[Closed] Ah! Ermmmmm?! Right......and your defence is?

His defence is that it was pure fantasy I assume...

So, you're not allowed to write material involving bad things happening to real celebs. Are they going to come after Charlie Brooker now for turning Davina McCall into a zombie in Dead Set?

I can't watch my VHS collection of Streetmate any more I'm so scared of her now.

Good. Criminalising violent sexual fanstasies (even those involving famous people) is absurd in the absence even of any half decent correlation between people with such fantasies and people who do actual things that cause harm.

Good. Criminalising violent sexual fanstasies (even those involving famous people) is absurd in the absence even of any half decent correlation between people with such fantasies and people who do actual things that cause harm.

I agree - but this nonce got off!

If he is now clear of all charges surely he can now prosecute for wrongful dismissal?

however vile and repulsive the work is there is surely no need to target 5 women now is there?

[Chuckles at Junkyard]

If he is now clear of all charges surely he can now prosecute for wrongful dismissal?

all that vitriol has got you all het up TS 🙂

I think you mean "wrongful arrest", and I think also, you would nee to demonstrate some kind of malfeasance or incompetence to win that one. I've heard it said that many people get acquitted in court these days...

Stoner - the chap had lost his job as well.

I suspect my employer might take a dim view of me publishing fantasy murder porn in my spare time, even if it wasn't regarded as a criminal offence. He has clearly done something fairly "wrong" by most standards, although it clearly shouldn't be treated as a crime.

I honestly don't see what the fuss is about (albeit without seeing the specific content of the blog). He wrote a piece of fantasy and as well all know, the interweb is awash with p0rn, from the consensual stuff through to some really nasty stuff.

The only difference is that this guy (no matter how twisted he is) was just an Ordinary Joe writing fantasy, not some crime lord making countless ££££s through REAL exploitation of vulnerable people.

Best thing about that story is imagining his shock when the cops turn up at his door and arrest him. Everyone thinks they are so protected by the anonymity of the web.

but as you say BD, just because he's done nothing criminal but has lost his job doesnt neccessarily his arrest was "wrongful" does it?

I find it really sad that the Internet Watch Foundation, which was ostensibly set up to combat indecent images of children, has naff all better to do with its time than prosecute people who fantasise about killing rubbish pop groups (perhaps I should turn myself in?), or censor cheesy 70s album covers.

or censor cheesy 70s album covers

Stoner - we may be at cross purposes. I rather assumed that tankslapper meant wrongful dismissal. The arrest and prosecution, while silly, would be difficult to categorise as wrongful. Likewise the dismissal. 🙂

Mastiles, you might have found it offensive, and I can't say I'd hang it on my wall, but the censorship of an album cover after it's been in circulation for 20 years is utterly stupid whichever way you slice it.

To be fair, who [i][b]hasn't[/b][/i] kidnapped and killed a few pop stars in their time ??
Got me sacked from Polydor in the end though 🙁

Mastiles, you might have found it offensive, and I can't say I'd hang it on my wall, but the censorship of an album cover after it's been in circulation for 20 years is utterly stupid whichever way you slice it.

BD - I think you're right.

And my apologies to TS, I assumed he was referring to the case, not his being fired.

I really don't see how it ever came to be in production in the first place though.

It's "art" innit. Or even if it's not, I fail to see how any children have been harmed by it.

As I said, that one is an entirely different argument and has been done here at least once already. My only comment is that she was posed in a very provocative and sexual manner which was entirely inappropriate taking into account her age.

To the same argument, any sexual photograph of an underage child could be taken without harming them, but it doesn't make it right does it?

"He appeared at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday but was cleared when the prosecution offered no evidence."

Tax payers money well spend then!

Its a bit of a silly thing to do but the nets full of such shite.

There is no doubt stalking fantasists out there the problem is rooting out the Mark David Chapmans from 'normal' wierdos.

[i]
Big Dummy wrote[/i]

I suspect my employer might take a dim view of me publishing fantasy murder porn in my spare time, even if it wasn't regarded as a criminal offence. He has clearly done something fairly "wrong" by most standards, although it clearly shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Even in your spare time - come on, really? There's thousands of books out there of the genre? I reckon we could do a pretty good thread on here with some of the peeps about - sort of fantasy murder porn chain letter.

......now that its been proven that it's not 'illegal'....

Lilly Allen anyone? My guess is there would only be the murder bit! Have you heard her latest single? Oh dearey dear!

I have a recurring dream where Keane get crushed by their stupid ****ing piano, then I strangle Chris Martin with their still-warm guts. If I have to go to prison for that, it'll be worth it.

There is no doubt stalking fantasists out there the problem is rooting out the Mark David Chapmans from 'normal' wierdos.

I for one admire Girls Aloud, despite their music

But that isn't a reason to prosecute an individual. It is a small step from Orwellian Thought Crime...

In deed! Well said that man!

Mr Agreeable - Member

I have a recurring dream where Keane get crushed by their stupid ****ing piano, then I strangle Chris Martin with their still-warm guts. If I have to go to prison for that, it'll be worth it.

I reckon you could get the chair for that or at least a long stretch with a cell mate called Bubba....

I myself have this recurring dream where I'm beating Keith Richards and Orville to death with the blunt end of a Surly Pugsley......does this really make me a bad person?

the whole thing is a complete load of bollox
should never have gone to court let alone have the police arrest the man
cant believe that taxpayers cash was wasted on this and feel sorry for the guy loosing his job even if he is into twisted porn
but then have you seen films like saw ?

djglover - Member

I for one admire Girls Aloud, despite their music

I too think they are very talented - just not in the singing department..

Just been reading through this, and there seem to be two unconnected issues here. Re: the album sleeve, are we referring to the Blind Faith album? That's the one with a girl shown naked from just above the waist holding a chrome model of a flying wing aircraft. I remember the album coming out, and nobody much made anything of it at the time, and there's certainly nothing pornographic about it. The New Labour Puritans will find prurience in even relatively innocent images.

count zero - it was [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer ]a scorpions record[/url]

That's the one - still find it tasteless. I think it is mainly due to the pose - she is thrusting her pelvis forwards in a sexual manner which is wholey inappropriate for a pre-pubescent girl.

IMO

I'm not sure it's worth banning, but it's a slightly troubling image, certainly. Like that rather provocative picture of Miley Cyrus last year, anyone who reckons that picture is entirely devoid of sexual overtones needs to come up with a pretty cogent alternative account of what the hell is going on. It works, as far as I can see, by putting a sexualised picture of a young girl in your face to make you uncomfortable.