Hot Movies icon

Free Sample Minutes
Hot Movies

 Petitions & Campaigns...
  UK

 Hardcore DVD
 Online Sex Shops
 Magazines
Gay Shops
Internet Video
Offers

Melon Farmers Icon

 Home UK Nutters  Sex & Shopping
 Index World  Liberty  Sex Sells News
 Links Media Criminalising Extreme Porn  Sex Sells Reviews
 Forum BBFC Criminalising P4P  Sex Shops List  
Tattered Union Jack UK Censorship UK News Government Censorship Parliament Watch
  European News Criminalising Extreme Porn Customs Watch
  Petitions & Campaigns Criminalising P4P Customs Seizures
  Hall of Shame Criminalising Anime Satirically Dangerous Pics

Suggestions to webmaster@melonfarmers.com

 

6th June 2009  Petition:  Chiropractors' Libel Claim...
Sign the petition  

The law has no place in scientific disputes

Sense about ScienceWe the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.

The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.

Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.

Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.

The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

 

30th April 2009  Petition:  Cover Up...
Sign the petition

Closes 21st April 2010

 
Relax the censorship laws and role of the BBFC

BBFC logoRelax the censorship laws and role of the BBFC

The BBFC is responsible for classifying and censoring all film releases in cinemas and on DVD in the UK. During the early 70/80s there were concerns over the effects of the "video nasties" - causing viewers to re-enact deviant behaviour or "corrupting" the youth. As a result, the BBFC were handed guidelines by the government to censor certain materials. These measures saw a massive decline in the production of "video nasties". Although any film could be labelled a "nasty", the ones particularly targeted were so for their disturbing portrayal of sex, violence, sexual violence and real wild animal violence.

However, despite research, there is no conclusive proof that events portrayed in the movies have any significant effect in altering the moral values or behavior of the veiwers, whats more animal violence occurs in nature naturally and is merely being documented.

Therefore, I petition the PM to take the initiative, lift the censorship laws that are not in place to protect unwilling participants, liberate the British film industry from censorship and allow the general public to choose what they WANT to watch for themselves.

..Sign the petition

 

20th February  Petition:  Real Not Staged...
Sign the petition

Closes 2nd Feb 2010

 
Amend s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act

Criminal Injustice Act 2008We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act so as to explicitly target images of sexual abuse and to prevent the persecution of consenting adults, whether gay or straight, whose sex life involves consensual activity such as bondage, discipline, sadomasochism or role-playing.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 makes it a criminal offense to possess an 'extreme pornographic image'. This law is not evidence based and did not have proper parliamentary scrutiny.

As the new law stands, thousands of consenting adults who enjoy consensual, staged fantasy images of bondage and other kinks could have their lives, and that of their families, wrecked for looking at images of activities where no crime was committed.

We propose to amend this legislation so as to explicitly target people who collect images of real abuse. Similar amendments were introduced in the House of Lords but were rejected by the Government without good reason.

An amendment to provide a defense of reasonable belief of consent and absence of serious injury should be brought forward immediately.

...Sign the Petition

 

31st January  Protest:  cc all your email to Jacqui Smith...
cc all your emails to jacqui Smith logo
On 15th June
 
Protest against Jacqui Smith's database monstrosity

cc all your emails to jacqui Smith logoWhen Jacqui Smith unveiled proposals to track every e-mail, phone call and text message, she might have let herself in for more than she bargained for.

Thousands of civil liberties campaigners plan to flood the Home Secretary's inbox by copying her in on every email they send on 15 June.

Martin Allan Gray is spearheading the campaign. He said he aims to send the message: You want to see our e-mails? OK, here they are!

Ms Smith announced proposals for a communications database monstrosity, containing details of everyone's telephone calls, e-mails and internet use, last month,

A message from Mr Allan Gray on the campaign's Facebook page says: This is an immense infringement of civil liberties, not to mention a major risk to our private data – but it won't make us any safer.

Allan Gray has won the backing of Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, Welsh Assembly member Peter Black and the Bishop of Buckinghamshire.

In her blog, Ms Featherstone described the proposals as bonkers and said she was backing the e-mail onslaught because civil liberties is the Lib Dem middle name.

