A few months ago, when the Max Mosley case first went to press, I (along with a handful of other bloggers) received a polite request from Lucy McLean, owner of Northern Spanking, asking us to please not blog about the case. The “hookers” mentioned in the original News of the World piece were spanking professionals she knew personally, and if their identities were revealed they were at risk of losing their jobs – or even guardianship of their children. Lucy hoped that without the viral publicity of the internet, the case would die down with no further harm done.
Firstly, this should give you some idea of quite how protective, loyal, caring a person Lucy is, and quite how much the scene depends on people like her. Secondly, this is why I haven’t written about the case before. This week, however, stories of how Max Mosley is sueing the News of the World have flooded in, and several spanko bloggers have picked up the thread. Amy Hunter kicked it off with a sharply worded satire of the pathetic desperation of the News of the World to find something – anything – even vaguely Nazi-related in the private play party they spied on, to add extra spice to their story. Not that doing Nazi scenes are illegal, of course – their justification for their shocking invasion of privacy is that the caning apparently drew blood, which is illegal. But Nazi roleplay is a convenient hot button. People get very upset by anything that looks even slightly like exploitation of the Holocaust for personal ends.
This is a very complex, messy moral grey area and I’m not sure I feel comfortable making definitive statements about it. In general, while there are some fantasies which make me very uncomfortable, I don’t feel that I or anyone else is in a position to label them “immoral” or otherwise; it’s up to the individual. I also feel that while certain scenes, particularly ones set in the context of actual current or historical oppression, are likely to be offensive and the individual should be sensitive to that, legislating private sexual behaviour is never the answer. I’m not saying all sex acts ever are necessarily okay; I’m saying that proscriptive legislation and censorship are definitely the greater evil. As far as I’m concerned, whether or not it’s acceptable to eroticise historical suffering is pretty much up to the conscience of the individual, and as long as it stays private there’s no harm done.
The reason this scene didn’t stay private is the fault of neither Max Mosley, nor the spanking professionals who were involved in the roleplay. The reason the scene didn’t stay private is that the News of the World paid someone to sneak a camera in; and because the News of the World then wrote sensationalistic, screechingly judgmental articles about someone’s private sex life as if this “news” was worthy of public attention; and because the News of the World have continued to exploit everyone they possibly can in order to sell as many papers as possible. Forgive me for being cynical about their actual interest in the sociopolitical ethics of using war imagery for entertainment purposes. In slapping the word “Nazi” over every single story that’s gone to press, regardless of the complete lack of evidence of Nazi or Holocaust imagery in the actual video, the News of the World are the ones who have exploited the historical suffering of Holocaust victims for their own ends. Not Max Mosley.
I’d prefer to avoid an argument about whether it would have been immoral if Mosley had been playing a Nazi scene; the question seems irrelevant, because the fact is that he wasn’t. The video and the testimony of those involved are quite clear on this. That element was completely invented by the News of the World to make the story more shocking. Any offense caused to Jewish groups or anyone else is, in my opinion, entirely the responsibility of the News of the World. The plain fact of it is that a private spanking party really isn’t news unless you sprinkle it with a generous helping of fiction.
In Mosley’s case, his father’s political involvement with the British fascist party provided an easy target, and the German language of the roleplay not only served as “evidence”, but conveniently prevented the majority of the British public from understanding what had actually taken place. Because of course any film or TV scene featuring generic military-looking outfits and German language must be Nazi. And because eroticising something automatically makes it more immoral. Never mind that people watch prisoner of war and torture scenes in films all the time! If they’re only enjoying it in their hearts, minds and souls, and not in their genitals, of course it’s perfectly edifying.
(Is it worth my pointing out at this point that, if Mosley ever did have Nazi fantasies, it’s quite possibly the healthiest way for him to deal with the family legacy he grew up with? Is it also worth pointing out that identifying with the victim – as Mosley clearly was, playing a sub role in a substantial part of the scene – is perceived as sympathetic and human most of the time, and is only viewed as exploitative or objectifying when it involves sex? Could this, in fact, be less about the ethics of exploitation and more about the destructive prudery, and fear of healthy sexuality, which permeates our culture?)
In response to Amy’s article, Niki Flynn posted an equally righteous article about the devastating effect this “scandal” has had on completely innocent people within the scene. People, in fact, like Lucy McLean and her husband Paul Kennedy. Despite not being involved in the scene at all, they were dragged into the shit-storm because of a misunderstanding that the informant was one of the models listed at Northern Spanking. The resulting crossfire has, as Lucy describes in detail in a comment further down the thread, cost Paul his job and the couple a substantial portion of their stability and income, not to mention months of stress and hassle.
Niki, noble soul that she is, implored the spanko community to show their support to Lucy and Paul by subscribing to Northern Spanking for one month. If any of you haven’t yet, please let me persuade you to do so. Just as Lucy and Paul are exactly the kind of thoughtful, decent people who are a credit to the scene, so their site is pretty much exactly the opposite of the accusations the gutter press are making. The site is a labour of love, with profits covering costs but not generating any income for the owners. Every model hired by the site is kinky, genuine, and making spanking films because she loves it – and the site lets the personalities of the girls shine through, rather than using their images anonymously, or for any purpose the model herself wouldn’t enjoy. The films themselves are a delightful mixture of sensual and edgy, all of them heartfelt and good-humoured. The site also has the highest proportion of comedy of any spanking site I’ve seen online, including regular film out-takes and a long-standing tradition of improvised wit and slapstick, with brilliant one-liners appearing even in the more serious films. This good humour is a testament to the affirming, frank positivity of the owners. Our kink is healthy, it’s fun, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of, and Northern Spanking communicates that message more effectively than any other site I know. If you can spare $25 this month, spend it on supporting the people that make this scene worth being in. (And if you still aren’t convinced, head over to The Spanking Spot for a glowing review and some tantalising preview images.)
I’m not the first blogger to pick up on this – Prefectdt, Bonnie and Natty have all added their voices to the cause in the last couple of days. And every post so far has linked to new newspaper articles on Max Mosley’s stand as a “freedom fighter”. I’ve been surprised and pleased by the positive and neutral tone of these articles, which offer a stark contrast to the moralising, invasive tone of the News of the World. A First Post opinion piece offered a defence of Mosley’s character and describes the News of the World‘s recent publications as “one of the biggest editorial blunders in British popular journalism in recent years.” A Guardian article questioned whether the invasions of privacy perpetrated by the News of the World is in the public interest at all – surely there are countless news items more worthy of the News of the World‘s time and money. The Evening Standard added its support to Mosley’s stance, while BBC Magazine published a balanced, if basic, report describing how common BDSM practices are in the UK, and arguing that for the most part they are completely harmless. We all know this already, of course, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it said in as many words by the BBC. And an opinion piece in the Independent put it even more forcefully: “Sexual dreams alone, if we believe the barrister representing the News of the World, can be ‘a form of corruption of the personality’ leading to ‘true depravity’. When thought is being policed – by anyone, let alone tabloid journalists – we are in trouble.”
More and more papers are adding their voices to the consensus that spanking play is normal, common, and harmless. More articles on spanking have been posted in the last week than ever before. The Daily Record recently ran an advice column on how to seek out introducing healthy spanking play, and yesterday’s Metro ran a story on Peter Jones, author of Confessions of a London Spank Daddy, which surely was only published because of the kink-curious climate provoked by the Mosley case, for all that it studiously avoids mentioning it. Spanking has never been so fascinating to the UK press.
The Mosley case was hugely depressing to me at the time, not least because I was busy stressing about the new violent porn legislation which was passed a few weeks ago, and which groups all over the UK fought for years to prevent, criminalising possession of images which appear to depict serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals. I didn’t write about this legislation, either, because when it was passed I felt so disaffected, so disenfranchised, that I just didn’t know what to say. We’d campaigned and protested for months, and they’d passed it anyway.
The actual wording of the legislation is dangerously vague. Spanking and CP material isn’t necessarily illegal, but given an unsympathetic judge armed with waffly, imprecise language, it could be. As a result, most of the individuals I know who own spanking porn haven’t changed their habits since the law was passed; but the film producers are getting increasingly antsy. Several times this year, ideas I’ve had for shoots which would have been perfectly fine a few months previously were vetoed by nervous site owners who didn’t want to risk it. Any caning on the breasts, for example, was deemed off-limits by one site owner unless it was so light as to be laughable. Face slapping was another no-no, although quite why when faces aren’t a part of the body listed in the new legislation, I have no idea.
So the new law hasn’t affected me directly, mostly because I haven’t let it. Fuck it, I say; I don’t think I’m at risk of the police getting a warrant to search my computer, and I refuse to live in fear. If I’m arrested then I’ll defend my sexuality in court. But it has indirectly affected me because a lot of people in the industry have made changes to their professional decisions on the basis of the new legislation. As people who make a profit off this material, they feel they have a lot more to lose. I can’t help thinking of the response to terrorism in recent years, and the eloquent speeches from people who felt that privacy and personal liberty was more important than public safety at any cost. Doesn’t the same apply here?
Since then, I’ve thought of quite a few things I want to say about the new violent porn legislation, but given the length of this post I’ll save most of them for another day. (In the meantime, have a read of my friend Mark’s blog, who passionately protested the violent porn legislation since the initial consultation, and says it all far better than I could.) I mention it now because it seems relevant to the Max Mosley case in three ways.
First, Mosley’s position of privilege and his strength of character have prompted a victim of tabloid gutter-reporting to defend themselves in a BDSM-related case. This doesn’t happen often; the scandal and misinformation, as well as the consequences to the victims of making more of a fuss, normally allow the bullies to win. Not only has Mosley’s defence prompted the most widespread, honest discussion of BDSM I’ve ever seen in the UK press – which has got to be a good thing – but he hopefully will set a precedent, making the tabloids less inclined to go down this route in future, and making it easier for any future victims to fight back.
Secondly, the very real consequences of this case have highlighed in a new and clear way the prejudice and discrimination faced by people of unusual sexual orientation in this country. It’s illegal to fire someone for being homosexual – but not illegal to fire them for practicing BDSM. Kinky people have been protesting this discrimination for ages, but this case, and its appalling consequences for people who weren’t even involved, makes it impossible to ignore. In a culture which recently made owning certain kinky pictures, even if they’re of your own partner, illegal, this publicity is much-needed, and I’m heartened by the positive or neutral stance adopted by most of the press.
Thirdly, if any spanking or CP porn is criminalised under the new legislation, surely canings that draw blood are more at risk than the majority of what we look at? In which case, isn’t the Max Mosley video bought by the News of the World illegal under the new law? And if it isn’t, surely we as a community can stop fretting, and express our sexualities without fear?
Posted in 
Tags: 
I entirely agree. I am also amused to find that there isn’t any Nazistic goings-on at all, and am actually quite disgusted with the immediate leaping-to-conclusions about the prison scenario and German language.
Absolutely agree – I’d just posted comment on my blog before I read this and in different ways you’re echoing much of my thinking. I’m sorry for all those caught up in it but I am hopeful that longer term we’ll all benefit.
Fuck it, I say; I don’t think I’m at risk of the police getting a warrant to search my computer
My understanding is that rather than using warrants, they’ll go after people who download this stuff by the same methods they use to go after people who download child porn. That said, yes, you are probably safe, because the police have indicated that they’re primarily going to be pursuing gay men.
This fact has an odd resonance with the ‘balanced, basic report’ from the Beeb. Two people I know on the London scene were approached for interviews for that report – a sub and a dom, both women, one of whom is bisexual, both of whom are academics and feminists. Neither got called back; instead we get to read about Faith The Prodom Who Says She’s Doing ‘Therapy’ (ffs, I don’t want to hear that word unless you have letters after your name and are up-to-date with current clinical psychology publications), and Married Submissive Lady Who Says It’s So ‘Relaxing’. Not to mention the rich moran who says ‘we’ all went to boarding school!
In other words, it’s just another little box to cram the kinksters into. Making us be the Nice People who the police would never ever treat unfairly under other circumstances. Making us non-threatening – never intelligent critics of society, never feminists, never radical, never wanting something other than to nicely, invisibly, fit in with the nice people who never get any hassle ever from the pigs.
Is media coverage any goddamn use when it’s all heartily in favour of the closet?
I think that was a splendid post, Pandora. I agree with everything you say privacy, individual conscience and freedom.
I am not sure you’re right to say that drawing blood in scene is illegal. It’s Mosley’s case that it isn’t, and I shall be interested to see what, if anything, Eady J says on the point. Last time I studied the point, I felt it could go either way.
I shall also be interested to see what happens with the extreme pornography law. My suspicion is that the vagueness of the law will work in favour of the accused (since criminal statutes should be interpreted to give the accused the benefit of the doubt) and the law will therefore prove unworkable. I certainly agree with you that face slapping is most unlikely to be caught, nor is breast caning unless very severe.
I was thinking of posting myself to say that Mosley has become an unlikely hero (although perhaps no more unlikely than David Davis?). I did admire the way he came out fighting, when it would have been very easy for him to retire into hiding in Monaco. Even kinky liberals were saying, when the news broke, that he ought to leave (or be pushed out of) the FIA.
You say it Pandora
Pandora,
Well said! Thank you for your eloquent words and thoughtful analysis. NS is certainly deserving of our support.
Hugs,
Bonnie
Very thoughtful, articulate post. I had no idea that NS was involved and it’s absolutely horrific what has happened to Paul and Lucy. I don’t have any extra money to become a member, but I will definitely be keeping them in my thoughts as well as link to Nikki’s post and NS’s site on my blog.
It is really disturbing to watch what seems to be a campaign on the part of New Labour to control the behavior of Briton’s in everything from how they take the garbage out to what they do in the bedroom. Democracy seems to be growing more precarious in the UK — as well as here in the US. A. and I routinely exchange “Creepy Britain” and “Creepy America” stories. At some point people have to take a stand for their rights. I’m glad you’ve been such a strong advocate for civil liberties.
Hopefully all the — at the very least — fairly neutral and even somewhat positive press about BDSM will allow us to be more out in the future.
Movingly said — you convinced me to register to NS as a concrete sign of support. Wish I could leave a support message too…! You probably never heard of me, but I used to be well known in the scene, back in the time of Usenet (a google groups search for my name still shows traces of it;-), which caused me to lose a great job opportunity… but that turned out to be for the best, as it caused me to keep searching and eventually land the even-better job I’ve been in for years. Yet losing that job offer made me feel VERY bad for a while… even though in retrospect I must say I’d never be real happy in a job that forced me to stay in the closet (my original motivation for not choosing anonymity, still good and valid after all these years). If you can, please relay my story to the NS principals and my heartiest wishes that things will turn our just as rosy for them as they eventually did for me (though I must admit my prospects were better for being willing and able to move to anywhere in the world — I landed in California… the UK climate doesn’t feel at all good, at the moment…).
I have no doubt that a good number of people have responded to this new law the same way that I have.
Specifically I have come out of the closet.
The law is very clear. If you want to see someone whipped in any of the ways listed in the law you have to pick up a whip and do it yourself. I am a law abiding citizen, if the law instructs me to hook up with a subbie and whip her then how can I refuse?
I do hope that some newspaper picks up on this trend, surely it has to be seen as the biggest own goal since the last one the government scored. In the meantime I’m on the alt.com instant messenger several hours per day if anyone’s looking.
Great post, Pandora: certainly the most coherent and well thought-through of the various recent blog articles on the Mosley case.
I’m torn with the new legislation between worrying about its implications for those who own spanking videos, and thinking that there may be nothing to fear. The Act specifies the illegality of images relating to “serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals”.
So (to get anatomical) extreme breat-whippings or pussy-whippings are presumably out. But most spankings in videos are to the buttocks – and I doubt that they therefore fall under the scope of the legislation.
Buttock spanking videos are perfectly fine, but unfortunately most vendors don’t list exact body parts in their product descriptions. Maybe the spankee doesn’t cooperate and earns one across her front when she’s backing away, maybe they end with five vertical strokes and the middle one may or may not land across the areas specified?
The law is yet another example of Labour writing a law and justifying it based on what they mean it to say rather than what it actually says. For one, Jack Straw insists it specifies that a reasonable person must believe the act is genuine when the wording states a reasonable person must believe the actors are real people.
It’s just like RIPA wasn’t meant to justify dodgy weirdoes in the local council following schoolgirls around all day, or anti-terror legislation wasn’t intended to help throw old men out of political conferences. Sadly the intent of a law is irrelevant.
I am in full agreement.
Also, that’s worrying to hear about the effects happening already as a result of the “extreme porn” law (just to clarify to anyone reading: although the law has received Royal Assent, it has not yet been enabled – the Ministry of Justice say January 2009 – but yes, I can see that already people will be fearful of what images they produce, for when the law does come into force).
Thank you for your comments Pandora and for such a well-presented summary of the case and its effects. I think I am still too close to it to put together anything so reasoned without anger taking over.
Your support and that of many others in the scene is and will continue to be invaluable to Lucy and I. We are determined that Northern Spanking will not only continue but will thrive.
Perhaps, with the evident neutral/positive press attention which is beginning to emerge, all of us may yet benefit from a more favourable light, rather than a harsh tabloid spotlight, shining on the British BDSM and spanking scene.
I have and will continue to say this on all postings I make:
Having been in the High Court for most of the case, we should all have nothing but the highest possible admiration and respect for Women A to D, for their courage in defending their lifestyle choices in the face of inevitably hate-full cross-questioning. I am intensely proud to able to call all of them friends.
Max Mosley has done what very few people in his position have ever done; stood up and defended himself against the kind of scum ‘journalism’ that thinks itself immune, whatever its disgusting behaviour towards individuals who have a right to privacy, whatever their status in life. His eloquent and reasonable defence of himself, and of what it is that we all do, proved I believe to all who heard it that if there was any ‘moral bankruptcy’ in that courtroom, it lay firmly on the squirming shoulders of the News of the World’s editor and his chief reporter.
Marvellous post.
Now, spanking is not something that’s taken my fancy or ever will – I’m all about the tied-up damsels-in-distress . But, hey, it’s all about the diversity…and I’m not talking about an old American civil war wooden ship.
I can’t even really add anything truly interesting to this. My thoughts on the DPA are ever-changing. As time goes on, I feel it’s going to be more and more difficult to police and so most of us are safe.
Still, what occured to me is with regards to the Page 3 girls. Obviously, absolutely fine under The Sun/NOTW’s noral stance. However, I know for a fact that quite a few girls paraded under that banner have done bondage vidz for various prodcuers, and no doubt spanking vidz.
Double standards, anyone?
I am always humbled by how civilized you Brits are. You, madam, write out a fact based, level headed essay on the issue of gross injustice, paragraph after paragraph of reason and good common sense, when I myself would simply say, “Well, fuck them!”
The freedom of the individual has always entered the fray with the disadvantage of a broken bottle at its neck and the burden of slanders a-plenty from sources gossip to school books, and worse, striking at the gut. It has always been so. The contest always seems so hopeless, the opposition always seems so powerful and invulnerable — yet freedom wins so often when it doesn’t give in. Somehow. Let us not fear.
This too shall pass.
And if freedom falters in England, for a little limited time, you can always come to the colonies. I have a couch you can sleep on until you find your feet. Actually, I could use someone who knows how to cook and make birch whacking sticks.
PB
MM has been getting a lot of credit for “standing up and being counted”, but the knock-on effect on the four women has been severe. The Mail on Saturday published an article that all-but exposed Miss D – the photo, though obscured, would have been recognisable to all who knew her, as would the very unusual details of her career. God alone knows what she must be going through at the moment. If it hadn’t been for the court case the fuss would have died down. By all accounts, the “scene” has been very good in rallying round these brave, beautiful women. But should it ever have come to court?
Responding to Adrian…
The troble is that if the case had NOT come to court, nobody would have challenged the invasion of privacy. In this case, the purported “public interest” – Mosley’s position in F1 – meant that the NotW tangled with a multi-millionaire who had got the dosh to sue them. Years ago, I remember the rag “exposing” the sexual peccadilloes of an unfortunate teacher who committed suicide.
The court case is also, at present, protecting the anonymity of the women. Everyone here probably knows their scene names, but without the court order I fear that the Daily Hate-mail would have revealed their real names.
Unfortunately, it’s not only bottom-feeding journalists who are risking outing the women. Yesterday I saw a piece about Woman D, written in a tone so admiring the author must have a crush on her, that went into so much detail about her day job that I would say it could only apply to one woman in England and that she could all too easily be identified by a phone call to specialists in the same field.
A fine and important post, Pandora.
Being a Scandinavian, I am totally shocked and surprised that a UK newspaper would print a story about going ons in a private sex party, and not only that, also sending in a spy with a camera. It just would not have happened in Scandinavia.
As for the unfortunate and vague new legislation, well, I wouldnt use a cane on breasts either. I would use a strap. Or a switch, or whip or flogger or birch. The law should recommend such alternatives.
Great to see the outcome of the Mosley case today. I’ve been through the – lengthy – Judgment and summarised some of the highlights, if anyone’s interested:
http://www.spankingwriters.com/blog/2008/07/24/hot-off-the-presses/
Oh, yes, Abel. I’m definitely interested. Many thanks for the link!
The full judgment makes a lot of points that are important to our community. You really have to read it to understand just how many, but here are two of my own favourite bits:
114. There is no question of a sexual offence being committed, since everything was consensual. On the other hand, when the Claimant was acting out his “dominant” role after dressing his own wound, it is right to acknowledge that some of the young women playing the submissive role also developed a visible coloration of the buttocks. As Woman D accepted, it was painful – “but in a nice way”. Although no doubt interesting to the public, was this genuinely a matter of public interest? I rather doubt it.
127. Thirdly, it is not for the state or for the media to expose sexual conduct which does not involve any significant breach of the criminal law. That is so whether the motive for such intrusion is merely prurience or a moral crusade. It is not for journalists to undermine human rights, or for judges to refuse to enforce them, merely on grounds of taste or moral disapproval. Everyone is naturally entitled to espouse moral or religious beliefs to the effect that certain types of sexual behaviour are wrong or demeaning to those participating. That does not mean that they are entitled to hound those who practise them or to detract from their right to live life as they choose.
An idiotic prick & disgrace to the Church of England has just weighed in. Ugh.
Thanks so much to everyone for your comments of support. I really appreciated each and every one of them. I’ve had a hard time defending my position on this sort of vigilante behaviour in the past and it’s nice to know I’m not alone.
Thene – you make good points. I assume you’ve seen the recent Pro-SM Feminist blog post on broadly the same issue?
I agree that the press has sanitised its neutral/positive representation of kinky lifestyles. It’s non-ideal, but it’s also fairly inevitable – I so rarely see radical reporting in the mainstream press that I don’t expect it. Of course kink can and should play a part in interrogating, challenging and breaking down kyriarchy, but I wouldn’t expect mainstream newspapers, even liberal ones, to enable that at this stage. Step 1 is for kink to be accepted as normal and harmless, and we’re not even there yet, only taking baby steps towards it. Once we’ve achieved that, kink can start being part of a dialogue for social change. Until then, trying to talk about the queer and radical politics of kink will only be possible if you’re preaching to the perverted. If kink is still viewed as the harmful, dysfunctional, misguided practice of damaged people, then public conversation about how queer and radical and important it is will be a non-starter. It’s non ideal but until kinky people are protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, I’m not hoping for the general public to appreciate that we aren’t all interested in Just Fitting In.
As far as I’m concerned, whether or not kinky people have a duty to be “defiant” in their self-presentation is entirely personal. Think about the debate in the trans community between people who want to pass, and people who are out and loudly protesting about trans rights. The latter group are necessary for social change. But I don’t think anyone has the right to force a queer or trans or kinky person to be a freedom fighter if they don’t want to be. It’s not an obligation. Adn I think people keeping their heads down and integrating with society are just as necessary a part of social change. Look at the feminist movement. The protestors were the ones who forced legislation changes – but they alienated a lot of people socially. It was the quiet women who got on with proving they were human being too and not making too much of a fuss that slowly changed the minds of people they knew. Protesting is important politically, but integrating is important personally. It’s a balance. And yeah, you’re absolutely right that the reporting on Max Mosely doesn’t represent that balance. But the interviewees who just want to be seen to be “normal” have a role to play as well, in my opinion.
Robert – I could be wrong about the illegality, but I seemed to remember reading several articles implying that the blood was legally problematic; it could have just been moral posturing, though. One of the NOTW’s arguments was that it was in the public interest because the acts were illegal, due to the precedent set by R v. Brown (“Spanner”), where sadomasochists were convicted of actual bodily harm and their consent was not considered to be a defence. I don’t know whether or not the fact that blood was drawn was key to that argument, though perhaps not. The Judge ruled that “There was actual harm and perhaps the application of the large piece of elastoplast on his right buttock would demonstrate, as Mr Myler and Mr Thurlbeck pointed out, that there had been actual wounding as well.” So the breaking of skin was significant, but irrelevant to the NofW justification for filming the event, because they couldn’t have known that would happen when they arranged for the filming.
The blood would certainly seem to be a candidate for the violent porn legislation if anything is. And the fact that the News of the World owns the video means they can’t get away with it under the “personal recordings” loophole which makes it acceptable to own pictures of yourself in acts that you consented to. We can certainly hope that the vagueness of the law will work in favour of the accused. I’ve been surprised to see that no-one else has connected the new law to this case. I guess we just need to wait and see how the first few cases of prosecution under the new porn legislation play out. Precedent would seem to be highly significant when the wording is so flexible.
The justification for the violent porn law is partly that it is not legal for anyone to consent to the acts covered by the legislation. There’s a grey area here, as the Spanner case can’t be overturned and this ruling accepts consent for the acts in the MM case by distancing them from the Spanner case. So the implciation is that certain extreme SM practices are still illegal (and impossible to consent to) but others (ie. the ones taking place in the MM case) are legal and possible to consent to. Where the acts listed in the new legislation fall will largely depend on the Judge. It’s a shame that this case is civil and therefore may not act as precedent.
Alex – I’m thrilled that you’ve decided to give NS your support as a result of my post. I hope you enjoy the site! You can contact Lucy and Paul to leave a message of support by emailling lucy@northernspanking.com, or leaving a comment on their post on Niki’s blog. I’m sorry that you yourself have been the victim of discrimination. I think it would be very interesting to have a blog amnesty, inviting everyone who has suffered at work or otherwise because of their sexual choices to tell their story. I’m lucky to live in a kink-permissive bubble, to be employed by myself; I think a lot of young people underestimate the real damage done to people’s lives. Thankyou for being so open, and good for you for bouncing back from your bad experience so robustly
Michael – I saw Bonnie’s suggestion for a mass coming-out, and had a lot of admiration for it. I’m not in a position to come out any more than I already am – my social circle knows what I do, and the only people I know who don’t are my parents and parent’s friends – and there are very good reasons for that. Well done for coming out of your own closet.
Abel – thankyou
I’ve been siding towards “nothing to fear”, personally, but have been affected by film-makers making the opposite decision. In general, though, just because the law is unlikely to affect me personally doesn’t mean it’s an abhorrent threat to personal freedom. I know plenty of people who are into things covered by the new legislation, and they have my wholehearted support. It’s mere chance that porn of my own kink hasn’t just been made illegal. I don’t intend to stick my head in the sand and think that just because I’m okay there’s nothing wrong. There is something wrong.
Paul – You seem to have managed a very reasoned statement in Niki’s blog, which I entirely admire and respect. Thanks for your comment and I’m glad that the support you’ve received has been heartening. I have a huge amount of respect for your continued positivity and wholehearted support of the other people who’ve been hit by this. It’s a shame that only Max, out of all the people affected, is in a position to take it to court. But I’m glad that at least one person in a position of privilege has stood up for our collective cause.
Ant – I’m glad you stopped by despite your disinterest in spanking! You make an excellent case on the Page 3 girls. I have no idea how many of them have done kink modelling, but certainly my own experiences as a mainstream model suggest there’s a lot of crossover.
PB – thanks for the support
I agree with you entirely on “let us not fear”. If we all just keep on doing what we do, unafraid and uncompromising, what can they do? Arrest us all? No. As Ramsey Campbell said so eloquently in the introduction to Niki’s biography, censorship has taken place in every generation in human memory; and a few generations later what was so condemned has almost always become mainstream. This too will indeed pass. We just need to have patience, and keep doing what we do.
Anon – While I appreciate your resourcefulness, I fear that most of those implements are also at risk if a cane is. Unless it was a very gentle flogger.
transportsdejoie – Aye, I saw that. Thankfully such wankery doesn’t have any effect in law, and in today’s climate moral judgments from ex-Bishops of Canterbury are unlikely to hold much water with public opinion. Which in this case is something to be thankful for.
The complete piercing of the skin certainly constitutes a wound in law. The question is in what circumstances consent can be a defence. Clearly it is a defence for ornamental piercing or administering injections for medical purposes.
The acts involved in Brown clearly went well beyond anything involved in Mosley v NOTW. To my mind, although perhaps not to yours, the participants in Brown were pretty hardcore. There are also some rather peculiar dicta suggesting that (a) there may have been underage grooming involved, (b) that consent may have been obtained at least in part by the use of alcohol or drugs and (c) that it was good luck rather than good judgement which prevented serious injury. So I suspect that you may be right to suggest that it is possible to consent to mild SM, but not to more extreme forms.
Pandora – Thanks for a great blog. I am concerned that some comments suggest that if blood is drawn, an offence is committed. This does not follow, at least in the UK.
At risk of posting something too long, here are some passages from Sir David Eady’s judgement (NB the”Brown” case is a reference to the Spanner case).
113.Perhaps the most artificial argument, verging on desperation, was to the effect that the Claimant was inciting or aiding an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Offences against the Person Act 1861 – on himself. There was actual harm and perhaps the application of the large piece of elastoplast on his right buttock would demonstrate, as Mr Myler and Mr Thurlbeck pointed out, that there had been actual wounding as well. (That might be the case also, technically, with decorative piercings.) One must try not to lose all touch with reality, and no-one could pretend that this was either the original reason or a justification for the clandestine filming or the coverage.
114. There is no question of a sexual offence being committed, since everything was consensual. On the other hand, when the Claimant was acting out his “dominant” role after dressing his own wound, it is right to acknowledge that some of the young
women playing the submissive role also developed a visible coloration of the buttocks. As Woman D accepted, it was painful – “but in a nice way”. Although no doubt interesting to the public, was this genuinely a matter of public interest? I rather
doubt it.
115. Mr Warby placed considerable reliance on the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212, in which the majority held that neither consent nor the sexual context could afford a defence in a case concerning extreme sado-masochistic activity. Thus, it was argued that the consent of these women to the spanking, despite their evident enjoyment, does not excuse the fact that a technical assault contrary to the 1861 Act was committed by the Claimant with every thwack. Yet again, however, I must try to maintain some sense of reality. In any event, consent is a valid defence so far as common assault is concerned.
116. The facts of Brown involved cruelty of an altogether different order and activities that were extremely dangerous. One of the considerations which justified the criminalisation of such activities, according to the Strasbourg court, was the potential impact on health: see Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 39 at [63]. There was also the issue, which does not arise here by any stretch of the imagination, that some very young people were victimised or corrupted.
117. It is well known that the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service exercise discretion in deciding whether to institute criminal proceedings and frequently acknowledge that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute every crime – however trivial. I have little doubt that such a discretion would be exercised in cases of this kind. This was rather confirmed by the CPS prosecution guidelines and “Charging Standard” introduced by Mr Price. It would hardly be appropriate to clutter up the courts with cases of spanking between consenting adults taking place in
private property and without disturbing the neighbours. That would plainly not be in the public interest. It would not be logical, therefore, to pray in aid the public interest when seeking to justify hidden cameras and worldwide coverage.
I believe those passages (114 appeared in an earlier post) are very reassuring to the overwhelming
majority of BDSM enthusiasts.