Talk:Operation Spanner

Which police force/s?
The item doesn't state which police was/were involved. Moriori 10:05, May 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * The timeline on linked-to website says Manchester, so added that. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Outcomes
If the case weren't true it would be quite a comedy - arresting a couple for S/M activity, the top for inflicting torture and the willing bottom for aiding in their own mistreatment - quite shocking. I recall that two or more of the defendants committed suicide because of the case and several others "lost everything" as a result. As the article progresses I hope that some of the impact it had on those involved in the acse is explored. Benjiboi 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the judge's conclusion could easily apply to the sport of BOXING. 199.214.26.194 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Boxing is argued to be allowable because it is "in the public interest". &mdash; ciphergoth 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly, a later case held that a man branding his wife's buttocks with an iron did not amount to assault. Of course, the main difference was that they were a heterosexual couple. --92.236.26.38 (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed - this was R v. Wilson. I believe the "official" reasoning given in the ruling was because R v. Brown only applied to sadomasochism, whilst this case was deemed to be not sadomasochism, and comparable to assault - see . Also of interest is the recent Mosley case where, even though this certainly was considered to be sadomasochism, the judge ridiculed the idea of it being illegal, on the grounds of it not being as serious as the events in the Spanner case (which in particular involved some participants who were under the age of consent for homosexuality at the time). Mdwh (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanner timeline
FYI, Spanner timeline. Benjiboi 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
In the Criticisms of the Judgement section, I read this: When compared to similar cases involving injuries caused intentionally or recklessly as a result of roughness during consensual intercourse between heterosexual couples. ...and am made to wonder what the heck it's trying to say. I'd normally tackle the re-write myself if I can parse the meaning, but in this case I cannot. There's precious little context or citation to determine the usable truthiness of it. Help? -:-  Alpin  Wolf   -:- 06:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To me the key phrase is during consensual intercourse between heterosexual couples as in this case was held to a different standard when compared to. Agree it's not very clear though. -- Banj e  b oi   02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any more references for this criticism? I haven't looked at the Bottomley/Bronitt book yet, but it seems unlikely the Slingsby case could be cited in comparison; that case was dismissed as there was no suggestion that the injuries inflicted were intentional, whereas the key point in this case was the capacity to consent to injury. Hence comparisons with boxing would probably be more relevant. It's also worth noting that any criticism is probably implicitly of the European system too (since the case reached the European courts). The more relevant case is probably R. v. Brown The Wolfenden Report (Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution (1957) ((Cmnd. 247)) declared that the function of the criminal law in relation to homosexual behaviour "is to preserve public order and decency, to project the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are especially vulnerable because they are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a state of special, physical, official or economic dependence"; paragraph 13 of chapter 2.

In response to the Wolfenden Report and consistently with its recommendations, Parliament enacted section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which provided, inter alia, as follows:

"(1) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision, . . . a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of 21 years.

"(2) An act which would otherwise be treated for the purposes of this Act as being done in private shall not be so treated if done - (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; . ..

"(6) It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that a homosexual act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 21 years. which applied at the time, of course since 2000 the age of consent has changed to 16 and public attitudes to homosexuality have too, so that case probably wouldn't be considered a relevant precedent today. 87.81.240.78 (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning
"Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized." by the person Templeman facts: Reasoning:
 * f1 sentence 1 acknowledges there is a gradient (a potential, like from well to drain)
 * f2 cruelty: act of being cruel: cruel causes suffering
 * f3 uncivilized is the negation of civilized : civilized a state where civilization has occurred: civilization achieving an advanced state of development.
 * f4 money is an advancement in development
 * f5 wealthy/rich (monetary) having extensively more than the average does.
 * f6 statistically if there are excessive variations toward one extreme then variations toward the other extreme are required to keep the average at the same point.
 * f7 poor is the other monetary extreme
 * f8 rich people derive pleasure from their monetary status (because they are able to please some of their needs by using money)
 * f9 there are rich people and poor people, not just average. (can be empirically determined)
 * f10 based on the prerequisite that all people are the same all should possess the same money.
 * f11 the discrepancy between f9 and f10 has to come from a displacement, a gradient in some way
 * f12 f6 and f11 (and f9 and f10) require to declare that rich only exist because there are poor and vice versa
 * f13 the nature of money itself is such that if all would have plenty that no one would be in need for more
 * f14 the poor sometimes suffer even in pain because they dont have money to afford certain things
 * R1 derived from f14 f12 and f8 one can say 'that some rich derive their pleasure by the poor that sometimes suffer even in pain.' with sentence 1 this results in 'some rich are an evil thing'
 * Q1 some rich are an evil thing is something most of society would agree to but imprisonment of (some of) the rich no one would agree, why to bdsm couples for a deducible similar act?
 * R2 f2 f3 f4 f14 f13 and f12 one can say money is civilized yet causes suffering therefore sentence 2 is invalid.
 * Q2 if cruelty is derivable not uncivilized (but rather part of the civilization even) and others go free for a similar act why are bdsm couples criminalized like that then?
 * Q3 is it really morally correct to impose such double standards, and do you want to live in such a society?


 * This obviously has no connection to this lemma. Could anybody please delete it? Nemissimo (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you are referring to Lord Templeman's
 * "In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."
 * Wikipedia is quoting Templeman, to try to help us understand the judgement.
 * I don't think being rich should protect one from going to prison.
 * --195.137.93.171 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"As a result of the Spanner case, the Law Commission decided in 2007 to investigate the status of consensual sadomasochistic acts in the law of England and Wales."
Is there any source related to the results of this investigation?Nemissimo (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any new information on this? Nemissimo (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Why does 'protection of morals' link to 'Paternalism'?
Any idea what paternalism has to do with 'protection of morals'? Restrictions 'for ones own good' are surely not the same thing as restrictions that protect morals. 122.62.116.20 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Source of name
The operation was apparently given its name by the Police on the basis that when officers read about the various acts of sado-masochism "they felt their nuts tighten". It would be good if an appropriate citation could be found for this! https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/325658.html?c=on hardly seems a suitably authoritative source to cite.Ntmr (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)