Summary: A man who had a fake bestiality sex video of a woman and a man in a tiger costume was arrested when officers believed the tiger was real.
Somewhere, a tiger costume designer should be patting himself on the back. In 2009, Andrew Holland, a 51-year-old man, was arrested for possessing bestiality porn. According to the Huffington Post, the charges were dismissed several months later when they realized the video that appeared to be of a woman and a tiger engaging in a sexual act was actually just a woman with a man in a very convincing tiger costume.
What gave the tiger costume away? Perhaps the fact that the tiger said, “That’s grrrrreat!” a la Tony the Tiger. The law enforcement agency now realizes that real tigers are incapable of such statements.
The trouble did not end with the tiger video, however. The officers also had to dismiss a charge against Holland for possessing genital mutilation pornography—which was really a spoof video starring cocktail sausages and some ketchup.
Holland explained that his buddies sent him the videos as jokes. Although he was cleared of the charges, he claims that his life has been permanently damaged by the officers’ mistakes. “I lost my job, I had to move and I ended up having a heart attack with all the stress of it. People were ringing me in the middle of the night. Three young lads turned up at my door and were calling me everything. I was threatened on more than one occasion.”
The embarrassing arrest has inspired Holland to fight the United Kingdom’s “Extreme Pornography Act.” Holland and his attorneys have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to review the law. In a letter sent to the head of the Crown Prosecution Service last week, the attorneys explained that Holland’s life would never have been turned upside down had the laws not been so vague. Terms such as “grossly offensive” and “disgusting” and “extreme” are used in the law, without a clear definition of what each term means. The attorneys add that the case “graphically demonstrates that it is not clear how an individual can know whether an individual will be guilty or not of this criminal offense.”
Jon Fuller, a spokesman for Backlash, an organization which hails the freedom of sexual expression, said that the law “…threatens ordinary members of the public who exchange dirty jokes by phone and over the internet.”
Photo credit: kiddycostumes.co.uk