http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/06/tiger_police/

That's just f*cking ridiculous. The CPS now say that porn which would be considered a prison offence to posses and would leave you on the sex offenders register for life is OK if it has a funny voice over?

Surely the legality of the video should only be questionable if it was of a real crime, not a funny animation?!

I also note that the video was emailed to him "as a joke". Doesn't that meen they should be prosecuting the person that sent him the email? Or better still, tracking down whoever made it? Or perhaps arresting those damned 'toons from Toontown that acted in it?

To be honest, I thought it was pretty darned funny myself and might well have emailed it to quite a few people. I think 90% of the people at work would have laughed too.

This "extreme porn" law is ridiculous. It's censorship via the back door.

It's a hell of a lot worse than that! It's comparable to making gay sex between adults a criminal offence.

I have a mild curiosity with BDSM, where consenting adults dress up and "do things" to each other. It's now impossible to tell whether such videos and pictures are legal or not. As to the CPS's original attitude to this case, where does that leave the furries? Is it against the law to shag while wearing a fur coat, or only if it's filmed?

It's an absolute nonsense and always was, part of the build-up to the farce that'll suddenly get serious for some folk here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/05 ... law_lords/

Furries are the scourge of the internets, real life and just about everything else. No-one cares about them, simply because they're furries.

Why didn't they listen to the sound before it went to court? More taxpayers money down the drain.

That's a pun and a half.

The article talks about that at some length, with some suggestion that the soundtrack never made it from the police to the CPS.

Personally, I'm wondering if their PC had working audio or perhaps not the right codec. Budget cuts and all that...

Personally I'm wondering if the Police left it out intentionally to strengthen the chances of a prosecution...

Given how long they've held this bloke's computer ransom for, and the obvious desperation of going to the CPS with a furry animation, I think they're possibly just desperate to justify their actions.

So yes, intentional withholding of evidence by the police sounds like it may have been an attractive option. However, innocent ineptitude can not be ruled out.

We'll find out in a few months what the other video was. My money is on a Simsons parody featuring Lisa and Bart...

They'll be banning Avatar next week. Might be a good thing.

I loved this bit:





After reading that I just think its a complete and utter nonsense and obviously some joke animation.

Nah, looks like a cock up to me.

I just watched Family Guy.

I'm pretty sure what Brian did with that girl wasn't "suitable viewing", especially with the baby watching