Tiger claws out at U.K. anti-porn state-rapists

From BoyWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Intro

This News article was originally posted to BoyChat on November,3, 2014. [1] The views expressed are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of BoyWiki or Free Spirits and is presented here to provide further insight into the Azov Films Prosecutions and Operation Spade. Posted with Author's permission. All rights reserved.


Tiger claws out at U.K. anti-porn state-rapists by Bernie Najarian


Bus driver Andrew Holland, 51, of Wrexham, Wales, experienced an Azov-Films-like moment of state-rape [1] early in 2009 when he was arrested and charged with two counts of "possession of an extreme pornographic image." His computers had been seized in an "unrelated domestic dispute" that didn't lead to charges, but police searching the contents discovered what appeared to be a video of a woman having sex with a tiger. They also found another video, apparently gross in content, called 'The Pain Olympics' – a spoof put together using “prosthetics, cocktail sausages and ketchup,” as notes from its producers stated [2] [3] [4].

The UK's law against 'extreme' pornographic images, introduced in 2008, is directed at images showing necrophilia or bestiality, or acts that threaten someone’s life or acts that could cause serious injury to anus, breasts or genitals. The law also applies broadly to an undefined category of "grossly offensive" or "disgusting" images [2] .

Holland says that he lost his job and suffered a heart attack caused by the stress of the case. He was not able to see his young daughter for over a year.

He told The Independent: "People were ringing me in the middle of the night. Three young lads turned up at my door and were calling me everything. I was threatened on more than one occasion."

In fact, he disclosed - and this should surprise no one - that he had been labelled a pedophile [2]

He had received the two videos as jokes from friends and stated that had only seen a few moments of each of them. He had had no warning about their contents.

When his case came to trial, the tiger video was shown as evidence [5]. Whereas investigating police had watched the video with the sound off, in court, the soundtrack was turned on.

The "tiger" turned out to be a man in a tiger-skin costume, who at the end of the video, faced the camera and said: "That’s grrrrreat!" The reference to classic Tony the Tiger breakfast cereal advertisements was impossible to miss.

Charges were dismissed, and some months later, additional charges over the ketchup and sausages video were also dismissed.

Fortunately, Holland has had the gumption to fight back against the state-rapists who ruined his life. According to a blogger calling himself 'Obscenity Lawyer' [5]:

Now, Mr Holland has requested that the Crown Prosecution Service review this law, to save other innocents from facing the same fate as him.

This review comes when it has become clear that millions of adults using mobile phone messaging services like WhatsApp can be sent potentially “extreme” material to their phones, by friends, without knowing that they are actually in technical possession of illegal images.

If it is unclear whether an image might be extreme and therefore illegal, how can a person be expected to know if they’ve broken the law?

Hence, on behalf of future potential defendants, Mr Holland is claiming that:

1. The term "extreme" pornography is not clearly defined in the legislation; and therefore a potential defendant would not be able to understand anticipate if being in possession of certain images might be illegal;

2. There is insufficient guidance from the DPP as to when these offences will be prosecuted;

3. The offence is disproportionate to the legislation's intended aims.

Thus, on Mr Holland’s behalf, we at Hodge Jones & Allen LLP have asked that the Secretary of State for the Home Department to carry out a Human Rights Impact Assessment of the offences. Should the offence fail the Human Rights Impact Assessment, we have requested that this be confirmed in writing so that we can issue judicial review proceedings.


Holland's legal situation with his second, sausage-related charge at first resembled that of the Azov Films prosecution victims: he was told he had no possible defense and was placed under duress to plead guilty. Then, an activist organization called Backlash was made aware of the case and took up his cause. Their information sheet from 2010 [6] says:

The sexual civil liberties organisation Backlash have assisted in averting a miscarriage of justice.

Andrew Holland was charged with one count of possessing extreme pornography under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 at the Mold Crown Court.

He stood to be sentenced for the offence, having pleaded guilty mid trial under advice from his local legal team in Wrexham.

Backlash contacted Holland to offer advice to discover that he may have been misadvised by his local legal team; and that he did in fact have a defence to the charge.

Backlash provided funds for provisional legal advice and research to be performed. We put Holland in contact with our legal adviser, who is a solicitor specialising in extreme pornography offences, Myles Jackman of Audu and Co in King’s Cross, London.

Holland transferred representation to the specialist solicitors and was given leave on Friday the 28th May 2010 by His Honour Judge Rogers sitting at the Mold Crown Court to vacate his plea from Guilty back to Not Guilty.

That means that he will stand trial again; this time in the knowledge that he has a defence. However, had he not contacted Backlash in the first place he would have been sentenced for an offence for which he may have been misadvised that he did not have a defence.

Holland’s case gained notoriety as he had previously been charged with a second, separate extreme pornography charge relating to a video clip purportedly depicting a sexual act between a human and a tiger.


On Oct. 24, 2014, Backlash chair Hazel Eracleous wrote to British Prime Minister David Cameron saying, in part [7]:

While both of these cases and others resulted in acquittal, it is unacceptable that the legal profession remains uncertain as to what types of material may get members of the public into trouble. There is emphatic evidence that many lawyers have advised people to plead guilty to possession offences to avoid the cost involved in trial, despite subsequent examination of the facts revealing that no offence had been committed.

The brutal reality is that lives are being turned upside down, careers destroyed and worse. In the light of the extreme nature of the penalties upon conviction, inclusion on the sex offenders register, lengthy period of incarceration and a heavy fine, it is wholly unacceptable that the public is denied an unequivocal, precise and detailed statement of that which is legal and that illegal to possess.


It will take work to have state-rape against legally compliant minor-attracted people (like the majority of Azov Films buyers disclosed by 'Operation Spade') recognized as being the same as what happened to Mr. Holland. In the meantime, we can take some pleasure in seeing the forces of state-rape being caught out by the mechanical banality and thoughtlessness of their life-destroying operations. Congratulations to Backlash for saving a witch-hunt victim in a way that may lead to others also being saved.

Links:


See also