Last 40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
sergio [29177. Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:22]
My email to BBFC:
The CPS seems to have altered/changed/rethought their attitude to
b) An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to
a person`s anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion
of sharp objects (although in some circumstances this can be done in a
way that is not likely to result in serious injury) or the mutilation
of breasts or genitals. It is likely to be difficult to prove that
cases of `fisting` involve images that show activity that is likely to
result in serious injury so these cases need to be handled with
particular care. Serious injury is not defined in the Act and should
be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, being a question of fact for
the District Judge or jury.
Will the BBFC being altering/changing/rethinking their attitude to
these video images?
Reply from BBFC:
`The guidance you have quoted from relates to the offence of possession of extreme pornography under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. However, the BBFC does not cut images of this particular practice on those grounds. We cut such images from sex works, and did so long before the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act was introduced, on the basis of potential obscenity. Current advice from the relevant enforcement agencies suggests that sex works containing images of this practice remain likely to be considered obscene under the terms of the Obscene Publications Act. `
Melon Farmers (Dave) [29176. Posted 13-May-2013 Mon 07:03]
Sergio, many thanks, an interesting update.
The CPS have a disgraceful attitude that they will never say that they accept that fisting isn`t likely to be harmful, and so not prosecute it. They seem to have their own morality in which fisting is harmful, but they are only backing off because (non existant) harm is unsurprisingly hard to prove.