District Judge Ian Lomax
I think that judge is the dog's bollocks.
The first serious prison sentence for possession of extreme porn was handed down earlier this month in Newcastle Crown Court. Stephen Sinclair, aged 44, of Montagu Estate, in Kenton, Newcastle, was sentenced on 11 September to seven and a half years for drugs offenses – and a further six months in respect of a series of …
I think that judge is the dog's bollocks.
I'd of thought it was pretty simple why they choose to chase beastiality images first, it creates a nice base of convictions for the law to spring board from. And how do you argue that the animal was up for it, it's far easier to get convictions (it's an animal, so it's illegal) mock rape, s&m, etc, is far easier to prove.
Also what is a supervision order? The guy had pictures of animals, is he barred from petting farms?
So wifey installed a P2P TV streaming app (PPLive) that included an offer to install a "download accelerator" app (that runs on startup and uses a lot of upload bandwidth). While eradicating it I found its cache of MP4s and FLVs and a cursory inspection found it to be bestiality porn. While it explains how the P2P TV made money, it is troubling to think I could go to jail for it.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, if it gives *me* an erection, then I believe that it should give *you* an erection, too. If that be so, then you must find the defendant guilty. You may take into account any psychological harm which you believe has been done to the horse.
Used to be into Bestiality, Necrophilia *and* Flagellation, but realised I was flogging a dead horse.
This is an absolute disgrace.
Who benefits from prosecuting someone who has an image of bestiality?
Is society somehow safer?
Are animals or women somehow protected by prosecuting this one person?
There are only two justifiable reasons for prosecution: deterrence and prevention.
Any idea of punishment is a throwback to the Victorian era.
Images of bestiality can get you put in prison? Everyone's seen one of those pics/videos at some point.
Most I would imagine are viewed just out of morbid curiosity. (Google "Mr hands" if you dare).
What the hell is happening to this country? Blind leading the blind making up stupid laws with no real definition.
Dumb law maker:"Ok, all extreme porn is to be outlawed!"
Voice of reason:"Well ok then, but who decides what porn is extreme?"
Dumb law maker:"We have appointed a czar of extreme porn. Mrs Smith (91) from Kent"
Mrs Smith:"Oh my giddy aunt, excuse my language, is she showing her ankles? TO THE STOCKS"
Can we not have a house rule that bans all repetition of the "flogging a dead horse" joke from future debate on extreme porn? I seem to remember seeing it before.
The French eat horses. Surely fucking it is less stressful and degrading to the horse. Plus as I understand these things it's quite hard to fuck an animal that isn't up for it, especially a big one like a horse.
I'm not quite sure the definition of "strict liability" implied here is correct. Strict liability really means that the prosecution do not have to show either an intent to break the law or even a reckless disregard (which is why, for instance, a speeding offence is strict liability as the prosecution doees not have to show an intent to commit an offence; Indeed driving without due care and attention is also a strict liability matter and that has grey areas - in contrast, reckless driving is not a strict liability matter as intent or deliberate recklessness must be shown, and that makes it a notoriously difficult charge to make stick).
As I understand it, with the extreme porn law then there would still have to be shown that there was some intent to view the images. Simply stumbling across them would probably not be enough to secure a conviction (if the defence is up to scratch that is). However, what the bestiality issue does provide is a very clearly demarked line. That definitional clarity is not "strict liability".
There is an inconsistency. Unless this is a "thought crime" (in which case cartoon images would presumably have to be covered), then the justification of the law is one of being indirectly party to animal mistreatment. In this case it might be expected that the sentences passed down would not exceed those of, say, somebody directly involved in animal mistreatment. Of course the law is rarely that logical, and I suspect that these will be more sentences of public moral disapproval than animal welfare related. In other words largely a "thought crime".
"just the right height no bucket required"
channel 4 documentary about bestaility gave us that lovely anacronym
just wanted to share
mines the one with the cuffs, paddle, whips, crocodile clips, rack instruction manual, and the marquis de sade autobigraphy in the pocket
The horse is dead when eaten though...
I don't know how they're killed, but I assume it's not particularly violent, much like killing a cow for food in this country.
I'm steering clear of an opinion on horse porn (not my cup of tea though), but that doesn't seem a great comparison...
The judge commented
"Nothing will be gained by sending you into custody, because you wouldn't survive because you would be vulnerable. Support and assistance is needed."
"wouldn't survive", - somewhat of a condemnation of our wonderful prison service I think!
You state that "images of necrophilia are relatively rare"...
Surely is should more correctly read "images of incest are relatively rare, whilst images of necrophilia are dead rare?"
Won't somebody think of the kids?
"The French eat horses"
Care to elaborate how you came to know that ? I've been living in this country for 4 decades and never came to meet anyone consuming horse meat. There are few horse butcheries in the Paris suburbs (north), but nothing more than a handfull, throughout the country.
Maybe another myth from someone never been in this country ?
Didn't James Herriott fist a horse once? Send the director and all the viewers to prison at once!
Anyway wouldn't bestiality be covered by existing legislation rather than the new extreme porn law? Similarly the other case would have been covered by existing legislation. Or are we seeing convictions being made under the new law as some sort of proof of concept?
Sometimes the law is an ass, that needs taking in the ass so it sees common sense.
How does society gain for giving this guy 6 months just because of pictures of bestiality? Its probably not nice for the animals.... although i have come across a number of dogs that would shag anything from my leg to the neighbors cat.
7.5 years for dealing drugs as well? How long do you get put away for murder these days?
Remember a film a saw when i was younger where 2 girls 'played' with a pony. That was scary, made me feel very small, but i don't think the horse was upset. In fact it got quite excited. Also another where there was a woman and a snake.... i wont go into details on that but use your imagination. Guess watching these makes me a menace to society and i should be locked up for a lot more than 6 months.
Isn't death worse than sex, though? Your logic is that because the horse is dead then this is better than suffering. Well I suppose they shoot horses, don't they. But wouldn't you rather have sex than be killed, however humanely. If so, then surely a culture that allows the killing and eating of horses is inconsistent if it doesn't allow having sex with them. I'm vegetarian of course, so I'm free to condemn both. ;)
But on the subject of horse-sex, are people not aware that this is done by horse owners all the time? People running stables have to jack off a male horse every now and then if it's not being allowed to breed, just to stop it going crazy. It's the source of much discreet humour at stables. So what are we saying, that a legal and recommended practice would become illegal if videoed or enjoyed?
Paris, because I'm not into horses.
And it's set to get worse peeps, as Gordon The Moron tries to win back the middle classes by pandering to their Daily Mail inspired fears
I can't wait until they are actively referred to as the Moral Majority...
No one in their right mind would defend someone for having indecent images of children, and the extreme publications act covered all this before.
This is crap legislation from an administration that fiddles while rome burns on the pointless and trivial.
Lifting themselves from the dirt they wallow in by constantly pushing down on the people they were chosen to represent.
I walked past Westminster last night and was amused to see all the police standing there with guns keeping people out. If I had my way, they'd be facing the other way and stopping these corrupt and ignorant bastards from getting out. The public needs protecting from them.
In theory, yes. Looking at an event in the future, one would indeed prefer not to die. However, after the fact, you're not likely to care after you're dead...
David Attenborough is guilty of presenting extreme animal porn. I'm sure I saw one of his shows where a female insect started eating the male insect while enjoying sexual congress.
By my count that gives,
This must add up to extreme porn as someone somewhere is bound to be getting off on it.
"So what are we saying, that a legal and recommended practice would become illegal if videoed or enjoyed?"
There is form for this. I could legally partake in any number of disgustingly sweaty and messy sexual acts with a consenting 16 year old and no-one would have a problem with it (except maybe her father and brothers) but if I took photos or videos of the acts then I could go to prison and have to sign on the sex offenders register.
"The horse is dead when eaten though..."
Presumably it's ok to bugger a dead horse then? Sorted! I wouldn't go eating it afterwards though. Not unless you're a fan of horse kiev.
I find it quite odd that for 2 euros you can go into a museum in Amsterdam and see pictures of this sort of thing. When in doubt, move to Holland I'd say.
It's amazing how often that solution presents itself
All Creatures Great and Small, the male vet shoves his fist up an animal, extreme sex or not? Suppose it's a woman, extreme sex or not? Suppose she's naked, extreme sex or not? Suppose she's not doing the fist thing, just on horse back, extreme sex or not?
It seems to me the rozzers will tack this onto any offence at any time they can, and since most men will have seen something that Jacqui Smith deemed extreme, then most men are likely to face this. As are their teenage boys and often their teenage curious girls.
So remember this, when you come to vote.
Japanese eat horse, and I have to say horse sashimi is suprisingly delicious.
However most of their meat(as in food >.>) is delicious.
I was in France last year, and had horse meat. Got it from a Hyper-U (think Tesco Extra) , so I'd assume it is rather common.
It's similar to beef, got a coarser texture and a stronger flavour. It's quite nice really, but no replacement for a good hunk o' cow.
I'll get my goat.
Off-topic but I feel strongly about it ... however humane the slaughter, the problem most people have with it is the prolonged inhumane treatment in transport to slaughter. If the French want to eat our horses that's one thing, but they should be going in pieces in clingfilm in refrigerated trucks, not in concentration camp transport.
"Sometimes the law is an ass, that needs taking in the ass so it sees common sense"
Do I get a say in this at all?? :(
There is a special reason some butchers carry horse meat, even if nobody wants to buy it.
Members of certain cultures - Roma for one - will not enter a shop where horse meat is sold as there is a cultural taboo horse meat. It's to keep the gypsies out of the shop.
I believe that under this nonsense law, laughing at (viewing) the lisa simpson mock up of the 2012 Olympic sign will earn you 6 months inside and your signing on to the sex offenders reg.
Have you hurt anyone? No. Did any child get hurt? No. Were any children involved? No. But the pen strokes of Mr Groning say that the non existent, yellow, 2D, Lisa is 8 years old. (has been 8 for over 20 years). So off you go to jail. In a few years everyone will have record and be on the sex offenders reg. By that time it won't mean anything to anyone.
Great Britain my arse!!
I believe the fair city of Grenoble is typical in it's number of horse butchers (boucheries chevalines) for a city of this size, thus far found 3 boucheries chevalines, eaten twice at restaurants (tartar cheval c'est tres bon!) and bought once :D ... horse steak is an impressively sized piece of meat!
AC because i took a picture of cooked steak, and don't want to be done for beasto-necro-phillia on return.
>pint to wash it down
Surely if one was prosecuted for that, it would be under longstanding Child Porn laws, not the new(ish) Extreme Porn law?
I agree with your point though.
If you do too much coke you're likely too spend a lot of time in front of your PC doing the five finger knuckle shuffle to absolutely anything....
Better destroy my copy of "Ghostbusters" then.
The Extreme Pornography sections of Criminal Justice and Immigration Act don't deal with child porn. It's the proposed Coroners and Justice Bill which will make possession of "pornographic" drawings of children illegal when they're the product of nothing more than the artist's imagination (NB there is already an existing law which criminalises drawings copied or traced from *actual* child pornography)
Regarding bestiality images, however, what about Rebecca Loos who was given the job of masturbating a pig on the Channel 5 celebrity reality show "The Farm" and which was broadcast on national TV...?
I seem to remember that one of the questions put at the time this came into law was an assurance that the police/procecutors would not us this as a easy kill.
I.e. raid his house for terrorism, find nothing but a few doggy pics. "Phew another terrorist-that-is-not-a-terrorist-but-we-can-claim-gold-stars-for-if-we-do-him-for-porn put away and the danger to society averted. Close one that. Without those pics we may have had to actually come clean and apologise for raiding an innocent man's house. Tea and muffins anyone?"
I seem to remember that this assurance was given. Not quite an innocent man done for a few naughty pics in this case, but nothing to do with the purposes of the raid was it?
doing the five finger knuckle shuffle
I'm not sure how your hands are constructed, but mine have four fingers and a thumb. Works WAY better.
Who cares about the usefulness of the law?
Seriously, I'm not in favour of either of the defendant's habits, but an extra 6 months jail-time? Just feel the tabloid lurve. Perhaps it will translate to votes.
The (rare) pics of sex with a horse is bad, but porn-thinly-disguised-as-dancing on MTV is fine to be broadcast to kids. No really, the extreme-porn legislation isn't about vote-grabbing!
Lomax? I feel a photoshop phriday coming on...
Icon: the kiss of death
so it's OK to have images of a mass slaughter of animals/decapitation/flaying/etc/etc but human/animal sex is singled out for banning? presumably cross species animal-animal sex is also OK. somehow I don't think the animal's welfare is what's interesting the government in this case.
On the contrary, I think it should be made compulsory
I'm pretty sure the horse didn't consent. How would you classify this?
wow, dirty jobs guy... your job sucks.
It's a priveledge, not a right.
Ok here we go ...
This is not for people who have 2,000 images in a folder* it's for 'cache-crimes'
Explain to the judge that the images were in browser cache and therefore you did not physically view them.
Possession of images is circumstantial, although these days seems to be enough, however, simply explain that the 'offending' cached image must have been further down the webpage and that as soon as you realised what was on the page you clicked 'back'.
For an example use news.bbc.co.uk which is usually about one and a half screens deep, display this in court, explaining that on entry to the page you can not see images below the bottom of the screen, but these images are already in cache, and you have no way of knowing if the image is extreme porn. Then scroll down to the images, explaining that here are images that could not be seen from the top of the page. QED
* if you have 2,000 imaged on your hard disk then you're hosed, why didn't you use a memory stick, these are eminently flushable in the traditional way, and don't forget to encrypt. Want a backup in case of 'loss' then pop it into a passworded zip file and stick it online somewhere.
The point I'm trying to make is eating horse is not at all common in this country.
3 horse butcheries out of 45 butcheries in Grenoble (see www.pagesjaunes.fr) don't make horse meat common. At all.
Overall, Grenoble being a big town, horse butcheries must account for 1% ? In the 100 km around me, I can certify there are 0 horse butchery !
Smoked horse meet - available in most supermarkets in the Netherlands. Absolutely delicious. Another reason for living there...
Especially that revolting tome with the pictures from the Secret Chamber in the National Archaeological Museum in Naples.
That's where they've got all the erotica from Pompeii and Herculaneum - including a statue of Pan fucking a goat. Worse, it looke like they're both up for it.
Please, won't someone think of the children?*
Stop the world, I want to get off. Hence the Esc icon.
*In fact, the musem does. Unaccompanied children aren't allowed in the Secret Chamber.
Ok, is it just me that finds it disquietening that the police are seizing computers in unrelated raids?
How long before your computer will be seized when you get stopped for speeding, do you think?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017