Animal porn case [UK]
Cub Reporter
Bedfordshire on Sunday, UK: 28 November 2009
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/bedsonsunday-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=467414
[ http://tinyurl.com/ybdzsky ]
A managing director of a family business downloaded videos of women
having sex with horses and dogs, a court heard.
Mark Saward Galliano, 64, of Keysoe Row East, Keysoe, told officers
that he didn't believe it was illegal to view the bestial footage.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that this was
the first case of its kind in Bedfordshire.
Prosecutor Toby Earnscliffe told Bedford Magistrates' Court on
Wednesday that police officers had attended Galliano's home on
September 10, because he was subject to the sex offenders' register
after being cautioned for possessing an indecent image of a child.
Mr Earnscliffe said: "They had a conversation with him about the types
of images he searched for on his computer.
"One of the officers told him that looking at images of bestiality had
been an offence since January this year."
The court heard that Galliano's computer was seized and 30 videos were
discovered.
He pleaded guilty to five offences of possessing extreme pornographic
images portraying an act of intercourse/ oral sex with an animal.
Three of the charges related to images of a woman having sex with a
dog and the other two were images of a woman having intercourse and
oral sex with a horse. It is an offence under the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 and came into force on January 25 this year.
Galliano also asked for 25 other similar offences to be taken into
consideration.
His barrister Mr Wagstaff said that Galliano was almost due to finish
his term on the sex offenders' register when the officers went to
visit him.
He said: "He confessed that he watched bestial porn and did say he
didn't realise it was illegal to possess such material.
"Had he known it was illegal he wouldn't have had it.
"He joined a website where one can download material and he had only
viewed three of the videos."
Mr Wagstaff said that Galliano had put evidence-eliminating software
on the computer to protect his daughter but he told officers it wasn't
very good because they had been able to see these videos.
He added that Galliano hasn't had a secure relationship with a woman
since getting divorced in 1996.
"He thinks he would stop using pornography if he got back into a
relationship."
The magistrates adjourned sentencing for the preparation of probation
reports until December 16. Galliano was granted unconditional bail.
Vicko Zoomba
> [http://tinyurl.com/ybdzsky]
Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
their wrists under a tethered horse.
McKevvy
Col Colt
news:07c22fd7-f180-46d4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
> in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>
posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
illegal?
Road_Hog
"Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so funny
when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> "Col Colt" <colc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
> > "Vicko Zoomba" <vicko_zoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:07c22fd7-f180-46d4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
> >> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
> >> in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
> >> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
> >> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
> >> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>
> > These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
> > posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
> > involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
> > illegal?
>
> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so funny
> when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
I heard that Mr Jacqui Smith was watching gay BDSM porn.
Was I misinformed?
--
Culex -- the Infamous Culex
The Todal
"Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
By analogy with the child porn laws, the thinking may be that if you see a
video of a human having sex with an animal (a) you might be more likely to
abuse an animal yourself and (b) it will encourage a trade in pictures of
animals being abused.
What next, I wonder. Maybe a snuff movie involving an animal?
Col Colt
news:7ni312F...@mid.individual.net...
make it more likely that I will go onto murder someone myself? That pretty
much wraps it up for most literature.
> What next, I wonder. Maybe a snuff movie involving an animal?
They already exist. Before tougher standards came in, it was quite routine
for animals to be killed or injured in the making of films. Or what about
that programme a few months ago, showing where our meat came from, which
showed live on TV animals being slaughtered. That was done for the
edification of the public. Shouldn't that be illegal in case people are
prompted to take a knife to any arbitrary lamb they see gambolling in the
fields?
Road_Hog
"Culex (The Infamous Culex)" <the....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:6c251a24-3e86-48e0...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Was I misinformed?
--
-----------------------------------------
Raw Meat 3
Not au fait with it myself but the telegraph described it as a man on man
film.
AndyW
news:ah77h5toc2qke6s3k...@4ax.com...
> Animal porn rap is first in Bedfordshire
> He pleaded guilty to five offences of possessing extreme pornographic
> images portraying an act of intercourse/ oral with an animal.
I recall hearing of a reality farm show a few years ago where 'celebrities'
had to harvest semen from farm animals.
I assume that this is now illegal to watch?
Luckily I avoid 'celebrity' shows so I will not have to have a section of my
memory surgically removed.
Andy
Big Les Wade
>"Cub Reporter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ah77h5toc2qke6s3k...@4ax.com...
>> Animal porn rap is first in Bedfordshire
>
>> He pleaded guilty to five offences of possessing extreme pornographic
>> images portraying an act of intercourse/ oral with an animal.
>
>I recall hearing of a reality farm show a few years ago where 'celebrities'
>had to harvest semen from farm animals.
>I assume that this is now illegal to watch?
What about training videos for professional semen collectors? Will they
now have to rely on one-to-one practical demonstrations?
>Luckily I avoid 'celebrity' shows so I will not have to have a section of my
>memory surgically removed.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Big Les Wade
>
>"Col Colt" <col...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
>> "Vicko Zoomba" <vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:07c22fd7-f180-46d4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
>>> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
>>> in a horses cock?
Every such image is a crime scene against a horse. The horse relives its
pain with every viewing.
>>>The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
>>> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
>>> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
>>> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>>>
>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
>> posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
>> involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
>> illegal?
>
>By analogy with the child porn laws, the thinking may be
The what?
>that if you see a
>video of a human having sex with an animal (a) you might be more likely to
>abuse an animal yourself and (b) it will encourage a trade in pictures of
>animals being abused.
and (c) you could show these pictures to other horses to desensitise
them to the idea of bestiality and thus groom them for sex. "Remember,
Basford Bob, it's our special secret."
>What next, I wonder. Maybe a snuff movie involving an animal?
Nah. Nobody'd ever dare to film an animal being killed.
Vicko Zoomba
> "Col Colt" <colc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
>
> > "Vicko Zoomba" <vicko_zoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dont the mussies do that when they want their meat halal (or however
the fuck its spelled)
McK.
Vicko Zoomba
> "Culex (The Infamous Culex)" <the.cu...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:6c251a24-3e86-48e0...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
So he's a queer?. He'd fit in well with this govt.
Vicko Zoomba
wrote:
I also remember an episode of The Secret Millionaire where the guy had
to wash down a horse - including inside its hood.
McK.
M Holmes
>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
>> posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
>> involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
>> illegal?
> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so funny
> when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids got
hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
FoFP
--
"The new theology demands respect not just for the person but for also
his or her beliefs [...] The result is an auction of victimhood as every
group attempts to outbid all others as the one feeling most offended."
-- Bergens Tidende
Road_Hog
"AndyW" <Andrew....@noJunqMailbaesystems.com> wrote in message
news:4b13ccbc$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
I don't know if this was the same thing, but this is the clip of Rebecca
Loos servicing a pig.
Obviously not suitable for work and turn the sound down because the music
track is crap.
Road_Hog
"M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:hf0p58$6ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> In uk.politics.censorship Road_Hog <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
>>> posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
>>> involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
>>> illegal?
>
>> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so
>> funny
>> when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
>
> Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
> politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids got
> hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
>
> FoFP
Well there was discussion about that at the time and it may be right, but
we're not ever going to find out, so much better to laugh at Jacqui Smith
and her husband.
M Holmes
> "M Holmes" <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:hf0p58$6ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>> In uk.politics.censorship Road_Hog <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure
>>>> authoritarian posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any
>>>> distress or harm is involved to the animals involved. So why make
>>>> possession of the images illegal?
>>> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was
>>> so funny when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it
>>> on expenses.
>> Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
>> politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids
>> got hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
> Well there was discussion about that at the time and it may be right,
> but we're not ever going to find out, so much better to laugh at
> Jacqui Smith and her husband.
If the rumour that it was gay porn is correct, it probably makes the
above scenario even more likely. Apart from giving political cover to
his wife, he'd be protecting his son from a hard time at school.
As you say though, it's in nobody's interest to confirm or deny this and
so we'll never actually know. My own suspicion is that the man did a
remarkably decent thing at the cost of considerable embarassment.
Vicko Zoomba
> In uk.politics.censorship Road_Hog <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:hf0p58$6ps$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> >> In uk.politics.censorship Road_Hog <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure
> >>>> authoritarian posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any
> >>>> distress or harm is involved to the animals involved. So why make
> >>>> possession of the images illegal?
> >>> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was
> >>> so funny when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it
> >>> on expenses.
