There is nothing in any legislation about 'leaving a mark', and no-one is going to be prosecuted under extreme pornograhy laws for something as minor as spanking.
Fisting & even worse has been ruled not to be extreme, so really that only leaves bestiality.
And yet this guy WAS prosecuted and spent 9 months in prison for lending CP videos to someone else.
He was originally prosecuted as distributing extreme pornography for profit, but in the end he was found guilty of "giving or lending" extreme videos rather than selling or renting for profit.
So while possessing may not be illegal, if you give them, lend them or I suspect show them to someone else, you could face prosecution. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arenspan.htm
The law is still unclear, so much so that no UK porn companies that I am aware of now produce such videos for the UK market, as they are worried they may be prosecuted.
The CPS's intention was to show that videos may not show anything that breaks, or is liable to break the skin, or cause, or be liable to cause bruising to the skin.
But the photographic processor was not in a position to determine that the photographs were innocent himself.
Oh come on.....are you for real??!!
A child at bath time!! Not 'innocent'?
Not sure if you have children yourself but hey guess what.....when anyone takes a bath/shower they don't wear clothes. It's kind of what normal thinking people call......'normal'!
If a little mud was flung round in the process then that is unfortunate but perhaps Sommerville's partner should have been a little more thoughtful before submitting borderline material like he did.
Not good enough.
Plain common sense adult logic should have 'kicked in'. Unfortunately today it doesn't because way too many fruit loops take the trash they watch in Eastenders and the rubbish they soak up from rag mags as real life.
And yet this guy WAS prosecuted and spent 9 months in prison for lending CP videos to someone else.
He was originally prosecuted as distributing extreme pornography for profit, but in the end he was found guilty of "giving or lending" extreme videos rather than selling or renting for profit.
So while possessing may not be illegal, if you give them, lend them or I suspect show them to someone else, you could face prosecution. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arenspan.htm
The law is still unclear, so much so that no UK porn companies that I am aware of now produce such videos for the UK market, as they are worried they may be prosecuted.
The CPS's intention was to show that videos may not show anything that breaks, or is liable to break the skin, or cause, or be liable to cause bruising to the skin.
All that is utterly pathetic, if people are into that why persecute them, and surely the internet is too powerful for them to stop the material on there, if I want say scat or spanking videos I must be able to get them off the internet, I almost want to do it just to give the middle finger to "the man", why do we need every detail of what we might do that others might find distasteful ruled over by governments, screw them all.
If you have them and have a friend interested, then screw the authorities, it's nothing to do with them!
Actually every item you send to them they are responsible for as you have to list exactly what you are send besides the camera. In my case the only extra item was the battery which i listed, as i spoke with them first to check out costs mainly but was told concerning the nature of the fault, not to bother including the sd card as well.
Once in their possession they take full responsibility for any loss or damage.
However if they lost the data card all they would be obliged to do is replace the card, any data on it would be lost and how could they replace that?
And yet this guy WAS prosecuted and spent 9 months in prison for lending CP videos to someone else.
He was originally prosecuted as distributing extreme pornography for profit, but in the end he was found guilty of "giving or lending" extreme videos rather than selling or renting for profit.
So while possessing may not be illegal, if you give them, lend them or I suspect show them to someone else, you could face prosecution. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arenspan.htm
The law is still unclear, so much so that no UK porn companies that I am aware of now produce such videos for the UK market, as they are worried they may be prosecuted.
The CPS's intention was to show that videos may not show anything that breaks, or is liable to break the skin, or cause, or be liable to cause bruising to the skin.
Your knowledge of the law is way out of date. You have referenced a 2003 prosecution under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, dealing with distribution of such material that was always legal to possess. The discussion here has been about extreme pornography, which is dealt with by Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. There have been recent stated cases on this legislation, pretty much indicating that 'a lot more goes' these days, plus stated cases on the distribution of fisting videos under obscene pubs.
R v Michael Peacock deals with distribution of such material
The SImon Walsh case, as mentioned earlier, helped to set precedent for possession of extreme material, and pretty much rules out everything except bestiality.
Not sure if you have children yourself but hey guess what.....when anyone takes a bath/shower they don't wear clothes. It's kind of what normal thinking people call......'normal'!
Not good enough.
Plain common sense adult logic should have 'kicked in'. Unfortunately today it doesn't because way too many fruit loops take the trash they watch in Eastenders and the rubbish they soak up from rag mags as real life.
