How exactly was he caught ??
Did he take the PC to be repaired ?
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, …
Gary Johnston: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
It was always going to happen, but fuck do I feel safer now!
No photography, no hardcores, no bad public behaviour, no drawings, no more then one phone or laptop, no reporting from terminal 5, a big button for kiddy safety, no writing in public and, beware the mp3 player. I'm sure there are more things to think about but I think that's a good start, I wonder how much safer we can become?
Thanks CEOP, Police and, Government, for protecting innocent people from harm and persecution, you're doing a great job and the country is obviously better for it.
A conviction on 6 seconds is ridiculous. Well, in addition to the fact that convictions based on material you didn't make are also a tad ridiculous.
Obligatory: oh, but all the violent media we consume is fine and won't do us any harm. Yes, It's the 6 seconds of 2girls1cup that'll send you over the edge.
"The second and more serious charge alleged that Holland had downloaded and viewed a six-second clip of human-on-human extreme porn."
Well if the argument is that his mind is now dirty, why don't we just put him to death? What's seen cannot be unseen. Or will putting him in jail somehow cause him to forget the images that put him there? No, didn't think so.
To take a rational approach... maybe we should do nothing and not attempt to convict people of what are essentially thought crimes through a process that implicitly makes the despicable, slanderous and completely *unproved* accusation that possessing images of violent pornography somehow proves or otherwise creates a high propensity to commit a sex crime.
The ruling class like to think of themselves as a different species to us mere mortals and I'm starting to think it's true. They are an inbred, backwards, feckless group of morons so dense that brain surgeons in the hospitals they visit use sledge hammers rather than scalpels.
Let's just revisit the scene of the crime. A raving lunatic works a sedentary job signing laws into being such as the buggery law of England_and_Wales.com
Then he pays a visit to one of his mistresses and gives her a dose then he goes home to tell his wife they are through and she should pack her bags, she's on her way to the Tower of London.
And the kicker is that after disposing of more wives than Harold Shipman, he gets to be the new defender of the faith and passes laws that have no definitions. Like said buggery law.
And centuries later people can go to prison for watchin digial reproductions of not them doing it?
Of course without a definition of extreme sex acts it is difficult to say for sure if this person has done or not done, not done that .
We need a real disaster, a war, a famine, or whatever else is really important to make the governments (in a lot of countries) and the anal-retentive bigots stop thinking about how to find a new way to protect people from themselves, and start thinking about how to protect people from REAL menaces.
Sad, but true.
This is the point of all these new laws from New Labour - criminalise almost everything so that if the state wants you put away they will be able to find _something_.
So the Tony Tiger prosecution didn't work out and the Police/CPS have to justify the ridiculous amount of money spent so they dug through his inbox until they found something to nail him with (and their arrest-conviction stats are safe).
Phew, we can all sleep soundly in our beds tonight knowing this evil scum is off the street.
What is deeply worrying here is that he said the clip was emailed to him as a joke and he just forgot to delete it. And it is just ONE six second clip! It's not like he had a massive stash of the stuff, surely that supports his claim that it was simply emailed to him? If he was really into extreme porn he'd have mountains of it hidden away on his hard drive.
So does this mean that all you need to do to get someone arrested is email them an extreme porn clip from an anonymous email address and then call the police? Even if they have deleted it I'm sure their email client will still have it tucked away in a cache file somewhere.
I remember when I was at uni it was an almost daily competition to see who could shock their mates most with something they found on the Internet. Not for any sexual excitement, purely to see the look on your their faces. Many a time I'd switch on my computer to find the backdrop changed to something unspeakable!
Anon for obvious reasons ;)
I once remember being emailed a clip about a women sucking off a cow and having it put creamy milk in her mouth, I was shocked....then laughing my head off, and forwarding it to everyone on the campus i knew.
anonymous? you big girl, have some balls.....thats the only way you'll win, civil disobedience
Re cache files etc - how do you define possession of the offending material? If he delete's it, but doesn't permanently delete it, then a savvy defendant could argue that he had deleted it, DESPITE the fact that in reality, this fictional defendant happened to be into that kind of thing, and knew he could just delve into his 'deleted items' in Outlook in order to view it again.
If by "spammed" you mean beaten round the head with a 12 inch rubber cock ala LSTSB and "extreme porn" to mean till she exhales no more, then yep.
Couldn't agree more.
Not anonymous because i truly dont give a fuck. They will have to remove my extreme porn collection from my non fingerprinted hands.
Twunts. Bye new liebore. Thanks for coming, its not been a reet fucking larf at all...
