Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984

Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 to allow 18R films to be shown on satellite and cable TV and tax each programme at 20% for each pay-per-view. Currently these films, although widely available on both the internet and through licensed sex shops in the UK, are nevertheless unavailable on satellite and cable TV. This amendment would bring us into line with both Europe and parts of North America, and provide a huge new source of taxable income for the government.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the Video Recordings Act 1984 to allow 18R films to be shown on satellite and cable TV and tax each programme at 20% for each pay-per-view. Currently these films, although widely available on both the internet and through licensed sex shops in the UK, are nevertheless unavailable on satellite and cable TV. This amendment would bring us into line with both Europe and parts of North America, and provide a huge new source of taxable income for the government.

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I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.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I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Revert to the Protection of Children Act 1978

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Why is this idea important?

Over recent years we have seen the definition of 'child pornography' stretched beyond all credibility. The 1978 Protection of Children Act made the simple possession of indecent images illegal, where to be indecent the image had to:

1. Depict an actual person younger than the age of consent (then, and still, 16 years of age)

2. Depict them in a sexual context (that is, the material was produced for the purposes of arousal and is thus 'pornographic')

This was a simple and clear definition. You could easily know what was legal and what was not. Any person old enough to consent to sex could be photographed without danger of being caught by the Act. Simple child nudity of the sort that might appear in holiday photos or family photos of very young children was excluded.

The Act did precisely what it set out to do – protected children. By allowing police to arrest individuals for possession of actual child abuse images, it made it possible for them to target those who produced and supported the production of such material.

Since the 1978 Act, we have had a slew of amendments and new legislation that:

1. Created the notion of the pseudo-image. This is an image which is doctored in some way to make it appear to be an indecent image of a child when in fact it wasn't.

2. Criminialised material where the person depicted looks like (or could be interpreted to look like) a child. An image of a 20-something porn star dressed in a schoolgirl outfit and acting young could be considered child pornography depending on the context.

3. Changed the definition of 'child' to include persons over the age of consent but under 18, thus creating a legal anomaly where a person may legally consent to sex but cannot be photographed doing so, and retrospectively criminalising previously legal material including back-copies of newspapers and top-shelf magazines that featured 16 and 17-year old models.

4. Changed the interpretation of 'indecent' to include simple nudity or even 'provocative poses' by fully-clothed subjects, thus making innocent family pictures potential 'child pornography'.

5. Allowed material depicting imaginary characters – computer-generated or cartoon – who were (or might be construed to be) underage to be prosecuted as 'child pornography'.

6. Most recently, attempting to make written material simply describing any of the above equivalent to 'child pornography'.

Even the most cursory consideration of these changes will reveal that the clear intent of these changes to the law is to outlaw any material which pedophiles – or 'potential' pedophiles – might possibly find arousing. If you follow this route to its logical conclusion you ought to make any photograph or description of a child illegal, and lock all children away from public view lest someone become aroused at the sight of them.

This single-minded witch-hunting of the unseen but ever-threatening pedo-under-the-bed does not make children safer. Indeed, most of the changes have been made to permit the prosecution of individuals who have not harmed children at all. Its purpose is clear – it is thoughtcrime legislation, designed to satisy the baying calls of the gutter press and to keep CEOP and similar agencies in business.

It is now effectively impossible to know if a particular image is illegal or not. There is no safe standard. A picture of a fully-clothed adult may be child porn if they happen to be dressed and posed in a particular way. Offences being now largely based on 'context' mean that until it goes before a jury, you cannot be sure you're safe. People are being sent to jail as pedophiles for 'offences' which, only a few years ago, would have been laughable and which most certainly have not involved any actual children coming to harm.

My proposal is simple. Repeal and amend the various acts as necessary to return the definition of child pornography to that of the 1978 Protection of Children Act, and let the police get on with the business of actually protecting children and catching child abusers.

Repeal the extreme pornography law

It is currently illegal to possess images of consenting adults engaged

in LEGAL activity in the privacy of ones own home. Yes that's right !

Images of law abiding adults are illegal to possess and the maximum

sentence is three years in prison even though no one did anything wrong

in order to make the images and the images were hidden from public

view. I suggest that as a minimum sections 63(1),(7)(A) and 67(2) of

the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

It is currently illegal to possess images of consenting adults engaged

in LEGAL activity in the privacy of ones own home. Yes that's right !

Images of law abiding adults are illegal to possess and the maximum

sentence is three years in prison even though no one did anything wrong

in order to make the images and the images were hidden from public

view. I suggest that as a minimum sections 63(1),(7)(A) and 67(2) of

the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 be repealed.

R18 TV: Allow adults to see R18 porn on TV with safety controls

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Why is this idea important?

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Modifying laws dealing with “indecent images”

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.

Why is this idea important?

In the sexual offences act, "indecent images of children" needs replacing with something more representative of disruption to society. This is likely to be more complex than current laws. The basic problem is that the scope for interpretation of "indecent" is routinely being abused, leading to a form of "legal discrimination". And the public are none the wiser. This is limiting the protection of children by the significant diversion of resources towards cases of dubious value, actively and intentionally contributing to a public misunderstanding of paedophilia as a group, and ruining the lives of many who should be considered moraly innocent. Of course, there are many, many effects in reality, which I'm not going to go into here, but the more you look into it, the more you realise how badly we're… well, getting it wrong.

I'm not talking about people who have obviously accrued large collections of serious child pornography. If you thought I meant that we should be legalising that, with respect, you probably have a lot to learn. All I'm saying is that justice should be proportional to the disruption caused to individuals and society by an offence. Many indecent image convictions are based on actions for which such disruption is practically 0. At the moment the situation is far from adequate, with even "making" (i.e. causing to be displayed on a computer screen) a single "level 1" image portrayed as a "serious" offence, and branding somebody a sexual offender.

Cleanse our mental environment

Freedom is a funny old thing. One person wants to be free to do something. Another wants to be free from the impact of them doing that thing.

I would like my children to be free to walk into a newsagent without being assaulted by pornographic images of women. I believe my children do not have the freedom to be children while their environment is continually sexualised. I have it from a number of newsagents that the majority of copies of so-called 'lads' mags' are read by school-aged children, and I would like to make these backward publications less available to children by preventing their display in prominent positions. Put them on the top shelf where they belong.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom is a funny old thing. One person wants to be free to do something. Another wants to be free from the impact of them doing that thing.

I would like my children to be free to walk into a newsagent without being assaulted by pornographic images of women. I believe my children do not have the freedom to be children while their environment is continually sexualised. I have it from a number of newsagents that the majority of copies of so-called 'lads' mags' are read by school-aged children, and I would like to make these backward publications less available to children by preventing their display in prominent positions. Put them on the top shelf where they belong.

Equalising ages

It seems ridiculous that the age of consent in the United Kingdom is currently 16, but the age at which people can view pornography is 18. This essentially means that for two years, a person can engage in sexual activity legally, but not view sexual activity.

This seems insane

Why is this idea important?

It seems ridiculous that the age of consent in the United Kingdom is currently 16, but the age at which people can view pornography is 18. This essentially means that for two years, a person can engage in sexual activity legally, but not view sexual activity.

This seems insane

Change Section 63 of Criminal Justice Act

In the current climate our sexual freedom is under attack as never before. Successive pieces of the previous Government's legislation have succeeded in criminalising the normal sexual activity of hundreds of thousands of adult citizens based on flimsy evidence and a general feeling of distaste.

It is widely agreed and accepted that consenting activities between adults are just that, and that it is not the business of the state to legislate on grounds of taste. The freedom to express oneself sexually without fear of prejudice is a basic civil liberty.

Why is this idea important?

In the current climate our sexual freedom is under attack as never before. Successive pieces of the previous Government's legislation have succeeded in criminalising the normal sexual activity of hundreds of thousands of adult citizens based on flimsy evidence and a general feeling of distaste.

It is widely agreed and accepted that consenting activities between adults are just that, and that it is not the business of the state to legislate on grounds of taste. The freedom to express oneself sexually without fear of prejudice is a basic civil liberty.

Repeal Section 63 of the CJIA 2008 (“extreme porn”)

To repeal the possession of "extreme pornography" section (63) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This makes it illegal to possess staged or faked images if they're judged to be pornographic. This means people have to guess whether a clip on their phone or computer, for instance, is extreme and whether it is pornographic. The law says that possession of some erotic clips taken from BBFC certified films can be illegal, because they're out of context.

Why is this idea important?

To repeal the possession of "extreme pornography" section (63) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. This makes it illegal to possess staged or faked images if they're judged to be pornographic. This means people have to guess whether a clip on their phone or computer, for instance, is extreme and whether it is pornographic. The law says that possession of some erotic clips taken from BBFC certified films can be illegal, because they're out of context.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults. 

Why is this idea important?

This law is unessessary – we already have laws to prevent people committing acts of sexual violence towards others.  This law prevents people making or viewing a record of acts which occur between consenting adults.