Talk:Operation Spanner

message: 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)
thread_title: Which police force/s?

message: 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)
replies: text: Interestingly, the judge's conclusion could easily apply to the sport of BOXING. 199.214.26.194 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Boxing is argued to be allowable because it is "in the public interest". — ciphergoth 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Outcomes 

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

message: 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? -:-   AlpinWolf   -:- 06:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  -- Banjeboi 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms

message: Is there any source related to the results of this investigation?Nemissimo (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "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." 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why does 'protection of morals' link to 'Paternalism'? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source of name