Friday, 27 March 2009

Piddler on the Roof

This is a guest post by Frank Fisher

Amid all the discussion of the UK's latest Google Earth tourist attraction, the Hungerford mansion decorated with a giant penis, no one seems to have examined what kind of penis it is, and this could be important. It's possible that Rory McInnes might have to contend with more than a bollocking from his parents when he returns home from a gap year travelling. You see, it's not just a giant cock, visible from space along with the Great Wall of China. No, the great cock of Hungerford is quite individual in nature.

Rory has chosen to step outside the ISO international convention for cock-drawing, firstly by omitting the customary three drops of ejaculate, but secondly, and perhaps more seriously, by omitting the traditional sparse scattering of pubic hair upon the scrotum. We know that Rory is 18, we don't know who the cock is modelled on, but might it be a self portrait, and might it be the artist as a young man? True, smooth knackers could be the result of a back, sack and crack habit; they may also be an indication that this is an underage dick.

Under the Coroners and Justice Bill, currently crawling through parliament, paintings, drawings, and roofcocks may land you in jail. A sexual image will be deemed to be illegal child pornography if the illustration appears to be of a child, or appears to have child-like qualities in some way. Silky smooth bollocks may well qualify. As the Bill puts it

Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if (a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or (b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child. (7) References to an image of a person include references to an image of an imaginary person. (8) References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.

There will be some who say we should ignore this offence, that no child has been harmed – this is not the point. An imaginary child may have been harmed. And of course an offender may have imagined he was harming that imaginary child. They must be punished for their imagined crimes. What kind of country would we have if people could run around thinking whatever they like? Won't someone think of the imaginary children?

It's an open and shut case. The evidence we have shows a hairless penis. The artist is barely of age, and remember that the Labour government has redefined a child, for the purposes of child pornography, to be anyone under, or appearing to be under, 18,. This will be a serious crime – a sentence of three years inside is possible. And naturally entry onto the Sex Offenders register is mandatory. Rory, typically for a sex offender of this type, is on the run abroad, but his family is right here,and the offence is one of simple possession. Luckily for Rory's family, and the despicable child porn distributors at Google Earth, this necessary and sensible law is not yet on the books – but it soon will be. Someone needs to get on that roof with a bottle of turps, asap. Alternatively Rory's dad could get hold of a can of battleship grey paint – Hammerite universal primer would be ideal – and add a healthy sprinkling of unambiguously middle-aged pubes. This eminently sensible law demands it.

Frank, a "forty-something contrarian and miseryguts" a.k.a. Mr Pike Bishop, has written many fine articles for Comment is Free. He now hopes to resurrect his own blog.


Edwin Moore said...

It's a penis? I thought it was a submarine with periscope down.

Of course I can think of lots of terrible puns but will leave them to those who follow. Glad to see you here Pikey!

Edwin Moore said...

. . .and shouldn't that piece be called 'Piddler on the Roof'?

If that's Frank's idea of a tiddler I don't want to shake his hand.

Right, off!

The Heresiarch said...

I was reminded of a cruise missile myself. Nothing wrong with depicting weapons of mass destruction, of course.

Edwin, I entirely agree about the title. I've changed it. Hope PB doesn't object.

FrankFisher said...

Either works well - I was working at the infant angle. Thanks for sticking it up H.


Although it is not the norm in the spanking world, there is a trend in the BDSM world for full body shaving. Combine this with much BDSM play involving orgasm denial (thus explaining the lack of the usual three drops) there is an argument that this is a BDSM willie.

I enjoy the more serious posts in this blog, giving a view of what people feel is important in the news, back in the old country but this little bit of light relief (or due to the lack of the three drops non relief) is most welcome.


Matt said...


DiscoveredJoys said...

Thank goodness it wasn't a drawing of a "kebab". Although I'm not sure why that should be so.

jailhouselawyer said...

LOL from start to finish. Brilliant. Far better entertainment than Dan Hannan's speech on YouTube. I doff my hat to you. Respect.

emarkienna said...

Hehe - a brilliant piece.

And I don't think your speculation on what constitutes a "predominant impression" is that far out. For the existing law on "realistic" fictional child porn, this has been ruled to include things like removing genital hair, reducing breast size, and adding school uniforms (e.g., see ). And this law is far broader, in that it doesn't require "realistic" images, and isn't restricted to images believed to be of under-18s, so long as they have a "predominant impression".

But a thought occurred to me, since this law is only on possession, not making - who would be in possession? Could it be that the creator is not guilty, but the owner of the house (his parents)? Not to mention everyone who has now looked at it in Google Earth, of course... Or on this blog :)

FrankFisher said...

Could it be that the creator is not guilty, but the owner of the house (his parents)?

Yup, I think so. His parents, and now Google Earth. Oh, and the Guardian, BBC, The Times...