 

14th June    Sex Workers not Criminals...
Sign the petition  
Petition to assist rather than criminalise the sex workers of Europe

Brown calls "Off with their Bollocks"

Say no to the mean minded

To: Maria Carlshamre, MEP, rapporteur FEMM
Reference:

Draft report on prostitution in the Member States and the health consequences for women (2007/2263 (INI)) From the Committee on the Rights of Women and Gender Equality (FEMM)

We reject the report and ask :

  • Elimination of discrimination with regard to consensual sexual services agreed between mature, free adults. It is a profession with unique skills and specialized training.
  • Decriminalization and legalization of sex work: No rules without the participation of the sex workers. Give the sex workers rights against injustice.
  • Stop with ideological agitation against sex work and Paysex by them with violence and abuse, coercion and war, drugs and disease.
  • Assistance, education, counselling and training for sex workers: Safety First, Safer Sex, Sex Worker Burn Out Prevention, Self business management, training, Career Opportuinites, stigma management, vocational exchange
  • Promotion of networking and self-representation of sex workers: sex workers are part of the solution
  • Anonymous STI testing for sexually active people.

Sign the Petition

 

20th December    Help Me Put Gordon Brown in Jail...

 
Mark Thomas campaigns

If MPs pass ridiculous laws to limit our freedom, they should be forced to abide by them too.

My lawyers have delivered a letter to the director of public prosecutions calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that the prime minister broke the law by demonstrating unlawfully in Parliament Square last summer. If found guilty he could face 50 weeks in prison.

This is partly Mr Brown's own fault. It began when MPs rushed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 through, forcing anyone wishing to demonstrate within an area around parliament to get police approval. This is the law that Maya Evans was arrested and convicted under, for reading out the names of the British and Iraqi war dead.

In the past 18 months I have legally demonstrated in every corner of the area this law covers, from Hungerford Bridge (demanding more trolls) to the Mall (demanding human rights in Saudi Arabia). The definition of what constitutes a protest is such that I had to apply for permission to wear a red nose in Parliament Square on Red Nose Day. Not to do so would have risked arrest. Last month I had to get police approval to hold a banner saying, "Support the Poppy Appeal".

If the wearing of a brightly coloured proboscis constitutes a protest, then the unveiling of Nelson Mandela's statue must do so too. After all, it celebrated the collapse of apartheid (a political cause), honoured a man who organised the armed struggle in South Africa (definitely political and quite possibly glorifying terrorism) and pledged to fight poverty.

So, being civic-minded, I wrote to the police asking if I needed permission for a gathering at the statue. My event had speeches - in fact, they were extracts from the original speeches made on the day by Mr Brown and Mr Mandela. Yes, the police informed me, I did need permission to demonstrate - which I duly applied for and received. Unfortunately for the prime minister, it seems no one bothered to get police approval at the event he spoke at.

To support the action, you can buy an "I put Gordon Brown in the dock" badge for £2. Any money not used in the legal challenge will be donated to Index on Censorship

 

22nd September   Safety First...


Sign the petition

 


Sign: Humps for 1/2 mileTo Decriminalise Sex Work And Prioritise Safety

To: UK Government

  • The tragic murders of five young women in Ipswich caused an unprecedented outcry. Each of us deserves to be safe regardless of gender, occupation, sexual preference, race, age, nationality, immigration status or lifestyle.

  • Prostitution is a survival strategy to deal with poverty, debt, rape, low wages, homelessness, unemployment... Most sex workers are mothers or young people; often they are both. Many have been in care or have had their children taken from them.

  • Criminalising consenting sex – targeting sex workers, clients or both – pushes prostitution underground. It deters women from reporting violence & exploitation. Fines & ASBOs force women into isolated, less well lit areas.

  • When prostitute women are not safe, no woman is safe. Serial rapists & killers often have a history of attacks on partners & prostitutes. (The conviction rate for reported rape is a shocking 5.7%. Over 200 women are murdered each year.)

  • Raids on premises increase street prostitution which is 10 times more dangerous.

  • Criminal records prevent sex workers from getting other jobs.

  • "Rehabilitation" for drugs or anything else doesn’t work if it is compulsory.

  • New Zealand has successfully decriminalised prostitution, improving health & safety.

We demand:

  1. The decriminalisation of prostitution. Sex workers must have the same rights and protection as other workers.

  2. An end to Community Rehabilitation Orders, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Anti Social Behaviour Orders which reintroduce prison for street offences through the back door.

  3. The enforcement of laws against domestic violence, rape and other violence against women and children must be a priority.

  4. An end to the use of anti-trafficking legislation to deport immigrant sex workers. Trafficked women must have the right to stay so they can report violence.

