Epic win

As it's not strictly speaking legal in the UK and could be classed as Actual Bodily Harm I'm afraid I am going to have to decline to answer that question.

I totally understand why you may not be into it by the way. Each to there own.

wow, i didn't know that. what the law on scaration (spelling?).

I think some of the scar tissue art looks really beautiful but i'd want a really good rapport with the person doing it.

I'm pretty sure scarification is ok, tis a good question.

Tattooing is scaring in a way but there is no removal of flesh like there is with scarification.

Interesting.

wow, i didn't know that. what the law on scaration (spelling?).

I think some of the scar tissue art looks really beautiful but i'd want a really good rapport with the person doing it.

I think Scarification falls under the same law, though I could be wrong.

My sister did her first cycle commute today and loved it. Brixton to Canary Wharf. Shaved 20 mins off Pubic Transport time to work.

Win win win

wow, i didn't know that. what the law on scaration (spelling?).
It's the same deal for scarification, it's a very grey area of the law but it would certainly be possible to prosecute someone for Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.

Also, since the introduction of part5, section 63 of UK law (The extreme porn act) there is concern that photographing such proceedures could be deemed unlawful. The issue with this being that the law is so open to interpretation that it can be bused by those of a "higher moral standard".

This law ignores whether the participansts (in the case of scarification the artist and the receipient) were both consenting to the actions. It is applied to anything which is considered obscene , but using the OED definition, thuus taking into account things which are deemed "disgusting", "repulsive" or "offensive to morality". Unfortunately thast morality is defined by the prosecutors and not the participants.

I should point out that under that particular law half of the photographs that I have of myself are illegal. Despite the fact that they were taken by an artist with similar interests to mine, as a study on modification.

I should point out that under that particular law half of the photographs that I have of myself are illegal. Despite the fact that they were taken by an artist with similar interests to mine, as a study on modification.

There is actually a worrying danger that photographs of simple tattoos and other less invasive body modification to certain parts of the body, particularly erogenous zones and any skin or flesh close to them, could be deemed illegal under the same law. This has a number of implications, particularly for those who are interested in getting modifications and those in the modification industry. It could potentially become too risky for practitioners to record their work for catalogue purposes as displaying them to potential customers could then be deemed illegal.

Body modification practitioners often rely on pictoral evidence of their work to ensure trade. Absence of that means that their customers may no longer be making "informed"* consent and this could easily lead into problems under the bodily harm laws, even from a simple trading standards complaint.

*To be a consenting adult you have to be able to make a reasonable judgement of the implications of your actions or the actions of those affecting you. Being uninformed negates consent unless you intentionally and willfully avoid being informed.

Body modification... hmmm...

I'd like go-go-gadget arms for sure.

That falls under the realm of cybernetic enhancement. It it helps, I don't think that would fall foul of the aforementioned laws.

Cybernetics, eh?

What about X-ray vision?

That too, if you could ever get it to work. The principles of current x-ray technology works on measuring radiative coefficients so you would need to have radiosensitive aural receptors and a large source of radiation close by. You would be able to see people's bones and organs but would have a limited life expectancy.

An "x ray" camera has been trialled that would allow the user to see through clothes by means of algorithmic extrapolation but I understand it was of limited success. IIRC, some of the technology may have been used in the early DARPA trials.

I am amazed I got a serious answer to that questions. Cheers.

I don't have much to do at work at the moment. Next time I will not be so generous.

There is actually a worrying danger that photographs of simple tattoos and other less invasive body modification to certain parts of the body, particularly erogenous zones and any skin or flesh close to them, could be deemed illegal under the same law. This has a number of implications, particularly for those who are interested in getting modifications and those in the modification industry. It could potentially become too risky for practitioners to record their work for catalogue purposes as displaying them to potential customers could then be deemed illegal.

Body modification practitioners often rely on pictoral evidence of their work to ensure trade. Absence of that means that their customers may no longer be making "informed"* consent and this could easily lead into problems under the bodily harm laws, even from a simple trading standards complaint.

*To be a consenting adult you have to be able to make a reasonable judgement of the implications of your actions or the actions of those affecting you. Being uninformed negates consent unless you intentionally and willfully avoid being informed.
It's rare to find someone else who even knows anything about this law, let alone detail behind it and the implications. I tip my hat to you good Sir.

They're not really into extreme pornography but the British Journal of Photography is an excellent source of commentary on photographers rights, wherever they may be affected. Sad to say that the majority of laws surrounding photography seem to be knee-jerk reactions to high profile cases. Unfortunately, in these instances, it becomes a matter of legislation by media and as always, polarity favours the right (wing).

It's rare to find someone else who even knows anything about this law, let alone detail behind it and the implications. I tip my hat to you good Sir.

Yeah... the law is good and all... But he knows about x-ray specs!

That too, if you could ever get it to work. The principles of current x-ray technology works on measuring radiative coefficients so you would need to have radiosensitive aural receptors and a large source of radiation close by. You would be able to see people's bones and organs but would have a limited life expectancy.

An "x ray" camera has been trialled that would allow the user to see through clothes by means of algorithmic extrapolation but I understand it was of limited success. IIRC, some of the technology may have been used in the early DARPA trials.

That is really interesting, that seriously made my day reading about such cool stuff! Do you work in this field at all then?

No, simple application of physics for the first bit and sad monitor tanned geekery for the second.

I spend most of my working life telling people to stop wasting energy and insulate their homes properly. Apparently some poeple don't believe in insulation. I will quit my job when I inevitably point out that insulation isn't a god and has no opinion on apostasy.

[/quote][quote=matt (baddesigner);772867]

Awesome.

It's rare to find someone else who even knows anything about this law, let alone detail behind it and the implications. I tip my hat to you good Sir.

this is in a way an expansion of the Spanner case where a group of gay sado-masochists were prosecuted for injuring each other even though it was all consensual. now it's been extended to pictures of SM; more and more consenting adults are having their private lives criminalised supposedly because such 'porn' turns people in to violent sex criminals. it's interesting to me that there are two opposing trends here; telling someone you are a sado-masochist is no longer that difficult, it's almost mainstream and generally not disapproved of, atleast amongst reasonably liberal people. but at the same time there is a repressive move by the government and a very tenuous linking of 'perversion' with crime.

.

Anyways.....back on topic, my epic win of the day this morning was bunnyhopping onto a traffic island, and perfectly timing my re-entrance onto the road as the traffic lights turned green and beating everyone away from the lights, hell yeah mother funkers!

this is in a way an expansion of the Spanner case where a group of gay sado-masochists were prosecuted for injuring each other even though it was all consensual. now it's been extended to pictures of SM; more and more consenting adults are having their private lives criminalised supposedly because such 'porn' turns people in to violent sex criminals. it's interesting to me that there are two opposing trends here; telling someone you are a sado-masochist is no longer that difficult, it's almost mainstream and generally not disapproved of, atleast amongst reasonably liberal people. but at the same time there is a repressive move by the government and a very tenuous linking of 'perversion' with crime.
Ohh, get you. The main difference between the spanner case (Sadomasochistic Homosexual Males) and the extreme porn act are the the former was a witch hunt as the authorities believed the subnmissive to be dead (although they were in fact not and ended up in prison with the rest of the group) and the latter focusing on anything which can be considered disgusting or lacking in morals.

My question is this, who's morals?

I'd say I have a very strict moral code which I live by, decided upon by myself. I have no issue with consenting adults entertaining themselves in that which can be considered "perverted". I also have no issue with certain modifications or tattoo placements. However according to british law I could be put in prison for 3 years if I chose to have photographs of things which I find perfectly natural.