Feeds

back to article Man could face prison over six second 'extreme porn' clip

A man has been warned he faces a custodial sentence after pleading guilty to possession of what prosecutors described as "extreme porn" at Mold Crown Court last week. Campaigners against the extreme porn law are now waiting with some concern to see what the court decides when the accused, Andrew Robert Holland, of Coedpoeth, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge
Linux

If there are laws against XP

why the hell are they not enforcing those? And how about Vista, W7, and all the other variants (except ME, which is a punishment in itself)?

3
0
FAIL

Stu 3 has got it right....

Plod having spent so much money on arresting this bloke and then searching through his computer, they need to show a scalp for it.

Something very similar happened back in the day with Operation Spanner, where Plod was told they'd find a 'snuff' movie, and instead found some middle-aged gay men doing bad things to each other. The fact that all of the participants had consented counted for nothing in the courts.

Of course, the world is now a safer place.

8
0

Wish I could leave this shithole.

It comes to something when it's illegal to record a consensual act between adults. To think this used to be a free country.

4
0
FAIL

This used to be a free country?

When was that? I can remember in the good old days we used to export people who used their freedom to choose not to starve to death and nick a rabbit for the family pot.

And if it hadn't been a country where a bailiff was free to enter any propert the lord of the manor owned Australia would still be run by people who have not invented the wheel.

Or piracy.

1
1
WTF?

Deletion in progress

Thanks to the internet and my friends who use this computer, I'm sure I will have some "illegal" images stored in my computers cache. So, to be safe, I'm wiping my computer using the Guttman method (35-pass) while enrolling myself in a education class to make myself a better democratic citizen. *sigh* Might move to somewhere like Cuba - at least there you're not under the illusion of living in a Democracy.

0
0
Linux

Twisted Justice

A 60 something year old man can sexually assualt a 5 year old girl and get a fine.

A teenager can violently assualt someone and get community service.

But watch cartoon porn, or porn where the act is not in the missionary style and this gov't want you to do hard time.

Come may vote for an extreme party, far left or far right. Does not matter just get the entire set in office now out.

13
0
Silver badge
Flame

Sir

I think you may have missed the purpose of these laws.

They aren't there to catch criminals (which is bad m'kay) - they're there to criminalise the general populace and get them so worried about what they might get done for that they forget that their lords and masters are up to their shitty necks in really illegal stuff.

If they went around actually catching criminals and putting them away, well, where's the job security in that?

11
0

@ Sir Runcible Spoon

Very well said. Sadly, we are so far down the road of hysteria and political correctness that any chance of a sudden outbreak of common sense amongst our self-serving politicians and law enforcers is all but impossible. The past twenty years have witnessed LEA's around the world building empires based around the policing of sexuality on and offline - whole new edifices of power, finance and political influence have been built up to facilitate these new laws and the continuing erosion of privacy and personal freedoms of expression they represent.

It has ALL been about criminalisation: target-driven LEA's need new laws to keep themselves in profit and to justify annual budgets. Hiding behind the spectre of 'child protection' these scumbags prey on ignorance and mob mentality to get what they want. Policitians grandstand by invoking the 'think of the children!' slogan, while duplicitous police forces (headed by ACPO in the UK) silently go about their business in the corridors of power lobbying for new laws to criminalise a new section of society. And we all know where the worthless mass media stand on these issues.

Peadomonsters have been an absolute godsend to governments and LEAs the world over. In America, their fabled existence has led to some of the most obscene abuses of human rights in so-called courts of law, whilst across Europe and much of the rest of the world, crooked politicians and greedy policemen use the menace they represent for their own avaricious ends.

The world, meanwhile, lies in stupor, unable or unwilling to call a halt to the madness that has now seen every man and woman in Britain wishing to work with children not only branded a potential paedophile until they submit themselves to a Criminal Records Bureau Check, but banned from going near other people's children until they do so. Child salvationists claim this as some sort of victory.

Many others see this as the end of a civilized society.

0
0
Alert

Watch out

They're busy tracking anyone who downloaded "Two Girls One Cup" because if 6 seconds of CGI tiger porn counts as extreme god knows what category that video fits in...

2
0
Bronze badge
Stop

Sigh

Some pervert school mistress accidentally dies during kinky sex and grieving mother decides to blame porn that the boyfriend (and no doubt pervy daughter) viewed on the internet.

Our great and good leaders (prompted by this stupid mother who's grieving victim status makes her an expert in the field and wails from Daily Wail readers) decide it must never happen again and creates stupid draconian legislation which is used to lock up dodgy DVD street sellers and people sending amusing video clips to each other.

Of course no one else will be allowed to view this 'extreme porn' to be able to make their own judgement.

13
0

6 seconds of what ?

First of all to all you people who are complaining of the injustice of being possibly jailed for CGI tiger porn - the article clearly states that those charges were dropped.

So we are left with a 6 second clip that is deemed serious enough to jail a man.

What is in those 6 seconds?

This new law worries me as much as the nextman but if this guy had something truely nasty like kiddy porn then perhaps it's not unwarranted.

Let's wait and see what the clip contains first

2
18
Silver badge

@bexley

We will never know what is actually in those 6 seconds, because it will be a Court document and now apparently even has case law saying that it's illegal for anyone to have it.

So no reporter can view it, no newspaper can see it...

Therefore the content of that video *will never ever be known*.

It's quite probably that this law makes defence and appeal impossible, as the lawyer can't view the video to determine an proper course of action without possessing a copy and thus breaking the law if the defendant is found guilty.

So, all we now need is for somebody outside of the UK to email every single Labour MP a suitably 'extreme' video, and see what they think of this law then.

5
0
Stop

please...

Please remove those rose tinted blinkers, if it was kiddy porn, it would be jumped on by the prosecution and reported as such, it was "extream porn" which basically covers ANYTHING where the person on the receiving end doesnt have a large grin on their face..

3
0
Grenade

Ah but...

We're never going to know.

"There's evidence against you but we can't show you what it is 'cos watching it is illegal."

Instant CPS win.

Speaking of which, shouldn't the police and judge / court officials / etc... also be arrested if they watch it? And presumably it's on some PC server somewhere....

3
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

Definitions of exteme sex

Anything that the Beak didn't get to have when he had the agility and could still get his todger up because:

(1) Mrs Beak only took it front and centre for procreation

(2) He lacked the imagination.

<-- Mr Beak

0
0
FAIL

Pornography

To be classed as pornography under this law, it has to be designed to induce sexual arousal. A 6-second clip is probably enough to give you a quick chuckle, but not enough for you to get it up and crack one off.

Therefore the clip is humour, not porn. QED.

1
0
Stop

Not quite true

"We will never know what is actually in those 6 seconds, because it will be a Court document and now apparently even has case law saying that it's illegal for anyone to have it."

That is not the case. He pleaded guilty to the charge so this case has not tested the legislation, hence it cannot be treated a case law or a legal precedent. These only come about once a case has gone through the various stages of an appeal process, culminating in a decision by the law lords, who strangely, may or may not have, an comprehensive library adult material (for research purposes of course).

0
0
Flame

What can you do in 6 seconds?

I would imagine it takes longer than that to plan a murder - and that's only worth a slap on the wrist these days it seems.

My concern is two-fold:

1) anything taken out of context could be bad enough to classify - anyone bother to watch Eastenders? I'm sure I could string together enough slapping to make an interesting case for domination - but I'm not sure I could stay awake long enough. Context, you see: in the round, it's several hours' of mindless drivel and the slap is incidental.

2) If - if - this really is a case of 'oh, it was emailed to me and I forgot to clean up' then we're all screwed: firstly because to clean the image recognises that you know it to be ill-considered (i.e. you're guilty of watching something you suspect to be wrong) but not to clean it will land you in trouble. Best defence: make sure it is sent it to as many .gov.uk email addresses as possible and make the press aware of the unusual position the recipients are now in...

Country....dogs...going to... rant

/coat

3
0
WTF?

UK today

STOP! I'M GOING TO SEARCH YOU! IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE WHY ARE YOU RESISTING? STOP RESISTING! STOP TAKING PICTURES! STOP LOOKING AT PORN! STOP READING THOSE BOOKS! STOP PLAYING THOSE GAMES! STOP WATCHING THOSE MOVIES! THAT MUSIC, TURN IT OFF! DON'T YOU DARE SMOKE! DON'T YOU DARE USE OUTDOOR HEATERS IN THE WINTER! STOP USING BEER GLASS MADE OF GLASS! NO, DON'T DEFEND YOURSELF, LET HIM MUG YOU! NO POINTY KNIVES, YOU MIGHT HURT YOURSELF! YOUR WINTER PARK LOOKS SUSPICIOUS! SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD 7 TIMES! WELCOME TO THE UK!

20
0
Anonymous Coward

What is in those 6 seconds?

It's me fucking your mom.

3
1
Bronze badge

@bexley

Doh! He is being done for extreme porn, if it was kiddy porn he would be getting done for possession of kiddy porn.

None of us are going to 'see' what the clip contains because that would make us as guilty as him.

2
0

@bexley - content of the clip

Let's say i have my suspicions as to what is in the clip (as i am still talking to Mr Holland and his solicitor).

However, there are two things you can be sure are NOT in this clip. The first is a tiger. That charge was thrown out at the last hearing.

Second is child abuse imagery. Because if that was present, the police in north wales would have done what every other force in the country does, and charged the individual with possession of indecent images. (courtesy of the Protection of Children Act 1978).

This was charged under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 - and therefore relates to extreme porn. For definition of same, go check out that legislation.

11
0
Coat

So, is it.....

...horsegag.avi then? I remember that one doing the rounds about 10 or more years ago.

Mine's the one with the large sized Kleenex in the pocket.....

0
0
Gates Halo

About 11 years by my reckoning!

We even popped it up on the college's projector for a laugh, after a little network naughtyness. Best. Lesson. Ever.

Credit to Mr Gates and his Swiss-cheese OS!

0
0

Seems unreasonable

Unless the makers are also jailed, and the whole chain of people who forwarded it to him - surely available via some kind of logs.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

@Bexley

"So we are left with a 6 second clip that is deemed serious enough to jail a man."

Yes, because it falls under the ever-so-slightly-hysterical CJA Part 5, 63 which criminalises possession of 'extreme' material:

"An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both

(a) pornographic, and

(b) an extreme image."

"An “extreme image” is an image which

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character."

Section 7:

"An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following

(a) an act which threatens a person’s life,

(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,

(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or

(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)"

Unfortunately the Law fails to define the nature of something being 'disgusting' or 'offensive' - terms which are subjective at the best of times. Daily Bile readers consider immigrants offensive - I consider Daily Bile readers offensive and lack of intelligence disgusting, but there you go.

What it comes down to is whether the lawyers, judge and/or jury find it offensive, and you know they will because they probably feel some kind of standard has to be upheld (even if they're busy getting whipped while dressed in ladies undergarments in their spare time).

11
0
Bronze badge
Big Brother

Well, it seems to me that...

...section 7b's language:

"(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,"

could simply refer to normal sex. If that leads to a pregnancy and a subsequent episiotomy or vaginal/anal tear during giving birth, then it meets the literal interpretation of that clause.

Or am I really being too paranoid?

2
0
Headmaster

The scary thing

"(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,"

Penis snapping, vaginal tearing, anal prolapses.

All pretty common hospital admitances from over enthusiastic sex. So unless you go nice and gently, slowly, slowly, we're all at risk....

So no your not paraniod.

0
0
Silver badge
Unhappy

UK, a police state?

"I think people who say that have obviously never lived in a police state."

And he was serious.

Ha-fuckin-ha.

4
0
Grenade

Pass it on

I would simply suggest he forwards the e-mail to all those involved in the prosecution and report them for the same offense. If he claims it was sent to him unsolicited and viewed only once and that is no defence then the same applies to them and I'm sure at least some of them can be fooled into viewing it.

3
0

off to relabel my C: drive

as "DELETED ITEMS" :D

just in case I do get sent anything offending of course, for I am as pure as the driven snow.

1
0
FAIL

There is only one way to fix this

Mail that clip to every single member of Parliament and then tell the coppers they've all got it on their computers and see how many of them get time in chokey.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

also

You best hope you don't have Mr Hands clips anywhere on your machine (If you have a teenage son you can bet your freedom on it that you do.)

As my mum once said, "I'm pretty sure one of the first drawings by neolithic man was a woman giving a donkey a blow job." I suspect that she's correct.

6
0

So Let's E-mail politicians

With clips of said Mr Hands videos and tell the local Police.

1
0
Happy

Your mother is wise

And probably also knows EXACTLY what you have on your hard drive.

I'd suggest a data shredder program if I were you

1
0
Anonymous Coward

well

My old dear would need to be pretty good with the old trojans to know exactly what's on my machine as she lives several hundred miles away (600+?) and has done for some ten years now. She has her hands full with her husband anyway, with his *click, click, click...* "hmmm porn everywhere" *click, click,* "hmm it spawns more porn"

Fortunatly for me I havn't seen Mr Hands (I have heard it as the lads demanded we all watched it one night, I kept my eyes closed) also a ritual 13x run of eraser on blank space is standard practice for all people right?

Anyway if the filth decide to ruin my life I don't think being a passive victim would be the way to go, don't think anyone else should either, just become a monster, nothing else to lose? They stole your dignity and freedom by looking you up and putting you on a register.

Unfortunatly this guy thinks we're in America where you can plea bargin and just like the bomb text guy he's realised that it law doesn't work like an episode of law and order.

1
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: also - Bet my freedom?

Freedom? What freedom? How are we supposed to bet with something we don't have? I suppose I could bet my Oz-censorship-bypassing VPN account, but I'm not sure I'd want to risk it on a bet like that...

0
0
FAIL

was it

six seconds of missionary position for the purposes of procreation?

0
0

Fail!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/big_brother_32.pngPut it in repeat mode in the player and Voilá.

0
0
WTF?

So...

...what exactly did this guy do that's so terrible to society that he needs locking away?

Anyone feel unsafe with him walking the streets?

How does his victim feel? Oh wait there isn't one.

4
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

The Thought Police are here!

The original idea of this law was, supposedly, to stop another death like that of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts who had, apparently, thousands of images and visited sites like Necrobabes repeatedly (despite the fact that JL admitted to a friend who later testified in court that she'd willingly and consensually played erotic asphyxiation games with Graham Coutts).

But it seems that if this so-called "Extreme Pornography" is so dangerous and corrosive that just watching *six seconds* of it is likely to result in someone committing an act of violence or murder and justifies locking them up, clearly it doesn't go far enough and we should now adopt the plans that Scotland has to include (simulated) rape images and whilst we're at it, introduce Baroness O' Cathain's proposed "Extreme Writings" law so we can't even *read* about such things in case we do them!

Obviously we are all such weak minded and impressionable idiots that we cannot tell the difference between what is real and what is not and can't figure out for ourselves whether doing something "extreme" is actually excessively dangerous, so the Nanny State must step in and take all this nasty stuff away from us and make us sit on the Naughty Step (or a jail cell) for even daring to *think* about such things...

5
0
Gates Horns

Saw VI

Um... doesen't that also make the entire Saw series, Evil Dead, etc yadayada, pretty much any horror film made in the last 75 years illegal? Possession being nine tenths of the law and all that.

AC, because I'd rather inject myself with HF than face the Thought Police.

1
0
Silver badge

Saw etc...

Those films are legal, because the law specifically excludes anything that's been classified by the BBFC.

However it *includes* extracts taken from such films if a "reasonable person" would assume that you owned those clips for "sexual arousal"!

In other words owning a whole film is fine, but an extract from it isn't.

Paging Mr Kafka...

0
0
Silver badge

We know what the clip was

It's now been made public what was in that clip.

It was indeed an obscene, revolting, depraved, disgusting, repellent and offensive act.

It was a picture of someone voting for NuLab.

7
0
Silver badge
Coat

NuLab...

You do know that NuLab does these idiotic things only to steal the Daily Fail electorate from the conservatives, don'cha? It doesn't make it any less stupid, btw. Just remember why bipartism is bad....

Just sayin.

0
0
Silver badge

There's a difference?

Loathing Tweedledum doesn't imply any liking for Tweedledee.

Does anyone know if the latest lot of anti-'encouraging terrorism' laws make it illegal to urge people to vote for the only man ever to enter parliament with honest intentions?

0
0

Legal sites are now illegal according to this law

I guess they're going to have to block the sites Perfect Slave, Monster Cocks, and Brutal Dildo's since these sites feature men and toys that would kill a normal woman. If this law is to be enforced then many many legal sites will have to be blocked period since they specialize in this type of extreme or rough types of sex.

0
0

I'm surprise

I'm surprise the extreme porn law passed. Politicians tend be some of the most perverted people out there .

0
0
Heart

Reg readers rock ;-)

I love reading the comments here they always make me laugh and lift my spirits, especially at times when I've been feeling a bit harassed being grilled by journalists who are convinced that extreme porn featuring consenting adults really is leading to killings, animal abuse and child abuse.

Part of what makes campaigning possible in the face of such stupidity is the knowledge, that it really is (or should be) obvious to anyone with more than a few crumbs of sense that a good chunk of the extreme porn law is unnecessary, silly and criminalises harmless jokesters and wankers.. and anyone else whose cat walks across the mouse/keys at the wrong time! People here never fail to remind me of this in the most amusing ways, so thanks for the morale boost today and other days... to all of you who take the time to comment on John O's articles.

Depending what happens next, it might be time to hit the streets again.. so if any of you who haven;t already want to join us - either on the streets or in the crucial behind the scenes work we do - please connect up via one of the methods on our website so you don't miss any call to action.

Lurve,, because I love this comment thread. Reckon this site features the best readers on the web :-)

Clair Lewis, CAAN

(wishing I had something comparably witty to say)

7
0
Thumb Up

RE: Reg readers rock ;-)

Thanks, Clair. Keep fighting the good fight!

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.