> >> Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
> >> politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids
> >> got hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
> > Well there was discussion about that at the time and it may be right,
> > but we're not ever going to find out, so much better to laugh at
> > Jacqui Smith and her husband.
>
> If the rumour that it was gay porn is correct, it probably makes the
> above scenario even more likely. Apart from giving political cover to
> his wife, he'd be protecting his son from a hard time at school.
>
> As you say though, it's in nobody's interest to confirm or deny this and
> so we'll never actually know. My own suspicion is that the man did a
> remarkably decent thing at the cost of considerable embarassment.
>
> FoFP
>
>
You mean with all the legislation that NuLabour has imposed upon
society, with all the constant spin that they have piped to the media,
with all the "equality for all" rhetoric that NuLab pump out, that he
would get a hard time from ordinary folk cos he's a poof, and his son
would teased to hell at school because children are children?
Do you think NuLab has succeeded or failed in this dept?
McK.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
> On 30 Nov, 14:50, "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Culex (The Infamous Culex)" <the.cu...@googlemail.com> wrote in messagenews:6c251a24-3e86-48e0...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 30, 2:07 pm, "Road_Hog" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Col Colt" <colc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:2umdncr5ZMQ...@giganews.com...
> > > > "Vicko Zoomba" <vicko_zoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:07c22fd7-f180-46d4...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
> > > >> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
> > > >> in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
> > > >> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
> > > >> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
> > > >> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>
> > > > These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
> > > > posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
> > > > involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
> > > > illegal?
>
> > > 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so
> > > funny
> > > when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
>
> > I heard that Mr Jacqui Smith was watching gay BDSM porn.
>
> > Was I misinformed?
>
>
> > Raw Meat 3
>
> > Not au fait with it myself but the telegraph described it as a man on man
> > film.
http://twurl.nl/mghfot shows what it's about.
> So he's a queer?. He'd fit in well with this govt.
It does seem strange viewing for a happily married man, even if one
considers how many paper bags he'd have needed to fuck Jacqui [sic].
(at least two, IMO)
Alex Heney
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In uk.politics.censorship Road_Hog <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> These laws were inspired by the Jane Lonhurst case. Pure authoritarian
>>> posturing. I have seen no evidence that the any distress or harm is
>>> involved to the animals involved. So why make possession of the images
>>> illegal?
>
>> 'cause Jacqui Smith decided it was a good idea, which is why it was so funny
>> when her husband got caught pulling one off and putting it on expenses.
>
>Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
>politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids got
>hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
>
Why on earth would it have been worse politically if his teenage kids
had been getting off on porn?
If there had been any indication he had encouraged it or deliberately
allowed it, then maybe.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Judith M Smith
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Apart from giving political cover to
>his wife, he'd be protecting his son from a hard time at school.
Know what you mean, nudge, nudge.
Road_Hog
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:7ih8h5lp7ppisf2kg...@4ax.com...
>
> Why on earth would it have been worse politically if his teenage kids
> had been getting off on porn?
>
> If there had been any indication he had encouraged it or deliberately
> allowed it, then maybe.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
Because she was the self righteous school maam Home Secretary that banned
any porn she considered would turn us into deviants, pedo's and generally
societies' unwanted. Rather embarrassing if she allowed (by not having
adequate protection built in) her kids to watch gay porn. Just think, next
time someone was up before the beak, "it was my 10 year old son watching it
not me".
I always had you down for someone intelligent (and a lawyer I think), surely
you could see that one?
killermike
>
> I heard that Mr Jacqui Smith was watching gay BDSM porn.
>
> Was I misinformed?
I hardly think that Mrs J Smith would allow a type of film in her house that
involves men getting tied up an hit. Erm, wait a minute...
--
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/ Michael Reed -- technology, gender and geek
culture freelance writer. Buy my article compilation book, Tech Book 1.
M Holmes
>> If the rumour that it was gay porn is correct, it probably makes the
>> above scenario even more likely. Apart from giving political cover to
>> his wife, he'd be protecting his son from a hard time at school.
>> As you say though, it's in nobody's interest to confirm or deny this and
>> so we'll never actually know. My own suspicion is that the man did a
>> remarkably decent thing at the cost of considerable embarassment.
> You mean with all the legislation that NuLabour has imposed upon
> society, with all the constant spin that they have piped to the media,
> with all the "equality for all" rhetoric that NuLab pump out, that he
> would get a hard time from ordinary folk cos he's a poof
Succinctly put. That's precisely what I mean.
> and his son
> would teased to hell at school because children are children?
Ain't no propaganda or legislation that can change human nature.
Sufficient of it can make adults change their behaviour and force them
to pretend to believe things that they don't. Children, being
incompletely socialised, aren't quite as skilled at this.
> Do you think NuLab has succeeded or failed in this dept?
I don't really know what a metric for success would be in this case. I
suspect they have wasted much taxpayer cash though.
M Holmes
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:42:32 +0000 (UTC), M Holmes
>>Or did he? Teenagers in the house, and it'd have been a lot worse
>>politically if Smith had been seen as the sort of parent whose kids got
>>hold of porn. I reckon the poor guy took one for the team.
> Why on earth would it have been worse politically if his teenage kids
> had been getting off on porn?
As I understand it, adults have already been prosecuted for allowing
children to see porn, and even with not being careful enough to prevent
kids seeing it. The fact that they can see anything they damn please on
the interweb is something the law hasn't caught up with yet. Smith, for
her reactionary legislation, has to be held at least partially
responsible for that.
> If there had been any indication he had encouraged it or deliberately
> allowed it, then maybe.
Given Smith's position, she would have been held, politically, to a
higher standard than even the legal one. It might not have been a
career-killer, but it'd have damaged her. Having her husband take the
rap would seem a great deal safer.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:7ih8h5lp7ppisf2kg...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Why on earth would it have been worse politically if his teenage kids
>> had been getting off on porn?
>>
>> If there had been any indication he had encouraged it or deliberately
>> allowed it, then maybe.
>> --
>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>
>Because she was the self righteous school maam Home Secretary that banned
>any porn she considered would turn us into deviants, pedo's and generally
>societies' unwanted. Rather embarrassing if she allowed (by not having
>adequate protection built in) her kids to watch gay porn.
Yes, but less so (IMO) than her husband doing so.
Teenage kids are expected to rebel, spouses are not expected to breach
the principles laid down in public by the other spouse.
I therefore think it more embarrassing when you husband does something
like that than if your teenage kids did it.
> Just think, next
>time someone was up before the beak, "it was my 10 year old son watching it
>not me".
The cases which come before the courts are usually such that firstly
the family often shun the alleged "criminal", and secondly, it would
be hard to persuade anybody else to take the rap.
Although I am sure there will be cases (if there haven't already been)
where the defendant alleges it was somebody else with access to their
computer, and it is then up to the prosecution to prove BRD that it
wasn't.
>
>I always had you down for someone intelligent (and a lawyer I think), surely
>you could see that one?
>
I'm not a lawyer.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Famous last words - You and what army?
Colin Trunt
"Cub Reporter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ah77h5toc2qke6s3k...@4ax.com...
> Animal porn rap is first in Bedfordshire
>
> http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/bedsonsunday-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=467414
> [ http://tinyurl.com/ybdzsky ]
>
> A managing director of a family business downloaded videos of women
> having sex with horses and dogs, a court heard.
>
> Mark Saward Galliano, 64, of Keysoe Row East, Keysoe, told officers
> that he didn't believe it was illegal to view the bestial footage.
>
> A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that this was
> the first case of its kind in Bedfordshire.
>
> Prosecutor Toby Earnscliffe told Bedford Magistrates' Court on
> Wednesday that police officers had attended Galliano's home on
> September 10, because he was subject to the sex offenders' register
> after being cautioned for possessing an indecent image of a child.
>
> Mr Earnscliffe said: "They had a conversation with him about the types
> of images he searched for on his computer.
>
> "One of the officers told him that looking at images of bestiality had
> been an offence since January this year."
>
> The court heard that Galliano's computer was seized and 30 videos were
> discovered.
>
> He pleaded guilty to five offences of possessing extreme pornographic
>
> Three of the charges related to images of a woman having sex with a
> dog and the other two were images of a woman having intercourse and
> oral sex with a horse. It is an offence under the Criminal Justice and
> Immigration Act 2008 and came into force on January 25 this year.
>
> Galliano also asked for 25 other similar offences to be taken into
> consideration.
>
> His barrister Mr Wagstaff said that Galliano was almost due to finish
> his term on the sex offenders' register when the officers went to
> visit him.
