back to article How extreme is your pr0n? Depends on your lawyer

In matters of extreme porn, the message of recent cases seems to be that whether you get off increasingly depends on how familiar your legal team are with a law still in its courtroom infancy. In Mold, Mr Andrew Robert Holland, of Coedpoeth, Wrexham, Clwyd, was originally charged on two counts of possessing extreme porn. The …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Graham Marsden
    Stop

    Again I recommend...

    ... firstly going to the Coalition's Your Freedom site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ and supporting the various proposals to throw this (and other laws such as the criminalisation of consensual BDSM) into the bin and, secondly, going to http://www.writetothem.com and making your MP aware of your objections to these stupid, ill-thought out and useless laws.

  2. Pablo

    BME Pain Olympics: Final Round

    Wikipedia claims that video is a known fake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_Olympics#BME_Pain_Olympics:_Final_Round

    (Of course that doesn't make it legal, as long as it's realistic enough to fool people.)

    1. Just Thinking

      I'm a sleb

      Why on earth would it be illegal to possess a copy of a video clip of someone pretending to chop their dick off? However realistic it might be.

      Extreme poor taste, probably very shocking to watch (I appear to be the only person on the here who hasn't seen it, and I can't say I would want to). But illegal? With potential jail time? How did we get here?

      Meanwhile, coercing some Z-list sleb into eating a kangaroo's testicles ... well that's considered prime time family entertainment.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    I am arresting myself ...

    I wonder what Geoff Pearson or Roger Eley's defense would be if someone were to send them some horse pr0n - or mail them a pr0n catalogue - and then report them to the police? (See title).

    I have no doubt that Roger Eley's judgement was a revolting and perverted piece of logic and there was no reasonable excuse for his coming to this judgement. He's not there to act as a moral windsock, he's there to judge the legal merit of the case, goddamit.

    Also - Desmond Duffy should watch more climbing DVDs or medical programmes because he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. I've seen more physical pain in half an hour of "Hard Rock" or "Bestest Surgery In The World Ever!!!!! 10" than I've ever seen on t'Internet.

    Lawyers eh? Gawd bless 'em.

    Wait.......WUT?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Plan B

    But as far as the courts were concerned, even his defence had difficulty in understanding why he possessed the clip. According to Defence solicitor Geoff Pearson: "I can't imagine why you would want to watch this, unless you were the particular type of person that found some gratification in it.”

    Please could somebody send me the phone list of all mobile numbers for the goverment !!

    Im sure i can find a video somewhere of somebody hammering their cock !!

    This is a fail proof plan to get rid of our inept goverment !!!

    unless they would be above the law .......

  5. Alfred 2
    Unhappy

    @Arweet

    "I don't owe an explanation for the picture of a tiger prawn on my mobile. Not to the police, not to a judge, not to society.. A nation that does not recognize this most basic of freedoms cannot call itself civilised."

    ... or free ....

    *Waits for the thought police ..... *

  6. Michael Dunn

    Pics of inflicting pain?

    Is there going to be a pogrom of all the churches and galleries that depict crucifixions?

  7. Dickasso

    Idea:

    If you know any judges or politicians, anonymously email them a link to some "extreme porn" (you don't have to view it yourself, just get the link) behind a tinyurl address.

    This should result in the law being repealed because the alternative is to put our government and legal system on the sex offenders register.

  8. Chris Donald

    Very sad, very stupid

    Labour allowed the moralistic whinge bags of the UK to win and bought in a bullshit pile of crap law that serves only to line the pockets of lawyers at best, achieving nothing, just appeasing holier than thou ****holes that need to get a life.

    There isn't any good arguements supporting this law, just moral nonsense that means nothing and is thinner than the tissue I use to wipe my nether regions. Some vague clap-trap about reducing abuse. Sorry, doesn't fly. You can't prove shit about how adults produced a film with other adults. Camera tricks, special effects and other techniques screw up the process of proving how.

    Yes, there are individuals that must be protected. However adults who wish to play, with other consenting adults are not those.

    I hope the new government will trash this pointless, pious travesty of a law-in addition to getting rid of "possesion" bollox; instead focussing on the production of genuinely abusive material-that of minor, punishing the hell out of anyone proven to be PRODUCING the shit.

  9. Dug Stokes

    I know it's Wikipedia; but...

    "There is a hoax Internet viral video entitled BME Pain Olympics: Final Round that has nothing to do with the actual Pain Olympics. It has been viewed and promoted by a large number of Web surfers and popular bloggers such as Joe Rogan and has been the subject of reaction videos on sites including YouTube. In the video, two men are seen performing genital self-mutilation (including using a meat cleaver) set to the song "Livin' Like a Zombie" by Mortification. The original video, hosted on BMEzine, displays a message at the end confirming it is fake; however, most of the other versions of the video on other websites do not have that message at the end. According to Shannon Larratt, the creator of the video, the two "competitors" (who are actually the same person) used prosthetic makeup and the video contains no actual body modification."

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_Olympics

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    What if?

    I want to know... if somebody text or emailed a judge, MP (or other public figure whom are deemed not to be allowed to have a sex life) 'extreme porn' and he was typing on his laptop, would that not trigger concern that anyone can be sent junk/ porn without them being a potential murderer or peado? Because anyone who does not have vanilla sex once a month is surely a threat to society...

    Paris, because.... just because

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.