It is impossible to define all types of activity which are suitable for prosecution; however, the following categories are those most commonly used:

• sexual acts with children
• sexual assaults upon children
• portrayal of incest
• buggery with an animal
• rape
• drug taking
• flagellation
• torture with instruments
• bondage (especially where gags are used)
• dismemberment or graphic mutilation
• cannibalism
• activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a person's body)

The principal factors influencing whether a prosecution under section 2 [as opposed to forfeiture under section 3] is required are:

• the degree and type of obscenity together with the form in which it is presented: for example the impact of the printed word will be less than the same activity shown in film or photograph
• the type and scale of any commercial venture should be taken into account
• whether publication was made to a child or vulnerable adult, or the possibility that such would be likely to take place
• where publication took place, especially if material can be readily seen by the general public, for example in a newsagents or market
• the defendant's antecedents, especially where there has been a previous conviction, or caution, for a similar matter
• The degree of participation of the proposed defendant(s). This becomes relevant where the defendant can employ the statutory defence that he had no knowledge of the contents of the material under section 2(5) of the 1959 Act.

...Read full article from cps.gov.uk

The Criminal Injustice Act 2008 increased the maximum sentence for publishing obscene material from 3 to 5 years.

Comment: What obscenity warrants five years?

From Phantom on the Melon Farmers Forum

I find it interesting that the increase of the maximum sentence for obscene publication from 3 years to 5 years seems to have drawn very little attention.

From what I understand the increase was a perverse reaction by the government to having pointed out that their DPA would create a penalty for possession that was as long as publication.

Naturally this had been intended as an argument for the proposed sentencing for the DPA to be shortened. But hey, who at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice follows logic?

So instead one proposed a lengthening of the publication sentence in tandem with the creation of the possession law.

Obviously, given the outrage of the DPA, the creation of greater severity within the OPA went virtually unchallenged.

Nonetheless, we face the nonsensical situation whereby at a time when more and more people are engaging in what is effectively ‘publishing’ on the internet, via blogs and user generated content, we are making the punishment more severe.

Not merely are you now to show extreme care of what you watch, but the consequences for making an error of judgment when uploading to a user generated content site have just become more severe.

In essence the chill factor is being deliberately increased. The people of Britain are to fear taking part in any activity involving pictures on the net. Five years in prison. Think of it, folks. What possibly would warrant five years in prison?

As child abuse is dealt with under other laws, this merely concerns pictures of adults for adults.

Five years. There are pretty severe crimes you can commit to be given five years in jail.
But I think anything obscene by now is deemed a severe crime under Labour.

I cannot for the life of me imagine just what obscenity warrants five years.