Porn restrictions: List of the sex acts the UK Government is set to ban

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Most guys 17-25 would like to go out socialising and have sex with a new girl every week if they could.

So, would it be fair to say that you weren't around in the 1970s?

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

So, would it be fair to say that you weren't around in the 1970s?

I was well underage, but that didn't seem to matter so much in the 70s, right

The whole decade must have been like one long Robin Asquith movie.

Hang on, if everyone was getting so much sex in the 70s how come they were so desperate just to see hint of 'hanky-panky' and would actually pay good money and queue up for a 'Confessions of ...' Movie?
In a public cinema? In their hometown? Where everyone could see them?

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

I was well underage, but that didn't seem to matter so much in the 70s, right

The whole decade must have been like one long Robin Asquith movie.

Hang on, if everyone was getting so much sex in the 70s how come they were so desperate just to see hint of 'hanky-panky' and would actually pay good money and queue up for a 'Confessions of ...' Movie? In a public cinema? In their hometown? Where everyone could see them?

I can only talk from personal experience, but if you met a girl at a party in the 70s and took her home afterwards, it would generally be worthwhile :-)

Unfortunately, there were many religious zealots like Mary Whitehouse around at that time who took it on themselves to be defenders of British moral values and as a result what you were allowed to look at was very restricted. Feature films on TV would be cut to remove violence, sex and swearing. The only porn available from certain shops, was illegal under the counter 8mm films and imported mags. In America things moved on. In Britain, what you could look at remained restricted for years. Quite a contradiction really.

[Brooksie]

Going to be a long winded reply to some great posts...

"It seems to me that the muppets in power are trying to make porn illegal bit by bit. Slowly making different acts illegal to watch so that at some point missionary position sex is all we will be able to watch. I have no problem protecting children from seeing stuff but there are other ways. This way just means you are criminalizing sexual acts between consenting adults."

They've been doing it for years. They want to put porn on the same platform it was before the internet came along. The question is - why the fuck is this country so puritanical, when almost every other developed nation seems less so?

"I'm looking forward to the court cases which are asked to define "non-conventional sexual acts". Should be hilarious. What are they going to do? Have a poll or add questions to the national census?"

They will just have to label the material 'indecent' and they are halfway to winning, because public shame procludes people from arguing and getting into a heavily stacked system in which their name gets dragged through the mud.

"What seems unclear at the moment is what punishment will there be for those found to be viewing the banned content. I don't see anywhere that says what happens if people are caught with banned content on their computer. Will it be a sexual offence for example to watch the banned content resulting in people being jailed?"

Maybe not at first, but soon. Targets will need to be met to justify departmental funding. Targets: The antithesis of justice. Who the hell thought it was a good idea for the Police to have to make a certain number of arrests for certain crimes lest they lose funding? Justice is really going to be served with that, right?

"Porn is just the start. Expect more restrictions on 'adult' sites in the future. 'Adult' in this case will be any site the UK government doesn't like or can't control."

Almost everything will be controlled by these and other laws. The 'international' nature of the internet has always rankled the UK government.

"Oh yes this is all just part of the wider plan for a Great Firewall of China type system to be put into place. Its easy to start with porn because as you say very few have the balls to stand up and fight against blocks. We still live in a country that is very old fashioned when it comes to sex. Its still talked about in hushed tones and in quiet corners. That is why consenting adult material can be banned without a fight. Funnily enough as we all know MPs are among the worst when it comes to fetishes and illegal acts. However its a case of do as a I say and not as I do as usual with these hypocrites."

It always is. Hypocrisy is something government ministers have always seemed a mite too comfortable with.

"Given that despite determined attempts by the CPS, most notably in the Peacock case, juries keep finding that things the CPS think should be "obscene" or "extreme porn" actually aren't, I don't think the landscape for prosecutions of individuals will change much."

They will have to lose a lot of cases before they review things. Police just want to get cases to court, CPS then have to worry about 'guilty's'.

"I think I've just about had enough of being told what I can and can't look at and being treated like some moronic juvenille deviant. There are already a list of things I simple don't want to look at and don't like. This includes child porn, eye surgery graphic stuff shot in slaughter houses, Islamic beheadings, etc, etc. I don't need some twat in government telling me what to do, with the aim of generating another headline for the Daily Mail or Express. Next, it might be political sites that are banned because they don't have official approval. Sadly, this is all part of a larger social engineering programme to take further control of us and shape our attitudes."

Brexit and Trump have got the establishment nervous. They want to make sure that people can't see or hear anything they don't approve of. 'Ban it'. Seems like a standard go to response.

"If only that were true. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people charged either accept a caution or plead guilty at trial to minimise their appearance in court and public humiliation. Juries often do acquit when they get the chance, but they usually don't get the chance. Until more people plead not guilty the police will continue to take a hard line because it's usually an easy win."

The problem is the heavily biased and deceptive use of language employed by the Police / CPS. Nobody wants to be seen to be fighting posession of 'indecent images of children' [17 year old = child. Prior to... 2004? You could by a newspaper with topless 16 year olds, but now that is an 'indecent image of a child']. The Police also use terms like 'Making indecent images' - which creates an image of someone with a camera taking photographs, but really means downloading an image (nobody would say someone has 'Made a film' if they download a film, or that they 'Made a song' if they download a song, but when it comes to adult material, suddenly the language changes). They also call downloading 'uploading', they also call simply clicking on something 'accessing' - even if you click away a second later - as if simply being online is a deliberate attempt to do something dodgy.

Just this year we had a precedent-setting case in which a former government advisor was found *guilty* of 'making indecent images of children' because he had about a dozen non-nude images of mostly teenage girls - the kind of which you could probably find on sites like Tumblr and Facebook in very large numbers.

If the horrific terminology used doesn't deter people from fighting, there's the issue of money: A solicitor will charge you £200 an hour for a case which can go on for months or even years, and that's still based on the idea that you might be found guilty. Even if you're not, you could blow your life savings defending yourself against the charges and your name will be dragged through the mud while you do. The CPS of course have near limitless resources to keep this going, and of course, this will all be in the 'public interest'.

"They use the excuse its to protect the children, again bull. If it was they should fine the asses of parents who fail to monitor their kids usage. Why should you or I have to jump through hoops to watch porn because some dick is a crappy parent?"

"The situation has become so tolerable we need to make an ever increasing list of things illegal so as to justify spending additional sums on a police force we actually don't need."

It has literally nothing to do with 'protecting children'. It may play into the women's greivance industries desire to 'protect women and girls' (complete with massive amounts of funding for women's groups always tucked into proposed legislation) - and that can be used as some vague justification. But these are the same grievance groups that years ago claimed porn caused rape, even though non-biased studies showed the exact opposite. In fact, even though defenitions are constantly being re-defined and stretched sex crimes are still going down. Not good for the departements trying to reach their targets. Not good for the ministers trying to justify banning all sorts of adult material. Not good for the grievance industry trying to suck public funds. Not good at all.

"In Nottingham it's now potentially illegal for a male to speak to a female. If she decides the conversation is misgogynistic, you can be arrested."

It sounds like a joke but it's true. Offending a woman... no, let me rephrase that; a woman being offended by a man, and he can find himself up on charges. They have literally criminalised being disliked by a woman.

"Indeed, interestingly I recently learned MP's voted to exempt themselves from the Investigatory Powers Bill, ironic/hypocritical it seems as we might imagine some of theirs undertaking acts with Soho madams & worse the likes of which our mild mannered readership would find distasteful. Reminds me that dossier from yewtree never did reach the light of day. Now THERE is a bunch of folk whose browsing history ought to be catalogued in the interests of national security! ;-)"

"Yes, MP's have exempted themselves once again from any rules that would actually mean they lived like us mere constituents. They are using the bullshit excuse of national security which seems to be the go to excuse. Anytime they don't want to follow the rules they themselves put into place they use the national security excuse. Once again proving to the nation that they are not representing the people but looking after their own interests. These gravy train riding dicks expect us to follow the rules they put into place but don't themselves. The old adage of do as I say and not as I do once again applies when it comes to politicians. I always had little respect for MP's and as time goes by it gets less and less. I'm alright Jack and sod the rest of you, seems to be their motto right now."

They *always* exempt themselves. The laws are for us plebs. And the humungous, astronomical, Universe-sized hypocrisy of it is simply staggering. Any law which politicians exempt themselves from, is immediately a law you know shouldn't have been passed.

"So, would it be fair to say that you weren't around in the 1970s?"

Was it really like that in the 70's? I know AIDS wasn't around, but did girls really make it that easy? I get the impression in the era of 'crumpet' it was still just as hard for a geeky teen to get their end away.

"British moral values and as a result what you were allowed to look at was very restricted. Feature films on TV would be cut to remove violence, sex and swearing. The only porn available from certain shops, was illegal under the counter 8mm films and imported mags. In America things moved on. In Britain, what you could look at remained restricted for years. Quite a contradiction really."

Isn't that what they're trying to do again? British moral values is a contradiction in terms. Britain has never had any moral high ground on anything - especially not porn. The US, Germany, Japan - Britain knows better than all of them, right? And as a result we have always had a much lower rate of child abuse and sexual assaults... oh.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

So I take it from reading online you Brits have had another act passed that takes you closer to a surveillance state?

Sad. I hope Trump doesn't end up letting something like that get passed here.

If the Evangelicals twist His arm,There's no telling what He'd do,He already agreed to weekly prayer meetings in the White House..

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If the Evangelicals twist His arm,There's no telling what He'd do,He already agreed to weekly prayer meetings in the White House..

Those "evangelicals" are NOT of the Holy Ghost. They are simply masons and tools of the Jesuits and Pope. At the end of the day, they are all satanic. Billy Graham was a 33rd degree Freemason/Pedofile. All these guys are liars, and 99.9% of the "churches" are dumbing people down...they have no idea about Seed of The Serpent, Wheat & Tares, or Genesis 6. And the transgender movement has been going on for a long time because they are all practice the teachings of the secret societies. Sisk Sick Shit, don't be fooled about anything you see in the media.

BTW...Stormy Daniels, Taylor Swift, Angelina Jolie, Lady Gaga, Venus & Serena Williams, Sandra Bullock, I could go on for hours...all dudes...sorry but the male skeletal structure is what is, and female anatomy is what is ...

[Fuzzy Channel]

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

If the Evangelicals twist His arm,There's no telling what He'd do,He already agreed to weekly prayer meetings in the White House..

Trump's Evangelical "Spiritual" advisors: Frank Amedia, a NAR nutjob, with weird theories on AIDS and claims to have "stopped a Tsunami"; Paula White, a "health & wealth" (prosperity) charlatan, who makes self-exalting claims of having "visions"; "Bishop" Wayne T Jackson of Detroit who dry-humps his parishioners; and Robert Jeffress, an apocalyptic Southern Baptist premillenial dispensationalist, who was an admirer of W. A. Criswell (a segregationist anti-Catholic; while Jeffress also embraces his anti-Catholic ideals, he merely seems to gloss over his anti-integration idealogy).


Yes-yes only the "best" people.

[Fuzzy Channel]

Maybe y'all heard this one....an Arizona Republican Senator named Gail Griffin has some hair-brained scheme to "tax porn" to "fund Trump's wall".


https://gizmodo.com/arizona-lawmaker...for-1831948474


Gizmodo also reports that Reddit is about to get a major multi-million dollar investment from a Chinese Tech firm called Tencent. This will possibly open the doors to Reddit being in China (after being banned there for some time), but seeing as the firm is very censorship happy, one can see the way Reddit will be compromised (shadows of what Verizon did to Tumblr).


https://gizmodo.com/reddit-banned-in...150-1832375439

[Frovo]

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/...taboo-says-cps

[Brooksie]

It should never have been taboo at all. Age restricted yes, but not illegal.

I think that when it comes to accessing internet porn (like this site) the onus should be on an agreement between the bill-payer and the ISP to filter or not. The Government / Law shouldn't be involved at all beyond Policing for illegal sites.

I have a question though: How will the new restrictions in the UK affect accessing this site?