Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

Op-Ed: Sexual perversion and obscenity in the British courts

By Alexander Baron     Aug 9, 2012 in Crime
London - In 1964, an American judge said though he could not define obscenity, he knew it when he saw it. A jury at Kingston Crown Court begged to differ.
If you have led a sheltered life and have never heard, or do not understand the meaning of the word fisting, it refers to an act practised largely but not quite exclusively by homosexuals. In 1993, the overtly homosexual comedian Julian Clary joked on live television that he had just been fisting Norman Lamont - the straightlaced Conservative politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Major Government from November 1990 until May 1993.
If you have a strong stomach and want to see a picture of the act of anal fisting, click here to view one from that font of all knowledge Wikipedia. Leaving aside any moral or legal connotations, anal fisting is extremely dangerous and is not to be recommended. In the UK, an attempt was made to outlaw images of such under the curiously named Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, 2008, in the following words:
Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic image...
(7) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens a person's life,
(b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or
(d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
You may wonder why any sane, rational, mentally healthy human being would want to perform any of the acts listed in b), c) or d), and wonder equally why any sane, rational, mentally healthy human being would want to view images of same. Simon Walsh appears to be a sane, rational human being, though it remains to be seen if he is mentally healthy. Mr Walsh was acquitted yesterday at Kingston Crown Court of possessing images that were extreme.
Although such images may well have turned the jury's collective stomachs, this was probably the correct verdict. It was also correct to sack him from his post as a magistrate, and it is also undoubtedly proper that he is now a former Boris Johnson aide, because the office of Mayor of London or mayor of anywhere does not need to be tarred with this brush anymore than the House of Dior needs to be tainted with the distasteful rants of a drunken John Galliano.
If looking at pictures of anal fisting is considered stomach turning but legal behaviour, having sex with a dog is still considered to be a criminal offence in Britain, and long may it remain so. Nicholas Saunders was convicted of this disgusting act at Gloucester Crown court back in June, and was due to be sentenced on July 27, but he appears to have fallen off the radar. This case would be amusing if it were not so sickening. He was said to have been caught in flagrante delicto by the dog's lady owner, his ex-wife, who informed the police. When a swab was taken from the inside of his penis, dog DNA was found on it.
An expert witness for the defence can't have been much help when she suggested this DNA could have come from the dog's flagrante doglicto?
The dog was a giant bull mastiff. And Saunders, charitably he must be sick. Let us hope there are no more cases like this, in the UK at any rate.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about fisting, Obscenity, sexual perversion, Homosexuality, Nicholas Saunders
More news from