>
> He said: "He confessed that he watched bestial porn and did say he
> didn't realise it was illegal to possess such material.
>
> "Had he known it was illegal he wouldn't have had it.
>
> "He joined a website where one can download material and he had only
> viewed three of the videos."
>
> Mr Wagstaff said that Galliano had put evidence-eliminating software
> on the computer to protect his daughter but he told officers it wasn't
> very good because they had been able to see these videos.
>
> He added that Galliano hasn't had a secure relationship with a woman
> since getting divorced in 1996.
>
> "He thinks he would stop using pornography if he got back into a
> relationship."
>
> The magistrates adjourned sentencing for the preparation of probation
> reports until December 16. Galliano was granted unconditional bail.
It's just woof justice isn't it, as I overheard a public school educated
twat mutter.
Cynic
wrote:
>>Because she was the self righteous school maam Home Secretary that banned
>>any porn she considered would turn us into deviants, pedo's and generally
>>societies' unwanted. Rather embarrassing if she allowed (by not having
>>adequate protection built in) her kids to watch gay porn.
>
>Yes, but less so (IMO) than her husband doing so.
>
>Teenage kids are expected to rebel, spouses are not expected to breach
>the principles laid down in public by the other spouse.
>
>I therefore think it more embarrassing when you husband does something
>like that than if your teenage kids did it.
I thought the same thing. Just imagine is it was Cherie Blair who had
been found lying in the street in a drunken stupour instead of his
teenage son!
--
Cynic
M Holmes
>>I therefore think it more embarrassing when you husband does something
>>like that than if your teenage kids did it.
> I thought the same thing. Just imagine is it was Cherie Blair who had
> been found lying in the street in a drunken stupour instead of his
> teenage son!
Thing is that it doesn't always apply. Compare and contrast:
30 year-old husband goes to prostitute.
13 year-old son goes to prostitute.
Which would make a politician look worse?
The kid shouldn't legally have access to sex materials and the
responsibiulity for preventing that falls upon the parents. The husband
has legal access and the only question pertaining to it is one of
marital morality.
Apart of course from the issues of trying to charge us for the jollies.
Cynic
<fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>I therefore think it more embarrassing when you husband does something
>>>like that than if your teenage kids did it.
>> I thought the same thing. Just imagine is it was Cherie Blair who had
>> been found lying in the street in a drunken stupour instead of his
>> teenage son!
>Thing is that it doesn't always apply. Compare and contrast:
>
>30 year-old husband goes to prostitute.
>13 year-old son goes to prostitute.
>Which would make a politician look worse?
IMO the husband, unless there was any question that the parents
permitted the incident. YMMV
>The kid shouldn't legally have access to sex materials and the
>responsibiulity for preventing that falls upon the parents. The husband
>has legal access and the only question pertaining to it is one of
>marital morality.
But people are well aware that teenagers will try to get hold of
forbidden material, and that no parent can be expected to prevent all
access. Husbands and wives OTOH should be far more aware of the
consequences that their acts will have on their famous spouse.
>Apart of course from the issues of trying to charge us for the jollies.
And *that* was the only thing that I felt was wrong - though it was
very minor because the Sky bill would be paid as a matter of course
and I suspect she did not think about going through the bill and
subtracting the trifling amounts spent on PPV.
If it had been the teenage son doing it behind his parent's backs,
then she would not be culpable of misusing taxpayer's money in any way
whatsoever (and I would not expect the son to think of that angle
either). I would in that case have been more critical of the media's
interest in a petty family issue that has nothing whatsoever to do
with her public life
--
Cynic
M Holmes
>>Thing is that it doesn't always apply. Compare and contrast:
>>30 year-old husband goes to prostitute.
>>13 year-old son goes to prostitute.
>>Which would make a politician look worse?
> IMO the husband, unless there was any question that the parents
> permitted the incident. YMMV
I think we simply disagree. I believe the public would expect a
politician to have raised the sort of child who wouldn't look to commit
an illegal sex act. Compared to that, a straying husband would be
trivial. In case you missed the memo: people in the Yoojay are paranoid
about anything related to kids and sexuality.
Thus, if the video was purchased/rented/borrowed or even discovered
somewhere by a kid, it'd raise more hell for a politician parent.
