Extreme porn and state-enabled voyeurism

In a landmark case for the state versus privacy, Simon Walsh, former aide to Boris Johnson, was this week cleared of charges of having ‘extreme’ images and an indecent image of a child.

After the allegations emerged in November, the London Mayor and his chief of staff Sir Edward Lister fired Walsh after his refusal to stand down from his post as a mayoral appointee to the London fire authority.

So, was the issue Walsh taking these pictures at work? Viewing scores of illegal images on his work computer? Or sending them over a work email?

In fact they were a handful of personal images. On his personal email account. Of himself and others involved in consensual, adult sex.

I’d prefer not to go into detail about the sexual orientation of Mr Walsh and his friends; it is, as the jury found, irrelevant.

Opening the trial at Kingston Crown Court, prosecutor Thomas Wilkins said: ‘Pornography is extreme and therefore illegal if it is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene and shows an activity likely to cause serious injury.’

The images at the centre of the case showed acts including fisting and urethral sounding (inserting surgical rods into the urethra). It’s not for everyone, granted, and Walsh was described as having a ‘strange sex life’ – but it wasn’t forced. What’s “grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise obscene“ is for some their more favoured type of porn.

It seems a legal incongruity that one could face criminal prosecution for possessing images of “extreme porn”, which are perfectly legal acts. It’s the possession of images we’re supposed to be alarmed about here, not the safety of the individual presumably, otherwise, the acts would be made illegal.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Walsh possessed an image of a child, despite the accompanying text describing the person’s actual age to be mid-twenties. Presumably this was to bulk up the tenuous charges. The prosecution were unable to prove that he ever opened, viewed or knew about the image.

It is a daunting prospect that people can be fired from their job, dragged through court and publicly humiliated for experimenting sexually. A hint of irony is sprinkled over the case as 50 Shades of Grey – which contains S&M – has recently become the fastest ever selling book replacing Harry Potter. There’s a market outside of missionary, who would have thought?

Fortunately the jury at Kingston Crown Court took just over one hour to unanimously acquit Simon Walsh on all counts.

The main discrepancy lies not with the law, but where exactly the law can be applied and to what extent this should be of any public interest unless anyone was harmed during the activity.

The result when mis-applied: a humiliating trial and a ruined reputation.

Walsh has commented that he had not given up his right to a private sex life when he stood for public office. And nor should he, or anyone.

Voyeurism is a key factor in the success of popular media, and this is an example of that voyeurism being enabled by an arm of the state.

Recent Posts on Notebook

• The Chagos conspiracy
• Ultramarathon man: Fear vs The running power
• Barking blondes: Who's smarter - cats or dogs?
• Diary of an aid worker: The truth about gold mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Remittances could be as sustainable as international development finance

• Jayaydee

  But, oh dear, niged; what the heck has Chakrabati or Liberty got to do with this?

  However, you are otherwise right – in this specific case. But you need to blame those really responsible.

  Firstly, it sounds very much like a personal grudge to me, perhaps within the police, followed up by a stupid decision by the head of the CPS?

  It’s not surprising that some observers have pointed to Walsh’s previous involvement in prosecuting corrupt police officers, and wondered if there were some dark ulterior motive at work.
  Secondly, it may be more basic than that, though. As its opponents pointed out during the passage of s63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, under whose provisions Walsh was prosecuted this week, the “extreme porn” law hands the police an easy weapon with which to go after people who might have attracted their attention, perhaps for other reasons entirely, and whose possession of “extreme porn” often seems to be accidental rather than evidence of any “extreme” sexual tastes. Consent is no defence, nor is the fact that the acts being portrayed (in this case fisting and the use of urethral sounds – medical probes – for sexual stimulation) might be entirely legal to participate in. The offence is so vaguely worded that all manner of unconventional sexual practices might be said to fall within its definition of acts “likely to cause serious harm to the anus, breast and genitals”.
  Thirdly, when it was being debated, Parliament was assured that it was intended to cover only the most violent, depraved and “dangerous” images, of the type that were assumed to have inspired the murderer Graham Coutts. Liz Longhurst, the mother of Coutts’ victim, was prominent among those campaigning for the new law. It was originally estimated that there would be no more than around 30 prosecutions each year under the law. There are now closer to 1,500.

  Therefore, action is clearly needed to prevent the use of this badly drawn legislation, being used by police and the CPS to persecute more unfortunates like Walsh, at great and unnecessary public expense.

• Jayaydee

  You obviously don’t realise that this is not a “news of the World” type article or issue, do you?

  It is about a vastly important freedom issue, whereby a person’s private life is just that – and no concern of anybody else’s, especially the state or the police. The default is neutral. That is, if no harm is done to another person without their consent, then there is no crime. This includes homosexual behaviour, of course.

  I suspect that your completely OTT reaction may result from some sort of personal or religious hang-up you have about homosexual practices, ie homophobia and possibly homohate?

  However, with a closed, narrow little mind like yours, you won’t be missed. Are you going to forsake the Teleg as well? I do hope so! You might as well close your Disqus profile. Do it tonight!

• Jayaydee

  Surely he should only have been suspended? At that stage the allegations were unproven.

  No doubt he has a case for considerable compensation from his ex-employer, plus re-instatement – and the police and CPS?

• niged

  My reference to Shami Shakrabati is prompted by the irony of her being a member of an unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative organisation that calls itself Liberty yet she repeatedly denies us the liberties we are entitled to by constantly telling us what we should do. A recent appearance on Question Time featured another tirade from her on claiming people would be offended by what Carole Thatcher said. Voltaire said I may disapprove of what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it but she, as an alleged libertarian, is notably adept at trying to neuter that and society is all the more neurotic and ridiculously policed such as in this case.

• ExPatJoe

  No joke. If you read some of my older posts, you’ll see I’m being consistent. The Indie is a liberal paper, the Mail is very much to the right and distinctly illiberal. If you think that discussing sex is “filth” then you definitely belong with the latter, whose columnists seem to use the word on a daily basis.

  Your use of the epithet “moron” only serves to underscore my point, by the way.

• http://www.facebook.com/icswatson Ian Watson

  RIPA’s are routinely used by social services to keep tabs on families or to delve into their bank accounts as they would have to justify to a Judge why they needed to do this but by claiming the family have a criminal residing is all they need.

• Jayaydee

  Oh, I see.

  But I don’t know what Carole Thatcher said. Please do tell.

  Personally, I feel Chakrabati does a good job, overall. And, indeed, as you and Voltaire would say – she has the right to say what she does. Fair do’s?

  But perhaps you have other reasons for not liking her?

• http://twitter.com/fauxtronic Walker

  His sacking seems like a political move to me – presumably to convey the image that the mayor’s office has zero tolerance for the alleged crime.

  Also, the police prevented Walsh from accessing his files in the year since his computer equipment was confiscated, and that meant he couldn’t continue his work as a barrister.

  Like you, I can see the potential for numerous legal proceedings here….

• http://www.facebook.com/icswatson Ian Watson

  Let us not forget GCHQ, who routinely trawl through the northern hemispheres communications without a second thought and no doubt anyone a public figure is likely to have special attention paid to them. It is more than probable the “dirty tricks” squad were consulted in expedient means of removing said pariah.

• sam_milton

  “In fact they were a handful of personal images. On his personal email
  account. Of himself and others involved in consensual, adult sex.”
  Yeah, well, if he was looking at these images at work, he deserves to be sacked.
  Unfortunately your article is unclear as to why he was fired.