PS, Dear Mr Falkes, please try again!!!!!
what are they going to give us for watching this government fuck this entire country up the a*** for 13 years?
As far as I can see, this government has fucked us up illegally, and non-consensually , and is keeping doing it even though we are yelling 'STOP!'.
If we are watching that, current laws should have us all put away for life....
Oh, and why isn't there a dildo icon when you need one...
"At the Crown Court in Mold, last week, before Mr Justice Medland, Holland pleaded guilty to a charge of possession, in the expectation that this would count as mitigation and lead to a lighter sentence"
If you plead guilty to it you have to expect the sentence which being guilty of it brings. It may make the sentence lighter but that doesn't mean it won't be heavy.
Are we seeing a spate of people appearing in court and pleading guilty a result of having no legal representation or advice, or do have they had legal representation or advice which is worse than useless ?
As someone who has previously been arrested for possession (of a Herb not XP), I can say with pretty much certainty that his lawyer will have advised him to accept the 'Fast Track' option to get in the court system quickly and to plead guilty and that doing this would likely lead to a lesser punishment.
This is however a CROCK OF SHIT!
My boss was arrested with the same charges (worked in bong shop & no, we did not sell the herbs!), I fast tracked, he dragged it out for a year or so - guess who came off worse!
Do not ever accept 'Fast Track' to court!
Anon obviously. Relevence to story? Laws agaist herbs are just as bad as laws against XP (or worse in that to date they have been used agaist millions of otherwise lawabiding folks)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
"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).
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....
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
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!
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.
"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."
"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).
...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?
"(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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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)
I don't want to make excuses for illegal porn, when the porn is illegal.
But there is a second crime here, and one that directly calls into question the integrity of computer professionals by asking if police are allowing a criminal computer technical to escape justice.
When a woman goes visits the casualty ward to get a broken arm treated, she does not expect the doctor to do a gynaecological examination.
If the doctor did do a gynaecological examination, he might well be struck off.
So why is it okay for computer technicians to go snooping around playing people's video clips?
Was the technician perhaps looking for porn or credit card information he could steal?
I could see stumbling across an ordinary image file in the root of C: if the user had set the view to thumbnails. But that is really unlikely.
And the video file, the technical must have intentionally played it.
So what is the story behind how the technician "stumbled" across this illegal file? How did he accidentally see it in the process of carrying out the necessary duties of his work? What is his excuse?
You say this law was motivated by the "far right".
Are you by any chance in the USA or Canada, because what you said would make sense to someone living there.
This law was actually put in by a UK Labour government under Tony Blair. Labour is the UK's left-wing party.
That is the problem with trying to label something as multi-dimensional as political beliefs using a scalar.
Left-wing parties, especially extremist left-wing parties, are as likely to invent ridiculous crimes and penalties as right-wing parties and extremist right-wing parties.
Lots of politically socialist parties, lots of parties that believe in state intervention in economics, are at the same time socially very conservative. So left-wing and right-wing at the same time.
You say that Labour is the UK's left-wing party.
Are you by any chance living in 1970 or 80?, because what you said would make sense to someone living then.
The Labour party under Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell moved so far to the right that the Tories have struggled to find any reason for their own continued existence ever since and are only looking at a possible victory in the next election because of 10 years worth of young voters who can't remember the mess they made last time.
I'm sure that what you said about socialist parties is true - while it's pretty well a defining characteristic of a socialist government that it intervenes in economics, that's really something all governments do; those that don't invariably get some version of the Credit Crunch as the invisible hand of the market once more fails to materialise and their stint in office ends in some economic disaster.
The failure to learn this, and the blind dogmatism of economic advisers peddling yet another forlorn utopia, is what has marked out every "new broom" in British politics for the last 30 years. "Just one more try" should be the official motto of the LSE and its hopelessly untalented ilk as they knock on the door of Downing Street, "This time," they promise, "we've worked out what we did wrong". But they never have. Economies of any size or complexity need constant intervention to prevent them from collapsing to singularities of one sort or another. There are no counter-examples in all of history, yet free-market fantasists continue to label anyone that realises this as "socialists" as if that were some sort of insult.
Be that as it may, Labour is not a socialist party in any meaningful sense. It is a free-market devil-take-the-hindmost capitalist party dedicated to removing the state's responsibility for any and all activity in the nation, leaving the government free to consort with the rich and famous to the mutual benefit of the cabinet ministers and billionaires concerned. Exactly the same as the Conservatives, in other words. Reality, in the form of responsibility, is not allowed to impinge at any point.
If you had lived through the last 20 years - or judged political parties by what they do rather than what they call themselves - you'd probably know all that.
Note, most people get a bit confused with "left and right" there are four points on a political compass, Left/Right/Libertarian/Authoritarian.
Soviet Russia was far Left/Extremely Authoritarian.
China is Left/Extremely Authoritarian.
Nazi Germany Right/Extremely Authoritarian.
I can't think of any nation that leans more towards liberal then authoritarian... hmmmm, of course I think those levels go -100 to 100 political makeup is more complex then Left or Right.
Ben Rosenthal, relabelling your C: as "Deleted Items" isn't good enough.
Even if the file is in your real deleted items folder, it is still on your computer and you could still be prosecuted for it. (After all, that would be an easy escape for child pornographers.)
There is even some question as to whether you could be successfully prosecuted if it was in your web browser's cache or sitting unread in your inbox.
Also, I suspect "deleted items" is one of the folders unscrupulous computer technicians snoop in first when searching for credit card data.
In my personal opinion, *maybe* Saw and Saw II should be considered porn.
But it seems not matter how cruel and sadistic the film, no matter if it makes heroes of absolute sadists or psychopaths, society will only consider it porn if sex is involved. (This is even more true in the USA.)
This said, there is no excuse for the draconian police state style rules and penalties in Blair's extreme porn law or the RIP Act.
Many of Tony Blair's additions to criminal law and regulations give the impression he thought "New Labour" was a synonym for "National Socialist British Workers Party".
On the content of the film, I am imagining it is either sex with a giant dildo, or the appearance of death or mutilation.
The FBI in the USA launched a massive search for snuff films a few years ago when the main stream media claimed they existed, and came up with nothing but simulated murder.
If snooping computer techs, investigators and prosecutors could be all be fooled into laying charges by an animated tiger, they could be fooled by even amateur make up artists. (Yes I know they dropped the charges on the tiger clip, but dropping charges requires that they first have laid them.)
Authoritarian politicians love moral panic/witchcraft laws such as those against drugs, terrorism and pornography. The beauty of these laws is that anyone can be made vulnerable to them. If you are an official and dislike someone, then email some kiddie porn to them and anonymously notify the police that he/she has it in their possession, it is even easier than planting heroin in someone's house or car.
I dont know what those 6 seconds contains but... I understand its perfectly possible to be prosecuted and jailed for owning a photo/video of an act between two consenting adults that is not illegal......
We can watch all sorts of Police Camera Action stuff, i.e. we watch crimes being commited and there is nothing wrong with that, but we cant watch a legal act between two consenting adults.
Something seriously wrong here..
That seems peculiar. There are any number of "slightly out of the ordinary" venues in Britain that have been advertised on the web since pretty much the dawn of (internet) time. The idea that you could be sent to prison for viewing or posessing content of this kind seems Brazil-esque in the least.
It seems like they will need to imprison a good chunk of London.
you are already halfway to the sex-offender's register if you DO have thoughts out of the ordinary*.
all we need now is a way to record them so they would be admissable in court....
after thinking about it, i've decided on my opinion for the whole basis of this law and what it represents.
my opinion is: it's bullshit.
certain drugs are illegal. the coppers usually go after the dealers and importers as a priority.
porn is made illegal. so the coppers go for the people watching it, not the actors doing it, or the guys selling it.
considerations of nationality / country of origin aside, the government should not legislate against something they cannot control. by doing so, they look like weak bullies when hauling some poor pleb up for it. I'm not saying they should control it. Just that firstly passing this law, and secondly acting on it, are wrong.
*as defined by government brochure #23535625622-A, titled "How we want you to think", subsection 43, heading "Sex - Don't."
Seems that it covers anything that could be considered slightly out of the ordinary. Bondage/S&M, hentai, it's all here.
Bad news for us kinky sods, eh?
Whatever next - are they going to ban you from having out-of-the-ordinary thoughts?
I hate this country.
Mr Holland's problem:
"At the Crown Court in Mold, last week, before Mr Justice Medland, Holland pleaded guilty to a charge of possession, in the expectation that this would count as mitigation and lead to a lighter sentence."
He admitted to the "crime".
No one knows what the "crime" is, but because he has pleaded guilty he opens himself up to be prosecuted.
What he needed to do was fight the charge (expensive), and show that the material in his possession was not offensive etc... That would give the judges the opportunity to interpret the law and (ideally) castrate it (so long as they don't video themselves doing so). This would make the extremeness of extreme porn so extreme that no one would/could ever be charged.
