Some ministers had opposed the amendment and suggested the new ban would have been difficult to implement because, under the law in England and Wales, it is not illegal for adults who are step-related to engage in a sexual relationship.
This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.
It's obviously not legal for say, me, a middle aged man, to possess a photograph of some 17 year old girl with her tits out. Right? Except well... wait no, because what if I have a photo of my middle aged wife shortly after we first met, so the photo shows a 17 year old girl with her tits out, but the person is my wife, who is like "Yeah, remember when I had long hair? Also, I wish my tits still looked like that". So clearly that is OK after all, it's legal.
And then we have a huge row, she divorces me, now that photo is illegal after all, because I'm definitely not allowed to have photos of under-age girls with their tits out, and now the photo isn't of my wife... not any more.
Knife laws similarly have weird edge cases. 12" long sharp blade? Crime. In a Kebab shop to make delicious kebabs? Legal. I took it with me to the pub after work? Crime; Walking down the street with an ordinary Swiss Army Knife (oversize)? Crime. Tiny version of that knife? Legal. Sword, like an actual medieval sword? Crime. But I need it for this mock battle we're staging? Still a crime. No swords. Use a fake sword which can't hurt anybody or go to jail.
Edited: The "original" Swiss Army Knife is barely short enough that it's always legal, but some oversize variants are not. Like that Kebab knife you can have a lawful reason you needed to carry the knife regardless of size but I hope your reason make sense ("Self defence" is never a lawful reason to carry weapons in the UK)
I believe nudity is generally not illegal at all, as in in itself. Like... Come on, _of course_ it's the UK, not Europe or US....
Are we there yet?
Nude children are or were in the recent past displayed in Britain's museums (National Gallery, Tate Britain and Tate Modern (afair paintings and sculptures, infamous pictures of Brooke Shields), British Museum (antiques))
For example if you were to photograph your own kids frolicking in the garden to immortalise the moments of joy and fun, that'd be also okay BUT of course I'm certain Google/Apple would immediately report you, lock your account and then you'd have to get a lawyer to point the sheer absurdity of it.
And that's at the same time it's perfectly fine for such children to play on the public beaches for example.
...but of course I'm aware we're supposed to police ourselves.
Brits love being gravely offended and prude and the new law further reinforces this notion -- at the moment when the possession of the fake video or fake story of incest relationship is a criminal offence, having a sexual relationship with, say, first cousin is perfectly fine in the UK.
I mean: you can legally and lawfully have a child with your cousin, but if you wrote a story about that INSTEAD that's 2 years in prison.
I can't help myself but I think too many MPs and Lords have affairs with cousins; perhaps worse.
The double edge of the UK version of Roman Law is that Man on the Clapham omnibus
- all these edge cases fall to a judge .. who may or may not be as reasonable as your first cousin on the back seat of the omnibus.
A politician voting for a bill is legal. Giving money to a politician is legal. But giving money to a politician so he'll vote for a bill is not legal.
"It's a big club and you ain't in it". Obviously the problem is the club is too small, that's why for most of the people it is true that they are not part of it.
"Half the population is stupider than how stupid the average person is". As if somehow there's not a single person exactly on the median. In fact there is probably a huge number of people there, and within a margin of error of it.
How do you figure? I don't have a problem with Carlin, but with people who quote him as a source of wisdom.
The commenter who quoted him here in the thread meant to make a joke and I didn't get it? I thought he quoted him as a point against the law we are discussing.
> "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal; but selling fucking is not legal."
I don't get it. The literal interpretation is a clear joke, as you say. So what's the point that it is making?
To be clear, I think the law discussed is stupid. I also think the argument that if both parts are legal they should also be legal together is wrong. What am I avoiding?
I am quite acquainted with Carlin. If there's anyone that can have their absurd logic repeated back to them, it would be a comedian. And That Right Soon.
> This is amusing to me. Legal to do, but not legal to film.
I don't know if it's amusing but the comparison is incorrect. Doing it in public is not legal. These laws are about the public part, not about the doing part.
Carlin's quote in this thread suffers from the same problem, he was eager to say something amusing, instead of correct, and did it prematurely.
