Repeal the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Why is this idea important?

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Bring back the cane to restore order in schools

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

Why is this idea important?

 
 

More than 20 years after corporal punishment was banned in state schools, many teachers said it was acceptable to hit children "in extreme cases".

The majority of those backing the cane said it was needed to crackdown on bad behaviour in British schools.

It follows a Government-backed study last year which found many parents believed discipline had deteriorated since the cane was abolished.

In the latest poll, 20.3 per cent of teachers said it should be reintroduced.

One supply teacher told researchers: "Children's behaviour is now absolutely outrageous in the majority of schools. I am a supply teacher, so I see very many schools and there are no sanctions. There are too many anger management people and their ilk who give children the idea that it is their right to flounce out of lessons for time out because they have problems with their temper. They should be caned instead."

And a primary teacher, said: "There is justification, or an argument, for bringing back corporal punishment, if only as a deterrent. I believe some children just don't respond to the current sanctions."

The Times Educational Supplement surveyed 6,162 teachers.

Support for a return to corporal punishment was strongest among secondary teachers, with 22 per cent backing the idea compared with 16 per cent of those in primary schools.

But support was lower among senior staff – head teachers and deputies – with just 12 per cent supported the caning of pupils.

The cane was abolished in state schools in 1987 and 1998 in the fee-paying sector.

John Dunford, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Thankfully, corporal punishment is no longer on the agenda, except in the most uncivilised countries. I am sure that this barbaric punishment has disappeared forever."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Violence against children is clearly unacceptable and illegal."

personal freedom without the expense or harm to others

Why are we forced to confine our sexual activities by Law to those that certian individuals are only worhwhile?  So long as the act itself doesnt harm someone against there will (BDSM) then why shouldnt we be permitted under Law to take part in those activities? The only sexual crimes that should be illegal are those that are harmful to those that dont wish to be and those aginst children. the so called extreme pornography is only called so because those that are in office and wish to control our every thought and action feel that if they said publicly that they arent botherd by "extreme pornography" or even that they would like to try it and enjoy it, they know that they would never again see the inside of parliment.

Why is this idea important?

Why are we forced to confine our sexual activities by Law to those that certian individuals are only worhwhile?  So long as the act itself doesnt harm someone against there will (BDSM) then why shouldnt we be permitted under Law to take part in those activities? The only sexual crimes that should be illegal are those that are harmful to those that dont wish to be and those aginst children. the so called extreme pornography is only called so because those that are in office and wish to control our every thought and action feel that if they said publicly that they arent botherd by "extreme pornography" or even that they would like to try it and enjoy it, they know that they would never again see the inside of parliment.

Consensual BDSM activities should not be a criminal offence

Under current English Law and Precedent, it is currently illegal to cause someone injury or leave marks which are more than "trifling and transitory" even when those marks are the result of BDSM activities between consenting adults.

This is another example of the Nanny State trying to interfere in the private affairs of citizens and telling them that they cannot do things "for their own good"

Why is this idea important?

Under current English Law and Precedent, it is currently illegal to cause someone injury or leave marks which are more than "trifling and transitory" even when those marks are the result of BDSM activities between consenting adults.

This is another example of the Nanny State trying to interfere in the private affairs of citizens and telling them that they cannot do things "for their own good"