[Skyclad]

Originally Posted by Dai13371

Who the hell would be stupid enough to attempt intercourse with a tiger?

Another tiger?


It's GGRRRRRrrrrrreat!

[captainkremmen]

Originally Posted by academia

Then they'd best be sure that they aim to view people older than teen, just to be on the safe side.

Perhaps but where do you draw the line?.

I know a 26 year old who could easily past for 16 or 17 in some styles of dress, and I have a cousin who is in her early 30s and looks around 18/19.

The law says performers must be over 18 and records must be kept, well as long as a company producing porn sticks to the letter of the law there shouldn't be a problem.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by tewkesbury

Why shouldn't adults be free to watch sexual acts committed by other consenting adults ?

You don't find it odd that some people get their rocks off by seeing sexual violence, mainly towards women? I read of one case which involved staged images of a woman eventually being stabbed in the bath and then drowned. I personally think there's something wrong with people who like to view stuff like that and I can imagine some of them really wanting to see it for real.

[roland rat]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

You don't find it odd that some people get their rocks off by seeing sexual violence, mainly towards women? I read of one case which involved staged images of a woman eventually being stabbed in the bath and then drowned. I personally think there's something wrong with people who like to view stuff like that and I can imagine some of them really wanting to see it for real.

I wont detail what I like to watch, as most likely you would be disgustted, now what I watch, I know its not real, and I dont act out my fantasies

[Moony]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

You don't find it odd that some people get their rocks off by seeing sexual violence, mainly towards women? I read of one case which involved staged images of a woman eventually being stabbed in the bath and then drowned. I personally think there's something wrong with people who like to view stuff like that and I can imagine some of them really wanting to see it for real.

Why stop at sexual violence - mainstream Hollywood movies are full of staged violence and depravity - often far worse than what you have described here - and yet loads of people seem to enjoy watching!

Why does the sexual element make it somehow worse?

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by Moony

Why stop at sexual violence - mainstream Hollywood movies are full of staged violence and depravity - and yet loads of people seem to enjoy watching that!

Firstly, it's regulated more, particularly with regards to the participants welfare. Secondly, the majority of people don't go to watch them to be sexually aroused. These type of porn movies are made because those who watch them get turned on by people being tortured or killed during sex.

[Moony]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

Firstly, it's regulated more, particularly with regards to the participants welfare.

Secondly, the majority of people don't go to watch them to be sexually aroused. These type of porn movies are made because those who watch them get turned on by people being tortured or killed during sex.

Possibly

The second bit is speculation on your part. Whilst I agree it is probably broadly true - you cant possibly know what is going through the minds of all the people watching - nor their motivation for watching. Also - people dying due to sexual violence isn't confined to these porn movies - some mainstream movies contain depictions of such violence (albeit less sexually graphic). Its quite possible that people viewing such mainstream movies do get turned on by what they are seeing.

[ribtickle]

Essentially this guy appears to be into consensual bondage and sub-domination role play, sado masochism, shit, and pushing metal rods down the penis (which men can do alone). I don't think the real reason he's being pursued is because of those sexual proclivities, or the police may need to arrest a few hundred thousand like him, and I agree with one of the earlier postings that this will be revenge against him because he has successfully prosecuted police officers on disciplinary grounds.

This is one of the reasons I think we should all be guarded against police and state intrusion into our private lives, and of their determination to have a central database because such a system would be used to store a sort of KGB/Stasi file on everyone; some dirt, sexual or otherwise, which they can use to either warn you off if you rock the political boat, or take you out of the system if you stand in the way.

[academia]

Originally Posted by captainkremmen

Perhaps but where do you draw the line?.

I know a 26 year old who could easily past for 16 or 17 in some styles of dress, and I have a cousin who is in her early 30s and looks around 18/19.

The law says performers must be over 18 and records must be kept, well as long as a company producing porn sticks to the letter of the law there shouldn't be a problem.

The line gets drawn at putting real teens in these films AND at simulating teen or child sex using older actors because the effect on the viewer is one and the same and because simulating an illegal act is sticking two fingers up at laws designed to protect the young from being exploited by old perverts.

[captainkremmen]

Originally Posted by academia

The line gets drawn at putting real teens in these films AND at simulating teen or child sex using older actors because the effect on the viewer is one and the same and because simulating an illegal act is sticking two fingers up at laws designed to protect the young from being exploited by old perverts.

But that seems to be the same or very similar to the arguments used against mainstream films and video games that depict violence. They very often simulate illegal acts of violence and can also therefore be said to be sticking two fingers up to the law.

[Regis Magnae]

The trial appears to be coming to a close.

[Regis Magnae]

https://twitter.com/ObscenityLawyer

https://twitter.com/lexingtondymock

A couple of things I noted from these tweets.

Myles Jackman ‏@ObscenityLawyer

CPS - Oscar WIlde said risk was like feasting with panthers.

What purpose would the CPS have in saying this? To dazzle the jury?

CPS - You can criticise the law if you want to; but it is modern. Passed by Parliament.

Sort of goes against the idea of juries being an obstacle to oppressive governments.

Alex Dymock ‏@lexingtondymock

CPS: It can be difficult to prove with respect to porn made
abroad what happened to participants in its making.

