A man appeared before Swansea magistrates this week accused of possessing extreme porn images, including one which allegedly shows "a person performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a squid." Or octopus. The reports are not 100 per cent clear. The Sun reported this week that Andrew Dymond, 46, from Mumbles, …
He also faces 14 charges
I think is the main point that the article sidelined. Move along, nothing to see here but a common or garden perv.
This piece initially sounds like it's attacking the overbearing law and the police/cps for prosecuting over a few weird piccies... but wait!!! The guy's allegedly making (which I assume means copying/downloading in this context) child pornography. Are we attacking that too? I must try and keep up.
...the "main" point. extreme porn has proven a rich vein for stories over the last few years, for a variety of different reasons.
First, because of the legal principle it embodies. Next up, because of how it has been used (in practice, it has mostly turned into a "dangerous dogs act")...with very little attention so far paid to human-human porn. The latter seems to turn up as add-on charge or consolation prize when the police can't do someone for anything else.
Or alternatively, on occasion, it is simply ridiculous - as here. Was in the supermarket yesterday and passed a fridge full of frozen squid. Now, i'm partial to a little squid myself...mostly flash fried with butter and garlic.
But this law suggests that if any of our readers took one frozen ickle squid home, and forked it (into their mouth) they would be perfectly ok to do so... but fucking it could see you sent to prison. What a difference two letters can make. :)
i am very alive to the child abuse issue and don't under-estimate its seriousness. but two points: we're not pretending its not there...just its part of another (much more serious) story
Second - and this is another story too - however hard one tries to disentangle laws on ep from child protection it is very difficult, because whatever others think, government is determined to view the two issues as linked or even two sides of the same coin.
Typical Sun for focussing on the sensationalist parts of this case. I'm willing to bet that on the opposite page there was an article about some celebrity taking drugs/partying to hard or an article where the Sun self-congratulates over backing the "winning" side in the general election. You know what I mean, there will probably be a little image of the front page of the Sun from the day it claimed the Torys would win or something.
Just why does anyone read this shit excuse for a "news"paper again?
"Dymond faces a further nine charges in respect of possessing photographs of people having sex with dogs and horses."
If the dogs and horses were a commonly found wooly mammel, Police would have assumed they were family photos.
Mines the one with the velcro mittens in the pocket.
"14 charges of making indecent images of children"
Err! Kind of overshadows the other charges i feel!
My thoughts exactly
But I guess its what sells stories.
However, if I remember correctly, downloading an image counts as "making an image". In fact, if you accidentally click on a link to it and it's still in your cache when the pigs kick your door down in the middle of the night, that counts as "making an image".
Not really. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder and until the images are known then they could be anything from true child pornography to a magna comic or even pictures of his children (if applicable) in the bath or one the beach. Believe me, there are no depths to which the police will not sink so they can add anything to a weak case then blow it up to make it sound much worse than it is in order to strengthen that case and sway a jury. You've already fallen into that trap yourself.
When the police have a serious case, say a a multiple murderer, they generally only prosecute one or two of the crimes so they have something to fall back on later if they don't get a conviction first time. However, now that double indemity no longer applies they might change this tactic. The weaker a case is they more headline grabbing add-ons there are.
@ "accidentally downloading"
Don't tell me that has happened to you, or anyone you know, innocently... It ranks in credibility with "the dog ate my homework".
That "making an image" thing seems to be a hangover from the days when the law didn't explicitly mention computers, and the prosecution was trying to find a way to justify confiscating the hardware.
It really is a serious misapplication of law to still be using the term. It suggests that the guy was actually standing over the abused child with a camera.
I bet I know which video clip it is, used to do the rounds on image boards.
yup, filmed in a bath as I recall. It also was a viral email message. I've probably got it stored in a .pst somewhere (unwittingly), who knows.
I'm waiting for the first case involving a video with, erm 2 females and 1 drink container.
So let me get this straight...
... an animated film clip is legal while a still drawing isn't? Or have I got the, er, um, wrong "end" of this one?
Re: So let me get this straight...
Draw (or animated) CP is illegal. Animated (or drawn) EP is not (unless it's so realistic as to fool a reasonable person). But presumably they'll be closing that "loophole" any time now.
Can't blame you for being confused.
I'm disappointed in The Sun!
Where was the picture of an octopus with an identity-concealing black-bar across it's eyes...?
Here's a squid instead.
No contact with a child under the age of 16?
What about squid/octopuses?
Will nobody think about the fish?
Will nobody think of the cephalopods.
made me think 'what about children aged 16 or over?' Are they fair game because, actually, they're 'adults'?
Blackadder has been banned!
Sex with food?
So, what happens if he claims he ate the creature afterwards? Sex with an animal is pretty humane compared with what is done to it in order to eat it. Just what are my sexual limitations with that piece of steak in the fridge? What if the thought of cooking and eating that steak stimulates me? Enquiring minds want to know...
Portnoys Complaint ?
RE: Sex with Food
If you're guilty of playing with your food does that mean that watching American Pie (first one) going to be classed as watching extreme porn?
Re: Sex with food
Steak? Is that any better than an old fashioned milk bottle and a pound of liver?
Don't Play With Your Food!
Back when this extreme porn law was still going through Parliament, opponents pointed out the absurd implication that this would make it a crime to possess pictures of people having sex with food they could legally eat and legally own pictures of people eating.
If the squid or octopus in question was intended to be food, this case really could prove that New Labour's New Britain is one in which it can be a crime to possess an image of someone playing with their food!
Perhaps someone should ask the new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, if the new government will take the opportunity to repeal the silly extreme porn law in their great repeal bill.
it is a *dead* animal. Isn't that the point, that it's necrophilia? As would be fucking a watermelon of course.
I wonder this story will be in Bruce Schneier's blog later today.
"He also faces 14 charges of making indecent images of children."
Who gives a fk about the other stuff if he is being charged with this?
What started as an amusing, if some what disturbing, story turned out to over shadow something actually quite menacing and sick. The Sun has a lot to answer for, but so do you Reg, shame!
In the eyes of the law, "making an image" includes just about all forms of intentional or unintentional downloading or copying.
Words fail me.
I want to say something but I cant think of anything funny or cutting enough.
is Wales just full of pervs then?
So, pictures of sex with a dead animal are illegal? Clearly there is no basis for this in terms of animal welfare. What if it was a plastic squid -- is that still illegal? How about a seafood cocktail (sic)?
Prosecute the guy for taking pervy pictures of actual children, and drop the comedy charges, FFS.
This octopus/squid image appears on 4 chan on an almost daily basis and will end up in your cache....
But of course
no one here knows to what you refer.
tentacle porn illegal?
Oh ffs .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife
A clear case of...
...being up before the beak then.
Re: A clear case of...
Clever. You get cake.
The cake is a lie
But we need a cake icon
would pictures of kidlums next to the octopus tank at seaworld count as inappropriate pictures of children in light of the previous charges? seems like the octopus pics are the main reason, otherwise the kiddie pics would be the headline...
Octopus? Is he 'Up before the Beak'?
Ah, y'see the fact that two of you made the same joke makes it a less good joke. But I suppose you can have cake too, it's still a cut above the usual flaming orphanages that pass for LOL-fodder around here.
I like the smell
I believe in....
Necrophillia, beastiality and sadism......
....am I flogging a dead horse?
RE: Flaming orphanges?
"I like the smell"
Some people prefer having sex with the dead orphans and their pets - to each their own, I suppose.
Call to action
It's a shame the Führer and his stormtroopers at CEOP didn't get hold of this story first. We could have been treated to such gems as: "officials report an alarming increasing in images of octopus abuse" and "...this was one of the worst cases of its kind that investigators have ever encountered".
Time to establish a whole panoply of thought crimes, institute a Squid Offenders Register, outlaw cartoon sketches of all aquatic lifeforms, and imprison anyone who voices opposition. Someone please, think of the squid; "their souls will be dying a little more each day for the rest of their lives". Resistance is futile.
Portraying person to animal intercourse
So, technically, that rules out portraying human to human intercourse.
@He also faces 14 charges
That's exactly the reason this is important.
It's a common police/judicial practice - get a guy who is plainly guilty of lots of stuff that any jury will convict on. Throw in an extra charge something like possessing a mobile phone in a section44 area, or using encryption to hide the images.
Got a conviction and you have precedence that using encryption can be prosecuted.
So the next English nationalist in Wales can be held for having an encrypted disk.
I don't understand?
Is he being charged for having pictures of people having sex with animals, or is it actually that the animals in question aren't sheep?
The mind boggles: octopus or squid, I've really got no idea how anyone could gain sexual gratification from either - and no, I don't want pictures.
So let me get this right. I can be prosecuted for having pictures of someone apparently enjoying an octopus but it's okay if the image was CGI'd (fc. tiger mentioned in the story) because it's not real flesh & blood. Kind of okay so far but try this: we've all seen a comical picture of someone standing next to a fountain or hosepipe and the juxdaposition makes them appear to be peeing - now if someone were to 'fake it' with the lions in Traflager Square, is that picture legal or illegal to own? It's not CGI but then animals are living beasts so I'm probably on safe ground (but I will probably be strip-searched by Plod* for daring to use a camera in public - something else we're not clear on in the UK these days). Now, do the same perspective trick at London Zoo and - if it's done well - I'll be heading for the slammer*.
Are we all clear on this now? Good.
*Plod: slang for Police; Slammer, slang for prison or gaol
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- 166 days later: Space Station astronauts return to Earth