Children cannot, by law, consent to sexual acts, but this “Dangerous Pictures Act” will affect consenting adults engaged in legal activities, the two situations are entirely different, but the Government has been trying to confuse people by conflating them from the very start with their biased “Consulatation” that made repeated, irrelevant references to child pornography.

Secondly, I’m no legal expert, but from what I understand, in the Appeals Court Ruling in the case of the five Muslim students who were arrested and charged with “extremist material” Lord Phillips said:

“We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury, whether by the prosecution or by the Recorder, that the case that the appellants had to face was that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts.

“We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case.”

Now if possession of “extremist” material is not sufficient to convict someone of terrorism, I do not see how the possession of so-called “extreme pornography” can be parlayed into intent to commit acts of sexual violence or murder.