Perhaps illogically, of these sexual acts, fisting and urination are completely legal to perform in real life; and thus it is only the representation of these acts on film which may be considered obscene and therefore attract criminal liability. Consequently many pornographic film producers operate a ‘four finger rule’ to avoid the risk of criminal prosecution. This means that in such films only four fingers are inserted into the performers’ vagina or anus, rather than the entire fist. It could be argued that this is an entirely arbitrary distinction as the act of fisting itself is not illegal. However, many pornographic film producers remain risk-averse and therefore the presumption that urination and fisting are obscene has endured as it seems that no previous defendant has been prepared to test the law in this area by electing jury trial. Mayles Jackman, defence solicitor R v Peacock, article New Statesman 7th January 2012 ‘Fisting on Trial’
R v Peacock (2012): The acquittal of Michael Peacock, who was charged with distributing DVDs featuring male fisting, urination and sadomasochism, has cast doubt on the English obscenity law. The ‘deprave and corrupt’ test under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 has been controversial since its inception in England and Wales. One of the strengths of the 1959 Act is its ability for juries to recognise changing moral standards in accordance with modern social values. While such content has been found in the past to be capable of debasing and destroying the moral purity of its likely audience, the question put before the jury in R v Peacock was if this is the case nowadays. For some, the not guilty verdict represents a victory for freedom of expression and the end of an era; for others, moral degeneration. This article provides a more perceptive view of the implications of the Peacock outcome. It argues that we have not seen the demise of obscenity yet. On the contrary, more insidious obscenity provisions have replaced the ‘archaic’ 1959 Act and more censorship laws with real teeth are likely to be just over the horizon. Graduate Journal of Social Science (2013) summary of R v Peacock
R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212: Most law students are familiar with the infamous case of R v Brown, in which several homosexual men filmed themselves consenting in sadomasochistic activities. For the faint of heart, I will exclude details of the acts but they were very extreme. When this tape accidentally found its way into the hands of the police, they were all arrested and charged with Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). Under s.20 the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The House of Lords eventually held that it was not in the public interest for the court to allow members of the public to wound each other ‘for no good reason’.
The attitude of the majority is best summed up, I feel, by Lord Templeman: ‘Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.’ Though it must be mentioned that a huge amount of the judgment focused on the fact that the activities were homosexual. It being considered a ‘comfort’ that one of the ‘victims’ had ‘settled into a normal heterosexual relationship’. Lord Lowry also continually stressed that he would not allow an exception for ‘sado-masochistic homosexual activity’ throughout his judgment for no good reason. Timothy Wilson, Newcastle University, summary of R v Brown
R v Brown: The appellants belonged to a group of sadomasochistic homosexuals who over a 10-year period from 1978 willingly participated in the commission of acts of violence against each other, including genital torture, for the sexual pleasure which it engendered in the giving and receiving of pain. The passive partner or victim in each case consented to the acts being committed and suffered no permanent injury. The activities took place in private at a number of different locations, including rooms equipped as torture chambers at the homes of three of the appellants. Video cameras were used to record the activities and the resulting tapes were then copied and distributed amongst members of the group. The tapes were not sold or used other than for the delectation of members of the group. The appellants were tried on charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and unlawful wounding, contrary to s20 of that Act. The Crown’s case was based very largely on the contents of the video tapes. Following a ruling by the trial judge that the consent of the victim afforded no defence to the charges, the appellants pleaded guilty and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The appellants appealed against their convictions, contending that a person could not guilty be of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or unlawful wounding in respect of acts carried out in private with the consent of the victim. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeals. The appellants appealed to the House of Lords. CIRP online article
If they don’t like sex offenders, they don’t have to come in our park. Pervert Park, dude, 2014
I grew up in a really brutal household; there was a lot of physical abuse, emotional abuse. ibid.
You get a lot of vigilantes, you get a lot of people that want to come in here causing trouble. ibid.
I grew up in an extremely abusive home. ibid.
How am I supposed to react to the prospect of this pervert [lactophiliac] raising my kids? Lilyhammer s3e6: The Minstrel Boy, Frank to Sigrid, Netflix 2014
On 11th August 1980 37-year-old nurse Carol Bundy called the LAPD claiming her boyfriend was the infamous Sunset Strip Killer. Her boyfriend was 32-year-old Doug Clark, a boiler engineer from Pennsylvania. Clark’s dark fantasies had culminated in a sexually motivated killing spree targeting sex workers on the Sunset Strip in Los Angeles. Between May and July 1980 Doug Clark brutally murdered six women, mutilating one of his victims and decapitating another. It wouldn’t be long before Bundy, spurred on by Clark, committed murder herself. World’s Most Evil Killers s5e2: Clark & Bundy, Pick TV 2021
‘It’s fun to kill people. And if I was allowed to run loose, I’d probably do it again.’ ibid. Bundy to rozzers
When he was at his peak, he was one of the most powerful men in Fleet Street. Max Clifford: The Fall of a Tabloid King, Channel 4 2021
Max Clifford has been charged with eleven counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985. ibid. television news
I think Max loved power. It made him feel good. It made him feel he’d got somewhere in life. And he really liked being in the centre of things. ibid. Angela Levin, biographer
I learnt earlier on that it was important to have as much control as possible. ibid. Clifford to Levin
On May 2nd 2014 Max Clifford was sentenced to 8 years in prison. On 8th December 2017 Max Clifford collapsed in prison. He died in hospital two days later. ibid. captions
Jimmy Savile died on October 29th 2011 aged 84. In the course of his life he became one of the most celebrated radio and TV personalities in Britain, and used his extensive charity work to place himself at the very heart of the most important institutions in our society. The Reckoning I, caption, BBC 2023
This drama examines how he was able to hide in plain sight, using his position to commit countless serious sexual offences, many against minors, and how the voices of so many were ignored and silenced. ibid. caption
I would have danced on his grave. ibid. victim
He groomed the whole nation. ibid.
I suppose you want to hear the story of my overnight success … following the guiding light of the Duchess who brought me up in the Catholic faith. ibid. Savile
I was king of clubland. I brought the Swinging Sixties to the north of England before anyone thought of it. ibid.
The rumours are cobblers. It was all good clean fun. ibid.
When opportunity knocks don’t hesitate. That’s my motto. ibid.
I’d divide everything he tells you by two, if I were you. ibid. Dutchess
You are the man, Jimmy. Everybody is saying it. ibid. Eric Morley
I’m worried there’s some terrible darkness in him. ibid. Duchess to priest
Personally, I wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. ibid. BBC boss
He’s only being Jimmy. Fooling about. Trying to make people feel better. ibid. nurse to victim
Like a dirty old man trying to mix with young people. The Reckoning II, victim
The biggest manipulator of people to rise to the status he did. ibid.
But in order to protect myself I had to keep my eye out to make sure the naysayers didn’t stop me from doing nice happy things. ibid. Jimmy
Charity work – why do you put so much time and effort into that? ibid. biographer to Jimmy