The recent interest in the Eisenstadt v. Baird case
might make it look like I’m picking on the Yanks. OK, I was, but I can also pinpoint a moment we were morally doomed too.
Subsection (1) above shall not affect the offence of conspiracy at common law if and in so far as it may be committed by entering into an agreement to engage in conduct which—
(a)tends to corrupt public morals or outrages public decency; but
(b)would not amount to or involve the commission of an offence if carried out by a single person otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement.
Anything “consensual” goes, quite a powerful label.
We could technically make online porn illegal over night, since it’s cinematographic and children frequently view it, which is not only grooming but corrupting.
(3)In section 2 of that Act after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
“(4A)Without prejudice to subsection (4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—
(a)in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or
(b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.”
(4)At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection:—
“(7)In this section ” cinematograph exhibition ” means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.”
(5)In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words
“Subject to subsection (3A) of this section”and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
“(3A)Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Wonder why nobody wants to see plays anymore?
Abolition of censorship of the theatre
1Abolition of censorship of the theatre.
(1)The Theatres Act 1843 is hereby repealed; and none of the powers which were exercisable thereunder by the Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household shall be exercisable by or on behalf of Her Majesty by virtue of Her royal prerogative.
(2)[In granting, renewing or transferring any licence under this Act for the use of any premises for the public performance of plays or in varying any of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held, the licensing authority shall not have power to impose any term, condition or restriction as to the nature of the plays which may be performed under the licence or as to the manner of performing plays thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall prevent a licensing authority from imposing any term, condition or restriction which they consider necessary in the interests of physical safety or health or any condition regulating or prohibiting the giving of an exhibition, demonstration or performance of hypnotism within the meaning of the Hypnotism Act 1952.]
Health and Safety overtook the concern for public morality.
That’s why actors can get naked and perform sexual acts in a play.
There’s our own Race Relations statute (we never used to need one….) and hate speech was only written in once the original protection of the natives, White Christians, was written out.
That is the year we officially became second class citizens in our own country.
It just so happens to be around the time left-wing batshittery became intolerable.