"Blair's government is planning to introduce yet another unneccessary, unworkable law which gives the police unprecedented powers to enter our homes.

In the Criminal Justice Bill scheduled to be discussed in April 2007 the Home Office plans to criminalise the possession of extreme pornography.

It wants to legislate that possession of images it says are "pornographic" and which it says depict a loosely defined "violence" carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.

This is regardless of how the images are created - they could be theatrical, professionally photoshopped, simulated by stunt people or simply shots taken out of context. That will not matter - what they are criminalising is a depiction rather than an action.

Indeed the main proponent of the proposals - Martin Salter MP - says it is right that juries define the terms, regardless of how many innocent people have their lives ruined in the process.

Hence the main test of the law will not be any particular act that someone has committed, or criminal intent, just whether a jury believes she or he owns images which are pornographic and which are "abhorrent".

While supporters of the Bill pretend these plans are simply an attempt to close a loophole, their argument ignores the fact that the Obscene Publications Act is based on a test of depravity and corruption, a much higher bar than set out in the new plans.

It also ignores the fact that the new law would make it a criminal offence to look at something it is legal to do: e.g. roleplay.

And - as Rabinder Singh QC points out - it would be almost impossible for people to know whether they have broken the law - until they're found guilty in court."

A question was put to the Leader of the opposition regarding this:

"What are your views on the proposed legislation on ' violent pornography ' will you and your party be voteing for or against it.As the legislation stands possession of images of sexual violence or simulated sexual violence would mean prosecution and a possible 3 years prison sentence.If images are taken and kept involving two consenting adults for private use they could be prosecuted under the legislation. Would you vote for or against?, what are your reasons. What evidence is there to prove a link between viewing violent sexual pornography and committing a violent sexual criminal act. Articles 8&10 of the European Convention on Humans Rights would be breached."

What are people's opinions?

For more details go to this link and here.

Seems a bit ambiguous, I'm not sure what they will be classing as violent porn. Is it teachers caning students, which are always in their twenties, sometimes older...then they'll have to check millions of computers.
The computer child porn investigations have hit problems because so many people are being investigated, and its not just dirty old men but people in the top echelons of society...and we all know they wont get done

The abiguity is the problem, it will be up to the jury to decide whether or not something is immoral. So effectively you can commit a crime without knowing it is a crime until the jury decide it is a crime.


But the goverment is hoping to make this Law in 2007...

Like a lot of laws though, isnt this another one to prosecute people if the police want to and they get political pressure to? (there was a 5 year old mauled to death by a pit bull in Liverpool on Monday, now, 3 days later the police have suddenly found another 8 illegal dogs locally - like I said political pressure)

If somone had 'violent' pictures on their PC, in a magazine or photo album, how would the police know? If they had a suspect for another crime and searched their house and found the pictures then they could prosecute but otherwise its an undetectable crime (many pseudo successfull serial killers (like Ted Bundy in America) were only caught because of other crimes or driving offences and for a dead body to be found in the car). Simularly they could look specifically for a law that has been broken like this to easily lock up a suspected criminal rather than rely on a bit of a dodgy case (Al Capone - no charges of being a gangster, but one of Tax evasion took him of the streets till)

The point, in this case, is that you will not know whether a law has been broken until a jury has decided it has been broken.

So if nobody knows whether a law has been broken then how can they prosecute ?

It does sound like a load of bollocks. I understand them criminalising the possesion of images that appear to be of properly illegal events- like a video of real non consensual sex, but if it's obviously acted, or a cartoon or whatever, then it should be allowed.
People can watch films in which people are murdered, or other heinous crimes are comitted, and this is legal.
I understand that it's useful to have stuff banned to give the police to give powers to arrest "bad guys", but this relies on the police having some common sense judgement and flexibility. A good example are speed limits and drugs. However, the police might mess up, so basically they're criminalising a load of people who aren't hurting anyone.
I heard that these laws are proposed to cover just about anything that could be described as violent- stuff like BDSM or roleplay, not just nasty realistic stuff. Sex is a generally a violent act, so they could probably do anyone for possesing any kind of porn if they felt like it. That sucks.
I don't think this law will get passed in such a vague and all encompassing form.

The campaign for this law is led by a woman whose daughter was murdered by a man who was addicted to this kind of pornography:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm

Reading about the case, you can really see where she's coming from, but I agree with an earlier commenter that only recordings of actual illegal acts should be criminalised.