But the second, which is being urged in support of the new proposal, is dangerous although not necessarily false: that people who relish such images may seek to emulate what they see.

How far are we prepared to go in preventively detaining people who are likely to commit crimes, but have not yet committed them?

LEOFRANC HOLFORD-STREVENS
Oxford

Sir, While the murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts was a tragedy, it is with regret that I note that this Government is going ahead with its plans to create a “thought crime” by making possession of “violent porn” a criminal offence.

This decision is based on their own interpretation of the results of a deeply flawed “consultation” document that drew entirely fallacious comparisons with child pornography and which made claims that, since the proposers of the law found such imagery “abhorrent”, it should be banned to protect the rest of us.

This document was not only criticised by members of the Spanner Trust, but also by Rabinder Singh, QC, (a leading human rights lawyer), the BBFC and Channel 4 Television among others.

The definitions of what the Home Office claims to be “violent porn” are entirely subjective, and the only way they will be tested is when some poor soul is hauled in front of the courts to have their reputation destroyed — even if (or when) they are found to be not guilty.

This law is a pernicious attempt to control what individuals in this country are permitted to see, based on nothing more than the personal opinions of members of the Government.

It is a breach of basic human rights, and I would urge people to consider the implications of this law and to state their objections to their MP, before someone is locked up for the crime of looking at “dangerous pictures”.

GRAHAM MARSDEN
Southsea, Hants

Sir, The BBC website has photographs of Ninagawa’s production of Titus Andronicus. Who will get the three years in jail?

LINDSAY F. TOSH
Parkgate, Dumfriesshire

Explore Letters

• Feedback