Heartland

totally safe workplace clicky

It wasn't the article as much as the paragrapth that reads "The Spanner Trust, which campaigns for the rights of consensual sado-masochists, was also opposed to any new measures."
Good to know that there are people out there looking after the rights of those of us who like to have hot treacle poured on our bits, isn't it?:lol:

Three years for violent pornography? Damn religious kooks.

*starts deleting a s**t load of S&M video files*

"Such material has no place in our society"

Then how does one suggest that it got here, hmmm?

"By banning the possession of such material the government is sending out a strong message - that it is totally unacceptable and those who access it will be held to account."

I hope government is paying the courts a handsome sum for their part in completely f**king up the line between Access and Possession then

Big Boobies----Yes
Big Boobies stapled to the floor---No

Hope that clears it up

"The proposed offences, which also cover necrophilia and bestiality, come after a year-long consultation by the government..."
... in order, one assumes, to make sure that any of the pecadilloes of various politicans aren't made illegal: "No, minister - I can asure you that being tied up with ropes made from the braided pubic hair of 14-year old latvian seamstresses and then flogged to within an inch of your life with hedgehogs from your 150,000 acre estate in Northumberland while a machine equipped with a 27" rammer crafted from the spine of the endangered Peruvian freshwater dolphin and covered with unborn pony hide is pushed up your bottom and a team of young men on the YTS are employed to manually bring you to climax will still be legal. In fact, it will be mandatory." "Oh goody - I'll vote for that, then."

EvilBastard wrote:The Spanner Trust

"Spanner" is a word which - in my part of the world - is pretty much synonymous with one meaning of FUD.

mh wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:The Spanner Trust

"Spanner" is a word which - in my part of the world - is pretty much synonymous with one meaning of FUD.

In mine too - although "joey" is still fairly popular among those of us who remember why...

What? That's s**t.. they'll never take me (or me files) alive.

We're fuckin' GOTHS..

EvilBastard wrote:

mh wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:The Spanner Trust

"Spanner" is a word which - in my part of the world - is pretty much synonymous with one meaning of FUD.

In mine too - although "joey" is still fairly popular among those of us who remember why...

In germany a spanner is a person who watches others having sex for his own sexual satisfaction... And nae, I wouldnae trust a spannr!!
(thanks to James for his free scotish course!)

Clauses will exempt documentary films, news and works of art

That's OK then. Middle-class wankers are fine watching this stuff in "art" films, but working-class wankers aren't allowed porn.

And if you can be convicted fro having stuff on your hard drive, what happens if you, in all innocence, click on a link which then gets the image cached on your HD?

So a man "addicted" to violent porn kills someone, the reaction is to ban violent porn (which is probably already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act anyway)? Have they actually established a causal link between the porn and the killing? Is it not more likely that he sought out that kind of stuff because, oh, I don't know, he already had a fetish about strangling?

Gah.

EvilBastard wrote: Good to know that there are people out there looking after the rights of those of us who like to have hot treacle poured on our bits, isn't it?:lol:

Yes.

Although the Spanner trust came about more from blokes knocking nails into each others' bits, consensually of course. Another ridiculous case.

You know what offended me most?

The 'subscribe now and get 20 percent off'-advert on that page, depicting a man bathing in what seems a puddle of blood! And 'getting off 20 percent', ain't that a rather pornographic remark????

What about that then, huh?

Three years of jail sentence for violent sex, whereas we got slapped around the head on a DAILY basis with people dead or dying in blood, ripped-up corpses, one-legged children, thousands of crude coffins, people yelling abousive and racist comments...

What horrendous website I'm talking about? Not Rotten.com, no.

It is called The BBC News, CNN and The Guardian.

Assholes.

The first one that asks me in the near future about real-life influences concerning 'For Greater Good', will need an acid-proof face mask this time!

IZ.

although I agree with you, shouldn't you be calling them "arseholes" or something?

we got slapped around the head on a DAILY basis with people dead or dying in blood, ripped-up corpses, one-legged children, thousands of crude coffins, people yelling abousive and racist comments...

What horrendous website I'm talking about? Not Rotten.com, no.

It is called The BBC News, CNN and The Guardian.

Assholes.

Thats just being silly. If crap like that happens in the world then the BBC or whoever has to report it, by saying its wrong that we get hit by images of corpses floating in blood from the media is saying that news should be censored...which would be BAD.

Lets be completely honest here, this law is not aimed at leather and latex clad fetishists and BDSMers is it? I think you are about as likely to be sent down for 3 years for having a video of an interestingly pierced girl hitting her love slave with a riding crop whilest wearing nipple clamps as you are to be hit over the head by a man-o-war jellyfish falling from the sky.

Obviously this legistlation is aimed at pornography where the subject has been unwillingly abducted and is being filmed having horrendous things done to her, be it rape or strangling or extreme mutilation or whatever.

For those of us used to the kind of kink that might make a normal law abiding citizen go very pale its very easy to take up arms at this, but you have to ask yourself, are they going to be hunting down goths in PVC trousers or primary school teachers with children locked in there basement, or people doing the rape equivilent of a happy slap and posting it on the internet?

8.5 wrote:although I agree with you, shouldn't you be calling them "arseholes" or something?

Censor me if you ****!

Darn.


IZ.

Maisey wrote:

we got slapped around the head on a DAILY basis with people dead or dying in blood, ripped-up corpses, one-legged children, thousands of crude coffins, people yelling abousive and racist comments...

What horrendous website I'm talking about? Not Rotten.com, no.

It is called The BBC News, CNN and The Guardian.

Assholes.

Thats just being silly. If crap like that happens in the world then the BBC or whoever has to report it, by saying its wrong that we get hit by images of corpses floating in blood from the media is saying that news should be censored...which would be BAD.

Lets be completely honest here, this law is not aimed at leather and latex clad fetishists and BDSMers is it? I think you are about as likely to be sent down for 3 years for having a video of an interestingly pierced girl hitting her love slave with a riding crop whilest wearing nipple clamps as you are to be hit over the head by a man-o-war jellyfish falling from the sky.

Obviously this legistlation is aimed at pornography where the subject has been unwillingly abducted and is being filmed having horrendous things done to her, be it rape or strangling or extreme mutilation or whatever.

For those of us used to the kind of kink that might make a normal law abiding citizen go very pale its very easy to take up arms at this, but you have to ask yourself, are they going to be hunting down goths in PVC trousers or primary school teachers with children locked in there basement, or people doing the rape equivilent of a happy slap and posting it on the internet?

You could be surprised at what a witchhunt could emerge out of this.

I really hope you are right, but who is going to draw the lines? Not you, not me. Maybe you will not go to jail because you are into BDSM, but people will look at you in an even more funny way than they do now.

A murder was committed because the aggressor watched extreme porn. That sounds very much like a youngster committing suicide because he listened to Black Sabbath the whole day, the same song, over and over again.

Could it be, that the person himself was not too good in the head to begin with, and that the porn just pulled him over the edge? Is it the porn that kills another human being? Are weapons deadly, or are they only because they are wielded by men?

A while ago there was a spam message here on HeartLand containing maybe thirty or forty bestiality links.

Did anyone of the HeartLanders kill anybody of late?

IZ.

It's all horrible stuff man. I recently opened some post (being nosy) for a previous resident of my house and it was a brochure for porn vids and such stuff. It fair turned my stomach - spikes through nipples, strangulation. That ain't fun is it? My concern would be - how do you know if the people are concenting in this s**t? They all looked drugged up to the eyeballs and out of their mashes on ecstacy pipes.

That nice man Ted Bundy tried to blame porn for all his murders - the exposure to hardcore incited him to kill as he couldn't acheive orgasm without more and more stimulation. And we all now that was bollox.

So I say - YES to porn.
NO to hurting people.

Next

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Did anyone of the HeartLanders kill anybody of late?

"Murder? Well.. mistakes have been made.."

The more I read of this proposed law, the more it appears to be unworkable - and deliberately so - but designed to placate the people causing the outcry. They wanted a ban, and they got a ban; so they can go away happy thinking they have "won" and forget about the issue. The fact that the "ban" is fairly unenforcable and will almost certainly never result in a prosecution is neither here nor there.

Hom_Corleone wrote: So I say - YES to porn.

it doesnt surprise me the slightest that the core of the pro-porn movement uprises from here.

canon docre wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote: So I say - YES to porn.

it doesnt surprise me the slightest that the core of the pro-porn movement uprises from here.

It does surprise me.

And disappoints me, a lot.

I just know that if I get started on this subject, I'll end up doing one of my epic rant-posts

boudicca wrote:

canon docre wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote: So I say - YES to porn.

it doesnt surprise me the slightest that the core of the pro-porn movement uprises from here.

It does surprise me.

And disappoints me, a lot.

I just know that if I get started on this subject, I'll end up doing one of my epic rant-posts

Ooh go aaaaaaaarrrrrrrnnn!

I'm still looking for the clicky at the top of the page to order mine



















































I'm kiddin' Claire I'm kiddin'!

boudicca wrote:

canon docre wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote: So I say - YES to porn.

it doesnt surprise me the slightest that the core of the pro-porn movement uprises from here.

It does surprise me.

And disappoints me, a lot.

I just know that if I get started on this subject, I'll end up doing one of my epic rant-posts

you can't get the porn out of them men.
We can be already lucky that they don't toss off seeing violently abused women.
At least not the men on here.
At least I hope so.


(I know why I keep them on arm distance, these hairy smelly things...)

I'd like to hear the anti porn rant now...