So watching porn there (which is probably not right, but not exactly harming anyone) breaks the law and can carry a 2 year prison sentence according to the article (on top of him resigning).
Yet having multiple parties during lockdown, breaking the law multiple times, while everyone is stuck at home not able to see each other, and was definitely potentially harmful to many, only carried a £50 fine (for Johnson that I’ve seen anyway). And he got out of that with a pathetic ‘apology’…
As the article says, I’d be interested how many times that law has ever been used up until now.
Which, as has been precidented by Johnson, being a criminal is fine.
*The situation was that – funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn’t have done*
The old ‘I was looking at tractors’ defence
Anti same sex marriage, pro Brexit, ticks the usual boxes.
A Tory MP doing the right thing by resigning who’d have thought
I checked John Deer, Massey Ferguson, Case, Kubota no luck.
Any one a lawyer as this law pertains to public space and as we well know the chamber is not public space:
>[Indecent displays.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/42/section/1)
>
>(1)If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.
>
>(2)Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.
>
(3)In subsection (2) above, “public place”, in relation to the display of any matter, >means any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise) while that matter is displayed except—
>
>>(a)a place to which the public are permitted to have access only on payment which is or includes payment for that display; or
>
>>(b)a shop or any part of a shop to which the public can only gain access by passing beyond an adequate warning notice;
>
>but the exclusions contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall only apply where persons under the age of 18 years are not permitted to enter while the display in question is continuing.
And then for extra clarification:
>**4)Nothing in this section applies in relation to any matter—**
>
>>(a)included by any person in a television broadcasting service or other television programme service (within the meaning of Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990);
>>
>>(b)included in the display of an art gallery or museum and visible only from within the gallery or museum; or
>>
>>**(c)displayed by or with the authority of, and visible only from within a building occupied by, the Crown or any local authority**; or
>>
>>(d)included in a performance of a play (within the meaning of paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003) in England and Wales or of a play (within the meaning of the Theatres Act 1968) in Scotland;
>>
>>(e)included in an exhibition of a film, within the meaning of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, in England and Wales, or a film exhibition, as defined in the Cinemas Act 1985, in Scotland—
>>
>>>(i)given in a place which as regards that exhibition is required to be licensed under section 1 of that Act or by virtue only of section 5, 7 or 8 of that Act is not required to be so licensed; or
>>>
>>>(ii)which is an exhibition to which section 6 of that Act applies given by an exempted organisation as defined in subsection (6) of that section.
You do have the public galleries in the House of Commons, but for a member of the public to see what was on Parish’s screen from them…
Methink the Observer be fanciful beyond their legal department on this one.
MPs need to be able to look at load of weird shit, in the course of their work, that would be hid from the public.
>It has also been alleged that a female Tory MP was sent an explicit photograph, known as a “dick pic”, by a male colleague.
Does one charge the receiver here for the crime of opening up that “dick pic” at work?
Not sticking up for any of the misbehaviour, but to have a mature conversation we should remember the maxim [bad cases make bad law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law) as in cases like this many lose their head before they ever think to think.
8 comments
So watching porn there (which is probably not right, but not exactly harming anyone) breaks the law and can carry a 2 year prison sentence according to the article (on top of him resigning).
Yet having multiple parties during lockdown, breaking the law multiple times, while everyone is stuck at home not able to see each other, and was definitely potentially harmful to many, only carried a £50 fine (for Johnson that I’ve seen anyway). And he got out of that with a pathetic ‘apology’…
As the article says, I’d be interested how many times that law has ever been used up until now.
Which, as has been precidented by Johnson, being a criminal is fine.
*The situation was that – funnily enough it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit which I shouldn’t have done*
The old ‘I was looking at tractors’ defence
Anti same sex marriage, pro Brexit, ticks the usual boxes.
A Tory MP doing the right thing by resigning who’d have thought
I checked John Deer, Massey Ferguson, Case, Kubota no luck.
Any one a lawyer as this law pertains to public space and as we well know the chamber is not public space:
>[Indecent displays.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/42/section/1)
>
>(1)If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.
>
>(2)Any matter which is displayed in or so as to be visible from any public place shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be publicly displayed.
>
(3)In subsection (2) above, “public place”, in relation to the display of any matter, >means any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise) while that matter is displayed except—
>
>>(a)a place to which the public are permitted to have access only on payment which is or includes payment for that display; or
>
>>(b)a shop or any part of a shop to which the public can only gain access by passing beyond an adequate warning notice;
>
>but the exclusions contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) above shall only apply where persons under the age of 18 years are not permitted to enter while the display in question is continuing.
And then for extra clarification:
>**4)Nothing in this section applies in relation to any matter—**
>
>>(a)included by any person in a television broadcasting service or other television programme service (within the meaning of Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990);
>>
>>(b)included in the display of an art gallery or museum and visible only from within the gallery or museum; or
>>
>>**(c)displayed by or with the authority of, and visible only from within a building occupied by, the Crown or any local authority**; or
>>
>>(d)included in a performance of a play (within the meaning of paragraph 14(1) of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003) in England and Wales or of a play (within the meaning of the Theatres Act 1968) in Scotland;
>>
>>(e)included in an exhibition of a film, within the meaning of paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Licensing Act 2003, in England and Wales, or a film exhibition, as defined in the Cinemas Act 1985, in Scotland—
>>
>>>(i)given in a place which as regards that exhibition is required to be licensed under section 1 of that Act or by virtue only of section 5, 7 or 8 of that Act is not required to be so licensed; or
>>>
>>>(ii)which is an exhibition to which section 6 of that Act applies given by an exempted organisation as defined in subsection (6) of that section.
You do have the public galleries in the House of Commons, but for a member of the public to see what was on Parish’s screen from them…
Methink the Observer be fanciful beyond their legal department on this one.
MPs need to be able to look at load of weird shit, in the course of their work, that would be hid from the public.
More to consider:
[From the Sunday Times](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-booze-and-politics-inside-the-corridors-of-power-in-the-week-that-reignited-westminsters-metoo-7smx9fkd7):
>It has also been alleged that a female Tory MP was sent an explicit photograph, known as a “dick pic”, by a male colleague.
Does one charge the receiver here for the crime of opening up that “dick pic” at work?
Not sticking up for any of the misbehaviour, but to have a mature conversation we should remember the maxim [bad cases make bad law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law) as in cases like this many lose their head before they ever think to think.