The programme records Sir Jimmy as saying: 'Now Gary, all he did was to take his computer into PC World to get it repaired.
'They went into the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'.
'But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised.'
('They went into the hard drive, saw all these dodgy pictures and told the police and the police then 'Oh we've got a famous person ... Oh my goodness, yeah we'll have them'.
'But Gary has not sold 'em, has not tried to sell 'em, not tried to show them in public or anything like that. It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is, of course, it's up to him as a person. But they didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised.'
smaggers Like a gibbon on helium,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:23,
archived)
I can see his logic, and if it was almost any other kind of imagery he'd have a good pointbut he's either forgetting or unable to realise that real people were hurt in the making of those pictures, which is something the police have to investigate.
Does anyone know how far dodgy pictures on your pc being illegal extends? what if you were a journalist doing a story on unsolved murders, is it acceptable to have images of people's cut up bodies?
(Does anyone know how far dodgy pictures on your pc being illegal extends? what if you were a journalist doing a story on unsolved murders, is it acceptable to have images of people's cut up bodies?
HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:32,
archived)
It's an interesting lawBasically the 'extreme porn' law means that if you look at an image and gain sexual gratification from it, then you've broken the law and can go on the register.
It's a bizarre law which is actually the first example of thought crime in the UK that I know of. For example, if you extract a clip from an 18 cert film that shows something covered by this law for the purpose of gratification then it's illegal to have looked at it despite the fact that if you view it within the context of the (legal) film, you don't break the law.
I recall that the types of images that the law covers are: physical damage to nipples/genitals, things that look like physical damage to same, photos of people being tied up, scat, watersports, bestiality, necrophilia and of course kiddy stuff.
Now the kiddy stuff is of course illegal, as are bestiality and necrophilia, but the rest are actually legal between consenting adults, so it's odd that it's illegal to see a photo of something you can do in your home between consenting adults.
So in answer to your question, it's illegal if you get off on it. :)
(It's a bizarre law which is actually the first example of thought crime in the UK that I know of. For example, if you extract a clip from an 18 cert film that shows something covered by this law for the purpose of gratification then it's illegal to have looked at it despite the fact that if you view it within the context of the (legal) film, you don't break the law.
I recall that the types of images that the law covers are: physical damage to nipples/genitals, things that look like physical damage to same, photos of people being tied up, scat, watersports, bestiality, necrophilia and of course kiddy stuff.
Now the kiddy stuff is of course illegal, as are bestiality and necrophilia, but the rest are actually legal between consenting adults, so it's odd that it's illegal to see a photo of something you can do in your home between consenting adults.
So in answer to your question, it's illegal if you get off on it. :)
wheelybird mreee!,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:44,
archived)
people being tied up? isn't that every issue of Bizarre magazine?and how do they test if you get off on it? show you pictures and see if you get a stiffy? Surely that's entrapment :D
I could understand it if it was anything violent and non consensual, but that would make You've been framed illegal viewing
(I could understand it if it was anything violent and non consensual, but that would make You've been framed illegal viewing
HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:48,
archived)
If I were in a cynical frame of mindI'd suggest that whatever they pick you up for, they'll run a search of your computer and your browsing history and more than likely they'll find something objectionable in there. Like that IPCC lawyer recently that they tried to smear because one of his unopened emails contained a link to a bondage site or something.
(
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:57,
archived)
Yeah.I should imagine it was something along those lines. At the time the law was put into place, nobody (ministers or police force) could state exactly what would or wouldn't be illegal, so was obviously just an open-ended law to allow the police to get you for anything they could find.
( wheelybird mreee!,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 10:00,
archived)
It was a stupid, ill-considered law.But then again, aren't most of them?
