Man accused of possessing image of someone having sex with a squid.

A MUMBLES man has appeared in court charged with possessing an "extreme pornographic" image of someone having sex with a dead octopus or squid.
Click to expand...

Dymond is also alleged to have made 14 indecent photos of children, as well as possessing an additional 57 images.
Click to expand...

Why the hell is the top quote the first paragraph, when 14 indecent photos of children are also in the story? :confused:
 
Dymond is also alleged to have made 14 indecent photos of children, as well as possessing an additional 57 images.

The prosecution alleges the offences happened at Dymond's home address between New Year's Day in 2007 and September last year.

Four of the allegations state he had images showing an act which would or was likely to result in "serious injury to a person's breasts".

A further charge makes the same allegation but in relation to someone's genitals.

It is alleged the images range from level one to four. On a scale of one to five, five is considered the most serious.
Click to expand...

I guess that adds a little more context. Not exactly "slow news day" stuff.
 
Isn't the difference that this was a photograph, not a twisted product of someone's imagination plus ink?

I'd say that was a pretty big distinction.
 
Interestingly enough, I brought up this legislation already today. It is indeed illegal under Part 5 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which you can view here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5

I actually think the legislation is weak. The government had the opportunity to legislation more broadly but it didn't because of arch-liberals that campaigned for sexual freedom. Accordingly, it couldn't really address the problems of persisting 'rape porn' etc, which was a shame.
 
For every feetish and perversion I bet you can find photographs and videos in the internet somewhere.
 
image was of someone "performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely an octopus/squid,
Click to expand...

it does say image yes but this could be in refrence to a picture, so your right in that distinction, Id just assume hentai, simply because I wouldnt think anyone was in fact at all that weird
 
Gilly said:
Isn't the difference that this was a photograph, not a twisted product of someone's imagination plus ink?

I'd say that was a pretty big distinction.
Click to expand...
They're still not uncommon online, can't say I get my jollies from it but I've seen stuff like this, didn't realise it was something it was illegal to have posession of.
 
Court chairwoman Sonia Walters, addressing Dymond, said: "You're not to access the internet in any way, whether that's through a computer or a telephone or anyway possible."
Click to expand...

Sounds like a punishment worse than death. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom