I heard the news today, oh boy..

[SeanMacGabhann]

That'll be Alan Moore in trouble then

Lost Girls

I saw a fascinating documentary on this a while back. It looks to be difficult material for sure but his work is usually brilliant

I'm not QUITE sure how some line-drawings can "be" under-age mind you - do you have to draw a little number next to teh drawing (age 15) instead of (age 16)

[lozzyloz]

Similar discussion going on regarding the work of Bill Henson and part of the argument in the film Capturing the Friedmans. I think you could argue that it could be categorised into a) art b) tittilation and c) obscene. Trouble is HOW and WHO defines the differences. You're never going to stop the wrong kind of people getting hold of this material and I agree this kind of law treats us all as one rather than looking at the context.

[mockney piers]

As it happens a very strange man has just favourited one of my photos on flickr.

If it was a photo of a mates child, I might be inclined to block a stranger, but I have no titillating photos of children, and of course it might just be a broody girl or just someone who liked the photo (I uesd to have a lovely photo of mrs mockney's niece on there, ut her mum got very antsy about it, mostly in case her estranged father found it and used it as some sort of ammunition)

Aaaanyway, this photo is of a hoover. chap in question clearly derives some sort of fetishistic pleasure out of it. Like i say, if it was a photo of child I'd definitely block this chap, but it's a hoover, does that make my photo hoover porn?!

PHWOAR

A Catalogue of his obsession if you dare (SFW, just a bit weird).

[david_carnell]

Were any hoovers harmed when you took that photo?

Is the hoover of legal age?

When you took the photo did you mean for someone to acheive sexual gratification from it?

Legal minefield.

[DaveR]

The current legislation extends to "pseudo-photographs" which means "an image, whether made by computer graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph", so already no requirement for an actual image of an actual child.

The new proposals will go further but the principle i.e. criminalising the possession of the material regardless of whether an actual child was ever involved, is already there. Putting the 'art' argument to one side it does create a worrying situation whereby an individual with a taste for child porn has no incentive to use fabricated images, where no real child has been involved, and so arguably demand will not lead to more actual abuse, rather than real images, where that is a likely conseqence.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Does this mean I have to put my Nabokov's in plain brown wrappings?

[Guest]

Personally I defy any parent of young girls, or even other single women like me, to read Lolita without crying.

While I don't like the idea of censorship, my own observation is that when any undesirable activity that doesn't directly harm anyone is tolerated, it normalises the next level and starts to legitimise the exploitation needed to achieve it. Look at how the porn industry has mushroomed, increased in obscenity and moved into the mainstream in the last 10-15 years as a result of proliferation on the web. Soft porn hardly exists any more.

Why on earth would anyone think these images, even if hand- or computer-drawn, aren't exploiting and endangering children? The fact that they don't directly harm children doesn't make them OK.

[atila the gooner]

I came across a story over the weekend that made me cringe. It involved a herion addict that has given birth to 3 children. The last child she gave birth to died a horrible and agonising death according to the coroner who also lambasted the mother for her reckless and thoughtless attitude. If this story is accurate,then I've never come across a more deserving case for enforced sterilisation. If a person chooses to put poison into their own body, fine. But don't put a baby through what must be a horrific death. Yet another story that makes me despair of the human race.

[mockney piers]

This has been a popular story over the other side of the Irish Sea

Jim Corr goes all David Icke

While we're on the subject of Ireland, I thought this a very good article in yesterday's Sunday Independent.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/con-houlihan/words-are-the-bricks-of-thought-1393811.html

[david_carnell]

I liked both of those MP, but the Jim Corr thing had me giggling at my desk. The man should stick to what he's good at - being the butt of incest jokes.

[Brendan]

Ever wonder where all our money is going?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/02/globaleconomy.globalrecession

[mockney piers]

Good stuff!!

[Brendan]

Here?s the next instalment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/03/economics.policy

Angry yet?

And on another note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3753553.stm

Because it is important to mark the passing of a legendary contributor to music.

[Brendan]

Here?s the last one if anyone?s interested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/04/economicgrowth.banking

If there is one thing that can be taken away from this series of articles it is this:

?It is time to remember that banks and other large corporations are creatures of law, and it is the public's right and duty to supervise them.

Furthermore, they, the financial New Olympians, have had their chance. The result of letting them off the leash has been a disaster.?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Bren - good man for posting all 3 links. I've read all 3 articles on the way to work this week and am surprised Marmora Man hasn't responded with a robust defence

Love the drawings as well

[citizenED]

Perhaps the banks should have done some research into the biscuits they provided when meeting with the Govt.

"Key" Biscuits

[Brendan]

Seen as it is Friday.

European Championship of Beers

[david_carnell]

Woah! Political geeks alert!

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis MP is resigning and standing down as an MP, triggering a by-election in his seat.

Rumours suggest he may fight it himself in a bizarre attempt to challenge the Govt on 42 days detention. LibDem leader Nick Clegg offering not to put up a candidate.

Highly strange. In fact, monumentally strange.

[Ted Max]

Just heard his speech. Blimey.

Protesting at the increasing and insidious erosion of civil liberties - the most intrusive ID card scheme in the world, largest DNA database in the world, the erosion of the right to trial by jusry, one CCTV camera for every 14 people, and now a threat to habeus corpus being made for political (and not security) reasons.

He has confirmed he will re-contest his seat solely on this issue.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Lots of political blathering on Radio 4. Sounds like David D was more against 42 days than the rest of the Conservative party.

At last a little colour in the political scene.

So Man of Principle or Unprincipled Grand-stander?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Fair play to him I say...

(but his party will be doing the same if they get in)

[Ted Max]

(but his party will be doing the same if they get in)

Amidst the blather Michael refers to was the speculation that David went off script/ further than agreed last night in stating that the Tories would repeal the 42 days if it was passed and they got into power.

[SeanMacGabhann]

oh no no no, don't get me WRONG. I know Cameron will say that.. but upon election, "evidence" will be passed to him which will mean "he is, for now, reluctantly keeping the 42 days"

[Ted Max]

Sean, the speculation was that Cameron was looking for Davis to portray a more open position to allow the Tories to do just as you describe if they needed to - but that Davis overstepped the mark by outright saying they would repeal it.

In other words, Davis wanted to up the ante in opposition to the proposed law - against wishes of Cameron/ advisors.

I couldn't really care if this is about one man's principle's, a hissy fit or power politics. It seems sure to boost this issue up the news schedules and give it a proper airing.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I hear you Ted

And it HAS been relegated to the back pages in recent weeks ;-)