"Bestiality" Conviction - Reported By A PC Shop (60)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

Sun 21 Jun 09, 2:20 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/4445020.Man_h...
[Thanks to Melon Farmers for the link.]
Man convicted for possessing photos "depicting women and a number of animals" - reported by a PC Repair shop.

He was given an 18-month supervision order and 24 hours at an attendance centre, where his offending behaviour will be addressed. He must also pay costs of Ł65, which will be deducted from his benefits.
Judge Lomax said he would not have to sign the Sex Offenders Register, concluding: “Hopefully supervision will make you realise that it is possible that by looking at such images, whether it is out of curiosity, can result in a criminal conviction.”
A few thoughts:
* Yes, it's bestiality which no one is really defending or losing sleep over, but the law still seems more concerned with people possessing "grossly offensive and disgusting" porn, than combating animal cruelty, and in my opinion does nothing other than scare someone who apparently just had the images out of curiousity.
* On the plus side, at least even for something like bestiality, he basically only gets a minimal fine (albeit probably a lot for someone on benefits; and yes, the counselling - I dread to think what sort of bullshit that will involve? How about "Don't trust PC repair shops, or use encryption if you do"...). One of the (many) problems with this law has been the disproportionate punishment - in practice, when people with actual child porn sometimes avoid prison, or typically only get a few months, I would hope it's hard to justify a prison sentence for anything made with consenting adults. ETA - however, I wouldn't be too sure. An oddity with the law is that the clauses involving adults (apparent threat to life, likely to cause serious injury) carry a *higher* maximum penalty for 3 years, whilst the bestiality and dead people clauses only carry 2 years.
* The statement about the Sex Offender Register is odd - you should only have to be on that with a conviction of 2 years, but the article suggests that he could have been if the Judge decided. This is perhaps just the way it's reported in the press, however. ETA - though is it possible for a Judge to put you on the SOR, even if it isn't compulsory by the law?
* The speculation that people might be reported by PC repair shops has been shown to be true.
* It's a shame that victims of this law probably won't be aware of the law, let alone of organisations like Backlash who might be able to help.
* It's good to see some coverage in the press that seems fairly reasonable (and without mentioning his name, so it preserves his privacy), giving some details of the images. But if someone is ever charged for material involving consenting adults, if that person isn't aware of the likes of Backlash or CAAN, chances are the first we'll know about it is when we read about the conviction in the press - if at all. It's also only the defendants who can really explain important details about the nature of the images (I imagine that press reports will be as vague as possible, only at best reporting what part of the law it falls under, and certainly not mentioning if the images are consensual or staged).
[Disclaimer: even if such images [edit] aren't BDSM, I'm posting this because of its relevance to a law which does cross over with what consenting adults do; it raises points such as the fact that a PC shop may report you, or to think about what can be done if someone is charged with possessing naughty pictures involving consenting adults, and because it gives an idea as to the sort of sentences being handed down.]
ETA: Also see an earlier article at http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/4427000.Man_g... .
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited Wed 24 Jun 09, 2:52 AM by emark

21 Jun 09, 4:27 PM
Arbuthnot
UK(E), 5 yrs

Not only is humans using animals sexually not BDSM, it's not "fun" either. It's non-consensual abuse.
I take the points made about use of the law in this case, but I did baulk at the word "fun".

21 Jun 09, 4:40 PM
Mr_Frost
UK(PL), 16 mths
Makes you wonder what the "PC Repair" person was doing opening movie or image files on the clients computer. I know enough about computers to know whatever the problem you're having with your PC it won't be fixed by snooping around in someones photos or movie files.

21 Jun 09, 4:40 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
Arbuthnot wrote:
Not only is humans using animals sexually not BDSM, it's not "fun" either. It's non-consensual abuse.
I take the points made about use of the law in this case, but I did baulk at the word "fun".
My "fun" reference was a flippant comment, my apologies if it didn't come across that way. I'm not into shagging animals, so I don't actually find it fun. Given how common it is for people to joke about things like sheep shagging, I don't feel there ought to be anything taboo about simply joking about it (unlike say, child porn), but my apologies if I've offended anyone.
My personal views on bestiality are that it should be treated as an animal cruelty issue - that isn't fun, but on the other hand, when a dog decides to hump anything that moves, I wouldn't refer to this as "using" the animal either. Nor would I call it non-consensual abuse if someone were to hump a dead animal carcass...
I have edited my post now
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 21 Jun 09, 4:51 PM by emark

21 Jun 09, 4:52 PM
Baron_Morgan
UK, 4 yrs
You need to assume that PC Repair shops will automatically check the contents of your hard drive. I think there was a post on here a while back stating that some do so as a matter of policy, or even that there is government pressure to do so.

Mr_Frost wrote:
Makes you wonder what the "PC Repair" person was doing opening movie or image files on the clients computer. I know enough about computers to know whatever the problem you're having with your PC it won't be fixed by snooping around in someones photos or movie files.

21 Jun 09, 4:56 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
Mr_Frost wrote:
Makes you wonder what the "PC Repair" person was doing opening movie or image files on the clients computer. I know enough about computers to know whatever the problem you're having with your PC it won't be fixed by snooping around in someones photos or movie files.
It would be interesting to know if whatever shop this has any kind of policy on this. I mean, my bet would be that this was some mainstream chain rather than an independent computer shop (in the grounds that the latter are less common these days, and it refers to "line manager"). A shame there probably isn't an easy way to find out which shop was involved...
I also wonder if any policy they have has changed to account for this law, or whether they reported the images to the police not being aware of changes in the law?
Of course, Windows by default makes this rather easy - imagine if the images were just in My Pictures, with the View set to Thumbnails. I don't know if they would actively going scanning through all the images. But I agree with Baron_Morgan, it's probably best not to assume they won't. Remember to use encryption (Whether or not they might be illegal; if you have personal private photos, do you want them looking even if they're certainly legal?)
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 21 Jun 09, 5:04 PM by emark

21 Jun 09, 5:48 PM
Dimswitch3
UK, 3 yrs "Judge Lomax said he would not have to sign the Sex Offenders Register, concluding: “Hopefully supervision will make you realise that it is possible that by looking at such images, whether it is out of curiosity, can result in a criminal conviction.”
I thought the offence was possession, rather than looking. At least that's what Martin Saltmine etc always maintained.

21 Jun 09, 5:52 PM
DaddysTouch
UK(EX), 20 mths

Arbuthnot wrote:
Not only is humans using animals sexually not BDSM, it's not "fun" either.
Why do people do it then? o_0

What men in all the world have shown such daring?

21 Jun 09, 6:09 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs Speculating on the nature of the images - given that it involves women and not men, it seems plausible to suggest that the animals weren't the ones being penetrated (unless it was some genre of dildo-bestiality porn, I suppose). The argument from the Government would be that it's criminalised out of concern for the women - that they were allegedly coerced into it.
Whether that's right or wrong still is for people to debate - but I think it's worth noting: when talking of bestiality, we immediately think of penetration of animals which is (in my opinion) something that is a clear cruelty to animal issue.
(Possibly I'm thinking too hard on this. But the irony of this law is it's meant I've given far more thought to the issue of animal pr0n than I would have before...)
On another note: is it generally possible to obtain transcripts of a Judge's ruling, does anyone know? If not for this case, it would be useful to have for any future cases that do only involve adults. Certainly they are available in some cases, as I've downloaded PDFs from the BBC, but where does the BBC get them from? Or the quotes from the Judge that the media report, as in this article?
Sign the statement against criminalisation of possession "extreme" images. Petition against plans to criminalise sexual cartoons appearing to depict anyone under 18.
Edited 21 Jun 09, 6:11 PM by emark

21 Jun 09, 6:17 PM
TheScorpionQueen
UK(CH), 2 yrs

DaddysTouch wrote:

Arbuthnot wrote:
Not only is humans using animals sexually not BDSM, it's not "fun" either.
Why do people do it then? o_0

Because they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, they also have no self control or they wouldn't do it as there is no mutual consent at all.

~ Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Einstein

21 Jun 09, 6:21 PM
DaddysTouch
UK(EX), 20 mths

TheScorpionQueen wrote:

DaddysTouch wrote:

Arbuthnot wrote:
Not only is humans using animals sexually not BDSM, it's not "fun" either.
Why do people do it then? o_0

Because they can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, they also have no self control or they wouldn't do it as there is no mutual consent at all.

Sounds like they're having fun then... I doubt they're there going "Ahhhh! Oh god this is terrible, I hate this!" and probably more like "Oh yes, this is great!"
What men in all the world have shown such daring?

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent