too hard, he's only small and not likely to weigh much

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by GoNz0

quote fest, you should all be politicians

Mercy save me from that fate. Then I'd have to hold myself accountable to constituents.

Or, it seems, perhaps not.

[G4Z]

Well, I just did the radio show and I am buzzing!

Think I got my points over really well, I think Clelland got a bit of an easier ride in his interview compared to mine, I think Mike Parr was trying to prod me into reacting a bit like your stereotypical offensive letter in crayon writer to be honest. I didn't go for it though and it should be up on iPlayer in a few hours, the interview started at about 8:27


http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/local_radio/