That beats the Frosties advert
Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6918001/Man...
Daily Telegraph said:
Man cleared of porn charge after 'tiger sex' image found to be joke
A North Wales man has been cleared of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a tiger having sex with a woman.
The prosecution offered no evidence when it was accepted that the tiger in the clip was not real, and that it was all a joke.
It emerged in court that police and prosecutors had not previously listened to the film with the sound on.
Following the act, the tiger turned to the camera and roared: "That beats the Frosties advert!".
Defendant Andrew Robert Holland of Coedpoeth near Wrexham, appeared at Mold Crown Court today and pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutor Elizabeth Bell said that the prosecution had decided to offer no evidence against him.
When asked by Judge John Rogers QC why that was being done, she said that when the case was previously reviewed the film had no sound track.
Yesterday it had been further reviewed, the sound track could be heard, and it was clear that the film had been produced for the purposes of a joke rather than for sexual gratification.
"The sound track confirmed that the person watching the image would realise that it was not actually a real tiger that was involved in the fact," she said.
The judge recorded a formal not guilty verdict.
The court heard how the film had been "blue toothed" to the defendant as a joke.
Following the hearing, defending barrister David Potter said that the prosecution now accepted that any reasonable person viewing the video would not consider it to be real and that it was produced for the purposes of a joke.
"The sound track showed the tiger describing himself as Tony the Tiger, the Frosties advert character, who roars and says 'that beats the Frosties advert'," he explained.
The joke meant that Holland had found himself accused in court - and on various Internet sites - of possessing an extreme pornographic image which portrayed a person performing an act of intercourse with a tiger which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
That must have been one hell of a tiger costume.A North Wales man has been cleared of possessing an extreme pornographic image involving a tiger having sex with a woman.
The prosecution offered no evidence when it was accepted that the tiger in the clip was not real, and that it was all a joke.
It emerged in court that police and prosecutors had not previously listened to the film with the sound on.
Following the act, the tiger turned to the camera and roared: "That beats the Frosties advert!".
Defendant Andrew Robert Holland of Coedpoeth near Wrexham, appeared at Mold Crown Court today and pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutor Elizabeth Bell said that the prosecution had decided to offer no evidence against him.
When asked by Judge John Rogers QC why that was being done, she said that when the case was previously reviewed the film had no sound track.
Yesterday it had been further reviewed, the sound track could be heard, and it was clear that the film had been produced for the purposes of a joke rather than for sexual gratification.
"The sound track confirmed that the person watching the image would realise that it was not actually a real tiger that was involved in the fact," she said.
The judge recorded a formal not guilty verdict.
The court heard how the film had been "blue toothed" to the defendant as a joke.
Following the hearing, defending barrister David Potter said that the prosecution now accepted that any reasonable person viewing the video would not consider it to be real and that it was produced for the purposes of a joke.
"The sound track showed the tiger describing himself as Tony the Tiger, the Frosties advert character, who roars and says 'that beats the Frosties advert'," he explained.
The joke meant that Holland had found himself accused in court - and on various Internet sites - of possessing an extreme pornographic image which portrayed a person performing an act of intercourse with a tiger which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
grumbledoak said:
At least he was cleared.
But, yes, this was/is yet another stupid little law brought in by NuLiars for reasons no-one really understands. Incompetence is usually a decent default, but this lot have been such a bunch of s
ts that I don't think you can rule out malice. 
yep bar he cant get an automatic american visa, has his name ruined on the net for ever, prob lost his job, prob couldnt get a job while he was waiting for trial, stressed himself and friends and family out etc etc. being found innocent these days does not mean its over. utterly ridiculous poor chap.But, yes, this was/is yet another stupid little law brought in by NuLiars for reasons no-one really understands. Incompetence is usually a decent default, but this lot have been such a bunch of s
ts that I don't think you can rule out malice. Looking at the original press reports from early December there appears to be another charge yet to get to court. From another site this appears to be in March.
loltolhurst said:
Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.And don't forget the bloke in a australian prison for having a cartoon of bart simpson screwing lisa
We be in dangerous time where i bet a large percentage of internet users could be facing jail time for being "peados"
Just enter "bart and lisa simpson" into google with safe search off and you are going to jail you sicko peado bd
We be in dangerous time where i bet a large percentage of internet users could be facing jail time for being "peados"
Just enter "bart and lisa simpson" into google with safe search off and you are going to jail you sicko peado b
dEdited by thinfourth2 on Saturday 2nd January 22:46
Russ35 said:
Looking at the original press reports from early December there appears to be another charge yet to get to court. From another site this appears to be in March.
Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
how is that diff to the publicly released film antichrist where a woman cuts off her genitals?!Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
loltolhurst said:
Russ35 said:
Looking at the original press reports from early December there appears to be another charge yet to get to court. From another site this appears to be in March.
Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
how is that diff to the publicly released film antichrist where a woman cuts off her genitals?!Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
RL - Missus gets you to take a picture of her sporting her new 'nipple clamps' - Your a sick b
d and your going to prison for taking consenting pictures for private use.Result - Now the deranged can go to a heated cinema for their kicks instead!
Badgerboy said:
loltolhurst said:
Russ35 said:
Looking at the original press reports from early December there appears to be another charge yet to get to court. From another site this appears to be in March.
Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
how is that diff to the publicly released film antichrist where a woman cuts off her genitals?!Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
RL - Missus gets you to take a picture of her sporting her new 'nipple clamps' - Your a sick b
d and your going to prison for taking consenting pictures for private use.Result - Now the deranged can go to a heated cinema for their kicks instead!
Russ35 said:
Badgerboy said:
loltolhurst said:
Russ35 said:
Looking at the original press reports from early December there appears to be another charge yet to get to court. From another site this appears to be in March.
Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
how is that diff to the publicly released film antichrist where a woman cuts off her genitals?!Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image which resulted or was likely to result in serious injury to a person’s genitals and which was grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.
Hope the Police/CPS have studied the evidence a bit better this time.
RL - Missus gets you to take a picture of her sporting her new 'nipple clamps' - Your a sick b
d and your going to prison for taking consenting pictures for private use.Result - Now the deranged can go to a heated cinema for their kicks instead!
The guy was back in court last week over a second charge and appears he could be facing a jail term over a 6 second clip.
There's no information on what the clip shows, although I doubt it's child porn as he was charged under the 'Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008' that covers extreme porn and the Police/CPS always seem to make sure the public know when a case involves video/pics of children.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second...
There's no information on what the clip shows, although I doubt it's child porn as he was charged under the 'Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008' that covers extreme porn and the Police/CPS always seem to make sure the public know when a case involves video/pics of children.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/22/six_second...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff