King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Blacklisted wrote:[/b]
[quote]I agree with you entirely BR, I just don't think that there is much chance of it happening.

This is a very good suggestion :

[quote]Out should also go the Sex Offenders Register to be replaced by a Serious Crime Register which covers all crimes where the sentence given is over 10 years - but even this is open to discussion. If a LIFER comes out of prison then he does not have to sign any register unless he is a SEX OFFENDER or TERRORIST at present. This is wrong and silly.
[/quote]

It actually might have a chance if a few tories and lib dems were brave enough to raise it.

The sex offenders register is wrong and clearly breaks the European charter of fundamental human rights on a number of levels.

Why should a lonely old man, caught 'flashing' in a park, have to go on a register for life, whilst a thug who violently beats an old lady for her handbag not have to?  Are muggers any less recidivists than flashers?

Child porn laws being so broadly defined mean that, in the age of 'amateur tube' sites, most men who surf for porn i.e. most men, will sooner or later break these laws, intentionally or not.  This is clearly in violation of the 'right to a private and a family life'.  How can you have a private life or a private family life if you have to fear your door being kicked in at any moment for what you have done on your own, in the privacy of your own home? (I gave up surfing for porn years ago as I'm more aware than most as to the precise and absurd zanulabor legal definitions of cp).  You can also go to prison for talking sexily via webcam to your 17 year old girlfriend.  Perhaps the age of consent should be 18, fact is, the age of consent is still 16 (and, of course, lower still in many EU states).  Therefore, the fact that a man can be jailed for engaging in sexual activity with his partner who is over the age of consent is a clear violation of the right to a personal life.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: CAMPAIGN TO REFORM "NEW LABOUR's" TERROR and SEX LEGISLATION
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Francis D	You could almost suspect that they passed the Terrorism Act 2000 because they knew something was going to happen in 2001. Almost. More likely it was more to do with Tony Blair's control freakery and that "9/11" was pure coincidence.
Jim	Thanks BR, you write: "Repeal all the laws passed since 9.11 and replace with a simpler framework and clear guidance that people going about their normal business will not be arrested under Terror Laws." I would just like to make a small point. Terrorism Act 2000, the act upon which all subsequent Terrorism Acts were based and a truly venal legislative instrument, was enacted in the year 2000 and therefore before 9.11 which was in 2001. I hope you will nevertheless include it in your list of acts to be repealed. Best Wishes, Jim
Blacklisted	I agree with you entirely BR, I just don't think that there is much chance of it happening. This is a very good suggestion : Out should also go the Sex Offenders Register to be replaced by a Serious Crime Register which covers all crimes where the sentence given is over 10 years - but even this is open to discussion. If a LIFER comes out of prison then he does not have to sign any register unless he is a SEX OFFENDER or TERRORIST at present. This is wrong and silly. It actually might have a chance if a few tories and lib dems were brave enough to raise it. The sex offenders register is wrong and clearly breaks the European charter of fundamental human rights on a number of levels. Why should a lonely old man, caught 'flashing' in a park, have to go on a register for life, whilst a thug who violently beats an old lady for her handbag not have to? Are muggers any less recidivists than flashers? Child porn laws being so broadly defined mean that, in the age of 'amateur tube' sites, most men who surf for porn i.e. most men, will sooner or later break these laws, intentionally or not. This is clearly in violation of the 'right to a private and a family life'. How can you have a private life or a private family life if you have to fear your door being kicked in at any moment for what you have done on your own, in the privacy of your own home? (I gave up surfing for porn years ago as I'm more aware than most as to the precise and absurd zanulabor legal definitions of cp). You can also go to prison for talking sexily via webcam to your 17 year old girlfriend. Perhaps the age of consent should be 18, fact is, the age of consent is still 16 (and, of course, lower still in many EU states). Therefore, the fact that a man can be jailed for engaging in sexual activity with his partner who is over the age of consent is a clear violation of the right to a personal life.
BR	I really believe we can change these laws. They are demonstrably wrong. They have broken the key plank of modern living EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW - which became a right in 1789 after the FRENCH REVOLUTION and which the Magna Carta was meant to protect. Our laws are fundamentally WRONG on terror and sex - and have been since 2001. They need to be reformed back to how they were in the 1956 act. That act actually was passed sensibly and needs to be re-introduced. Modern laws since the 1980s have wrecked what was a sensible law based on Christian values. I suggest you re-visit the 1956 Sexual Offences Act to see what a clever and fair piece of legislation and sentencing it was. The new acts passed by NEW LABOUR are reactionary and have been based on the SOHAM hysteria. They are BAD law.
Blacklisted	Good luck BR, but there is not a cat in hells chance of succeeding with the sex legislation part. Any mere suggestion that zanulabor's sex offender bills were to be reviewed, would be met with 'charter for nonces' headlines the very next day. And however loathesome zanulabor was, most of the sex laws passed over the last decade were the results of EU directives or based upon lobbying from the UN (with the major players being British 'child protection' rackets such as the NSPCC - Britain preaching to others on the welfare of children is as sick as the Taliban telling the rest of the world how to look after the welfare of homosexuals). The likes of Blunkett and Reid were only too happy to take the credit for them, of course. For example, the age of consent is still 13 in Spain, but even there the government has had to pass the same legislation making it a criminal offence for a teacher to have an affair with a 17 year old pupil, or for the police to have the right to break down your door to check if you have any pictures of young looking 25 year old women in bikinis on your harddrive. The only chance of these laws being reviewed and overturned are if they are taken to the European Court of Human Rights (and slowly, but surely, they are).