>>The kid shouldn't legally have access to sex materials and the
>>responsibiulity for preventing that falls upon the parents. The husband
>>has legal access and the only question pertaining to it is one of
>>marital morality.
> But people are well aware that teenagers will try to get hold of
> forbidden material, and that no parent can be expected to prevent all
> access.
Perhaps, but where a politician has been busy introducing new sex laws
for adults at the drop of a Daily Mail headline, the public aren't in a
forgiving mood.
> Husbands and wives OTOH should be far more aware of the
> consequences that their acts will have on their famous spouse.
>>Apart of course from the issues of trying to charge us for the jollies.
> And *that* was the only thing that I felt was wrong - though it was
> very minor because the Sky bill would be paid as a matter of course
> and I suspect she did not think about going through the bill and
> subtracting the trifling amounts spent on PPV.
If she's going to claim our money, it'd better be her damn *job* to make
sure she doesn't claim personal spending.
> If it had been the teenage son doing it behind his parent's backs,
> then she would not be culpable of misusing taxpayer's money in any way
> whatsoever
Sorry, but the quid pro quo of us funding a telly at home for her has to
be that she ensures that we pay for only that viewing necessary to the job.
If she can't do that, she should pay the whole bill herself.
> (and I would not expect the son to think of that angle
> either). I would in that case have been more critical of the media's
> interest in a petty family issue that has nothing whatsoever to do
> with her public life
As we discovered with scandals under John Jajor: whatever deal we have
to stay out of their private business becomes null and void if they start
lecturing us on our private business, or indeed legislating what we may
watch, read, or do in our own bedrooms.
Smith broke that deal and is therefore Fair Game. hopefully it will
encourage the others.
allanbonnetracy
> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
> in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>
For the same reason the kiddie stuff is banned it’s all about
establishing consent.
No doubt, all the usual apologists for self-centred denial will be
along to tell us how animals (even the baby ones) are entirely capable
of consent.
However, I would suggest that for this case there need be no argument.
It’s simple, all those in favour, just need to successfully shag an
adult tiger or a juvenile cobra and we will all be most interested to
see the evidence of them and the animals engaged in mutual enjoyment.
Or, just maybe, your bollocks being ripped off and your knob being
inflated to the size of a baseball bat.
Cynic
<allanbo...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> Yup I remember this law being slipped in. So what if people are into
>> animanl porn? Who are they harming by watching a video of woman taking
>> in a horses cock? The usual bunch of law-makers in this country deem
>> it illegal for ordinary Joes to have this in their possession yet
>> behind our backs I bet they're out in the farmers field excercising
>> their wrists under a tethered horse.
>For the same reason the kiddie stuff is banned it�s all about
>establishing consent.
Bollocks. If the government demanded that animals had to consent to
what was done to them by people, slaughtering animals would be illegal
because it is pretty certain that they don't consent to being killed.
If what you say had any merit, it would also be an offence to keep an
animal locked up in a cage 24/7 when it is pretty obvious that the
animal would rather be free.
>No doubt, all the usual apologists for self-centred denial will be
>along to tell us how animals (even the baby ones) are entirely capable
>of consent.
Even if consent were an issue wrt what we do with animals (and it most
certainly is not - pain and suffering are the only things that the law
cares about), we can safely assume that if an animal engages in an
activity of its own free will, it is indeed consenting. Some dogs are
so keen to have sex using a human that it can get embarrassing.
>However, I would suggest that for this case there need be no argument.
>It�s simple, all those in favour, just need to successfully shag an
>adult tiger or a juvenile cobra and we will all be most interested to
>see the evidence of them and the animals engaged in mutual enjoyment.
Do you also believe that the fact that stroking a *wild* animal is
dangerous mean that we should not stroke *domesticated* animals
because they don't consent to it?
In addition, perhaps you'd like to do a bit of research and discover
how animal sperm is collected.
--
Cynic
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
I'd rather see some historical research into how his father's sperm
was collected.
Culex (The Infamous Culex)
wrote:
> It’s simple, all those in favour, just need to successfully shag an
> adult tiger or a juvenile cobra and we will all be most interested to
> see the evidence of them and the animals engaged in mutual enjoyment.
>
> Or, just maybe, your bollocks being ripped off and your knob being
> inflated to the size of a baseball bat.
How long have you had those peculiar fantasies?