  5. Viable economic alternatives to prostitution. Voluntary drug services, affordable housing, benefits, training, pay equity.

Sign the Petition

 

3rd April   Belief in Nonsense...

Join Us

   
National Secular Society
Unites nutters and censors

Join us at www.secularism.org.uk

Have you ever noticed how many natural born censors also seem to be religious nutters? Perhaps the world would be a more tolerant place if those who preach intolerance were a little less well supported.

Every little helps when disparaging nonsense beliefs but a well organised group can better target people's efforts not to mention getting them aired on TV etc.

The National Secular Society have an excellent website to keep up to date with nonsense going down in the world. The weekly newsletter is an excellent read

 

Closed Petitions


22nd: October  Petition:  Withdraw the Communications Bill...
Sign the petition

closed

 
And halt the slippery slope towards an Orwellian 1984 nightmare

10 Downing Street logoWe the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw the Government's support for the Communications Data Bill

The Communications Data Bill would give the Government the legal authority to collect a database of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public. Even though the Government insists that this bill would reduce terrorism (which it probably will not), this is an intolerable intrusion into the privacy of free citizens and a step towards a dystopian "Big Brother" state. The Bill must be quashed to protect civil liberties and halt the slippery slope towards an Orwellian 1984-type nightmare.

Result:

Closed with 1210 signatures

 

12th March    Poor Phorm...
Sign the petition

Closed

 
Petition to stop ISPs breaching customers privacy for advertising

Virgin: We know what you're up to!We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop ISP's from breaching customers privacy via advertising technologies.

We petition the Prime Minister to investigate the Phorm technology and if found to breach UK or European privacy laws then ban all ISP's from adopting it's use. Additionally the privacy laws should be reviewed to cover any future technologies such as Phorm

The UK's three largest ISP's, Virgin Media, BT and TalkTalk are all in talks with a view to introducing the Phorm technology. This would result in the browsing habits of the majority of the UK population being sold to a third party for advertising purposes. The opt out system for this technology is vague and unproven, even when opting out your every move on the Internet might be recorded. Surely this must be a breach of privacy laws, if not then the privacy laws need to be changed to cover such invasive technology.

Update: Result

Closed with 21,403 signatures

Government response:

Thank you for the e-petition on internet advertising technologies and customer privacy.

As your petition states, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have been looking at the use of Phorm’s Webwise and Open Internet Exchange (OIX) products. However, the only use of the technology so far has been the trials conducted by BT.

Advertisers and ISPs need to ensure that they comply with all relevant data protection and privacy laws. It is also important that consumers’ privacy is protected and that they are given sufficient information and opportunity to make a clear and informed decision whether to participate in services such as Phorm.

The Government is committed to ensuring that people’s privacy is fully protected. Legislation is in place for this purpose and is enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). ICO looked at this technology, to ensure that any use of Phorm or similar technology is compatible with the relevant privacy legislation. ICO has published its view on Phorm [pdf] on its website

ICO is an independent body, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to second guess its decisions. However, ICO has been clear that it will be monitoring closely all progress on this issue, and in particular any future use of Phorm’s technology. They will ensure that any such future use is done in a lawful, appropriate and transparent manner, and that consumers’ rights are fully protected.

 

10th July   Dangerous Pictures Act...


Sign the petition

Closed

Police raiding home

Open Up!
We know you have horror fans inside


Withdraw section 6 of the Criminal Justice Bill

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Withdraw section 6 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, 2007.

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

If this Section becomes Law, it will create a 'thought crime' as described by George Orwell in the book '1984'. If enacted, it would remain lawful to own and to display publicly extreme, violent images intended to sell (advertising), to excite (video games), to entertain (gore/ horror films), to inform (TV news) and to be worshipped (crucifix). Ownership of only one category of extreme imagery would become a criminal offence meriting three years in prison; material intended to arouse sexually. That is, a state of mind of the user/ owner would become illegal. Actions and effects on others are valid reasons for the State to punish individuals. Thoughts and feelings are not.

Update: Result

Closed with 1,138 signatures

 

21st April    A Snapshot of Police Repression...
Sign the petition

Closed

 
Petition to clarify the right to take photos in public places
Haw forced to teh ground by police outside parliament

Have you got a licence for that camera?

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to clarify the laws surrounding photography in public places.

Through history, we have documented the world around us, whether through written word, art or photography.

