The willing censor - double standards over violent pornography
Robert Henderson
Police receive complaint about TV’s controversial ‘Pain Men’
By Mail On Sunday Reporter
Last updated at 11:57 PM on 13th March 2010
Scotland Yard has received a complaint about a Channel 4 alternative
comedy series in which two men inflict extreme pain on each other for
fun.
The programme – Balls Of Steel – features Michael Locke and Matthew
Pritchard, who perform masochistic acts including giving each other
electric shocks and stapling paper to their tongues.
The pair – who go under the name Pancho and Pritchard, The Pain Men –
are shown trying to outdo other performers to win an audience vote.
In one episode, entitled Kitchen Nightmares, which is available on
Channel 4’s website, one of them pressed raw onion into the open eyes
of the other.
In a further scene, called School Discipline, one of them beats the
other’s buttocks with a whip.
Although 43 complaints were made to the broadcasting regulator when the
shows were first televised, Ofcom ruled Channel 4 had not breached its
code.
Pressure group Mediawatch-UK claims Channel 4 has breached an 1861 law
which forbids people from inflicting ‘bodily harm’ on each other, even
by consent.
Note: "The campaigners have now written to the Metropolitan Police
asking the
force to investigate further. Yesterday, Scotland Yard said a criminal
investigation was ‘not appropriate’."
This is very interesting for two reasons. The first relates to the
prosecution and imprisonment back in the 1990s of a group of gay men for
inflicting injuries on one another, each having agreed to their
infliction. It is difficult to see what are the grounds for prosecuting
them and not prosecuting those on the programme( who engaged in similar
acts to the 1990s group).
The second reason is that since the 1990s prosecution an Act has been
passed making the possession of violent pornography prosecutable. If
this is considered to not be prosecutable what exactly could be? I
suspect the answer lies in the simple fact that this is part of the
entertainment industry (mainstream films, ie, those receiving a
certificate, are exempt from the new Act, despite films such as the Saw
series or Wolf Creek being very violent and sexually provocative). Yet
again we have a double standard in the application of a law, another
prime example being the application of the RRA. The law is also
illogical because self-harming remains unambiguously lawful.
As someone with strong libertarian inclinations, I am against
prosecutions relating to consensual behaviour, but while the law
says there should be prosecutions, they should be imposed equitably. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>This is very interesting for two reasons. The first relates to the
>prosecution and imprisonment back in the 1990s of a group of gay men for
>inflicting injuries on one another, each having agreed to their
>infliction. It is difficult to see what are the grounds for prosecuting
>them and not prosecuting those on the programme( who engaged in similar
>acts to the 1990s group).
>
It is only slightly difficult if you don't know anything about the
case you mention.
What you describe from the C4 programme does not involve grievous
bodily harm (GBH), but only Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), if that.
The case you refer to from the 1990's involved GBH, and the question
of whether consent could prevent that being a crime. It is, I believe,
well established that harm at ABH level is not a crime if the "victim"
consents.
Most S&M practices are legal, because most of them don't involve
anything beyond ABH.
>The second reason is that since the 1990s prosecution an Act has been
>passed making the possession of violent pornography prosecutable. If
>this is considered to not be prosecutable what exactly could be?
Anything defined by the Act in question (Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 Part 5) - which this very clearly is not. BTW,
since the Act in question was only passed in 2008, it isn't "since
the 1990s).
The Act requires that firstly, it be "pornographic" which is defined
as being produced solely or principally for purposes of sexual
arousal, which doesn't sound to be the case.
And secondly that the violence involved must appear real, and show an
act which is seriously life threatening, or which causes or threatens
to cause *serious* injury to genitals, buttocks or breasts.
None of what you describe above fits either part of this definition.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Programming is an unnatural act.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Robert Henderson
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:25:24 +0000, Robert Henderson
><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>This is very interesting for two reasons. The first relates to the
>>prosecution and imprisonment back in the 1990s of a group of gay men for
>>inflicting injuries on one another, each having agreed to their
>>infliction. It is difficult to see what are the grounds for prosecuting
>>them and not prosecuting those on the programme( who engaged in similar
>>acts to the 1990s group).
>>
>
>It is only slightly difficult if you don't know anything about the
>case you mention.
>
>What you describe from the C4 programme does not involve grievous
>bodily harm (GBH), but only Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), if that.
>
GBH, concepts incidentally which are far from well-defined in practice.
The behaviour on the programme could certainly come within the lesser
type of GBH charge. RH
>The case you refer to from the 1990's involved GBH, and the question
>of whether consent could prevent that being a crime. It is, I believe,
>well established that harm at ABH level is not a crime if the "victim"
>consents.
Utter tosh. RH
>
>Most S&M practices are legal, because most of them don't involve
>anything beyond ABH.
See above. RH
>
>
>>The second reason is that since the 1990s prosecution an Act has been
>>passed making the possession of violent pornography prosecutable. If
>>this is considered to not be prosecutable what exactly could be?
>
>Anything defined by the Act in question (Criminal Justice and
>Immigration Act 2008 Part 5) - which this very clearly is not. BTW,
>since the Act in question was only passed in 2008, it isn't "since
>the 1990s).
>
>The Act requires that firstly, it be "pornographic" which is defined
>as being produced solely or principally for purposes of sexual
>arousal, which doesn't sound to be the case.
Really? By what criterion? What motive do you think people have for
watching if it is not S and M?
>
>And secondly that the violence involved must appear real, and show an
>act which is seriously life threatening, or which causes or threatens
>to cause *serious* injury to genitals, buttocks or breasts.
>
That comes within the described acts. Messing around with the eyes in
particular falls into that category. RH
>
>None of what you describe above fits either part of this definition.
--
Alex Heney
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <8pk2q5h3kp0qkqgof...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:25:24 +0000, Robert Henderson
>><phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>>This is very interesting for two reasons. The first relates to the
>>>prosecution and imprisonment back in the 1990s of a group of gay men for
>>>inflicting injuries on one another, each having agreed to their
>>>infliction. It is difficult to see what are the grounds for prosecuting
>>>them and not prosecuting those on the programme( who engaged in similar
>>>acts to the 1990s group).
>>>
>>
>>It is only slightly difficult if you don't know anything about the
>>case you mention.
>>
>>What you describe from the C4 programme does not involve grievous
>>bodily harm (GBH), but only Actual Bodily Harm (ABH), if that.
>>
>It does not matter for the purposes of prosecution whether it is ABH or
>GBH, concepts incidentally which are far from well-defined in practice.
Utter rubbish, on both counts.
The differences are reasonably well defined here
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#P189_14382
And it makes a great deal of difference for the purposes of
prosecution. They are prosecuted under different sections of the Act
(section 47 for ABH, section 18 or 20 for GBH), with different
penalties imposed (although the theoretical maximum under S.20 is the
same as under S.47), and different criteria for prosecution.
But TBH, it is very doubtful whether what occurs in the programme as
described even amounts to ABH.
>The behaviour on the programme could certainly come within the lesser
>type of GBH charge. RH
>
>>The case you refer to from the 1990's involved GBH, and the question
>>of whether consent could prevent that being a crime. It is, I believe,
>>well established that harm at ABH level is not a crime if the "victim"
>>consents.
>
>Utter tosh. RH
Presumably then, you have a cite somewhere for a case involving only
consensual ABH?
This one supports my view
http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/consent-Wilson.php
Having said which, I accept that generally, the distinction is more
between common assault (for which consent is most definitely a
defence), and Assault causing either ABH or GBH.
It is *feasible* that those involved in the programme could be
prosecuted, but I think it unlikely that most of the acts described
would amount to even ABH - with the possible exception of stapling
paper to the tongue.
Even ABH requires that "Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and
includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort
of the victim: such hurt need not be permanent, but must be more than
transient and trifling".
>
>>
>>Most S&M practices are legal, because most of them don't involve
>>anything beyond ABH.
>
>See above. RH
>>
>>
>>>The second reason is that since the 1990s prosecution an Act has been
>>>passed making the possession of violent pornography prosecutable. If
>>>this is considered to not be prosecutable what exactly could be?
>>
>>Anything defined by the Act in question (Criminal Justice and
>>Immigration Act 2008 Part 5) - which this very clearly is not. BTW,
>>since the Act in question was only passed in 2008, it isn't "since
>>the 1990s).
>>
>>The Act requires that firstly, it be "pornographic" which is defined
>>as being produced solely or principally for purposes of sexual
>>arousal, which doesn't sound to be the case.
>
>
>Really? By what criterion? What motive do you think people have for
>watching if it is not S and M?
Presumably for laughs, since it was described in your OP as "an
alternative comedy series".
>>
>>And secondly that the violence involved must appear real, and show an
>>act which is seriously life threatening, or which causes or threatens
>>to cause *serious* injury to genitals, buttocks or breasts.
>>
>
>That comes within the described acts. Messing around with the eyes in
>particular falls into that category. RH
>
Really?
When, exactly, did the eyes become a part of the genitals, breasts or
buttocks in your anatomy?
And when did pressing raw onion against them become likely to cause
"serious" injury to them anyhow?
It would be irritating and painful, but probably no permanent injury
at all.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Too bad stupidity isn't painful.
Mike Ross
<snip>
>The case you refer to from the 1990's involved GBH, and the question
>of whether consent could prevent that being a crime. It is, I believe,
>well established that harm at ABH level is not a crime if the "victim"
>consents.
