
fictional child porn is OK, I think. is in fact not ok
( ,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:44,
archived)

Yep, that's all fine and dandy. Each case will be examined on its merits but it is extremely unlikely that any textual publication would be prosecuted (based on precedent).
( ,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:47,
archived)

is not ok on the basis that it's fictional, I think XD
ok, I've not quite woken up yet, but having re read the sections, I think dave's work is covered by all of these.
except perhaps 65/8
( ,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:09,
archived)
ok, I've not quite woken up yet, but having re read the sections, I think dave's work is covered by all of these.
except perhaps 65/8

Specifically if an image of an imaginary child is found to be "child porn" then it will be treated in exactly the same way as an image of a real child.
So some of Dave's work (which thankfully I haven't seen, but have heard mentioned) probably is covered under this act.
So everyone who browsed this site and has one of his images in there cache should be mildly concerned.
( ,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:20,
archived)
So some of Dave's work (which thankfully I haven't seen, but have heard mentioned) probably is covered under this act.
So everyone who browsed this site and has one of his images in there cache should be mildly concerned.