1. Anon 1 (respondent #1) Pro-legislation, supports option 3.
“It has no place in our society”.
2. David N. Mackie (#3) Pro-legislation, supports option 2.
Proposes a 10 year maximum custodial sentence.
3. Anon 3 (#4) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A very compassionate and well argued response
4. Alex Cruickshank (#9) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
Blunt in tone, but well argued.
5. Andrew Tucker (#10) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response.
6. Anon 4 (#13) Apparently anti, but confusingly answers “yes” to Q1-3.
An adult model in BDSM; sincere, but difficult to follow.
7. Anon 5 (#14) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response.
8. John B. Dick (#15) Ambiguous, although he answers “yes” to Q3.
Seems more concerned with issues of Scottish autonomy than the proposals in
question.
9. Tony Fish (#16) Anti-legislation, supports “option 4, but perhaps 3”.
Only supports option 3 for actual non-consensual material.
10. Violate (An organisation) (#18) Anti-legislation, support option 4.
BDSM group; a well argued response.
11. D. Ovington-Brown (#20) Anti-legislation, no option preference given.
“Yes” to Q1, but only for children, animals or non-consenting parties.
12. Anon 6 (#21) Anti-legislation, supports option 4 with reservations.
Supports option 3 for actual non-consensual material.
13. Anon 7 (#22) Anti-legislation, supports option 4
A bit quirky, but well argued!
14. Peter Brand (#24) Pro-legislation, supports option 3.
“You (the executive) have thought about the practicalities of enforcement
and reached this conclusion”
15. The Sheriffs Association (org) (#25) Neutral; “not appropriate to
comment”
16. Douglas Pickering (#26) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response
17. Keith Redford (#29) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
Pro-BDSM, well argued response
18. Susan Davie (#30) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
Pro-BDSM, very similar to response #29!
19. Rachel Thwaites (#31) Pro-legislation, didn’t answer any questions
directly.
“This encourages violence against women” slant to this response
20. Justin Semiramoth (#32) Anti-legislation, supports “absolute freedom”.
Clearly not from a UK citizen.
21. Neil Robertson (#34) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response
22. Anon 8 (#35) Pro-legislation, supports option 1
“…to hell with human rights”
23. Anon 9 (#36) Pro-legislation, supports option 3
Wants scope extended to cover R18 material
24. West Dunbartonshire Council (org) (#38) Pro-legislation, support option
3
Caveat added about additional resources needed.
25. Iain Robert-Smith (#39) Ambiguous
Only supports option 3 for actual non-consensual material, but is outspoken
in doing so.
26. Scottish Court Service (org) (#40) Neutral.
Concerns raised over increased court costs
27. Aberdeen City Council (org) (#41) Pro-legislation, support option 3
“…this material would considered by any reasonable person to be intolerable”
28. Celia McKenna (#42) Pro-legislation, supports option 3
Option 3 “gives a very direct message”
29. Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (org) (#43)
Pro-legislation, option 3. Sentences of less than 3 years are “undesirable”.
30. Anon 13 (#44) Anti-legislation, supports option 4
A well argued response.
31. Angus Council (org) (#46) Pro-legislation, support option 3
“…adults need protecting, as well as children”.
32. South Ayrshire Rape Crisis (org) (#47) Pro-legislation, support option
3.
“All pornography harms women”
33. Andy Taylor (#49) Anti-legislation, supports option 4
A well argued response
34. Central Scotland Rape Crisis (org) (#50) Pro-legislation, support option
3
They seem to strongly believe that the material in question is real, without
forwarding any evidence for this…
35. Alexander Lennox (#52) Pro-legislation, consultation questions not
answered
“A tide of filth” is sweeping over us all…
36. THUS plc (org) (#53) Neutral, although they welcome the consultation
process
Issues mainly surrounding the liability of ISPs
37. Martin Leech (#54) Pro-legislation, supports option 2
Only supports new law for “most extreme examples”
38. Anon 12 (should be 10?) (#56) Anti-legislation, in letter form rather
than answering consultation questions. Well argued.
39. South Lanarkshire Council (org) (#57) Neutral; the council has “limited
comments” to make.
40. WS Society (org) (#58) Anti-legislation, questions not directly
answered.
Some very strong legal arguments against the proposals.
41. Scottish Childrens RA (org) (#60) Pro-legislation, support option 3.
Interested in “sending a message”, rather than considerations of harm.
42. Lynn Anderson (#61) Pro-legislation, supports option 3.
A mainly “violence against women” based response.
43. Renfrewshire Council (org) (#62) Pro-legislation, support option 3.
“Females are the victims of this material”
44. City of Edinburgh Council (org) (#63) Pro-legislation, support option 3.
The material in question is equated with child pornography
45. Scottish Women’s Convention (org) (#64) Pro-legislation, support option
3
“All pornography is violence against women”
46. Scott Rendell (#65) Anti-legislation, supports option 4
Blunt in tone, but well argued
47. Hamish McDonald (#66) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response
48. Scottish Police Authorities CF (org) (#67) Pro-legislation, support
option 3.
They are in “full agreement” with the proposals.
49. Edinburgh Women’s Aid (org) (#68) Pro-legislation, unsure about which
option.
“Pornography…is sexual abuse of women”. List of material to be proscribed
“is nowhere near exhaustive”
50. Barry Slemmings (#69) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
Transcript of SM pride response?
51. Anon 11 (#70) Pro-legislation, supports option 3.
The material in question is equated with child pornography
52. West Lothian Council (org) (#71) Pro-legislation, support option 3.
Mentions child protection issues
53. J. Moir (#73) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response
54. YWCA Scotland (org) (#74) Pro-legislation, support option 3
They seem to believe the material in question is (a) real and (b) degrades
women
55. Law Society of Scotland (org) (#75) Pro-legislation, support option 3
“These are not victimless crimes”; no explanation or qualification is given
at all.
56. David Witts (#77) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
An extended and excellently argued piece.
57. Womens Support Project (org) (#79) Pro-legislation, support option 3
Pornography is exploitative etc. etc.
58. Maria Blackwell (#82) Anti-legislation, no option chosen.
Pro-BDSM
59. Aberdeenshire Council (org) (#83) Pro-legislation, support option 3
Very terse and unquestioning response
60. Catholic Church (org) (#85) Pro-legislation, no option chosen.
The only pro response here to mention anything about positive rehab measures
for “offenders”.
61. James Louttit (#86) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
Nice comments about the role of Mediawatch
62. Andrew G. Robertson (#87) Anti-legislation, supports option 4.
A well argued response
63. Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (org) (#88) Pro-legislation, no
option chosen. “It has no place in our society”.
64. Anon 12 (#90) Pro-legislation, supports option 3.
Generalised rant against pornography and profanity
65. Church of Jesus Christ (org) (#91) Pro-legislation, support option 3.
Pornography “causes heartache” and the material in question “offends public
decency”.
66. Scottish Women Against Pornography (org) (#92) Pro-legislation, support
option 3. “Pornography is incitement to hatred against women”, offenders to
be placed on the SOR. They also seem to believe the material in question is
real.
67. SM Scotland (org) (#93) Anti-legislation, support for option 4.
An extended and well researched, pro-BDSM response.
