These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
New 'Gay Marriage No Thanks' group launches with 'ten good reasons' to oppose equal marriage
86
Lord Tebbit: I wouldn't have been surprised if Jimmy Savile was homosexual
84
Archbishop of York: Would the Church of England rather bless 'sheep and trees' than gay couples?
83
Barry Cryer brands ITV's Vicious 'homophobic' television
74
Mixed martial arts fighter: 'Equal marriage could lead to incest, bestiality and child marriages'
69
Maria Miller tables Public Order Act amendment protecting critics of equal marriage
66
Lib Dems' Baroness Williams to support anti-equal marriage 'union' amendment
65
Tory Lord Mawhinney tables 'traditional marriage' amendment for equal marriage bill
62
Lord Hylton tables new wrecking amendment for the equal marriage bill
62
Labour MSP Elaine Smith: 'I'm against equal marriage but don't call me homophobic'
62
Kiuru7 367
Robert in S. Kensington 351
Eddy 327
Jock S. Trap 311
twitless 305
That There Other David 303
D.McCabe 282
bobbleobble 228
Rehan 220
Pavlos 214
Hah, love the quote at the end, utterly dismissing the notion that people who visit sexual health clinics are somehow ‘deviants’ with one of the best verbal bitch slaps in legal history.
Fantastic put down. Dr Smith has a reputation for saying it like it is.
Under the same section 63 it is an offence to have a picture of a sexual practice with an ‘animal carcus’ so if you had a picture of yourself were having sex while eating a ham sandwich, its up to the CPS if you should end up in jail and on the register. The power the police and state have is insain.
Not justifying this piece of legislation in the slightest (as my comments show).
However, anyone who thinks a ham sandwich is an animal carcas is insane!
Technically, although processed, the ham IS part of a dead animal so could theoretically fall under the heading of “animal carcass”. I agree, its insane, but due to wording of the law it is a possibility. This law is intrinsically flawed on so many levels it would be laughable were it not so dangerous.
Fisting isn’t extreme, it’s great! The other stuff is weird, but none of it is extreme. Cutting and asphyxia on the other hand…
While not into fisting, it’s your anus. As for sounding, it’s no worse then a doctor inserting a catheter, which I can’t stand either.
But here’s my question. Is pornography legal in England? Because, if it isn’t, or if certain types isn’t, then they should go after the makers of the porn not one guy. Obviously, this was personal and never should have gone to trial.
He didn’t make the porn he was caught with, but he probably had a hand in it.
Put’s a new meaning to the phrase hand over fist!
Its hardly ‘no worse that inserting a catheter’. It’s absolutely damaging and extreme. Totally think people should do what they want and certainly shouldnt be prosecuted. But fisting is horrible.
This trial really should never have got to court in the first place.
How the heck could they have known what images may or may not have been on his personal email in the first place?
I can’t help but wonder if this was some kind of vendetta by the police after Mr Walsh had succeeded in prosecuting other police officers?
I think it’s blatantly obvious that it’s a vendetta and they do it all the time. Whenever someone gets to big for there boots in the community the Police “make up” accusations which they say have to be investigated.
If I was Simon Walsh I would take the Police to Court and to save face the Police will settle out of court to about £300 to £500 thousand pounds.
There have been a subtext here…I suspected that the charges and trial were an attempt at intimidation.
Intrigued by what you are suggesting here, intimidation of whom?
Intimidation of Mr Walsh, as it states in the article he had been responsible for convicting police officers of crimes!
I appreciate that, and if it is the case then it is reprehensible and I hope those responsible are held to account.
Its not a very clever way to intimidate though …
On the contrary, it’s very clever. If they win, he’s ruined. If they lose (as they thankfully did), his reputation is ruined by having his most intimate sexual tastes paraded through the gutter press.
Its an uncertain piece of legislation to abuse, if that is the aim – there are much easier ways to fit someone up – if someone is so inclined.
An important trial not only for the gay community but for all people devoted to sexual freedom. It’s a pity that the gay press haven’t publicised this more. Also, I hope that Mr. Walsh manages to get his job back!
Gay press are in the state pocket like any other rag
At least we now know that we can continue our ffun sessions legally!
Shame about the wasted public money for a trial that should never have made it to Court.
I have a huge problem with the porn laws in this country. It shouldn’t be anybody’s business what people view on their computers in the privacy of their own homes. Child pornography is an exception of course, but everything else the government should not be dictating what adults of consenting age can view or choose not to view. A democracy is about expanding rights, not restricting them, same goes for freedom of speech even if such speech is offensive. I just don’t agree with it at all. Who would have thought in the 21st century our country would have the thought police as part of our laws? If anything is offensive, it’s that.
“I am open to persuasion” seriously!
So the those who knowingly took possession of sexually explicit images of children which were distributed by an employee of the nursery they attended shouldn’t be prosecuted?! Thus legalising online paedophile rings. Making child pornography illegal isn’t about piracy and copyright laws it’s about protecting children from being exploited and abused!
This was in reply to someone’s reply to Robert in S. Kensington’s comment. However, it has posted here and looks like the reply has been removed.
But you’re narrowing it down there. I believe that the dissemination of images of non-consensual sexual acts should be illegal (and child porn must be classified as non-consensual by definition), but it’s possible to view these things innocently. I am by no means convinced that that defence is clear in the act. And as far as images of non-consensual violence are concerned, see @Gazza’s comment (above).
That was supposed to be in reply to @Paul’s first comment!
Well your original reply has gone missing from my feed so I can’t recheck what you put. However, your meaning is unclear to me. In your first comment I remember you saying that to purchase imagery such as child porn is one thing and to acquire without paying is another. You now images of acts such as child porn should be illegal but it’s possible to view such things innocently. By that I assume you mean that it’s possible to view such images without knowing the subject is underage. In which case I agree. But anything else is inexcusable.
No, I don’t see any distinction between paying for child porn and sharing it in any other way, and I didn’t mean to imply that. Both are equally wrong. It just worries me that even if images innocently downloaded or sent without solicitation are deleted one might still be open to prosecution. It should be conspiring in the dissemination of such images that is illegal in my view, but I suppose that the law is always a blunt instrument!
I understand and completely agree.
It’s still disgusting. I read this with a smile. This guy worked as a high profile barrister defending the MPS from legitimate claims including mine as a ts post op whose life was ruined by vindictive allegations on a crb, that I have now got taken off. I say I am very happy to see it has come back on the guy.
Good , now he knows exactly how it feels. Not nice is it when you are innocent.
I agree with what you say, Robert
I would slightly broaden what you state should be restricted. I would include all non-consensual porn (which clearly would include child porn) and also include snuff type films.
After that, whilst there may be some porn that would not play to my personal likes – each to their own.
There is some porn that is completely boring and I find pointless – and some which is a huge turn on. There is some which is disturbing to me, and some that I enjoy which disturbs others perhaps. However, as long as it is consensual and no one is killed, maimed etc – then what is the issue.
What were the police doing going through his personal emails in the first place?
Interesting question.
They may have had legitimate reasons – e.g. another criminal investigation that led to this discovery – but if so it seems odd that either this did not lead to a linked or separate prosecution or be referenced to in reporting of the proceedings.
“Hands up for the winners!”
On second thoughts, best not…
The real story here is the behaviour of the CPS and the damage they have done not only to Simon Walsh, but to everybody, and besides Walsh, queer people especially.
There’s no way they should be getting away with it. http://www.nomorelost.org/2012/08/08/jury-knuckles-under-to-deliver-a-cps-far-reaching-pain-in-the-ass/
I had no idea about this law. But what do they constitute as ‘disgusting’? Gay sex?
We are not allowed to possses so-called “extreme images” nowadays, as some people who committed violent crimes in the past were found to have viewed such images. I know – pathetic, isn’t it?
http://www.out-law.com/page-9748
Under scots law its worse. Even conspiring to, imagining or joking about it can land you in a cell.
Citation required to show Scots law criminalises thought!
Much more here, from a very good site:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arposse.htm
what is the point of this law, images are of consenting adults viewed and possesed by consenting adults
Because of this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/5297600.stm
Ah yes, Harriet Harperson. Says it all.
Unanimous verdict after just ninety minutes of deliberation. Three cheers for the common sense of the jury!
What is actually very scary is that this trial took place at all. We are deluded if we think real sustainable societal change is happening : the bigots are barking louder than ever, politicians are complacent and the moral Gestapo free to intervene wherever and whenever it wants. Never receiving more of a ridiculous slap on the wrist when public outcry is too much to bear.
And by all accounts they are winning… because we are too weak, we do not bark back, we simply do not fight back.
90 minutes is a very short period for deliberation by a jury.
Its probably just about enough time to review the basics of what was presented and then have a brief chat before deciding if they have a verdict they all agree on.
Glad the jury saw sense.
That’s the second time in a week that DDP Keir Starmer’s judgement has been resoundingly shown to be monumentally flawed, the other one being the Robin Hood Airport Twitter case.
Both prosecutions involved a massive waste of public money and the innocent victims losing their jobs, twice over in the airport case.
Keir Starmer is clearly not up to the job.
If he doesn’t have the good grace to resign, he should be dismissed.
Did Keir Starmer have any involvement in the decisions on either case?
Yes. Both.
The PN report states ‘After the trial today, Myles Jackman said: “This intrusive prosecution into the private sexual fantasies of consenting adults was brought with the DPP’s express consent.” ‘
‘Twitter joke’ case only went ahead at insistence of DPP’ : http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport
I rest my case, m’lud.
DPP consent is merely a phrase in law for senior counsel of CPS agreeing to prosecute – it does not mean the DPP themselves made the decision.
Enforcing private morality through the criminal law is unacceptable these days. Who was behind this daft law?
Harriet Harperson
Suspected as much
Yes – it was Harriet Harman – shamefully a Labour government. It’s not only fisting that people should be worried about but even pics of mild S&M.
And I should have said she is the neice of the anti-porn campaighner Lord Longford!
If this was a malicious prosecution, then those responsible should be sued.
I think the sport of boxing is very bizarre. Though whether belting another in the face should be made illegal I’m not so sure. If it’s between consenting adults I guess it’s okay – whatever floats your boat.
This attempted prosecution, although thankfully unsuccessful, sets a worrying precedent.
While I hope everyone would take care not to do anything sexually that might cause serious harm to themselves, it is not the business of the nanny state to criminalise them for this. And it is even less the business of the nanny state to criminalise someone for possessing an image of it.
If we decide to go down that road, we could end up criminalising boxing, and criminalising anyone possessing an image of people boxing. What about criminalising the viewing of any images of people getting killed in war zones? Or criminalising the possession of horror films?
LGBT people used to risk prosecution
for kissing in public for “Outrage of public morals.” The problem is that public “sexual morality” is often neurotic and biased. Let’s keep laws defining victimless crimes off our bodies and off our computers.
There should be as few laws as possible interfering in private sexual morality. Society (more specifically, Islam, Christianity and Judaism) has made us all neurotic and guilty enough about sex. Anyone who has had to come to terms with being LGBT knows all about that; including tha fact that the worst homophobes are the ones with the biggest sexual (homoerotic) hang-ups.
Yes, possessing a sexual image of a child or a “snuff” image of some description should be illegal. But otherwise, even if someone deserves a raised eyebrow and some finger-wagging for what they look at on the PC, most private morality is not, and should not be, enforced by the law.
If the Internet had been invented 50 years ago, I am sure it would have been illegal to possess images of gay porn. Plenty of people would have regarded that as “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”, and as causing grave moral harm.
“Extreme pornography” reminds me of the ultraporn from Futurama when Professor Farnsworth goes back to being 53 years olds and says he’ll need a fake ID to rent ultraporn. I wonder what will be ultraporn in the future.
A good article in the Guardian exposing the bias and inadequate basis for this legislation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/24/wherestheevidence?mobile-redirect=false
Let’s leave repressive control of private sexuality to the kind of sexual fascists running Iran. This is not what we want in a liberal progressive state.
Sex should always be safe. But there is no harm in it being a bit kinky from time to time. We need to keep our eye on this kind of intrusion by the nanny state.
Some of us don’t know what CPS is. OK if you want only a local readership.
Crown Prosecution Service.
In Scotland its the PF or Procurator Fiscal which is Latin and translates literally as ‘ Money Manager ‘ or ‘ Money inspector ‘ .
In criminal cases, it is the Crown (ie: the government) vs the defendant.
The Crown Prosecution Service decide on which cases stand a reasonable chance of prosecution, assign a prosecuting barrister, and then the case and court hearing will proceed.
This would be comparable to a District Attorney in the US.
Please read comment attached, its long but its worth it. I hope.
1.This case was always a throwback to ‘Operation Spanner’ an 80’s operation led by police that saw two consenting BDSM gay men brought to trail and accused of everything under the sun, just stopping short of murder. The fact is in the ‘polite’ law society of today, the LGBT are still persecuted. The last time a transgender prosecutor came out the CPS fired them (lucky the CPS were sued) case in point when is the last time you saw a trans judge ? There has been a rise of trans/gay woman and men arrested under the case law ‘obtaining sex by deception’ when a consenting ‘straight’ person falls in love, has sex and later finds out there lover used to be a different sex. Section 63 was brought about on the back of a nut job who claimed porn caused him to murder his victims, in America Al Bundy tried this excuse but the judicial circuit there never listened but hear in Britain after several amicus curea motions from feminist militant groups the legislator bought it and blaimed his porn..
2 This is the THIRD time a British jury has been asked to decide of the morality of sending somebody down on this uniquely British loony charge and EVERY time even when a jury was not told of the offence so as to set a test case all jury MEN and WOMAN that’s a total of 36 people returned a verdict sometimes unanimously of NOT GUILTY.
The state need to stop persecuting consenting adults in there bedrooms and stop these intrinsically homophobic witch hunts.
We all ready have charges against animal cruelty, necrophilia and paedophilia lets stop trying to demonise the consenting BDSM community by equating them to this.
Please see comment its long but worth it I hope.
sorry multi errors for soem reason please see comment at top
Please reasd attached comment.
error
I have given my a comment in the attached box
sorry error
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/08/boris-johnson-aide-extreme-pornography-cleared
I find thus article questionable almost mail worthy