Photography in particular has provided fantastic insights into the past and present, and is a hobby enjoyed by millions of people worldwide.

But today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to take photos of our surroundings, particularly in cities like London.

In recent years, the price divide between professional and consumer equipment has blurred, and it's quite common these days to see amateurs and hobbyists carrying around tripods, SLR cameras and a backpack full of equipment.

Yet, we are constantly harrassed by security guards and police officers in the name of preventing terrorism. They seem to be operating under a different interpretation of the law to the rest of us, believing that somehow the length of your lens, or size of your camera is relevant.

We would like clarification by the goverment on the law regarding photography of buildings and landmarks from public locations.

Update: Result

Closed with 5792 signatures

Statement from No 10 Downing Street:

There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.

Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.

 

8th March    Safety Before Moralising...
Sign the petition

Closed

 
Petitioning to reject proposals to drive prostitution underground

1984 film poster: Anti Sex LeagueWe the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to reject proposals to drive prostitution further underground by prosecuting clients of prostitutes; to endorse the policy suggested by the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers and others by decriminalising prostitution; and to observe Council of Europe Resolution 1579 of October 2007.

Criminalising clients means:

  • Street prostitutes revert to darker less safe areas
  • don’t carry condoms (as used in evidence)
  • they have little time to appraise clients and weigh up risk
  • dispersal breaks up informal networks, needed for protection, and inhibits health services' ability
  • trafficking victims are less likely to be helped
  • prices have fallen so they have to work longer with more clients, and accept clients + acts they would have rejected .

We call upon Government to decriminalise + to comply with Council of Europe Resolution 1579 (Oct 2007), specifically:

…avoid double standards + policies which force prostitutes underground or under the influence of pimps..; instead...seek to empower them..by..refraining from criminalising…prostitutes + developing programmes to assist (them) leave the profession should they wish to..;…ensuring prostitutes have access to safe sexual practices...respect the right of prostitutes who freely choose (prostitution) to have a say in.. policies..;..ending the abuse of power by the police + other public authorities towards prostitutes..

Update: Result

Closed with 733 signatures

Government Response:

The Government has a Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. Offences exist to deal with anyone buying or attempting to buy sex from someone on the street; and in terms of off-street prostitution, our Strategy is clear that the demand for commercial sex from under-18s or individuals trafficked to this country is totally unacceptable. We have specific offences that cover paying for the sexual services of a child, and rape remains the appropriate offence with which to prosecute those who pay for sex with an individual who does not consent.

We will also do all we can to prevent individuals from falling into work in prostitution, and are committed to ensuring that services are in place to allow women already involved to develop routes out.

However, we recognise also that there is significant support for more to be done to tackle the demand for prostitution. Recently, the Home Secretary announced a number of proposals which have arisen from a major review into tackling the demand for prostitution. These include our intention to outlaw paying for sex with someone controlled for another person’s gain. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable individuals, for example those who have been trafficked or exploited in some other way. We also announced a crackdown on kerb-crawlers, as well as new powers to close premises associated with prostitution.

 

28th February    Shared Concerns...
Sign the petition

Closed

 
Petitioning that ISPs should not become net police

Virgin: We know what you're up to!We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Support ISP's in not bowing to pressure from a desperate insustry into becoming defacto net police.

Recently there have been increasingly desperate attempts by the music industry to control how individuals consume media. Since these measures have in large parts failed (as a public relations disaster and an expensive, ultimately ineffective process), the industry is attempting to force ISP's to bear the blame for users actions and police information consumption.

There is no practical way to detect the difference between legal and illegal material – particularly if the content is encrypted therefore this will effectively ban the use of some methods of transferring data. ISP’s should not be encouraged to invade a users privacy by analysing their data if they are not suspected of any crime, this sets an extremely dangerous precedent which very quickly leads to censorship of the internet.

The government should not legislate on behalf of the music industry but should support open internet policed if necessary by public authorities using the usual mantra of innocent until proven guilty, requiring evidence and a court order before a users privacy may be invaded in this way.

Closed with 244 signatures and the following government response:

In December 2005, the then Chancellor asked Andrew Gowers to undertake an independent review of the UK intellectual property framework. The Review was published in December 2006 (and can be found on the website). The Government welcomed the findings of the Review, and committed to taking forward those recommendations for which it is responsible, to ensure that the UK Intellectual Property (IP) regime is fit for the digital age.

The following recommendation concerned "peer-to-peer" (P2P) data-sharing - in effect the un-authorised copying of data files (typically music or films) between individuals:

"Recommendation 39: Observe the industry agreement of protocols for sharing data between ISPs and rights holders to remove and disbar users engaged in 'piracy'. If this has not proved operationally successful by the end of 2007, Government should consider whether to legislate".

The issue is a complex one and has implications for data protection, e-commerce, consumers, the network infrastructure, competition, and copyright protection. To date, industry has been unable to develop a voluntary solution and, in view of this, we have decided to start looking at possible legislative solutions. As stated in the Creative Britain strategy paper published on 22 February:

"We will consult on legislation that would require internet service providers and rights holders to co-operate in taking action on illegal file sharing - with a view to implementing legislation by April 2009".

The consultation paper, which the Government is developing in discussion with stakeholders (including not just the music industry but also the film and software industries and ISPs), will seek to identify a number of possible legislative options, including technological solutions. However, the Government's preferred option is - and always has been - a voluntary solution.

For that reason we have made it clear that, whilst we will continue to develop possible legislation options, this will be in parallel with the industry's continuing efforts to develop a voluntary solution. If and when such a solution is presented to us, we will pause the legislative process to allow a proper trial, and stop it if, as Gowers recommended, a voluntary solution proves operationally successful.

As noted in the petition, there are potential difficulties with any technical solution to monitor or block file-sharing. Such technology does exist although it is not yet clear how reliable it is, especially in the number of "false positives" it generates. (A false positive is where the system miss-identifies legitimate traffic as illicit). Use of such technology also raises issues in connection with the "mere conduit" status of the ISPs, and hence any solution involving technology would have to take account of this and of any e-privacy issues.

On privacy, the Government recognises that any solution must take account of the relevant data protection legislation, and must have built in safeguards to ensure the rights of the consumer are protected. It is also worth noting that, under the e-Commerce Directive, ISPs cannot be placed under a general obligation to monitor internet traffic.

There are of course, legitimate uses of peer-to-peer technology, notably in academia, although possibly the most high-profile is the BBC's iPlayer. We have no intention of legislating to ban the use of peer-to-peer technology.

 

14th January    Swedish Model...
Sign the petition

Closed

 
Petition to reject criminalisation of prostitutes' clients

1984 film poster: Anti Sex LeagueWe the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Decisively Reject The Swedish Model As An Effective Method Of Improving The Health, Welfare And Safety Of Sex Workers.

The Swedish Model is an attempt to suppress the oldest profession by criminalising the client only. This is in breach of the basic requirements of sexual equality. Results have shown that prohibition drives the industry further underground into a area of greatly increased risks to sex workers. This is unacceptable. The Swedish Model would also be extremely difficult and costly to enforce in the UK, and would divert resources from the prevention of trafficking. Most workers in the industry favour decriminalisation of their profession, and that is seen as the basis for constructive legislation.

Thanks to David Tong who submitted the petition

Closed with 67 signatures

 

14th December    Hands off the BBFC...

Sign the petition

Closed

 
Allow the BBFC to continue without political interference

Julian BrazierWe the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow the BBFC to continue in their current role without the political interference called for in the British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill 2007-08.

In reality explicit sex DVDs are widely available without proper controls. It is illegal to show R18 explicit sex films on Sky, cable or terrestrial TV. It is also illegal to sell R18 in ordinary shops or by mail order. For 90% of people it is impractical to visit a licensed sex shop in person. There is a thriving underground market - local newspapers openly advertise discreet motorcycle delivery via untraceable mobile phones. Unregulated retailers have every incentive to maximise profit and no incentive to observe R18 boundaries or to check the ages. They are already breaking the law and have no licence to loose. Some include rape, torture porn and worse in their stock. Some include religious hate material. If R18 material was widely available, the unregulated market would shrink drastically, and unregulated sellers would go out of business. Allow sales in legit video stores, which check age, limited to 10% by stock level and by £ sold. This will improve protection for under-18s.

Thanks to Wynter Tyson who submitted the petition

Closed with 61 signatures

 

10th July   R18 on TV...


Sign the petition

Closed


R18 certificateAllow R18s on TV and to be sold from ordinary shops

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve child protection by legalising R18 sex films on satellite TV and limited sales in ordinary shops, thus undermining totally unregulated backstreet sales which include material that would never be granted an R18 certificate and is sold to under-18s.

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/R18-Control

Submitted by Melon Farming contributor, Beau Nidl

In reality explicit sex DVDs are widely available without proper controls. It is illegal to show R18 explicit sex films on Sky, cable or terrestrial TV. It is also illegal to sell R18 in ordinary shops or by mail order. For 90% of people it is impractical to visit a licensed sex shop in person. There is a thriving underground market - local newspapers openly advertise discreet motorcycle delivery via untraceable mobile phones. Unregulated retailers have every incentive to maximise profit and no incentive to observe R18 boundaries or to check the ages. They are already breaking the law and have no licence to loose. Some include rape, torture porn and worse in their stock. Some include religious hate material. If R18 material was widely available, the unregulated market would shrink drastically, and unregulated sellers would go out of business. Allow sales in legit video stores, which check age, limited to 10% by stock level and by £ sold. This will improve protection for under-18s.

Update: Result

Closed with 42 signatures

 

6th February  Legalise Licensed Prostitution...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
Hedalines: Mini brothels to be legalSo that those who choose this profession can work in safety

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legalise licensed prostitution and licensed brothel keeping.

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/prostitution

Since long before the tragic Ipswich murders, women (and men) have put their safety at risk by selling their bodies for money. Whilst it is accepted that many are forced into the industry through economic or other needs, nevertheless people should be free to choose this profession (of their own free will) and to work within the industry in safety.

It is proposed to legalise licensed prostitution and brothel keeping, in suitable areas, providing sex workers with safety and an opportunity to offer them help to overcome the factors that have made them choose the industry if they wish to leave it. Sex workers should be regularly health screened to maintain their individual licence, Brothel Keepers subject to similar licensing laws and screening as the drinks and gaming industries, and the proceeds of the industry taxed whilst maintaining the illegality of public solicitation, kerb crawling and unlicensed prostitution or brothel keeping.

Update: Result

The petition closed with 215 signatures.

 

19th September   Restricting the powers of the BBFC...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
Manhunt 2 game cover
to ban videogames

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restrict the powers of the BBFC with regard to the banning of videogames.

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Manhunt2/

The BBFC have recently refused to rate the videogame "Manhunt 2". As such, adults in this country will never be allowed to play this game. Adults should be allowed to make their own decisions with regard to what videogames they want to play. We all understand that this game is extremely violent and unsuitable for children. As such an 18 rating should have been applied.

Update: Result

The petition closed with 3006 signatures and received the following government response:

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) considers all works - whether film, video or game - submitted to it against a set of guidelines (available on its website - www.bbfc.co.uk). The guidelines take into account the law and also public opinion. This means that the guidelines can and do change periodically, reflecting changing public opinion.

The BBFC considered Manhunt 2 and concluded that, within the current guidelines, it could not be given a classification. The BBFC takes its responsibilities very seriously and it uses its powers to reject works extremely rarely. Details can be found on its website.

There is an appeals procedure which the game's producers are apparently pursuing.

The Government is satisfied with the BBFC's procedure and with the provisions for appeal, and will not be intervening in this process.

The Government has recently announced a review aimed at helping parents ensure that their children are protected from exposure to inappropriate material in games. This is not intended to restrict the choice of material available to adults.

 

27th May   Defend Freedom of Information...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
Lib Dem logoand don't exempt MPs

We, the undersigned, believe that Members of Parliament should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, with no special exemptions, and call on all political parties to support this position.

or see http://www.ourcampaign.org.uk/foi

On Friday 18th May, Conservative and Labour MPs voted to exempt Parliament from Freedom of Information laws, creating one law for MPs and Lords and one law for everyone else.

The Bill - introduced by a Conservative MP - will now go to the House of Lords, where it can still be stopped from becoming law.

How you can help to defeat this Bill

Sign the petition and/or Write to a member of the House of Lords and ask them to vote against the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill. You can contact a Lord by using the Random Lord button at www.writetothem.com/lords

Update: One Law for MPs and one law for everyone else

On Friday 18th May, Conservative and Labour MPs voted to exempt Parliament from Freedom of Information laws, creating one law for MPs and Lords and one law for everyone else.

That was the bad news. Now the good news: the Bill then went to the House of Lords, where not a single peer was prepared to back it.

 

20th January   Oppose Censorship...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
SFC logoPetition sponsored by the Sexual Freedom Coalition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to authorise a full and independent re-examination of the findings of the Home Office Department Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship (Williams Committee) published in 1979 with a view to revising or scrapping the current legislation concerning censorship, much of which was originally based upon false or unprovable premis

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/

Censorship is prohibition by another name. History has proven that prohibition is ineffective, all it does is drive up the price and place the distribution of the prohibited commodity in the hands of organised crime. The imposition of censorship for adults upon the written word or images (still or moving) produced with the full informed consent of the participants is both an affront to the notion of a free society and an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. Censorship was originally brought in by the ‘upper class’ because they feared that if the ‘common man and woman’ was exposed to such material they would sink into such national depravity that the workforce would cease to be viable and the country would descend into sexual anarchy. The advent of the Internet over the past 20 years has meant that all of those images have been available, the social experiment has been conducted and no such sexual disaster has ensued. Censorship laws are redundant–repeal them.

Update: Government Response to Sexual Freedom

The petition closed with 379 signatures but received a Government response:

Government policy is that controls on published material should aim to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protection of the public, and should be proportionate to the potential harm that might be caused. At the extreme, there is material which we believe should not be published at all, which is covered by the criminal law. The Government considers that criminal sanctions should be reserved for material featuring indecent photographs of children, which are covered by the Protection of Children Act 1978, and for the publication of other material which is considered by the courts to be likely to cause harm, in that it is likely to "deprave and corrupt" persons "likely to see, hear or read it", which is covered by the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA).

The general test of obscenity is flexible, allowing the courts to reflect society's attitudes towards pornographic and other material. We continue to believe that the OPA is a flexible tool with which to tackle a wider range of obscene material according to the standards of the day. There are no plans to re-examine legislation in this area.

A strange contradiction to a another recent response where rather than saying that there are no plans to re-examine the OPA, they say that they are planning to increase the maximum penalty from 3 to 5 years

 

12th December

Sign the petition
Closed

  We've All Been Ofconned

Ofcom logoOfcom have censored our TV viewing of legally available material without adequate justification. Please sign the petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to use evidenced based regulation, harm and human rights in all State licensing and censorship of adult broadcasts.

or http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Ofconned

If the human right to free expression is to have any value at all, then it must be the responsibility of those who wish to restrict free expression to prove that restrictions are necessary, not the responsibility of those who wish to conduct free expression to prove that restrictions are unnecessary.

Those who campaign against pornography do not do so on the basis of the evidence, but on the basis of belief. We hear a lot about harm to society, harm to morals, harm to women and similar. But never about harm to individual liberty or harm caused by sexual repression.

If Ofcom have access to clear and reliable evidence that televised pornography would cause disproportionate harm, then this evidence should be presented to the public in the name of transparent regulation. If there is no such evidence then censorship of consensual adult pornography is a violation of the right to free expression and should cease immediately.

Update: Result

The petition closed with 38 signatures

 

10th February  Identify with Freedom...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
Conservative Bad Idea campaignLast chance to sign petition opposing ID Cards

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the proposed introduction of ID cards

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/IDcards/

The introduction of ID cards will not prevent terrorism or crime, as is claimed. It will be yet another indirect tax on all law-abiding citizens of the UK.

Update: Result

The petition raised nearly 28,000 signatures and was immediately cast aside by Tony Blair

 

12th December   3 Years in prison for owning a dangerous picture!...


Sign the petition

Closed

   
Police raiding home
Don't let this happen to you, nor your family, nor your friends. Please sign the petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abandon plans to make it a criminal offence to possess 'violent pornography'

or see http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn

This proposed law would create a Thought Crime making it illegal to possess "sexual images" that, in the subjective opinion of members of the Home Office, show activities "liable to cause serious injury or death" even if the participants were consenting adult actors.

Update: Result

The petition was signed by 1800 people with the following response from 10 Downing Street

Thank you for the e-petition, dated 17 November 2006, about the Government's proposals to make it illegal to possess a limited range of extreme pornographic material.

The proposals are aimed at tackling the circulation of extreme pornography which would be likely to contravene the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) if it were published within the UK. The Government takes the view that criminalising the possession of extreme pornographic images, the publication and distribution of which is already illegal in this country under the OPA, is a necessary step.

With the development of modern technology the current law is no longer able to control such material and this has created a gap which the proposals are intended to fill. If such material is already being published and distributed such action is illegal under the law at present. The aim is not to bring additional material within the scope of the law but to criminalise its possession as well as publication and distribution.

The Government's response to the consultation, published last August, states that the proposed new offence would have to meet two thresholds. First it would apply only to pornographic material, by which we mean material that has been solely or primarily produced for the purpose of sexual arousal. This would be an objective test for the jury in any prosecution.

The second threshold would also be an objective test for the jury in respect of actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts. We would aim to cover activity which can be clearly seen, leaves little to the imagination, and is not hidden or disguised. By actual scenes or depictions which appear to be real acts, we intend to catch material which is genuinely violent or conveys a realistic impression of fear, violence and harm.

More information on what would be covered by the new law is available at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051

Whilst I understand that you have many reservations about the Government's proposals, they are not aimed at any particular part of society. The consultation was not concerned with the legal consensual material which already circulates and which does not already breach the OPA. The fact that some extreme pornographic material may in fact be consensual while appearing to be otherwise, does not mean that it falls outside the criminal law.

 

29th December   Ask David Cameron...

Closed

   
WebCameronTo comment on the Dangerous Pictures Bill

From Phantom on The Melon Farmers Forum

David Cameron has a weblog where he invites issues for his comment.

There is a post asking Cameron to comment on the extreme porn proposal on there...

I think it's definitely worth voting for... apparently Cameron comments on the top five... given the numbers required that's easily achievable...

What are your views on the proposed legislation on ' violent pornography ' will you and your party be voting for or against it. As the legislation stands possession of images of sexual violence or simulated sexual violence would mean prosecution and a possible 3 years prison sentence. If images are taken and kept involving two consenting adults for private use they could be prosecuted under the legislation. Would you vote for or against?, what are your reasons. What evidence is there to prove a link between viewing violent sexual pornography and committing a violent sexual criminal act. Articles 8&10 of the European Convention on Humans Rights would be breached .

Update: Cameron Beyond the Pale

The question reached the 2nd spot and was therefore posed to David Cameron who responded:

"I think most people would agree that the pornography the Government wants to tackle is well beyond the pale. The kind of thing they say they are talking about is violence which is life threatening or likely to result in serious, disabling injury.

[Note, paragraph deleted, see below]

At the moment, everyone is able to report to the Internet Watch Foundation computer pornography which is criminally obscene and which is hosted in the UK.

But as you say, the Government now wants to legislate to ban the possession of extreme pornography, for example off the internet on sites from overseas. The Bill has yet to be introduced to Parliament but, once it is published, we will obviously consider the proposals very carefully. The Government says it has looked at things like human rights considerations. But with any new legislation, we will need to make sure it is necessary and that it will work properly and fairly before we decide whether or not to back it.

Update: Cameron Edited

The paragraph in David Cameron's response was later deleted with a note to highlight that it had been changed:

I know that people like Liz Longhurst, whose daughter Jane was murdered in 2003, have done a huge amount to raise awareness on this issue.

Of course Graham Coutts is charged with the murder but the retrial has yet to reach the courts

 

20th December

Sign the petition

Closed

  Britain's Most Damaging Law

From Radio 4's Today Programme

Which is Britain's least useful or most damaging law? If possible, be specific. Our panel of politicians (across the spectrum) and legislation experts will sift your nominations to come up with a shortlist of six.

That shortlist will go to a vote and, on New Year's Day, we'll announce the winning - or, more accurately, losing - law. At the very least, we hope, we'll fuel debate. But we'll also see whether any politician is brave enough to take the views of Today listeners to the House of Commons.

Update: Result Announced

The results below are a combination of the online and telephone votes:

The winning law that people want repealed is:

  • The Hunting Act with 52.8%

Runners up:

  • European Communities Act : 29.7%

  • Serious Organised Crime and Police Act : 6.2%

  • Human Rights Act: 6.1%

  • The Act of Settlement: 3.6%

  • Dangerous Dogs Act: 1.6%


 
Tattered Union Jack UK Censorship UK News Government Censorship Parliament Watch
  European News Criminalising Extreme Porn Customs Watch
  Petitions & Campaigns Criminalising P4P Customs Seizures
  Hall of Shame Criminalising Anime Satirically Dangerous Pics

Melon Farmers Icon

 Home UK Nutters  Sex & Shopping

Bedtime Heaven
Sex Toys

 Index World Liberty  Sex Sells News
 Links Media Criminalising Extreme Porn  Sex Sells Reviews
 Forum BBFC Criminalising P4P  Sex Shops List