Welsh police come down hard on Octopussy porn

aye

This piece initially sounds like it's attacking the overbearing law and the police/cps for prosecuting over a few weird piccies... but wait!!! The guy's allegedly making (which I assume means copying/downloading in this context) child pornography. Are we attacking that too? I must try and keep up.

Not really...

...the "main" point. extreme porn has proven a rich vein for stories over the last few years, for a variety of different reasons.

First, because of the legal principle it embodies. Next up, because of how it has been used (in practice, it has mostly turned into a "dangerous dogs act")...with very little attention so far paid to human-human porn. The latter seems to turn up as add-on charge or consolation prize when the police can't do someone for anything else.

Or alternatively, on occasion, it is simply ridiculous - as here. Was in the supermarket yesterday and passed a fridge full of frozen squid. Now, i'm partial to a little squid myself...mostly flash fried with butter and garlic.

But this law suggests that if any of our readers took one frozen ickle squid home, and forked it (into their mouth) they would be perfectly ok to do so... but fucking it could see you sent to prison. What a difference two letters can make. :)

i am very alive to the child abuse issue and don't under-estimate its seriousness. but two points: we're not pretending its not there...just its part of another (much more serious) story

Second - and this is another story too - however hard one tries to disentangle laws on ep from child protection it is very difficult, because whatever others think, government is determined to view the two issues as linked or even two sides of the same coin.

My thoughts exactly

But I guess its what sells stories.

"making"

However, if I remember correctly, downloading an image counts as "making an image". In fact, if you accidentally click on a link to it and it's still in your cache when the pigs kick your door down in the middle of the night, that counts as "making an image".

@Joe K

Not really. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder and until the images are known then they could be anything from true child pornography to a magna comic or even pictures of his children (if applicable) in the bath or one the beach. Believe me, there are no depths to which the police will not sink so they can add anything to a weak case then blow it up to make it sound much worse than it is in order to strengthen that case and sway a jury. You've already fallen into that trap yourself.

When the police have a serious case, say a a multiple murderer, they generally only prosecute one or two of the crimes so they have something to fall back on later if they don't get a conviction first time. However, now that double indemity no longer applies they might change this tactic. The weaker a case is they more headline grabbing add-ons there are.

Here's a squid instead.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2878375/Perv-had-pics-of-sex-with-squid.html

More aptly

Will nobody think of the cephalopods.

Also

made me think 'what about children aged 16 or over?' Are they fair game because, actually, they're 'adults'?

RE: Sex with Food

If you're guilty of playing with your food does that mean that watching American Pie (first one) going to be classed as watching extreme porn?

Re: Sex with food

Steak? Is that any better than an old fashioned milk bottle and a pound of liver?

But

it is a *dead* animal. Isn't that the point, that it's necrophilia? As would be fucking a watermelon of course.