CPS: eg. from Poland or Russia, whether participants were consenting or not as images show only body parts.

Irrelevant surely? The law doesn't make any reference to consent except as a defence where the possessor participated in the acts depicted.

Myles Jackman ‏@ObscenityLawyer

CPS - Dr Smith would not concede images were degrading if it pictured a woman. This is clearly wrong.

Alex Dymock ‏@lexingtondymock

CPS: Smith would not concede images were degrading. If this were woman in images, every porn campaigner in country would say so.

Was the CPS trying to make an argument that if they were to be degrading to a woman then they'd be degrading to a man? An interesting way of trying to use equality to prove your point, it also highlights the interesting difference of how males and females are perceived in pornography but ignores the heated debate over the concept of degradation.

Alex Dymock ‏@lexingtondymock

CPS: You may think that the defendant was expecting the police and ditched a computer somewhere.

An interesting suggestion, we've no evidence only a suspicion that the evidence may have been destroyed.

Alex Dymock ‏@lexingtondymock

CPS: Law protects not just those who might be exposed to imagery, but also the health of those who participate in making of it.

Not true, otherwise why is the defence of participation there? Why aren't consenting adults prosecuted with assault and so on when cases of this nature come to the attention of the authorities?

[lexy_86]

NOT GUILTY!!!

This is the right verdict in my view. The law should not be used to make moral judgements upon the sexual practises of consenting adults.

[droogiefret]

Originally Posted by captainkremmen

Perhaps but where do you draw the line?.

I know a 26 year old who could easily past for 16 or 17 in some styles of dress, and I have a cousin who is in her early 30s and looks around 18/19.

The law says performers must be over 18 and records must be kept, well as long as a company producing porn sticks to the letter of the law there shouldn't be a problem.

Not for the company - but there could be a problem for an individual possessing an image from from a legal porn film. If the police consider an image to be of an under 18 they can prosecute and the onus of proof of age would be on the defendant.

As I understand it, juries don't actually ever have to look at images themselves so there is no second opinion - the police opinion is taken as a matter of fact unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by lexy_86

NOT GUILTY!!!

This is the right verdict in my view. The law should not be used to make moral judgements upon the sexual practises of consenting adults.

Excellent news.

[pickwick]

Great news, but the idiotic law is still on the books and needs changed.

[tewkesbury]

Excellent news, I wonder how much the CPS have cost the public purse with this farce. Good article about it here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-an...the-porn-trial

His crime had been to have a few photos in his email server of fisting, an unusual and not altogether pleasant sex act. If you are one of the readers who made Fifty Shades of Grey the most successful British book of all time, you will recognise it. In fact, it is perfectly legal to perform, but possibly not, under the insane and draconian legislation of the last Labour government, to own pictures of.

[Resonance]

Does this set some kind of legal precedent.....i,e, fisting pics are now legal, or rather not illegal under the extreme porn law?

Does this mean there will be no more cases brought for similar types of pictures?

[Si_Crewe]

Maybe worth mentioning...

Surely this sort of case is, along with rape, another candidate for witholding the name of the defendant until after a guilty verdict has been reached?

I mean, at least with a rape trial an innocent defendant is absolved of the offence, if not the stigma, whereas this poor sucker HAS indisputably had his "dirty laundry" aired in public even though he's been found innocent.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by Resonance

Does this set some kind of legal precedent.....i,e, fisting pics are now legal, or rather not illegal under the extreme porn law?

Does this mean there will be no more cases brought for similar types of pictures?

Doubtful.

Unless the next case involves exactly the same material the CPS could still argue that any other material depicted something that might be harmful or life-threatening.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were having a bit of a debrief to see if they can figure out where they went wrong and strengthen their position in any future case; perhaps get doctors in to give evidence that such an act could be life-threatening or whatever.

After all, it's not like they've got anything better to do, right?

[Resonance]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Doubtful.

Unless the next case involves exactly the same material the CPS could still argue that any other material depicted something that might be harmful or life-threatening.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they were having a bit of a debrief to see if they can figure out where they went wrong and strengthen their position in any future case; perhaps get doctors in to give evidence that such an act could be life-threatening or whatever.

After all, it's not like they've got anything better to do, right?

Ah right. I'm not clued up on legal stuff. I just thought that if a court had decided that fisting isn't likely to be harmful/life threatening in one case that that might set a precedent.

[onefineday]

Credit to the jury and shame on the police and CPS for this vexatious prosecution.

[spiney2]

we dont know why a particular case gets singled out but prosecutors do seem rather ignorant about what are fairly commonplace - if not "everyday" - sexual practises.

do we know its the same gangs involved in both forced prostitution and making illegal porn ? different ones i would have thought.

the claim that child porn leads child abuse appears to be fallacious reasoning. ie child sexual abusers are often found to possess child porn.

[spiney2]

reminds me of mid 80s when "cute" young police pretended to be cottagers then arrested any gay man who approached them. lots of money was spent on this .....

[droogiefret]

I imagine once a certain amount of police time has been spent on a case it starts to become irrelevant whether the accused is actually innocent or not. That time needs to be justified by a successful prosecution. They seemed to get pretty desperate in this instance.