I'm by no means sure, but I'm pretty damn certain some of the Spanner charges
were ABH; there may also have been some charged as GBH, despite the fact that
none of the 'victims' needed medical treatment (!).
(aside 1: Spanner was an abomination from start to finish. It was allegedly
instigated and pursued with such vigour due to a Bible-thumping homophobic
senior officer, and also because the police somehow thought they had stumbled on
to a real 'snuff video' ring; they spent a huge amount of money looking for
non-existent murders. They HAD to get a large number of convictions and serious
prison time to justify that)
(aside 2: I think the European decision, denying the appeal and backing the
rights of government to regulate private consenting behaviour on 'public policy'
and 'morals' (!) grounds, was an aberration; I'm pretty damn sure Spanner would
be decided differently today)
>Most S&M practices are legal, because most of them don't involve
>anything beyond ABH.
First, define 'S&M'. This isn't just about S&M. What about tattoos? Branding?
Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification activities?
This is a REAL can of worms.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:20:21 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>The case you refer to from the 1990's involved GBH, and the question
>>of whether consent could prevent that being a crime. It is, I believe,
>>well established that harm at ABH level is not a crime if the "victim"
>>consents.
>
>I'm by no means sure, but I'm pretty damn certain some of the Spanner charges
>were ABH; there may also have been some charged as GBH, despite the fact that
>none of the 'victims' needed medical treatment (!).
There certainly were charges under section 20 - which is either GBH or
"wounding".
But you are right in that some of them were only charged with ABH.
I think I was getting slightly confused between the levels, and it is
the level of "common assault" for which consent is definitely a
defence.
But that is also the level which I would expect most of the acts
described in Robert's original post to be at.
>
>(aside 1: Spanner was an abomination from start to finish. It was allegedly
>instigated and pursued with such vigour due to a Bible-thumping homophobic
>senior officer, and also because the police somehow thought they had stumbled on
>to a real 'snuff video' ring; they spent a huge amount of money looking for
>non-existent murders. They HAD to get a large number of convictions and serious
>prison time to justify that)
>
It certainly does seem to have been treated more harshly than most
cases, although there were some rather more significant injuries than
I understand are "normal".
>(aside 2: I think the European decision, denying the appeal and backing the
>rights of government to regulate private consenting behaviour on 'public policy'
>and 'morals' (!) grounds, was an aberration; I'm pretty damn sure Spanner would
>be decided differently today)
>
It might be.
>>Most S&M practices are legal, because most of them don't involve
>>anything beyond ABH.
>
>First, define 'S&M'. This isn't just about S&M.
Of course not. The programme Robert referred to, for a start, is not
about S&M. But that comment by me was made in the context of talking
about the Spanner case.
>What about tattoos? Branding?
>Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification activities?
>
Generally all allowed.
>This is a REAL can of worms.
>
It could be, but *usually* common sense is applied.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Q: Why do blondes hate M&Ms? A: They're too hard to peel.
nonanon
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:26:33 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
> wrote:
[snip]
>>What about tattoos? Branding?
>>Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification activities?
>>
>>
> Generally all allowed.
I'm pretty sure that no tattoo parlour would keep their licence if they
started offering scarification.
The female genital mutilation act is pretty clear, and would make illegal
many forms of female genital modification.
Current laws make it very hard for people to get penis splitting type
mods in the UK - administering medication, performing a "surgical
procedure" etc etc.
Alex Heney
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:00:25 +0000, Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:26:33 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>What about tattoos? Branding?
>>>Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification activities?
>>>
>>>
>> Generally all allowed.
>
>I'm pretty sure that no tattoo parlour would keep their licence if they
>started offering scarification.
>
What "licence" might that be?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never argue with a woman when she's tired, or rested.
Janitor of Lunacy
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:19:25 GMT, nonanon <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:00:25 +0000, Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:26:33 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> What about tattoos? Branding?
>>>> Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification
>>>> activities?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Generally all allowed.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that no tattoo parlour would keep their licence if
>> they started offering scarification.
>>
>
> What "licence" might that be?
A licence granted under Part VIII of the The Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1982, or, in Scotland, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act
1982, perhaps.
nonanon
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:19:25 GMT, nonanon <no...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:00:25 +0000, Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:26:33 -0400, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>What about tattoos? Branding?
>>>>Scarification? Extreme piercing and other body modification
>>>>activities?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Generally all allowed.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that no tattoo parlour would keep their licence if they
>>started offering scarification.
>>
>>
> What "licence" might that be?
It's a "registration" under law as mentioned by another poster. There's
other laws:
Medicines Act (If you're going to cut someone's cock in half they're
going to want an anesthetic); the FGM act; Health and Safety at Work;
Tattooing of Minors act, etc
Note that it's illegal to tattoo a minor but not illegal to pierce that
minor if they can give consent. No-one under 18 can consent to a genital
or nipple piercing.