[Closed] WTF??????

Lol ok so what do we reckon was going on here?
I'm throwing my hat in the ring and going for a Tiger Nosh...
it's Ggggrrreeaaatttt!

and I thought ball sack on a drum kit was bad!

Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image

it's got a whole lot more than that to offer.....

oh, and he's from Wales.

You assume it is a picture of a bloke rogering a lady tiger, rather than a gentleman tiger rogering a lady human. I confess I assumed the opposite. 🙂

I'm pretty sure I saw pictures of such things when porn only existed in crumpled paper form, although I'm not sure they showed penetration.

Either way, as long as the tiger was not obviously traumatised by it all I can't really see the harm.

i expect a rather terrified woman from teh developing world somewhere probably was rather traumatised

ok [u]dont[/u] do this in work but

google tiger bestiality and see what comes up

repeat i dont do it in work!!

If that's right kimbers then I deplore it, naturally. I was imagining something a bit Siegfried and Roy, only with a huge-breasted peroxide-haired woman from LA in stockings and lots of fake moaning.

actually the woman on google looks kinda like the LA version

its got me wondering if you type in *random animal* bestiality on google images is there an animal that wont appear

i mean after octoporn can things sink any lower?

Is it illegal to look at pictures of tiger-humping in the UK, or any other bestiality pics for that matter?

1 bullit.

I think the telegraph just made up the law that he's in court for - I cant quite see how:

Andrew Robert Holland, 47, is accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which portrayed a person performing an act of intercourse with a tiger which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted in or was likely to result in serious injury to a person's genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

fits with

http://www.davros.org/homeoffice/kelleher.html

Whats the m'learned friend, BigDummy's, considered opinion?

Captain, tiger-humping porn is illegal if it's a real tiger. Intriguingly, a picture of a tiger performing oral sex on someone is not a problem. Although that is a pretty niche area.

[url= http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf ]Department of Justice note[/url]

[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/ ]Article from The Register[/url]

[b]Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Pt 5[/b]

63 Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) [b]It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image.[/b]

(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—

(a) pornographic, and

(b) an extreme image.

(3) [b]An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.[/b]

(4) Where (as found in the person's possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and

(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5) So, for example, where—

(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and

(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,

the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) [b]An “extreme image” is an image which[/b]—

(a) falls within subsection (7), and

(b) [b]is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.[/b]

(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—

(a) an act which[b] threatens a person's life[/b],

(b) [b]an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals[/b],

(c) an act which involves [b]sexual interference with a human corpse[/b], or

(d) [b]a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive)[/b],

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.

(8) In this section “image” means—

(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or

(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).

(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).

(10) [b]Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—

(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions[/b]; or

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

a picture of a tiger performing oral sex on someone

Sorry, in summary:

Image in his possession - I am flakey about this, but I think if it's on your hard drive it's in yourr possession. It is "pornographic" if it isn't art. It is "extreme" because it depicts sex with a tiger (unless the tiger or the person are pretend AND look pretend) and it's grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

You have a defence if:

- you didn't know you had it, were sent it unsolicited or had it for "research"
- it's in a film that has been classified

You also have a defence if it's under the life-threatening acts or mutilation categories in (a)-(c) if it's a home movie that you're in, and everything was definitely consensual. In respect of (c) - the bit about corpses, the corpse has to not actually be a corpse, it has to be an alive person pretending to be a corpse. Why this applies only to home-movies and there is not simply a requirement for producers to certify consent and no corpses in the same way as they certify everyone involved to have been over 18 I have no idea.

It is a nasty bit of law. The only thing to note is that a prosecution requires the DPP's consent, so we may assume that prosections will be either for the most serious offences only or where the charge is politically motivated. Which is deeply reassuring. 🙂

I seem to remember starting a thread when this first became law about what animal you would trust to perform oral sex on you. I'm pretty sure tigers did not feature. 🙂

Had to smile at the nude bird on BBC's picture of the day

aha - I see that the 08 act BD has quoted has covered what my link didnt.

Im glad they made the effort to introduce a new statute to cover mutilated anuses and tiger blow jobs.

[img] [/img]

Here, we're OK because the bear isn't real, and it's unclear there's a sexual act going on.

I can't find the "what animal would you trust to give you oral pleasures?", although I have reminded myself of just how much garbage I post...