Charges of possessing extreme pornography are enough to destroy any
man. When the Crown Prosecution Service added the allegation that the
pornography included an image of child abuse, Simon Walsh's disgrace seemed complete. He was a
barrister, a City of London alderman, a magistrate and one of Boris
Johnson's appointees on the London Fire Authority. The mention of
paedophile porn, and gay porn at that, sent these venerable institutions
running.
I know it is hopeless to seek to dent Boris Johnson's
self-portrait of a carefree British patriot in this moment of Olympic
euphoria, but it's all an act. In the 1930s, a journalist confronted Brendan Bracken, Churchill's bumptious sidekick, and
bellowed: "You're phoney! Everything about you is phoney! Even your hair
that looks like a wig – isn't!" Bracken had a mop of red hair to match
Johnson's mop of blond. If Johnson were a true, plain-speaking patriot,
he would have stood by Britain's best principle that a citizen is
innocent until proven guilty. But he is a phoney, and his officials
fired Walsh without a second's thought. The best that can be said of
London's mayor is that he did not behave as badly as Walsh's colleagues.
His fellow magistrates bailed him on condition he stayed at a house
where he had not lived for 18 months. Walsh had to sleep on its floor.
His fellow barristers at London's 5 Essex Court Chambers forgot
everything they had learned about the presumption of innocence, and
asked the police to seize his pass so that he could not re-enter their
offices.
The Crown Prosecution Service under the current director
of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, is earning a deservedly bad
reputation for its vexatious litigation. Her Majesty's chief inspector
estimates that almost one in 10 of its prosecutions is baseless
Thousands of people plead guilty, nevertheless, just to get the CPS off
their backs.
Thirty years ago, the homosexual element in the
affair would have made Walsh cop a plea and slink away into obscurity.
But Walsh is an openly gay man in the 21st century. "I've never hidden
what I am," he told me. "I knew I had done nothing wrong and was not
going to run away."
Cracking piece in The Observer by Nick Cohen - not usually someone we're a big fan of here at Fagburn Towers.
Simon Walsh was acussed of possessing images of fisting, basically - a legal act - under a loopy law brought in by New Labour.
He was defended by the great Myles Jackman, who also defended and won a similar - and similarly stupid - case in January about Michael Peacock who was charged with distributing gay S&M DVDs.
More from Myles Jackman on
his blog.
I think the only gay media which covered the Peacock trial were QX and Disco Damaged (and moi).
This time round, after much nagging by Jackman and others (and moi) on Twitter (Jackman was allowed to tweet live in court and set up the hashtag #porntrial) most UK gay news sites covered it.
Including a good piece on Gay Star News - again not something I'm used to saying - by Jane Fae here.
Jackman's colleague, Alex Dymock, wrote about the ludicrousness of the trial with great wit in Friday's Guardian.
Pretty sure the only other newspaper to have covered this was the Daily Mail, in their usual faux outraged prurient graphic style.
PS Note The Observer have chosen not to illustrate this with a photo of Simon Walsh, but of Twitter joker Paul Chambers, who's only mentioned in passing. For shame?
Showing posts with label Michael Peacock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Peacock. Show all posts
Sunday, 12 August 2012
Monday, 30 July 2012
Pornography Trial: Extreme
'Today the Crown Prosecution Service will attempt to persuade a jury that images of fisting should be classified as “extreme pornography” with the risk to the defendant of three years in custody, inclusion on the sex offenders' register and damage to his personal and professional standing.
All for a type of image which is commonly viewed, of an activity which is itself is legal to perform and is even discussed in the book Fifty Shades of Grey.
Nonetheless the defendant, Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting is “likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus”...'
More from Myles Jackman@ObscenityLawyer, who is representing Simon Walsh, on his blog.
Earlier this year Myles Jackman successfully represented Michael Peacock in a landmark trial that saw a jury find Peacock not guilty of a charge of obscenity for distributing gay SM DVDS.
I believe the coverage of this in the gay news media was zero.
Now that's obscene.
All for a type of image which is commonly viewed, of an activity which is itself is legal to perform and is even discussed in the book Fifty Shades of Grey.
Nonetheless the defendant, Simon Walsh, has been charged with being in possession of extreme pornographic images under section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: so the Prosecution must prove that the act of fisting is “likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus”...'
More from Myles Jackman@ObscenityLawyer, who is representing Simon Walsh, on his blog.
Earlier this year Myles Jackman successfully represented Michael Peacock in a landmark trial that saw a jury find Peacock not guilty of a charge of obscenity for distributing gay SM DVDS.
I believe the coverage of this in the gay news media was zero.
Now that's obscene.
Labels:
Fisting,
Michael Peacock,
Myles Jackman,
Obscenity,
pornography,
Simon Walsh,
SM
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Obscenity: Put Your Hands Together...
"I welcome the news that a jury have returned not guity verdicts in a landmark obscenity trial before Southwark crown court on Friday. However, despite the jury's unanimous decision, the legislation under which the trial was brought is still effective law.
"The defendant, Michael Peacock, was charged with distributing DVDs featuring male fisting, urination (watersports), and BDSM. Peacock ran a gay escort site called Sleazy Michael and advertised pornographic DVDs for sale on the website Craigslist. He was charged under the Obscene Publication Act 1959 (OPA) with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to "deprave and corrupt".
"While some of the sexual acts depicted in the DVDs are legal to perform, such as fisting and urination, the representation of them is potentially criminalised under the OPA. The Act features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener.
"As the recorder, James Dingemans QC, emphasised in his summing up, it was a matter for the jury to decide whether the acts depicted were obscene if they "deprave and corrupt" the viewer. He also emphasised that: "in a civilised society lines must be drawn".
"However, the OPA has become an anachronism in the internet age. While previous cases speak in terms of pornography being covertly accessed by men in "rugby clubs" and at stag parties; now it is readily available to people of all genders, orientations and social classes. Hence this jury's verdict - in the first contested obscenity trial in the digital age - which seems to suggest "normal" members of the public accept that consensual adult pornography is an unremarkable fact."
Myles Jackman via Obscenity Lawyer.
"The defendant, Michael Peacock, was charged with distributing DVDs featuring male fisting, urination (watersports), and BDSM. Peacock ran a gay escort site called Sleazy Michael and advertised pornographic DVDs for sale on the website Craigslist. He was charged under the Obscene Publication Act 1959 (OPA) with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to "deprave and corrupt".
"While some of the sexual acts depicted in the DVDs are legal to perform, such as fisting and urination, the representation of them is potentially criminalised under the OPA. The Act features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener.
"As the recorder, James Dingemans QC, emphasised in his summing up, it was a matter for the jury to decide whether the acts depicted were obscene if they "deprave and corrupt" the viewer. He also emphasised that: "in a civilised society lines must be drawn".
"However, the OPA has become an anachronism in the internet age. While previous cases speak in terms of pornography being covertly accessed by men in "rugby clubs" and at stag parties; now it is readily available to people of all genders, orientations and social classes. Hence this jury's verdict - in the first contested obscenity trial in the digital age - which seems to suggest "normal" members of the public accept that consensual adult pornography is an unremarkable fact."
Myles Jackman via Obscenity Lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

