1. Do you think the challenge posed by the Internet in this area requires
the law to be strengthened?
ACPOS response:
Members agree that the law requires to be strengthened as all of the
existing statutes referred to in this consultation were drafted to protect
the public from material of this nature relevant to the available means of
communication at that particular point in time. The development of the
Internet and other modem communication technologies has offered individuals
a faster, more convenient and, more importantly, an anonymous means to
collect and distribute pornography of this type. The vast quantity of
pornography available via the Internet suggests that it is now the most
popular means by which individuals collect this type of material. The
methods of data transmission and availability world-wide mean that it is now
more accessible than ever.
Comment:
Talk about stating the obvious. However, the existing statutes were drafted
to protect people from 'obscene' material. They are as relevant to Internet
publishing as they are to books, in fact they've been used in that
'publishing' context to shut down child porn sites operating in the UK. What
has been observed is that whilst Britain continues it's Victorian Christian
obsession with pornography, the rest of the democratic and enlightened world
has moved on and what is now considered 'obscene' is almost entirely
directed toward the truly abhorrent sexual abuse of children. Clearly, the
'Members' are under the impression that all sexual material is dangerous,
which can only come from a Christian/religious background or certainly a
belief there is something 'wrong' with sexual imagery. It would appear then
that those who go into law enforcement do so out of religious duty to the
law rather than a true desire to protect the public from real and manifest
harm.
ACPOS:
The majority of people in Scotland accessing the Internet undoubtedly do so
for legal purposes. However, it has been demonstrated time and again that
there is a high probability that an adult or child will inadvertently
stumble across this type of material. The effects that such exposure may
have on a child are clearly self-evident.
Comment:
Well it's legal to view all adult porn at the moment, so why are they
suggesting there's some 'illegal purpose' in viewing porn 'inadvertently'?
More to the point though, what "may have" "effects" are "clearly
self-evident"? This is clearly a contradiction in terms. How can something
which 'may have', and thus 'may not have', an effect, be judge to be
'clearly self-evident'? None of the 30 odd experts in the field of child
welfare the BBFC relied upon at the R18 Judicial Review could present ANY
evidence whatsoever of a causal link between children viewing porn and
subsequent offending. There are NO KNOWN 'effects' from exposure to porn,
and this is 'self-evident' to anyone who knows anything about child
psycho-sexual development. Mother Nature did not equip children or anyone
else with a means to be harmed by seeing what they are designed to do - i.e.
passing on our genes. Anyone who says different is a lying, idiotic,
religiously-brainwashed, rights abusing nutter - which describes the law,
our Parliamentary representatives and a good deal of the British population.
Get real and grow up all of you, because you're doing more harm than good
with these insane arguments based on unnatural, alien, religious concepts of
sexual morality!
ACPOS:
There is also an argument that any individual who collects such material may
develop behavioural patterns similar to those demonstrated by paedophiles.
It has been proven that the majority of paedophiles begin by collecting
images and then pass through stages of fantasy and normalisation, which can
lead to direct abuse of children. The progression to acts of an obscene
nature by individuals who collect this material cannot be ruled out.
Comment:
Erm, I think it can be ruled out, because in all the years such material has
been available (i.e. since man learned to draw) no one has ever linked
violent porn to rising sexual violence in society - quite the opposite in
fact! And while we're attempting to cloud the issue, it goes without saying
that anyone who 'collects' child porn is by nature a paedophile (even if it
is latent or buried in the subconscious) and it is only a matter of time
(perhaps even extended by using child porn) before they commit a sexual
offence against a child. Have these 'Members' consulted any criminologists
or are they simply relying on their own ingrained prejudice and spouting a
load of self-righteous bollox? 'Proven' my arse! No NORMAL person would ever
'collect' child porn. Normal people find child porn revolting and ABHORRENT,
and that's surely blatantly obvious to even the most moronic law enforcement
officer?!
ACPOS:
In furtherance of this, cognisance must be taken of the fact that
paedophiles can develop into
groups of individuals who feed the demand of others by carrying out acts of
abuse on children to
be shared.2. In the absence of conclusive research results as to its
possible negative effects, do you think that there is some pornographic
material which is so degrading, violent or aberrant that it should not be
tolerated?
ACPOS response:
It is clear from the consultation document that no study exists to prove the
effects of this type of material on those individuals who are exposed to it.
There are undoubtedly historical cases where similar types of obscene
material have been found and connected to criminal acts.
Comment:
Yes, absolutely no evidence to support the Government case at all! There are
a plethora of studies which DISPROVE such causal relationships but, which
the Government ministers haven't bothered to mention because the evidence
would seriously undermine the whole premise for this consultation and show
that the Government have been acting against the public good for decades!
What these studies suggest is that if this proposed legislation becomes law,
then sexual violence in the UK will increase at an accelerating rate.
Moreover, if we abolish the OPA etc. then sexual offences would most likely
diminish. But heaven forbid we ever let rational thinking and the proven
beneficial effects of porn conflict with our moral guardians' irrational
religious beliefs! Millions of people around the world view 'extreme porn'
and yet there has only been ONE tentative link between this material and the
tragic case of Ms Longhurst at the hands of that nutter Coutts, who by all
accounts was into erotic asphyxiation long before he had access to such
material via the Internet. The evidence is overwhelming if anyone bothered
to THINK about the matter for one split second, rather than leaping in head
first with ridiculous legislative proposals. Fools rush in where angels fear
to tread!
ACPOS:
The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit (Scotland) have stressed that exposure to
material of this type can be as traumatic as the exposure to serious sexual
images involving children. Provision is in place for regular counselling of
staff to ensure that no psychological issues arise as a result of exposure
to a range of obscene material.
Comment:
Perhaps if they approached the material in a more detached and rational
manner, with some basic understanding of the BDSM community, they wouldn't
find this material quite so shocking? And some prejudice is obviously
apparent as they refer to the material as being 'obscene', which last time I
checked could only be decided by a jury on a per case basis. Only 30 years
ago they (the police) were all being 'disturbed' by homosexual material and
persecuting the perpetrators of 'abhorrent' homosexual practises. Nowadays
the police apparently have the best record as employers of homosexuals.
Strange how the climate changes when thought and reason are applied, instead
of religious or 'social' notions of normality and morality...
ACPOS:
Members would wish to re-iterate previous comments regarding the exposure of
children to this type of material and suggest that reducing the chance of
exposure through legislative means would be a positive measure for Scotland.
Comment:
This legislation will not reduce any child's risk of exposure in Scotland,
England, Wales or N. Ireland. The vast majority of VP sites are hosted
abroad and thus untouchable by UK law. I don't see how prosecuting adults
for looking at violent porn is going to stop children surfing into the same
material. If anyone can explain exactly how this law will achieve any
protection for children I'd be truly grateful because it's got me baffled. I
can envisage a scenario in which a mom and dad like to take pictures of
themselves at the local BDSM club being arrested and prosecuted and their
kids taken into care where they are abused by other children or maltreated
by foster parents. There is NO EVIDENCE anyone in the BDSM community has
ever abused their children, exposed them to the photos they have of
themselves or that they have collected from the Internet. This proposed
legislation will victimise and criminalise perfectly innocent, law abiding,
caring parents for no other reason than some people don't like what they get
up to in the 'dungeon'.
I don't think I need to go on. ACPOS are obviously pro-control freaks with a
liberal dose of rightwing religious beliefs thrown in for good measure. I
think the same can be said of the Home Office too for even drawing up this
ridiculous and biased consultation document, not to mention even thinking
about this legislation in the first place.
This whole thing stinks of a witch-hunt Inquisition. All reason, all
tolerance is being tossed out the window in favour of irrational rules
governing people's sex lives. FUCK OFF Tony and take your bunch of God
fearing wankers with you!
3. Do you agree with the list of material set out (in paragraph 39)?
ACPOS:
Members agree that the list of material suggested within the consultation
document should be
included in any new legislation and that it is appropriate to satisfy the
concerns raised.
4. Do you believe there is any justification for being in possession of
such material?
ACPOS:
Members can offer no valid justification for any individual to possess this
type of material other
than the obvious possession by individuals for law enforcement or medical
purposes.
5. Which option doyou prefer?
6. Why doyou think this option is best?
ACPOS:
Members would prefer to see the creation of a new free-standing offence
(option 3) as this would create a new offence whilst retaining flexibility
to utilise existing legislation should the need arise.
7. Which penalty option do you prefer?
ACPOS:
Member's favoured option for penalty would be up to 3 years imprisonment for
individuals who possess this type of material under any new or amended
legislation. The term of imprisonment for those distributing under the
existing legislation should be raised from 3 to 5 years. Members see no
value in creating new legislation aimed at eradicating this type of material
from society if there are no suitable associated penalties. Any sentence
less than those being considered in the consultation document would be
undesirable.
In conclusion, members consider the proposal to create a new offence is.
appropriate, but consideration requires to be given to the additional costs
to the Police Service in terms of physical and human resources required to
investigate such offences.