Alas the judges now have to sentence a guilty man (he pleaded guilty). I'm not sure they have the freedom to throw out the charges at this point. The best Holland can hope for is that he gets a suspended sentence.
I made the mistake of letting a friend go on my PC during a barbecue. Hearing a scream I ran back into the living room to find him watching a video of a dog and a woman, with my party guests sat around looking somewhat disturbed.
So, it seems that I could potentially be sent to prison for the actions of an R-tard who came to my house and drank too much...
I think I'll be reinstating the "Party" user account with fully-nannied internet and access only to the music folder! (although for some reason that doesn't allow one to read wikipedia articles about John Lennon or the Beatles... presumably as the powers-that-be in the US thought of them as a bad influence 40 years ago!)
No one actually gets "caught" committing these crimes. These crimes exist for one reason and one reason only; as part of a bid to reclassify as illegal a broad enough range of material to ensure that everyone in the UK is guilty of something.
Once we're all guilty the police can start searching people at random (sorry, I mean continue searching people at random) and declare that 100% of the people they stop are later found to have contraband in their home. Well what do you know, the police are keeping us safer after all.
But what if the chief of police is found to have some extreme porn on his PC (come on, you know he does) will he be thrown in jail? I'll bet you my life's savings that he won't. Gordon Brown, now there's a guy who looks like he lives off extreme porn. What's the betting he'll be jailed?
>As far as I can see, this government has fucked us up illegally, and non-consensually , and is keeping doing it even though we are yelling 'STOP!'.<
It's not their fault we forgot the safe word.
Also, I don't understand why he didn't get done for the tiger thing too, after all, didn't some guy get prison time in Australia for Bart and Lisa porn, or is animated porn (even extreme) ok as long as it doesn't involve fictitious children?
A carpenter writes: A couple of years ago I received two unsolicited MMS's in quick succession from some long forgotten knuckle-dragger in the building trade, and assumed they were currently doing the rounds. The first was the comic 'Tony the Frosties Tiger' cartoon spoof already discussed, and the second was a 6 second video clip.
"The Lads" gathered round and guffawed at Tony's punchline. The second clip was of some bloke with his trousers round his ankles 'wrangling' a sheep, except that after a short struggle he got the animal under control and the bloke's arse started going in and out, pornstar stylee.
After a second viewing The Lads came to the conclusion that it probably wasn't a spoof or some offbeat viral ad', and was simulated or even the real thing. Whilst my experience could be just pure coincidence, through shocked conversations at the time (I wasn't expecting to see that!), I know of several other blokes who received these two clips concurrently. As I say, they were just 'doing the rounds' and no, I don't still have the MMS's on my phone. Phew!
If you Voted for Labour in the last election then you deserve whatever they throw since everyone with a brain saw that the incompetents were building a Police State in their first term and there you went voting Labour in for a 2nd worse term. Really I would say that Labour is more disgusting that any picture this guy is charged with possessing.
(and anyone else out there who may have seen the tiger clip.
I am actually quite interested in getting sight of this (provided it is the one that has the pubchline at the end and therefore the one declared legal to possess) in order to work out for myself just how "realistic" this particular clip was.
Please don't start sending stuff directly (even if you have worked out my e-mail address). However, if you could point to a reasonably virus-free hosting site (which is not otherwise illegal on account of content) would be grateful.
Wish I could help but have no idea where one would find it again, even for research purposes, as it was doing the rounds two years+ ago. If you know anyone who never deletes MMS's it was circulating around the same time as the "Manc' happy-slapper in wife-beater vest who gets his come-upance from a skinny 'innocent' passer-by" spoof. Errr... hope this helps!
Paris, a happy slapper.
First it's a no brainier to me, no 6 second clip, unless evidence of your involvement in a more serious crime (eg murder, GBH, rape or child abuse) should ever be punishable with a prison sentence. End of.
Second for those who blame Labour for this. Who believes any of the opposition parties would be any better? Can you see any of them reversing this after May? I cannot bring myself not to vote (people died to give me the right, etc), so I will be spoiling my ballot come May.
Third, the only other victimless crime I can think of is speeding, which at least arguably has a more causal link to hurting someone if not punished. But speeding offenses are more controversial and the punishment is a fine and some points on your license. In comparison to a max 3 years and membership of sex offenders register (and all that entails)
Lastly, how come we are so worried about animal rights when it comes to having intercourse with them, but not when it comes to killing billions of them a year for food? Yes I'm a veggy...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019