Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

CPS denies ‘homophobic witch-hunt’ against men looking at ‘twink porn’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Just goes to show homophobia is alive and well within our institutions.
    If you are bringing a prosecution don’t you have to prove the salient facts, if not, there is something far wrong with our laws on this matter!!!!

  2. “… what appeared to be males below the age of 18 …” says the prosecutor. So now we are judged by what it appears to some desk jockey in striped pants. No real evidence, no research, just “what appears to be.” The defendant’s lawyers had to do the work that should have been done by the CPS in the first place.

    Shame on the lazy and slipshod CPS.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Nov 2013, 1:32pm

    Amazing how long this case took. Makes me wonder if some at the CPS had some prurient interest in the subject matter. I can’t believe that in 2013 we still have the absurd Obscene Publications Act and censorship is still practiced, arguably the worst in the EU.

    There are far worse obscene acts sitting in Parliament in the form of homophobic bigots who should be censured and booted out.

  4. rainbowman 11 Nov 2013, 1:34pm

    this also happened to a close friend but did not have access to `experts` so was found guilty.The case took over two years to complete.There were no images on pc but a dozen so called illegal images were found on auto pc backups and they used these to justify the charges.There appears to be no access to `experts` around where this person lived.Life was hell for him and his family.

  5. Derek Williams 11 Nov 2013, 2:00pm

    All adult videos should have a certificate confirming that their actors are aged 18 years or above.

    There is a possibility that some videos may be made with actors who look below 18, even though they actually are over 18. In these circumstances, it would depend on whether the intentention was to simulate child pornography using actors of legal age in real life. In some jurisdictions (e.g. Australia) both the creators and the purchasers of such material purporting to depict underage sexual activitiy might still have a case to answer, despite the actors all being over 18.

    1. Agree completely, I was lucky enough to be asked repeatedly for ID upto the age of 20, until it went all down hill on the looks front.

      The simple fact is this is disingenuous to focus on the label of “twink porn” there is plenty of heterosexual porn out there that casts actors that look young. Indeed I am sure many of those featured on page 3 of the Sun given a cursory glance look under 18.

  6. The presumption of innocence is not working anymore? I doubt that “He looks like a murderer, so until he proves us he’s not … ” would be legal, so why “It appeared this way and he had to prove us wrong” does?

  7. I don’t understand. Surely it’s up to the CPS to prove the men were under age – not the defence to prove otherwise – especially if there’s some dispute about age. Instead they complain about the defence not proving they were overage until nine months later. What were the police doing in the meanwhile?
    This is ridiculous. Surely you need EVIDENCE to prosecute someone.

  8. One lesson for us all arising from this case is, not that we need to be reminded, that there are lots of homophobes out there in this supposedly advanced and civilized society of ours only to ready to run squealing to the police when they observe something of which they, personally, do not approve.

    A second lesson is that it is was not prudent for the person concerned to access dodgy websites while using a computer that was not his but which was part of a hotel room.

  9. Yes well, the prosecutors ‘appeared to be’ insane.
    So! that invalidates the entire proceeding.
    How many males working in the CPS have never viewed gay porn -eh?

  10. Staircase2 11 Nov 2013, 4:52pm

    Am I the only one shocked to discover the mismatch between the age of consent now being universally 16 (aside from between teachers & students where it remains at 18 as far as I understand) and the legal definition of ‘child’ for the purposes of sexual images being anyone under 18?
    Surely this doesn’t make sense

    1. Yes, you could legally have sex night after night with a sixteen year old of whatever gender, but would be liable if you took an “indecent” photo of them?

      1. The law is an ass (again!). It is totally absurd that you can have sex with a 16 year old but be prosecuted for taking a photo of them naked. The hysteria and irrationality surrounding any suspicion of paedophilia is counter productive in the real fight against child abuse!

      2. Staircase2 12 Nov 2013, 4:26am

        Or if they sent you one apparently…

  11. friday jones 11 Nov 2013, 5:14pm

    So it’s not up to the prosecutors to prove conclusively that the images are of underage teens, it’s up to the defendants to prove conclusively that they are not? When did you guys switch over to the Napoleonic Code? How did I miss THAT announcement?

    1. David Waite 12 Nov 2013, 2:36pm

      This comment deserves both ears and the tail.

    2. CPS must prove the offence occurred – full stop

  12. Not shocked 11 Nov 2013, 10:22pm

    I know someone in similar situation. I could not believe the ignorence and homophobia he experienced. I fear this is fairly common. I can only hope everyone files complaints with Ipcc and sues the police where lives and reputations have been destroyed. We must stand up for all our rights or they will be eroded.

  13. “The defence asserted that the models were over 18 but did not provide conclusive evidence of this until 28 October” and I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution not the defence, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

  14. Analyse the response from the CPS – “The sex or sexual orientation of those pictured is entirely irrelevant.”
    Was the question poseed not that the CPS were targetting homosexual images, but targetting homosexuals looking at legitimate porn? The CPS should join the magic circle, thier misdirection is second to none!

  15. Rudehamster 15 Nov 2013, 5:35pm

    I have worked within Sex Offences & Public Protection for some time as part of my job.
    In the current climate, with all sexual offences, it is now up to those who are accused to prove they are not guilty. Until then, they are treated as guilty and their lives are ruined. The police will now make it virtually impossible for anyone charged, to access an expert on age for the defence on download / possession charges. Ages are ‘guessed on balance’ by a police ‘expert’, then that’s it. After several very long hours of days being verbally abused by police officers (often from their local area) the accused is then given an ultimatum by the police…it goes like this:
    “Admit guilt now and get a lower sentence, or we’ll drag you and your family through Court and we’ll make your life a living hell”.
    Most solicitors are out of their depth with these cases, so agree with the police. The majority of men then admit guilt out of fear and exhaustion, not out of any real guilt.

  16. Rudehamster 15 Nov 2013, 5:38pm

    The Court then hand down a heftier sentence than was suggested and the poor guy has had his life ruined, his employment & relationships screwed, he often has to move home for safety reasons, and he’s on the sex offenders register for seven years, without ever having had any real defence arguing his case.

    Even before any charge is given, police regularly tip off journalists, so photos & address details appear in local & national newspapers. They also visit neighbours informing them of a paedophile in the area…making sure they know who the person is & asking them to be aware. This happens so regularly it’s virtually a tick box on the police to do list.

    I have no doubt that there is a homophobic element to it. Police are, as we all know, often deeply unpleasant people with a variety of axes to grind. But most of all they get little bonuses on their collar rate for sex offences. That’s why they put so much effort into it.

  17. jack van den berge 11 Dec 2013, 6:00pm

    xactly what happened to me in 2006 and is still happening, I was arrested charged and convicted with being in possession of indecent images. I protested my innocence at the time and even tried to change my legal team for one that was going to go further than agree with the police. My request to change my lawyer was refused and on the day of my crown court appearance they sent a junior from another branch. I was found guilty or should I say I plead guilty just as in the last comment to keep me out of jail and protect my family. My sentence was …..8 month jail suspended for 2 years, 5 years sexual offence prevention order, 2 years probation and 10 years on the sex offenders register, I get regular visits from the police and was told earlier in the year after protesting about these visits that,” they would come next time with uniformed cars and officers”
    I am ex Royal Air Force and have an otherwise unblemished record.

  18. jack van den berge 11 Dec 2013, 6:08pm

    the cps and police deny homophobia they denied it 7 years ago and they still deny it..how can they….I would have thought that any web sight displaying images of child sex abuse would be taken down very quickly….so how come every web sight that I looked at is still online protected by USC 2257

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 contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all
Tag Code: