The new UK laws that are being brought in by the government, look to restrict your rights as law abiding adults to view this type of Adult entertainment.
At the bottom of this page you will find details and accounts of this legislation, which will help you make an informed decision regarding your choice to view
this type of pornography. Below are some examples of the actual sites that they are intending to restrict your access too. So, get them while you still can!

CHECK OUT OUR NEW FREE BLOG! CLICK HERE!

LOOKING FOR SOMETHING 'SOFTER'?

LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SOFTER? THEN CHOOSE YOUR PLEASURE:
PANTIES? OR KNICKERS?

Parents: Please Use One Of The Sites Below To Block Site From Minors
[CyberPatrol] . . [SurfWatch] . . [NetNanny] . . [RSAC]

This sites content and images are copyright of MeatCash 07

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record Keeping Requirements Compliance Statements

Below are some of the press reports, from newspapers and online news services, regarding the proposal of having the above type of sites banned.

THE BBFC ARE LOOKING TO GET IN ON THE ACT !

THE BBC SAID:

'Extreme' porn proposals spark row
By Chris Summers
BBC News

A man addicted to violent porn websites has been convicted for the second time of murdering a teacher.

Legislation to ban such sites is going through Parliament, but a small group of otherwise law-abiding people say the changes will criminalise them.

Coutts lied throughout police interviews and two trials

Jane Longhurst's killer Graham Coutts admitted he was addicted to violent pornography websites.

The 39-year-old musician had downloaded hundreds of images of women being raped and strangled as well as pictures purporting to show necrophilia.

Coutts was found guilty of murder in 2004 but the conviction was quashed on a technicality.

'Acting out a fantasy'

His second trial at the Old Bailey, which jailed him for life, heard he was a regular visitor to websites depicting extreme material.

He accessed these sites only hours before killing Miss Longhurst and again in the weeks that he kept her body in a self-storage facility in Brighton.

His barrister, Christopher Sallon QC, asked him at one point: "The suggestion is you were acting out a fantasy from a pornographic image that you accessed with the internet?
Were you charged up and sexually aroused by Jane Longhurst, dead, with a ligature on?"

Coutts denied it. But then he had lied about so much else, including his claim she had agreed to sex on the day she disappeared and acquiesced when he suggested
a sex game involving her being partially strangled with a pair of tights.

After the original trial Miss Longhurst's mother, Liz, organised a petition of 50,000 people and succeeded in persuading the home secretary to introduce legislation
banning the downloading and possession of violent or "extreme" pornography.

The current fears around the possible impact of 'violent pornography' on the internet seem very similar to previous 'moral panics'

Dr Meg Barker

She said: "I feel pressure should be brought to bear on internet service providers (ISPs) to close down or filter out these pornographic sites,
so that people like Jane's killer may no longer feed their sick imaginations and do harm to others."

Ms Longhurst's former partner Malcolm Sentance said at the time: "Jane would still be here if it wasn't for the internet."

The ban was included in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, details of which were announced by the government last week.

The Bill has yet to be debated by Parliament but there is growing opposition to the clause among a small but vociferous community who say they will be criminalised.

The community, comprising people involved in bondage, domination and sado-masochism (BDSM), has organised a petition against the new legislation, which 1,800 people have signed.

Deborah Hyde, of the pressure group Backlash, argues that perverted predators like Coutts will always exist and no amount of "kneejerk" legislation would prevent them from killing.

'Not good law'

She said the vast majority of BDSM people believed in consensual activities and would not wish to inflict actual harm on their partners.
They did not want to view snuff movies or actual cruelty but would be criminalised for watching pornography which was acted out by actors.

Ms Hyde said the government had already widened the description of "extreme" pornography to include some gay porn.

She said: "The government is trying to put us in the same category as rapists, murderers and paedophiles.

"I want to make the world a safer place but this law will not help. It is not good law and it is being rushed through.
There is a lot of research which says that giving access to this sort of material actually reduces crimes against women."
Liz Longhurst does not want another family to suffer as she has

Helen and John, who live in the Midlands, are opposed to the legislation. They say they are in a loving relationship which just happens to involve domination and submissiveness.

Helen said the government was overreacting to the Jane Longhurst case: "The supply of BDSM stuff has gone up hugely but there is no killing spree.
If all this violent pornography is causing people to go psycho where are all the damaged people?

"Do you ban alcohol just because some people are alcoholics?"

Dr Meg Barker, a senior lecturer in psychology at London South Bank University, said:
"The current fears around the possible impact of 'violent pornography' on the internet seem very similar to previous 'moral panics' there have been from penny dreadfuls
in Victorian times, to horror comics in the 1950s, to video nasties in the 1980s."

"Images of consensual, or fictitious, acts between adults should not be criminalised,"
she said, adding that there was evidence that "kinky" and S&M activities were on the increase among "normal" heterosexual couples.

But Labour MP Martin Salter, who has worked closely with Mrs Longhurst in pushing the legislation, rejected the BDSM community's claims their civil liberties were being undermined.

'Unbalanced mind'

He said: "No-one is stopping people doing weird stuff to each other but they would be strongly advised not to put it on the internet.

"At the end of the day it is all too easy for this stuff to trigger an unbalanced mind."
The legislation is designed to tackle porn in the internet age

Mr Salter, MP for Reading West, said: "These snuff movies are other stuff are seriously disturbing.
Many police officers who have to view it as part of their job have to undergo psychological counselling."

He insisted the law did not ban anything which was not already illegal under the Obscene Publications Act.

"It simply plugs a hole in the law because the Obscene Publications Act is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard as far as the internet is concerned.
This new law is designed to meet the challenge of the internet."

But Ms Hyde said the Obscene Publications Act targeted the producers while the new act would criminalise the consumers.

THE REGISTER SAID:
UK ministers are considering plans to make downloading violent sexual images from the net a criminal offence.
Distributing footage depicting rapes or other so-called extreme pornography is illegal (under the Obscene Publications Act 1959)
but current laws do not allow prosecution for simple possession. This contrasts with laws on the possession of images of child abuse.

A new offence of possessing violent and abusive pornography, punishable by up to three years imprisonment,
is under consideration Home Officer Minister Paul Goggins told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He said such images were abhorrent and had no place in society.

"These forms of violent and abusive pornography go far beyond what we allow to be shown in films or even sold in licensed sex shops in the UK,
so they should not be available online either," Goggins said, adding that accidental viewing of violent material would be a defence against prosecution.
The minister added that there was a responsibility to "reduce demand" for violent smut so as to protect both the public and those abused
but did not elaborate on what steps might be taken by the government on this front.
The Home Office has launched a consultation on its proposals to make possession of violent pornography an offence. The consultation will run for over three months until 2 December.

Plans for legislation were welcomed by the the family of Jane Longhurst, who was murdered by a man addicted to watching violent porn.
Longhurst was murdered two years ago by a friend's boyfriend, Graham Coutts, after he spent hours watching footage of women being strangled and raped.
Police said new laws might assist investigations.
But a representative from a pressure group called Internet Freedom questioned the supposed link between viewing violent images and acts of violence.

Other countries are also considering actions geared to clamping down into the traffic of pornography over the net.
The Finnish government has given the country's ISPs a list of proscribed child abuse websites to block.
Meanwhile in Malaysia police have been urged to "randomly check" mobile phones for pornographic images.
According to reports, teenagers in the country are using their mobiles to film "mass sex parties"
and circulating images of these Bacchanalian orgies to each other in defiance of the Muslim country's strict censorship laws. ®

OUT LAW .COM SAID:

The Government has published a new law which will criminalise extreme pornography. The Government first indicated that it would criminalise the possession of violent pornography two years ago.

A new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has had its first reading in Parliament, which means that it has been published and awaits debate and committee scrutiny.

The possession of extreme pornography will be punishable by up to three years in jail, according to a statement from the Ministry of Justice.
"Material covered will include necrophilia, bestiality, and violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts, or genitals," said the statement.

Such material has been illegal to publish until now under the Obscene Publications Act.
The material has not been illegal to view or possess, though; the new law will make possession a crime. Images of child pornography are already illegal to view or to possess.

The legislation is designed to tackle the fact that with internet publishing something can be created and published on the other side of the world and instantaneously viewed or stored in the UK.

"[This material] can be accessed in the UK from abroad via the internet. Legislating in this area will ensure that the possession of such material is illegal both on and off line,"
said the Ministry of Justice. "This Government will always seek to close gaps in the law caused by misuse of new technologies, such as the internet, which allow existing controls to be avoided."

The legislation covers realistic pictures, even those which are not photographs, moving images, and files or data that can be converted into pictures.

The new law is designed to take account of the context of images, and recognises that an image which might seem to constitute extreme pornography
in isolation may not do so in a wider context. "Where an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images,
and it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,
the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself," said the published bill.

"The new law is not intended to target those who accidentally come into contact with obscene pornography;
nor would it target the mainstream entertainment industry which works within current obscenity laws or those who sell bondage material legally available in the UK,"
said the Ministry of Justice statement.

THE GUARDIEN NEWSPAPER SAID:

Jane Longhurst's murder, three years ago, by Graham Coutts, a man said to be obsessed with violent pornographic websites,
led to a huge campaign to outlaw those who access such material (it is already illegal to publish or distribute such images).
More than 50,000 people signed a petition in support of her mother Liz Longhurst's struggle to change the law.
Yesterday, a bill that would allow police to prosecute those in possession of violent porn was announced.
Below five writers and campaigners ask: is this a victory for women's rights, or an attack on civil liberties?

Joan Bakewell, broadcaster and writer
Mrs Longhurst is to be congratulated on the success of her crusade. It shows that individuals can still be effective.
But I see problems ahead. The first concerns the difference between reality and simulation.
Will looking at images of gross brutality that have been acted out, without real harm, really be prosecuted?
If so, we could be back to the case that beset The Romans in Britain, the stage play that included a simulated anal rape, which Mary Whitehouse tried to have banned.

Secondly, I would prefer to prosecute not those who look at the images, but those who put them there in the first place.
This should be possible: making and distributing extremely violent pornography is already illegal.
So why can't we censor the images that are produced, removing them from the internet, before they reach their intended audience?
Surely if China can stop liberal ideas from reaching its people, Britain can keep extreme pornography from a much smaller population?

The idea that pornography causes murder is hard to prove. My television series Taboo tried to demonstrate the link.
But the truth is that many people can watch films of cruelty and degradation without harmful effect.
That said, extreme pornography degrades women and brutalises men, which is why I think that removing it from the internet would be the best way forward.

Julie Bindel, feminist campaigner and journalist

For those of us who know how much harm porn does - to the women raped and beaten in its production, and the men who consume it and start to see women as meat
the proposed new law against violent pornography provides a glimmer of hope.

There are, of course, people who have never encountered extreme pornography, can't really imagine what it could be like, and therefore can't see why we need this law.
Twenty-five years ago I watched a snuff movie with other anti-porn activists, journalists and special film-effects experts.
One of the activists had gone into a porn shop in England and asked if the owner had something "really extreme".
He gave her a film of a woman in South America being raped, tortured and murdered.
As a finale, her hand was sawn off. By that time it was only the feminists left in the room, the others having run out to cry, or be sick.
We knew what we would be seeing, because we had heard about it from activists in the US who were fighting the same battles.

We had proved that snuff existed (the film experts verified that there were no camera tricks to depict the sawing),
and one of the journalists wrote copiously about the issue, urging police to take action. Nothing happened.

Since then the internet has allowed men to film themselves abusing women and children, and to distribute these images to thousands of people worldwide,
within minutes. For a woman whose rape and violation is now a piece of entertainment, she has to cope with the knowledge that the record of this may well outlive her.

Earlier this year, I did some research for a film company on violent porn, and found an image on the internet that haunts me.
It was a photograph of a dead naked woman in a ditch, who had been beaten and seemingly raped.
Her flesh crawled with maggots. Some men will find that picture sexually arousing.
Those men need to be stopped from creating the demand that encourages the murder of women simply in order to satisfy their grotesque desires.

Holly Combe, member of Feminists Against Censorship

One of my main concerns for victims of genuine abuse is that their abuser is prosecuted, not whether somebody looked at the evidence and became turned on.
I would also suggest that anyone who commits a serious crime is unlikely to put the results all over the internet,
and that many of the sites likely to be affected by the new laws would actually be showing sexual activity between consenting adults.
The government seems to be making the point that some sex acts are so wrong that individual consent doesn't count
and that it is the place of authority to dictate our sexual preferences or place limits on them.

I would also add that even the original consultation paper for this bill openly states that there is a lack of evidence to support claims about the links between viewing porn
and engaging in non-consensual, abusive behaviour. In my view, the proposed law potentially absolves killers who enjoy violent porn of responsibility for their actions.

The bottom line is that the majority of people aren't into BDSM [bondage/domination/sado-masochism]
and that means it's all too easy for most of us to say, "It won't affect me if you ban that" and allow this bill to pass into law.
But if we let the government tell us what we can and can't look at, who knows what they'll be able to achieve in the future?

Jeremy Coutinho, chair of Object

Obviously these proposals are "a good news day" for women's human rights. They plug a legal loophole whereby the distribution and sale, but not the possession of violent material, was illegal.

Simply closing this loophole, though, does not in itself address society's attitudes towards women, which are still extraordinarily sexist and allow rape, sexual assault and discrimination to flourish.
The mainstreaming of a porn aesthetic and outlook is now endemic.

So, for instance, in Virgin Airline's executive lounge at JFK, the introduction of urinals shaped like women's mouths was only abandoned after massive protest.
Then there was Zoo magazine's "dictionary of porn" which described abusive porn such as "pink eye" (ejaculating on to a woman's eye ball).
Zoo is sold without age restriction as a "lifestyle" magazine, often for as little as 60p.

Or take the Sport "newspaper", which described the sex life of Jane Longhurst's murderer as "an adventurous romp" on a page crammed with graphic adverts for sex chat lines and hardcore porn.

While I welcome this bill, the mainstream objectification of women has to be tackled too if the government is really serious about women's human rights.

Bonnie Greer, playwright

The creation and use of pornography is as old as humankind. In the 18th century, pornographic novels were used to spread ideas that later became the foundation for the Enlightenment.
Ulysses, arguably the greatest novel of the 20th century, was called porn. So was Manet's Olympia; Goya's The Naked Maja; Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.
While snuff imagery, female mutilation and gynaecological surgery is not my idea of entertainment,
these sites are usually made by adults and consumed by adults and it is as important to protect consenting adult behaviour as it is to protect children,
the aged, racial minorities, and the disabled. While any decent human being can sympathise with a grieving mother,
particularly in the face of an especially horrendous crime; we can allow neither her, nor 50,000 petitioners,
nor a government that has lost its way, to criminalise legitimate, private, adult behaviour. The arena of adulthood must be allowed to exist for the sake of democracy.

Heres whats happening in Austrailia

BANS on hard-core pornography should be extended nationwide to protect white children as well as black, former Nationals leader John Anderson said today.

Mr Anderson, who has been lobbying within Coalition ranks to oppose the influx of pornography in indigenous communities, said X-rated material was damaging children across the nation.

The Howard Government has banned pornography in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory as part of its strategy to combat violence against children.
It is also looking at overriding the Northern Territory's liberal censorship laws, which allow for the sale of explicit pornography.

It is also looking at restricting the supply of similar material out of the ACT, which has a large mail-order business.

“As Noel Pearson put it so beautifully, ask the children if they mind a bit of paternalism when they're cowering under the table,” Mr Anderson said.

“You can't restrict that to just Aboriginal children. That plainly happens in non-indigenous communities as well as indigenous communities.”

Mr Anderson said the evidence was overwhelming that there are real and frightening links between porn and sexual violence.

“What you have here is a giant hypocrisy that no one has wanted to tackle.

“The minute it's questioned, the members who have questioned it are immediately targeted by the X-rated video industry lobby groups.”

Mr Anderson said that by banning pornography flowing into NT Aboriginal communities,
the Howard Government had effectively conceded there was a link between watching the material and acting in dysfunctional ways.

“I think what comes out of this is we are now conceding that there's a problem with this stuff, and frankly I think that all Governments ought to have a long hard look at it again,” he said.

“And we ought to say that civil libertarian arguments are not enough in the face of too many young Australian children's lives are being deeply scared even permanently and seriously damaged.”

Mr Anderson said that while he is no expert, he had been told by many experts that porn was like drug addiction.

He said NSW Aboriginal communities also wanted the pornography banned, and challenged the Iemma Government to take immediate action.

Patricia Karvelas
July 09, 2007
The Australian

NORESPECTINTEDED.com Hopes the above info will be useful to aid making informed decisions regarding this style of pornography.

A FEW OTHER ASSORTED SITES WORTH VISTING:
SharkingUK - GotSquirt - NoRespectIntended - ThatGuyInTheCorner