And You’re not your. Perhaps I should just delete and start again.

German, FFS, German! I spotted that and corrected it but my phone knew better.

The Schnapps was good. The Guinness was horrible. We caught the train and slept all the way to Italy.

Dice goes on the floor again. We pick it up. They say something and this time we apologise that we didn’t understand as we’re English.

“Your English!” Smiles and back slapping. Out comes an ice cold bottle of Schnapps and two glasses. “Have a drink on us”.

glass of black stuff. Scrapes off the excess head with a knife then repeats the exercise three or four times.

While this is happening, someone playing a game on the bar drops a dice. We pick it up and hand it back. They say something in Herman that we don’t catch so we laugh politely with them.

Allow me to tell you my Hamburg Guinness story.

18 year old me and a school friend Interrailing. Waiting for a train in Hamburg we spy a Guinness sign outside a bar. Friend, who loves Guinness, insists we go in. Order two pints of Guinness. Barman pours it like a lager; 3/4 glass of head and 1/4

Unfortunately it’s FB, I deleted the app for a year and felt better for it. Had to reinstall it recently because it wouldn’t let me update my phone number unless I logged in regularly (I reluctantly keep my account for my business page).

FML, another Sunday where social media algorithms have drawn me into arguing with morons. I need to find something more wholesome to do, like drinking piss.

This is nonsense. I bought my Mr S Woof hood (seen in my profile pic) in 2016 or ‘17. They were around before this (I’d been following pups on twitter for a few years before I bought my hood). The K9 style hood may be 10 years old but the Woof (and other brand hoods) came first.

Infograph about censorship. It compares it to magnets.

Sorted my thoughts about censorship, so I can stop thinking about it.

Now paying the price for that early morning hookup. 💤 Too old for that shit.

Strong agree

Can we criminalise adults pretending to be serious politicians?

Looking at you Kemi and everyone in Reform. Happy to receive nominations from the Labour Party too.

It’s all a bit Dangerous Dogs Act; something must be done, here’s something, do it. The press release just stinks of moralism. One thing I haven’t seen anyone discuss is the pretend incest provisions. How will that affect Daddy/son dynamic content?

bsky.app/profile/sars...

FFS, proof read this several times and still missed the typo in the second paragraph. Obviously that should say “…government is making porn illegal…” (although, maybe they are just making porn 🤷‍♂️).

That, and the campaign to keep poppers legal, is instructive and is why we should put pressure on the government and MPs to ensure consenting adults roleplaying, and not intending to realistically depict underage children, should not be criminalised.

Finally, for now, there’s the law of unintended consequences. It’s almost exactly ten years since the UK government almost banned poppers while trying to ban “legal highs”. www.theguardian.com/society/2016...

It doesn’t matter if the offence is proven or not, or even if the police decide there’s no case to prosecute, an employer can decide your actions constitute gross misconduct, dismiss you and refer the matter on to regulatory authorities (DM me if you want to know how I know).

For some, even a police investigation or allegation could be devastating. If you work with children, for example, an allegation that you published/possess illegal pornography will trigger a multi-agency investigation that could lead to you losing your job and being barred from working with children.

He was in his private room, so should have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it’s questionable whether the prosecution passed the public interest test but (without legal advice) he admitted the offence and was sentenced. Could ABDLs fall into a similar trap?

I’m reminded of the case of the gentleman in Scotland who ended up on the sex offenders register after cleaners found him engaging in a a sexual act with his bicycle. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotlan...

That’s somewhat reassuring however, as always, these things are open to interpretation by the courts and, if charged, a jury may decide that a reasonable person may think a grey haired, bearded man in a diaper is under 16. Will people want to take the risk? Will platforms err on the side of caution?

(ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, (iii) (iv) neither A nor B was under 16, and the person only published the image to person B or A (a le case may be (5) In this section "non-consensual harm" has the same meaning as in section 66. 67J Penalties for offences under section 67H (1) A person who commits an offence under section 67H(1) is liable- (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine (or both). (2) A person who commits an offence under section 67H(2) is liable-(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates' court or a fine (or both; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both)."

(2) In section 68 of that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), after "67E" insert "and 67H". (3) In Schedule 14 to that Act (special rules relating to providers of information society services), in paragraphs 3(1), 4(2) and 5(1) after "67E" insert "or 67H". (4) In Schedule 34A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (child sex offences for the purposes of section 327A), after paragraph 13ZB insert— "13ZC An offence under section 67H of that Act (possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16) in relation to an image showing a person under 18." (5) In Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 (priority offences), in paragraph 29 after paragraph (c) insert— '(d) section 67H (possession or publication of pornographic image: of sexual activity with child under 16)."' (b) * Page 230, line 13, at end insert— "(ja) section (Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16)(5);" (c) * Page 230, line 30, after "(4)," insert "(Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16)(2) and (3),"

And there’s a defence to the offence of publication if you’re one of the people int he image and you only publish it to the other person in the image: 67I (4) (c)

Furthermore, there’s a defence to the offence of possession if you are one of the people depicted in the image: 67I (2) (d) (i)

associated with the image that the person in subsection (2) publishes with the image, and (b) a person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended. (5) In this section "image" has the same meaning as in section 63. (6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to excluded images, within the meaning of section 64. (7) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. 67l Defences to offences under section 67H (1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67H(1), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2). (2) The matters are (a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned; (b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67H(1); (c) that the person (i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and (ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time; (d) that— (i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or person B mentioned in section 67H(1)(b), (ii) the act did not involve the infliction of any non-consensual harm on any person, and (iii) neither A nor B was under 16.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 67H(2), it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (4). (4) The matters are- (a) that the person had a legitimate reason for publishing the image concerned to the persons to whom they published it; (b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an image of the kind mentioned in section 67H(1); (c) that- (i) the person directly participated in the act portrayed as person A or person B mentioned in section 67H(1)(b),

67H (4) (b) “a person is not to be taken as pretending to be under 16 if it is fanciful that they are actually under 16 in the way pretended.”

If you’re a 30 year old with a beard you’re probably okay!

It seems clear to me that most ABDL content could fall foul of these provisions. Especially as the context of the image, or series of images, is what’s important.

However…

So how does Section 63 (Criminal justice and immigration act 2008) define pornographic?

An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/4...

Page 99, line 24, at end insert the following new Clause- "Pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16 (1) After section 67G of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 insert— "67H Possession or publication of pornographic images of sexual activity with child under 16 (1) It is an offence for a person (P) to be in possession of an image if— (a) the image is pornographic, within the meaning of section 63, (b) the image portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, a person (A) engaged in sexual activity with another person (B), (c) a reasonable person looking at the image would think that A and B were real, and (d) a reasonable person— (i) looking at the image, and (ii) taking into account any sound or information associated with the image, would think that at least one of A or B was, or was pretending to be, under 16. (2) It is an offence for a person to publish an image of the kind mentioned in subsection (1). (3) Publishing an image includes giving or making it available to another person by any means. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)- (a) the reference to sound or information associated with the image is- (i) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (1), to sound, or information, associated with the image that is in P's possession, and (ii) when subsection (1)(d) applies for the purpose of an offence under subsection (2), to sound, or information,

So what does the amendment say? Initially this looks bad. It’s an offence if a reasonable person thinks a pornographic image, or image depicting realistic sexual activity, depicts someone pretending to be under 16.

I’ve seen takes ranging from it’s not aimed at ABDL/it’s unenforceable to it’s the end of ABDL content in the UK.

Having found the amendment on the Parliamentary website this morning, I’m more relaxed than I was last night but only a bit! publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbi...