Snuff Movies

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by Shakey, Sep 6, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I heard that the Government are passing a law making it illegal to watch a snuff movie.

    I was watching this film on More4 last night about Vietnam, and this officer put a pistol to a Viet Cong's head and gave him the Good News.

    He slumped to the ground and blood spurted out of the hole in his head for a few seconds.

    Are they going to make serious documentaries illegal too? I do not condone snuff films and it's generally assumed that they're few and far between and a bit of an urban myth. But where are they going to draw the line?
     
  2. it's a bit like banning the film of the vietnamese girl running away from a Napalm'd village on the grounds of encourageing paedophiles.
     
  3. Yes on TV we see this type of thing especially in the news ??? which always seems bad these days
     
  4. That would make Michael Moores "Faranheit 9/11" a snuff movie!
     
  5. Lets just throw out the Magna Carta, and American Constitution and replace them with the Patriot Act and Anti Terrorist Acts!
     
  6. There's obviously a difference between some sort of torture and rape film and a documentary, but what if it's a documentary about torture or rape. What about fetish stuff where they're all consenting adults? This Government are drunk with power IMHO.
     

  7. looks like Channel 4 will have to shut down!
     
  8. whats a snuff movie?...................no seriously
     
  9. FlagWagger

    FlagWagger Book Reviewer

    A movie in which someone is killed on screen during the filming - see the entry for Snuff Movie in Wikipedia.
     
  10. This is to do with Longhurst's campaign to get violent internet pornographic images outlawed following the murder of her daughter who was strangled. The perpetrator claimed in court that his obsession had been fuelled by strangulation fetish sites on the net. Of course people were strangled long before the internet came along, but this seems to be ignored! It has been claimed that there is a correlation between viewing the contents of these sites and acting out what is seen. This is highly contentious amongst criminologists. The argument seeking linkage is one often presented by feminist criminologists. What evidence there is is circumstantial. Certainly there is no hard evidence either way. This is not a good basis to make law.

    The proposals, which have cross-Party support, will outlaw the possession of images of any kind which depict extreme images of violence which, in the words of Vernon Coaker...

    source

    "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury"

    [My italics].

    Who decides? I understand that it will NOT include films that have been classified (thought this means of course that any films you buy abroad will be subject to the proposed law, if passed). The real mischief of course is both the chilling effect the law will have and its potential for misuse. Usually this sort of law is used to target the gay community, and that is what I expect will happen here. For example whilst gay SM practice has been legally pursued in the UK the same cannot be said of heterosexual pursuit of similar activities. What if a person obtains sexual arousal from watching (or participating in) contact sports that can at times be a bit on the rough side - could this be used in the future as a backdoor way of outlawing them - notably rugby or water polo for example?

    It's like the infamous Dogs Act - knee jerk popularism which will have unintended consequences and harm community relations. It will put a lot of people on the Sex Offenders Registers who frankly ought not to be there - what consenting adults do to each other in private ought to be no business of the law - and will fill our jails even more.

    The sentence for an offence will be up to 3 years for possession.
     
  11. Can you get done for engaging in some serious S & M
     
  12. Following R v Brown, yes. But they only prosecute gays, so heterosexual SM must be completely safe! All those inaccurate Hollywood Bligh films will now be banned - that's something positive! Tis a pity really as I've always like sausage and mash - but I suppose pictures of fried sausages might encourage some psychopath to start frying his victims and suffocating them in mashed potatoes! :lol: Talk about paranoid. What'll be banned next I wonder. I've got loads of black and white films of the RN. Perhaps watching them will turn me into a crazed, gun toting, hammock holding, semaphore flag wielding serial killer! :twisted: But no, of course, it will make me into an alcoholic - all that rum!

    PS: enjoy these piccies whilst you still can...

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Watch this space!
     
  13. Consent to injury or to the risk of injury is only valid if it is freely given, fully informed consent (consider underage, mental capacity). The basic rule is that a victim can only consent to suffer injury or the risk of injury when that injury is less than Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) that is not so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, although there are exceptions eg surgery, regulated sports etc.

    I am sorry to disappoint you AAC but there has been a conviction for violent consenual hetrosexual relations - a case called Wilson (1996) (a case clearly inspired by Brown) who branded his initials into his wife's buttocks with a hot knife at her request. See also Emmett (1999) (a case of consensual sex where D put a placcy bag over V's head to increase sexual excitement and set fire to her breasts) and Dica (2004) (the deliberate spreading of sexual disease)

    There is currently a Law commission consultation process ongoing and it is a very controversial subject. But consider that anyone who supposes that the matter can safely be left in the hands of the CPS and the police should take heed that Wilson was only rescued by the good sense of the court of appeal.

    The question whether such activity should result in conviction for criminal offences will surely provoke differing responses. However it is essential to make no distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual activity and I feel that it is wrong to criminalise conduct like that detailed above. Consider why is it OK for a boxer to consent to being beaten to a pulp but not those in a loving relationship to consent to some degree of violence in their sexual activity?
     
  14. And how did the guy on the net get someone to agree to being killed and eaten? make a good story on ?? ?
     
  15. I'm out of date on this topic then Rosina! Emmett sounds interesting :lol: What kind of accident is that! On the boxer front, that was rehearsed by Templeman who after making clear his distaste for homosexuality and associating the acts performed with homosexuality, stated, a la Devlin, that personal morality was the business of the State. In particular however he excused boxing on the dubious grounds that as a sport it was entertainment whereas sadomasochism was a sexual pleasure and therefore altogether different. At the time it was pointed out that more brutal goings on had arisen in various clubs for heterosexuals - but apparently SM is, or perhaps that should now be was, only depraved when performed by gays.

    I share the Hartian view that what consenting adults do in their own bedroom is no business either of the State or of the Church. What adults do to defenceless children is quite another matter and should be vigourously prosecuted... oh but hold on here... our own PM opens admits to "reasonably chastising" his own children - as if assaulting a child is reasonable Yes, it is perfectly legal yet the same assault against an elderly person is rightly called assault. What a perverse society we live in! :evil:
     
  16. Is there a DVD of this incident? (He says whilst typing with one hand :wink: )
     
  17. Sounds like another prospective Tory candidate!
     
  18. Nah, I can't be arsed with the stockings, oranges and poppers.
     
  19. There I was now just there now a thinking this was about the old miners snuffing that there snuff stuff. It is a sheltered life I have been a having these last years it is to be sure.

    HONOR BLACKMAN as Pussy Galore go on who honestly did not think for one minute they would have loved to have been bond. I would leave myself to her tender mercy no problemo. Of course I would struggle a bit[just a bit] to make it look good!!!
     

Share This Page