Possession of extreme pornography

Nice anon, in her comment on my post http://painspleasure.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/consent-is-no-defence.html mentioned the laws here in the UK regarding photography, i vaguely remembered reading about it at the time, but her comment prompted me to look more into it.

Especially considering the whole drama of Google and its u-turn of certain images, i still think, although i hope im proven wrong, its only a matter of time when it will happen, but rather than being a decision made by Google it will be universal....but time will tell....sometimes im inclined to think we are going backwards rather than forwards!

The legal aspects of M/s and s/m interests me, but more so the psychology of it all, over the years i have read many studies, conflicting arguments, i think its this need i have to explain what makes us this way..drives Master nuts, he is of the mind to just accept it, but well yeah this is me, i like answers and lately i have gone back to looking for some, been some interesting reading.

As from January 2009 it was made law that its illegal to possess extreme pornographic images which show an act which threatens a persons life, an act which results, or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breast or genitals.  It is punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment, and/or added to sex offenders register.

Furthermore, the law covers images that

*is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character

*has been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal

What are they defining as images.....still photographs and videos but excludes drawings and works of art

This link provides much more detail.

http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/possession_of_extreme_pornography_share.pdf

What made me laugh ironically is images of corporal punishment, whipping and flogging, needle play, cutting, heat play or medical scenes excluding the areas of anus, genitals or breasts are safe to possess, yet some of the activities themselves may well be illegal due to the rulings made about consent!!!

So its ok to possess an image of myself showing whip marks...thats fine, under the extreme pornography act, yet if there is blood brought about by the whipping its illegal because its more than 'trifling'!!

As no cases have actually gone to court regarding this act (none that i can find) its waiting until some unfortunate person/people actually end up in court and a jury decides, its left open to interpretation.

Thinking about the photos i posted of me in the room of doom, there was one of my arse, with a small amount of blood, is that illegal? it might not be under the pornography act, yet actually doing it..because it drew blood  its illegal under another law.

So, my interpretation is i wouldnt get prosecuted for possessing that image, but Master could be for inflicting what is considered by law actual bodily harm!!

How does that make any sense at all? it doesnt.

It is however making me think very carefully about the images we do possess of me, enough to make think it might be best to destroy them.