http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_wand


With sufficient time in one spot, redness or mild burns can result from the arc's heat. The arcs do generate ozone and nitrogen oxides, giving the skin the well known "ozone smell" similar to the smell of a lightning storm. Violet wands can possibly ignite flammable materials and melt artificial fabrics such as pantyhose with certain accessories and settings.

crikey the violet wand actually looks like um … is that what it … um. So the laws are in theory stricter than I thought … but if here a violet wand and burn its way through artificial fabrics then surely it could inflict an illegal level of damage on human genitalia …


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner


R. v Brown also differs from the heterosexual cases of Wilson, Slingsby, and Emmett in that even recipients of injuries in R. v Brown were convicted of "aiding and abetting," for the crime of consenting to their own injuries, yet none of the women who remained alive in the heterosexual cases were even arrested for their decision to consent.


the House of Lords failed to establish a precise guide for the United Kingdom's courts to consistently decide where a defence of consent should succeed or where it should not, and as Roger Geary argues in Understanding Criminal Law, this lack of a precise guide gives rise to legislating from the bench or other kritocracy, and laws being applied unequally to homosexuals or others whose practices are in the minority where pain is inflicted with consent, even potentially body art such as tattooing.Some body art professionals worry that UK judges can interpret their practices as illegal, determining which consensual acts are too extreme and constitute assault, on a case-by-case basis, with no way of the practitioner knowing beforehand.

http://www.unfettered.co.uk/bdsmrights/the%20media.html


Also in 1996 was the Regina v Wilson case [the Doncaster bum branding] where Alan Wilson was cleared on February 28, 1996, of harming his wife. Three Appeal Court judges said: "Sexual activity between husband and wife in the privacy of the own home is not a matter for criminal investigation, let alone criminal prosecution." The judges criticised the CPS for bringing the case to court and said it served 'no useful purpose'. This was reported in The Guardian and the Evening Standard [among others on Feb 29]. A much longer version appears in The Times Law Report of March 5, 1996.


well that actually is not true ... really is the most exciting topic though ...


http://cavernofthebeast.com/2012/01/29/bdsm-tpe-relationship-and-mental-illness/

1.27pm , 18.07.12.