Posts by Nobody Important
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Nice post from Jeremy Elwood.
I'm no comedian - I can't even remember a joke, let alone tell one - but I found myself re-writing (in my head) material for Ed Byrne whilst watching him at SkyCity the other night. He was great, but I kept thinking he could be greaterer if just ammended his punchline to ....
-
to respond to a coupla comments from various ppl:
I see bestiality as something in need of " a psychiatric report". The person filmed copulating with the chicken is the real victim.
and
I challenge anyone (who "grew up" in the 80s to say they have not viewed a minute's worth of beastiality video ("Animal Farm"?) not for gratification but for curiosity's sake... That does not equate to enjoyment.
and
Bestiality's gross (much more so when it's used to degrade women, which doesn't seem to have been the case here) and I'm feeling icky reading about it so much, but the fact that it's covered under the same censorship law as child porn. doesn't meant the social sanction is the same. It's clearly not. ~ RB
I think RB has hit the nail on the head. Judging by some comments here its clear some ppl don't rate beastiality as bad as kiddie porn. I think the problem is perhaps that many here are basing their opinions on what they think a beastilaity video is. I have seen one, and this is why this issue has raised such turmoil for me.
I saw a video in the late 80s, that started with the sad f#ck and his chicken, followed by the sad f#ck and his cow. So far, so gross, and like everyone else you have to pity the guy who gets his rocks off f#cking a cow or a chicken. Or the guy who gets his rocks off watching this sort of stuff. But then you see a woman mounted by a dog, and another mounted by a horse, and another fellating a donkey, and you feel wretched inside because somewhere out there is an industry that panders to the people who wanna watch this stuff, and that they seemingly have no trouble locating women that are so f#cked up they are willing to degrade themselves in this manner.
I'm VERY glad that it seems the cops 'only' watched the chicken film; but interestingly the video I was shown was allegedly sourced from a Policeman acquaintence of the woman who showed it to us. And yes, although we were all grossed out watching it, it was the late 80's so we did nothing about it. No-one considered dobbing anyone in, we just went on with our slacker lives. I thought nothing much more of it other than 'Beastiality is Bad', until this weekend. Hence my turmoil: I have 'walked a mile in Broads shoes' (to quote Jerry Springer), and like him I thought little of it until now ...
-
I'm wondering if the reason numerous twits are equating this chicken-flick with kiddie porn is because ...
I presume I'm the "twit" you're referring to Ben, since I'm the one who posed the question. I think if you reread my comments you'll see I never suggested the cops were watching kiddie porn. What I'm interested in is where do we draw the line? Today we seem to be 'accepting' of beastility -- in 20 years time will we say the same of kiddieporn?
"Oh, it was the early days of the internet ... who __didn't download a kiddie porn clip out of curiosity? Yucky stuff, but I only watched it on a friends computer - and I told him it was awful"__
-
as long as there's no harm to the animal, who gives a shit? seriously. it's not exactly normal behaviour, and it sure as hell doesn't floats che's boat, but... really... who cares?
why get all het up about a sport that's been amusing farmers for generations?Crikey - I think I'll let SAFE or PETA answer you on that one!
-
If we want to charge someone for this, surely it's the chap who acquired and put the film on? Who was/is he? Wisharts informant?
Good points Anne, and maybe that's a direction this matter should take. This 'situation' has raised a mish-mash of feelings for me. Like the PM I have no doubt Broad has moved on from the 'old' Police Culture and is actively working to set up new systems to change it. This matter is not in the same league as the historical rape allegations recently tried, but by the same token it's pretty damning.
I think the type of Government in office is totally irrelevant.
I agree that it should be, but the cynic in me wonders how Labour would have reacted if they were not in office.
Have women against pornography weighed in on this issue?
-
The way I see it, he was incidental to the screening, as a young man he didn't report the 'crime' to superiors who knew about it anyway, he encourages a wholly different culture in the present Police culture, he has apologised, he has the strong support of the Police Association, and Wishart is a semi-crazed publicity-grasper.
Case closed.So, to get back to a point I made earlier, that no-one has responded to ... if it was kiddieporn and not bestiality that they watched last century ... would we all still be so willing to sweep this under the carpet? If the Centre-right were in Govt would we all not be 'outraged'!?
-
Was the law (and the legal consequences thereof) the same in 1980-whenever as it is now?
Laws also had on the chap from the Censorship Office, who went into detail about what's criminal and what isn't. Evidently its not against the law to watch objectional material, but it is against the law to show/distribute it, or to possess it. Since Broad did not possess the material, nor did he screen it, he is in the clear. So Laws asked if it was okay to watch bestaility/kiddieporn on the internet and evidently as long as its a live streaming video and you don't download it .... it is!
And if someone (even a stranger) sends you an email with an attachment (that turns out to be objectionable) then you should delete it and clear your cache to be rid of it because otherwise in the eyes of the law you 'possess' that attachment; even if you didn't open it. So sayeth the Censor ...
-
Amusingly, many of the same blogland dwellers who accused Helen Clark of conducting a PC vendetta against individual police officers with the Bazley report are now screaming for heads to roll in this case.
Rrue RB, but as one 'serving police officer' said via email to Michale Laws this morning on RadioLive [I'm paraphrasing] "I was 'caught' in the internal investigation of Police computer files and given a reprimand and demotion for posessing an objectional image. I had never opened the attachment, which had been widely distributed via email to many officers; but that didn't matter. According to the law I was in possession of the objectional material and was punished accordingly. So Broad should suffer the same consequences". So I suspect this may be behind the leak.
I once saw an Investigate magazine. It was full of stuff about NZ being run by a bunch of jack booted lesbians nazis who would stop at nothing to get us ruled by Communist China. In short, a conspiracy magazine whose hatred of Labour politicians is pure poison.
I consider myself 'liberal' but I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bath water. Forget the source of this accusation, because the truth has been admitted. Why are so many here at PA seemingly defending what happened? Is it because it was Wishhart who started it? Because it happened back in 81?
Okay, imagine it wasn't a beasitiality video but kiddie porn. Would we all be so quick to dismiss what happened in 81, lest it be used to beat up on our beloved Labour Party?
-
I stopped going to Church when they started repeating the material. Same old same old almost every week: Jesus Is Lord, Christ Will Rise Again, Repent Your Sins, Be Nice To Others .... sheesh, and would a few new hymns hurt???
-
Not until you mentioned it - and then perhaps only if someone'd been forced to drink to excess as punishment for beating themselves up.
Strictly speaking you're right but .... most kids who binge drink do so as a result of peer pressure, not out of some well reasoned elective.
Oddly enough there aren't many mothers out there willing to share "I was f#cking like a bunny as a kid and I'm OK" anecdotes with their friends/daughters.
'ere we go; please stand by...