Extreme porn changes

[mOBSCENE]

I thought seeing as this board is concerned with the porn industry, more or less, I would see if anyone was keeping up to date with the Extreme Porn law thinggy.

From what I can gather, major changes have been made to the original wordings, so that now an ACTUAL sexual offence must have been recorded in the material to warrant prosecution for possession of it, as well as fulfilling other criteria.

(c) records an actual act (whether performed in the United Kingdom or not) in which one or more persons committed a sexual offence

It includes:

an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breast or genitals,

So if you lacerate their feet with a machete while they wank, I guess that kind of content would be OK as its not in the wording (as long as it doesn't threaten their life)

More info as ever at

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk

A new lobby group led by The Sun newspaper is, meanwhile, campaigning against the increasing prevelance of flowery things over girls tits on some new sites of late.

[SGS]

Yes all up to speed on that one. :)

[Guest]

From what I can gather, major changes have been made to the original wordings, so that now an ACTUAL sexual offence must have been recorded in the material to warrant prosecution for possession of it, as well as fulfilling other criteria.

(c) records an actual act (whether performed in the United Kingdom or not) in which one or more persons committed a sexual offence

Hmm... OK, the amendments change nothing for UK webmasters because the material in question is already illegal to publish anyway under the OPA.

For surfers, the changes are largely irrelevant. To be convicted, the prosecution will need to be able to prove that the images depict actual sexual offences and that is a significant change, but before it gets that far you'll still have the police raiding and searching your house and taking away your computer. You'll be arrested, hauled off and questioned. Almost inevitibly, this will lead to spurious rumours in your local neighbourhood and all the hassle that can come with that.

The bill also states that the acts have to be realistic depictions. So if the surfer sees a realistically depicted act, how can they be sure if it's an actual act or one that's simulated? The police won't ask that question before they arrest them. As long as it looks realistic, the police will press ahead.

[mOBSCENE]

The bill also states that the acts have to be realistic depictions. So if the surfer sees a realistically depicted act, how can they be sure if it's an actual act or one that's simulated? The police won't ask that question before they arrest them. As long as it looks realistic, the police will press ahead.

Do you think most forces will have the resources to make a habit of doing dawn raids unless they have a good idea they will get a conviction? Most forces have enough to deal with and probably don't have the manpower and certainly don't want the paperwork.

Probably the only time it will come into play is when ex-lovers, etc, make spurious claims to stir up trouble

I feel there may be one or two high profile cases that will get thrown out of court, and then the police/CPS simply won't bother as with most of the 4000 other new laws since Blair/Brown have been in power...

[Guest]

Do you think most forces will have the resources to make a habit of doing dawn raids unless they have a good idea they will get a conviction? Most forces have enough to deal with and probably don't have the manpower and certainly don't want the paperwork.

I think that if the police receive information that an individual might be in possession of illegal images - details of dodgy website subscriptions, for example - then they'll run that through their systems and see if any 'individuals of interest' are flagged up, such as people with records for violent crime or sexual offences, then investigate them further.

If someone's name pops up in isolation then whether or not they do anything else will no doubt depend on the resources they have available. I can see a lot of people being cautioned for this offence because most people aren't going to want to take it as far as court and cautions help improve the 'clear-up' statistics (I think).

[Paul Markham]

Firstly my experience regarding this. Over the years I have know many people with a camera acting out their fantasies. It's part of the game. Some of those fantasies leave a model with a smile and some leave them in a hospital ward. The driving force is the people who buy it.

If people did not buy child porn, a lot less would be produced and more children protected. This also applies to models and the illusion or fact they consented is not an excuse. Many times the consent form is signed before the scene or forced into after the scene. And no one should be able to give their consent to be assaulted. If that's right you open a can of worms. Mentally unstable people, drug addicts, people with financial problems. They need protecting not exploiting.

Linking consensual sex to consensual violence is a non starter in my view.

As for a sexual offence, what's a sexual offence today? It's a question and if you flame it answer it as well. Maybe scat, bestiality, necrophilia?

[Guest]

As for a sexual offence, what's a sexual offence today?

Well that's easy to answer; it's as listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_12#sch3

[Paul Markham]

Well that's easy to answer; it's as listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_12#sch3
Thanks. Long read.