The tied-up bit was something like 'non-consensual bondage (or bondage that seems to be non-consensual) that places the subject (or appears to place the subject) in peril'. Now of course any type of tying-up photo meets that definition. I recall that someone asked a minister that if you possessed the photo along with a waiver from the model saying it was consensual and that proper safety measures were employed, would it still be legal? The minister either said they didn't know, or that it wouldn't be, I think.
This law was a knee-jerk reaction from that case where a teacher's boyfriend was into asphyxiation games and killed the teacher. He had lots of that sort of porn on his computer, so therefore it was him looking at the porn that caused him to do it. The reality is of course that the teacher was also into those games, and it was probably a sex game gone wrong (though keeping her in the freezer afterwards was certainly screwy). So because a sociopath liked freaky porn, the government decided to criminalise a social minority that are a bit kinky but otherwise perfectly law-abiding and safety-concious people.
(The tied-up bit was something like 'non-consensual bondage (or bondage that seems to be non-consensual) that places the subject (or appears to place the subject) in peril'. Now of course any type of tying-up photo meets that definition. I recall that someone asked a minister that if you possessed the photo along with a waiver from the model saying it was consensual and that proper safety measures were employed, would it still be legal? The minister either said they didn't know, or that it wouldn't be, I think.
This law was a knee-jerk reaction from that case where a teacher's boyfriend was into asphyxiation games and killed the teacher. He had lots of that sort of porn on his computer, so therefore it was him looking at the porn that caused him to do it. The reality is of course that the teacher was also into those games, and it was probably a sex game gone wrong (though keeping her in the freezer afterwards was certainly screwy). So because a sociopath liked freaky porn, the government decided to criminalise a social minority that are a bit kinky but otherwise perfectly law-abiding and safety-concious people.
wheelybird mreee!,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:58,
archived)
The reaction to the teacher...Yep, that was the case. If you had met some of the campaigners you would know how out of touch with reality they were. Totally misunderstanding the idea of "consensual".
And in a strange QOTW claim to fame kinda way... the dead teacher was stored in the storage company at the end of my road. Motto of "For all your storage needs..."
The law is stupid. A friend of mine had a set of Shibaru photos done by a professional photographer before this came in, which now she technically has to destroy. Bloody daft.
(And in a strange QOTW claim to fame kinda way... the dead teacher was stored in the storage company at the end of my road. Motto of "For all your storage needs..."
The law is stupid. A friend of mine had a set of Shibaru photos done by a professional photographer before this came in, which now she technically has to destroy. Bloody daft.
Batter Pudding Hurler is a figment of your imagination,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 10:57,
archived)
Difficult innitIn the past I've followed a few links, or been sent joke links,(nearly typed 'gag links' there then reconsidered), and ended up in places I really didn't want to be (gore related unpleasantness mostly). Presumably these cache onto my machine and would be found by a police spider search.
I would imagine that they would also look at scope and consider obvious browsing habits/email links while deciding whether to prosecute.
I worked somewhere where guy was hauled off for downloading heavyweight violent rape porn, we kept his machine in quarantine even after the police had finished with it.
(I would imagine that they would also look at scope and consider obvious browsing habits/email links while deciding whether to prosecute.
I worked somewhere where guy was hauled off for downloading heavyweight violent rape porn, we kept his machine in quarantine even after the police had finished with it.
smaggers Like a gibbon on helium,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 9:49,
archived)
did you see this one?www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346669/Child-porn-oil-boss-trapped-by-printer-gaffe
Now there's a way to do it
(Now there's a way to do it
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 10:14,
archived)
OoopsThat'd do it. Is it wrong to find that funny?
( smaggers Like a gibbon on helium,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 12:21,
archived)
I know that posession of kiddy pics on a computer is classed as you having made them because your computer made a copy in order to cache itwhich is good in so far as it gives a straight-forward reason to prosecute anyone into that stuff, but really worrying should you end up getting linkjacked/spammed/malwared etc and ending up with a pic like that in your cache that you had no control over or any knowledge about
( Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Mon 1 Oct 2012, 10:10,
archived)