@ Andrew Thomas, plus comments
AT: I thought "extreme porn" was fairly specific:
AT: (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
Okay, since nobody else will stick their head in this particular lion's mouth, let me ask: is fisting "likely to result in serious injury to a person's anus"?
To answer my own question, no it isn't Fisting sometimes results in very serious injuries but these are to the colon, not the anus proper, and are alarmingly often linked with the use of crystal meth. Ergo, fisting porn is not extreme porn.
But I have full faith that Ms. Smith, prudish control-freak bitch that she is, would say "yes it is, yes it is, yes it is, because I say so, oooooh, how awful, how obscene, one pervert inserting his/her hand inside another pervert's bum!"
[I am reminded of the nonsense the Andrea Dworkin crowd ("all intercourse is rape") spewed when asked about boy-boy porn and why it objectified women.]
A more general comment: isn't there some kind of legal principle that you're innocent if the law under which you are charged is so vague an average citizen couldn't tell if he was violating it or not? I'm waiting for lots of people to challenge the validity of these police state laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutionally vague, Ms. Smith's twisted knickers notwithstanding.
Cripey, here I live in distant Canada, and even I despise that woman. <vomit> Where does she get her power from? Does she have a safe full of incriminating pictures of Brown, perhaps? Or did she and the late and not so great Tony have an Interesting Connection? If so, did Dear Cherie take a part too? Now *that* would be obscene!
Anyone else think Sarah Bee might make a much better Home Sec?
Additional legal principle: English law is founded on the principle that statutory law merely spells out what everyone already knows in their hearts to be The Law. Statutory law is a mere dotting the i's, crossing the t's, and filling in the details.