Continuing on from part 1, we shall take a look at the guidance given to Crown Prosecutors by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Firstly, you should be aware that this guidance is used by prosecutors to decide on whether to take any potential offender to court. You would expect such a document to have significant clarity, given what is at stake.
However, it fails on a number of different levels, apart from the fact that it is not a legally binding document.
As already stated in part 1, the word ‘childlike’ is, by dictionary definition, descriptive of an adult trait.
The media, in their reporting, seem to be aware of this and often surround the word in quotes as if accepting the words fail to accurately define what they are reporting.
The Crown Prosecution Service appears to accept and submit that the word ‘childlike’ is, indeed, a satisfactory word to use in a legal context.
So much so that they have used it 14 times in their guidance without any quotes.
But what clarity does the word ‘childlike’ offer? None whatsoever.
That is the main problem at the moment with anyone wanting to directly import any sexually capable doll of any stature into the UK.
As an example, I’d say that at least 95% of all sex dolls sold in the UK come without pubic hair as standard.
Therefore, at least 95% of sex dolls will not have pubic hair and would/could then be considered as ‘childlike’.
Essentially, for the CPS to rely on the word ‘childlike’ in its guidance is both lazy and pathetically inadequate.
Let’s extract their example and try to work with it:
“When assessing whether or not the doll has childlike features, prosecutors should consider whether the nature and quality of the childlike features mean – whatever other characteristics are also present – the doll unquestionably embodies childlike features.”
So, let us take a guess at what they are assessing, seeing as they haven’t bothered to tell us:
If any single one of these features is questionable then the CPS could argue that it has (to use their words above) ‘childlike features’ and bring you before the court.
Of course, the CPS has not even published the parameters of any such evaluation either. For example, how small is too small. There are no ambiguity boundaries.
So essentially, the end-user is left to guess what is and isn’t acceptable to import into the UK. Through experience, official UK doll vendors have developed a set of self-imposed parameters so you should be safe.
Just make sure any vendor you choose is actually in the UK.
Now we move on to the Conegate Ltd v HM Customs and Excise [1987] 1 Q.B. 254 case which the CPS themselves have chosen to reference.
For those not in the know, Conegate was a European Court of Justice legal precedent set in the late 1980s which allowed movement of indecent and obscene items within the EU where no prohibition on possession, sale or distribution of a similar item existed in the receiving countries domestic law. The items, in this case, were predominantly described as ‘inflatable rubber dolls’.
I quote the CPS guidelines:
“In Conegate Ltd. v H.M. Customs and Excise [1987] 2 W.L.R. 39 a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles.”
I have vigorously searched through the relevant documents I have available and I have been unable to find any such ‘concession’. If anything, I find the opposite.
“The [United Kingdom] considered these goods (the adult inflatable dolls) to be 'indecent or obscene' articles whose importation into the United Kingdom is prohibited under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876.”
Indeed, if the United Kingdom has offered such a concession, the case would never have reached the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
In fact, there would have never been a seizure and/or case to answer in the first place. I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu as this is what happened to me.
I am therefore extremely puzzled as to why the CPS say there is some sort of concession that states that adult sex dolls are not indecent or obscene.
If anyone is able to find evidence of that concession, do please post in the comments section below and I will happily stand corrected.
So, given my failure to find such a concession to date, what could this mean for the adult dolls we currently enjoy?
Lots of questions and no answers, so to close this little debate of inconsistencies we perhaps should consider what exactly ‘obscene’ is in the UK.
The following is extracted from other published CPS guidelines:
“An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.”
Whilst some so-called ‘experts’ have suggested that ‘childlike’ dolls could alleviate the frustrations of a certain faction of the population who suffer socially unacceptable paraphilias,
I should perhaps emphasise even further how single-minded some of these experts can be by highlighting a certain Professor, who shall remain nameless, that considers all sex dolls to corrupt and deprave merely because they supposedly promote misogyny and rape, despite plastic and silicone being unable to consent.
I’m actually surprised that same Professor hasn’t suggested that our sex dolls promote murder by decapitation given that these dolls come without a head attached by default from the manufacturer.
Would they consider those inflatable sheep with deliberately placed orifices as encouraging another paraphilia? Let’s not go there…
As you can probably tell, these so-called ‘experts’ worry me. Can they ever agree and can we really trust them to make an independent judgement call on something that will result in either freedom or imprisonment?
For that matter, can we really trust our current government to effectively develop laws without at least some oversight from the European Court of Justice? Given their current performance, I’m a little doubtful.
So, to try and squeeze this blog into less than 1000 words, I ask the following of legislature:
‘Childlike’ needs a strict legal definition.
‘Childlike’ sexually capable dolls need banning completely, not just their import.
Is it really so difficult?
Comments will be approved before showing up.