This was nearly 20 years ago though, and incidents of & prosecutions for indecent child images were far more uncommon, largely to do with digital cameras being largely unavailable.. The pictures were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures though, enough for the police to be notified and for the case to be submitted to the CPS. Hype over such things didn't really exist back then
This was nearly 20 years ago though, and incidents of & prosecutions for indecent child images were far more uncommon, largely to do with digital cameras being largely unavailable.. The pictures were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures though, enough for the police to be notified and for the case to be submitted to the CPS. Hype over such things didn't really exist back then
BIB........i do hope you will elaborate more in order to substantiate your statement that the photographs 'were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures'?
I trust you will provide the necessary evidence to back up your claim? Otherwise it's just a load of phooey, not to mention extremely dangerous twaddle which i'm sure Ms Somervilles Solicitor would take a very keen interest in.
This was nearly 20 years ago though, and incidents of & prosecutions for indecent child images were far more uncommon, largely to do with digital cameras being largely unavailable.. The pictures were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures though, enough for the police to be notified and for the case to be submitted to the CPS. Hype over such things didn't really exist back then
This was nearly 20 years ago though, and incidents of & prosecutions for indecent child images were far more uncommon, largely to do with digital cameras being largely unavailable.. The pictures were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures though, enough for the police to be notified and for the case to be submitted to the CPS. Hype over such things didn't really exist back then
Hype certainly did exist due to a campaign over child pornography at the time , the police were notified by a Boots employee and the police after investigating took no action.
Leading child-law experts said the case would renew the debate about the law surrounding child pornography. This has intensified over the decade, focusing in particular on whether society has become too sensitive to the possibility of child abuse - sometimes with traumatic results for innocent parties.
Comments
And yet this guy WAS prosecuted and spent 9 months in prison for lending CP videos to someone else.
He was originally prosecuted as distributing extreme pornography for profit, but in the end he was found guilty of "giving or lending" extreme videos rather than selling or renting for profit.
So while possessing may not be illegal, if you give them, lend them or I suspect show them to someone else, you could face prosecution.
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arenspan.htm
The law is still unclear, so much so that no UK porn companies that I am aware of now produce such videos for the UK market, as they are worried they may be prosecuted.
The CPS's intention was to show that videos may not show anything that breaks, or is liable to break the skin, or cause, or be liable to cause bruising to the skin.
A child at bath time!! Not 'innocent'?
Not sure if you have children yourself but hey guess what.....when anyone takes a bath/shower they don't wear clothes.
Not good enough.
Plain common sense adult logic should have 'kicked in'. Unfortunately today it doesn't because way too many fruit loops take the trash they watch in Eastenders and the rubbish they soak up from rag mags as real life.
All that is utterly pathetic, if people are into that why persecute them, and surely the internet is too powerful for them to stop the material on there, if I want say scat or spanking videos I must be able to get them off the internet, I almost want to do it just to give the middle finger to "the man", why do we need every detail of what we might do that others might find distasteful ruled over by governments, screw them all.
If you have them and have a friend interested, then screw the authorities, it's nothing to do with them!
However if they lost the data card all they would be obliged to do is replace the card, any data on it would be lost and how could they replace that?
Your knowledge of the law is way out of date. You have referenced a 2003 prosecution under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act, dealing with distribution of such material that was always legal to possess. The discussion here has been about extreme pornography, which is dealt with by Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. There have been recent stated cases on this legislation, pretty much indicating that 'a lot more goes' these days, plus stated cases on the distribution of fisting videos under obscene pubs.
R v Michael Peacock deals with distribution of such material
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/01/09/making-a-fist-of-it-the-law-and-obscenity/
The SImon Walsh case, as mentioned earlier, helped to set precedent for possession of extreme material, and pretty much rules out everything except bestiality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/08/porn-trial-simon-walsh-acquitted-fisting_n_1755412.html
This was nearly 20 years ago though, and incidents of & prosecutions for indecent child images were far more uncommon, largely to do with digital cameras being largely unavailable.. The pictures were a little more than normal 'child in bath' pictures though, enough for the police to be notified and for the case to be submitted to the CPS. Hype over such things didn't really exist back then
I trust you will provide the necessary evidence to back up your claim? Otherwise it's just a load of phooey, not to mention extremely dangerous twaddle which i'm sure Ms Somervilles Solicitor would take a very keen interest in.
I would choose your words very carefully.
Were they?.
Hype certainly did exist due to a campaign over child pornography at the time , the police were notified by a Boots employee and the police after investigating took no action.