Aaron Wakling

“4. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act has created a new offence of the possession of ‘extreme violent pornography’ – BBFC classified material is specifically excluded under this definition.”

This isn’t completely correct, since clause 64 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (Exclusion of classified films etc) says:

* * * * *

(1) Section 63 [Possession of extreme pornographic images] does not apply to excluded images.

(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.

(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

* * * * *

In other words, if you extract a clip of James Bond being tortured in Casino Royale (which could be said to “risk serious injury to genitals”) and someone else decides that you took that clip “solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal” then you can be deemed to have committed an offence.

So it is legal to watch this film in its whole, but taking an excerpt from it could be illegal!

Ironically, the BBFC have just given an R18 classification to a DVD called “Girls with Guns” which has women “forcing” men to engage in sexual activity whilst being threatened with guns.

Now whilst this is clearly “an act which threatens a person’s life” (pointing a gun at someone) and is “for sexual arousal” (obviously), because it is not “an extract from a classified work”, but is the *entire* work, it cannot be considered to be illegal!

Can we have a reality check here, please…???

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.