Friday, 2 July 2010
Dangerous Pictures Act
a man from Lower Earley on the edge of Reading has been convicted under the Dangerous Pictures Act - you know, the one which arguably would make possessing a DVD of Basic Instinct punishable by a jail term because in it people apparently do horrid things to each other. The story is badly put together even by the standards of the Reading Evening Post - it confuses "extreme porn" with child porn (the latter is mainstream and possession of it was illegal long before Dangerous Pictures) and necrophilia is confused with violent porn (er, dead people can't fight back, that is the point - oh and anyone remember the film "10 Rillington Place" about the murderer Christie? that was a mainstream film and there are several scenes of necrophilia in it, I remember being a little taken aback by it when I was in my teens). From what I can piece together from the appalling farrago of nonsense that purports to pass for journalism in that organ, the man convicted has an unhealthy interest in very young girls. He isn't going to prison, possibly because he says he is impotent. Someone should tell the judge that the penis is not the most dangerous part of the body. In the comments it is pointed out that this law is in existence because Mr Salter wanted it to be. Well, possibly. He had his own reasons for this particularly sickening piece of ambulance-chasing, and has always refused to debate the issue, even though he referred to the urban myth of snuff movies in the House of Commons. Why do readers think this might be?