Those "artistic" images you have.............

#1
From Old Holborns' blog.You have been warned.


A Lowestoft teenager has become one of the first people to fall foul of a new law which bans the possession of “grossly offensive” pornographic images.

In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.

Yesterday, Lowestoft teenager Damien Wentworth, of Laurel Road, was fined after police found a short video on his mobile telephone which contained an extreme image.

Wentworth pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image.

His solicitor Richard Mann said: “Technically, he is guilty of the offence, but I would say that he didn't even know it was an offence to have this on his phone. It is a law which came into force this year, so it is hardly a surprise that he didn't know.”

“He was not putting it on the internet or distributing it to anybody.”

Wentworth was ordered to pay £175 in fines and costs. Magistrates also ordered the destruction of the image.

The new law covers any images, including those stored on mobile telephones, DVDs and on computer hard disks.
LINK
 
#2
vvaannmmaann said:
From Old Holborns' blog.You have been warned.


A Lowestoft teenager has become one of the first people to fall foul of a new law which bans the possession of “grossly offensive” pornographic images.

In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.

Yesterday, Lowestoft teenager Damien Wentworth, of Laurel Road, was fined after police found a short video on his mobile telephone which contained an extreme image.

Wentworth pleaded guilty to possessing an extreme pornographic image.

His solicitor Richard Mann said: “Technically, he is guilty of the offence, but I would say that he didn't even know it was an offence to have this on his phone. It is a law which came into force this year, so it is hardly a surprise that he didn't know.”

“He was not putting it on the internet or distributing it to anybody.”

Wentworth was ordered to pay £175 in fines and costs. Magistrates also ordered the destruction of the image.

The new law covers any images, including those stored on mobile telephones, DVDs and on computer hard disks.
LINK
Nanny state strikes again?
 
#4
I'm Fecked!
 
#5
Gordon has brought in a number of these new laws, to get the money back he p**** up against the walls of Lloyds bank
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
I may have to stop posting for a while
I think my computor is just about to have an "accidental" fire whilst disguised as a Guy
As is my laptop, work computor.......................
 
#8
james236 said:
What was the picture? What is deemed “grossly offensive”?
An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— .
(a)
an act which threatens a person’s life, .
(b)
an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals, .
(c)
an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or .
(d)
a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), .
Well thats my honeymoon album consigned to the bonfire then.
 
#10
I say, fair play to the police.. not right that a teenager should be carrying around pictures of a dead guy sucking off a dog, on his cell phone...
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
mediumwhiteamericano said:
D).....whether dead or alive?????

FFS why the distinction?
Because they are still having trouble taxing dead people.
 
#13
I heard about this a couple of years ago and had forgotten it came into force last January. I'm actually pleasantly surprised because I was expecting it to be a lot more stringent. I'm assuming there that the four-item list posted above is exhaustive? I was a tad worried I'd have to bin all my videos of (legal or animated) wenches in school uniform...
 
#14
vvaannmmaann said:
.................In January this year, a new law came into force as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 making it an offence to possess any extreme images which are deemed to be “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.

Yesterday, Lowestoft teenager Damien Wentworth, of Laurel Road, was fined after police found a short video on his mobile telephone which contained an extreme image.
Can we have a bit more info...??...I'm offended by pictures of fat drunk 'munters' on hen nights ooop noorth 'n' in Wales...Gay pride marches don't do it for me...having pictures of Abu 'Hook' Hamza 'n' Gerry Adams make me want to spew...why isn't the law protecting me...but hey I'm just an elderly white male with a taste for pictures of MILF's... :lol:
 
#16
JRHartley said:
Can just imagine Meridians defence in court "The defendant would like 2500 gb of other offences to be taken into consideration"
I don't think I've ever been offended by a meridian-posted picture - the man is an artist.
 
#17
I'm happy to admit that meridian has taste ... certainly more that a certain Scaley.

But, seriously [did I say that?] ...

An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— .
(a)
an act which threatens a person’s life,
No more pictures/videos of fast-air tipping in for a bomb-run on a compound.
No more advertising the warry life in the Armed Services.
No more photos of sh1t/dodgy equipment.
No more pictures of SofS/Min Def.
 
#18
vvaannmmaann said:
Wentworth was ordered to pay £175 in fines and costs. Magistrates also ordered the destruction of the image.
So it was deleted from the phone then?
 
#19
What about big willy porn? Technically, to have a c0ck that big up yer chuff or in ur ass could do some damage, especially doing it repeatitively.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top