4 ms·

This post is factually inaccurate and defamatory. The computer was searched as part of a separate investigation (into leaks) which found nothing. The pornogra

by yetanother1980 9y ago

This post is factually inaccurate and defamatory. The computer was searched as part of a separate investigation (into leaks) which found nothing. The pornography was not extreme.

DanBC 9y ago
The pornography was extreme. It was found a few weeks before laws were introduced that made it unlawful. This claim has been made many times, in print, and Green has denied it but not used UK defamation law to prevent the claims being made or to force corrections to be printed.
- jotm 9y ago
  What is extreme porn? I'm really skeptical of politicians that want to ban "extreme pornography" on the Internet yet let actual prostitution just kind of, slide under the radar. Surprisingly not many Brits are aware that you can get a couple of high end hookers who will do anything for a few hundred quid per hour, and it's legal. Lots of these "escorts" are barely legal age, as well. Maybe it's a ploy to get people off porn and into actual sex lol.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - M2Ys4U 9y ago
    > What is extreme porn? According to Section 63(2) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both— (a) pornographic, and (b) an extreme image. Hope that helps! At least, though, in subsection 7 and 7A they define "extreme", as well as providing a nice catch-all of "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character": (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. (7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following— (a) an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or (b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else, and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.
    - jotm 9y ago
      OK those make sense tbh, though there's a huge amount of porn that basically caters to those audiences yet is staged... I wonder if they deal with that.
      - stordoff 9y ago
        That, IIRC, is the reason for the "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real" clause. If it looks real, it is treated the same even if it is staged.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- yetanother1980 9y ago
  Maybe because he does not want any more details of his porn usage spread around - there would inevitablely be discovery if there were to be a libel case. Plenty of people use porn that is not extreme but would be embarrassing. Edit - Also even the police have stated that there was nothing illegal found. Additionally he was in opposition not in government at the time of the raid. Edit again: in the UK as you should well know one is expected to provide evidence along with defamatory statements. Do you have any evidence?

This post is factually inaccurate and defamatory. The computer was searched as part of a separate investigation (into leaks) which found nothing. The pornography was not extreme.

DanBC 9y ago

The pornography was extreme. It was found a few weeks before laws were introduced that made it unlawful. This claim has been made many times, in print, and Green has denied it but not used UK defamation law to prevent the claims being made or to force corrections to be printed.

jotm 9y ago
What is extreme porn? I'm really skeptical of politicians that want to ban "extreme pornography" on the Internet yet let actual prostitution just kind of, slide under the radar. Surprisingly not many Brits are aware that you can get a couple of high end hookers who will do anything for a few hundred quid per hour, and it's legal. Lots of these "escorts" are barely legal age, as well. Maybe it's a ploy to get people off porn and into actual sex lol.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- M2Ys4U 9y ago
  > What is extreme porn? According to Section 63(2) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008: An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both— (a) pornographic, and (b) an extreme image. Hope that helps! At least, though, in subsection 7 and 7A they define "extreme", as well as providing a nice catch-all of "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character": (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. (7A) An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, either of the following— (a) an act which involves the non-consensual penetration of a person's vagina, anus or mouth by another with the other person's penis, or (b) an act which involves the non-consensual sexual penetration of a person's vagina or anus by another with a part of the other person's body or anything else, and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real.
  - jotm 9y ago
    OK those make sense tbh, though there's a huge amount of porn that basically caters to those audiences yet is staged... I wonder if they deal with that.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      That, IIRC, is the reason for the "a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons were real" clause. If it looks real, it is treated the same even if it is staged.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
yetanother1980 9y ago
Maybe because he does not want any more details of his porn usage spread around - there would inevitablely be discovery if there were to be a libel case. Plenty of people use porn that is not extreme but would be embarrassing. Edit - Also even the police have stated that there was nothing illegal found. Additionally he was in opposition not in government at the time of the raid. Edit again: in the UK as you should well know one is expected to provide evidence along with defamatory statements. Do you have any evidence?