Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Fencepost No2. Criminal Justice Bill 2007

We have another fencepost. This time it is in regard to items that "offend".

Some aspects are clearly offensive, such as in regard to the dead and animals, as no concept of informed consent can be applied. The same, would apply to earlier legislation regarding children. That is not under question.

The worry here is in particular the subjective nature of guilt, so that something does not need to "be", but can be decided to appear to be by the prosecution. It also exempts classified or rated material except when a section or image of that material is isolated and deemed to be for sexual arousal even when the images are synthesized or actual and involve consenting adults. I find that part absurd, for if an innocent bystander saw the entire work then saw the section, they could arguably and some would say likely see it as part of the original. To use, if you forgive me, a Wicker Man example, someone keeping the ending of said film (spoilers) could be accused of keeping offensive material. Maybe the Bill should be about "items that someone thinks will arouse themselves a nameless third party"?

This concept of permitted behaviour is all part of the creeping Napoleonisation of our law, in that everything is illegal or not permitted unless the law says so - the reverse of English Common Law which says everything is permitted unless laws exist to prevent it. Our round English peg is being forced into the European square hole.

This law can lurk until someone who needs to be knobbled is found with something on their hard drive. The authorities can be coy about it and destroy a person's reputation. It does not bode well for our freedom.

For those unfamiliar with the term, a fencepost is a law or legislation that is strict and deep rooted but which the breadth of which is not first. A previous fencepost was laid when the Smoking Ban was brought in. Not the high profile pubs, but all the other silly encroachments like home offices, company cars and the like which can be used at some stage to knobble someone. I summed it up here thus:
The problem is, they will outlaw almost everything while enforcing very little. Imprisonment by stealth. People will not know they are encircled until it is too late - like putting in all these very deep, robust fence-posts with no fence panels. All seems open. One day you will wake up and the panels are in, you are trapped and they can decide what law they wish to impose to nail whomsoever they desire.


Mark Wadsworth said...

"an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus"

What about double-anal and fist fucking? These are off limits now, I presume. Despite of course they DON'T normally result in injury, they just look a bit scary.

Roger Thornhill said...

If they were serious about it, my tax return would be considered obscene considering what it APPEARS the Inland Revenue wishes to do to me.

Phil A said...

So will that bring what Nu-Lab is doing to the electorate within the folds of the act?

Roger Thornhill said...

Be careful, Phil - even the use of the word "folds" may be deemed offensive if someone else decides to take it out of context from our published work and a third person observes it with a dirty mind!

Next week- "litter bin".

Mark Wadsworth said...


You're nicked under "Enticement of Cruelty To Animals Act".

Are you encouraging people to put cute little kittens or puppies into a waste receptable?

You heartless b*stard!