Sunderland student in court over picture of Bart Simpson being sexually abused by Marge - The court heard a graphic description of the abuse

Article: https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news...impson-being-sexually-abused-by-marge-4164983
Archive: https://archive.ph/IZTIB
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Sunderland student ended up in court after looking at a computer-created image of child cartoon character Bart Simpson being sexually abused - by his TV animation mum Marge.

It was one of 49 cartoon-type images police found on Graham Moon’s mobile phone after they raided his home in Grindon Lane, Springwell.

His arrest was no moment of comedy for university degree holder Moon, 23, who faced up to three years behind bars and a spell on the sex offenders register for his crime.

He avoided both after a court heard no real child was involved, he had not distributed the images, his offence was committed three years ago and he had not reoffended.

District Judge Zoe Passfield told him said there were “some points of concern” highlighted in a pre-sentence report commissioned into his behaviour.

But she said they could be addressed via a 12-month community order, containing 20 days of rehabilitative work with the Probation Service – and she did not place him on the sex offender register.

Prosecutor John Garside said: “There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence.

“The circumstances are that police have executed a search warrant of the defendant’s home address.

“They seized electronic devices and over two devices were 49 images that were accessible.

“An example of one image was computer generated of a male child, effectively a cartoon. It’s one cartoon that may be known to the court.

“It’s effectively Bart Simpson."

Mr Garside gave the court a graphic description of how another cartoon character, Marge Simpson, Bart's mother, was depicted abusing the 10-year-old Bart.

“That’s effectively what these images are, they are cartoon images of children and adults," he said.

“The defendant comes before the court with no convictions or cautions. The maximum sentence is three years.”

At South Tyneside Magistrates’ Court, Moon pleaded guilty to possession of 49 prohibited images of children, between February 19, 2019, and August 4, 2020.

The court heard he gained sexual gratification from looking at the images.

Angus Westgarth, defending, said: “He has no previous convictions. He was a student at the university on his last year.

“When interviewed, he told the police that he had seen these images and they were on his machine, and he didn’t realise that it was illegal to possess them.

“These are still cartoon images, no child has been acted against. As soon as this offence was put to him, he pleaded guilty. There’s no child. What makes him tick, I’m not sure.”

Moon must pay a £114 victim surcharge. There were no court costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
 
asdfasdfadsf.png
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/brit-student-caught-pics-bart-30131355

I took a look at the only other article and it seems to suggest the had actual child porn before, but its kinda confusing because the article in the post seems to suggest that the Bart image was that:
"his offence was committed three years ago and he had not reoffended."


Either way it's very confusing, hope we get better articles that actually explains this
 
This would make a lot more sense if he had "49 prohibited images of children" that involved some pics of real kids or pedo deepfakes, and also on the harddrive were some Simpsons pics that got counted in. The article is vague if it was 49 images entirely of Oedipus Bart or something else.

While it is an indisputable fact documented all over this site that a certain breed of broken-brained oddball will jerk off to pretty much any cartoon, Simpsons shock images are kind of a thing unto themselves. They may even pre-date the web in raunchy boardwalk bootleg t-shirt form.

This has also made me remember that the "Bart and Chris Griffin go to marriage counseling" comic exists. I guess because it is a crime against good taste.
 
Last edited:
I don't care for anime that much but when people say they want to criminalize lolicon drawings I laugh not because I diasgree with them or anything, but because it'll open way more cases like this. Hilarious to think some places consider a badly drawn bart simpson with his dick out to be some sort of sex crime when they have shit like cuties.
+1, I agree, talk about double standards. And Australia should be blamed for this as well, there was a older and more or less similar case who happened Down Under in the late 2000s.

In a landmark ruling, Justice Michael Adams decided that a fictional cartoon character could be considered a "person" in the eyes of the law.
The decision allowed Justice Adams, sitting in the New South Wales supreme court in Australia, to dismiss an appeal by Alan John McEwan over his conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
McEwan was convicted by a magistrate earlier in February, who said that if the images had contained real children he would have been jailed. Instead, he was fined $3000 and placed on a 'good behaviour bond'.

McEwan appealed the decision, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.
But Justice Adams found that, while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the fact that they were not realistic representations of humans did not mean they could not be considered people.
The cartoons showed characters including Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sexual intercourse.
"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.
"The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl."
 
A Sunderland student ended up in court after looking at a computer-created image of child cartoon character Bart Simpson being sexually abused - by his TV animation mum Marge.

It was one of 49 cartoon-type images police found on Graham Moon’s mobile phone after they raided his home in Grindon Lane, Springwell.
Okay, why on God's green earth would you even WANT something like that?
You can barely afford fucking food and you're paying these dumb faggots to do a raid on some guy's house because he got hit with a simpson's porn image, Jesus fuck.
A porn image of a 11 year old having sex with his own mother. Fiction or not, that's downright inhumane on so many levels.
 
Against WHO? Who is the victim, why the need to pay of all of this?!

The UK is a crazy, retarded place.

Also. It bears the question, what the fuck did I just read.

View attachment 5145403

I had a run in with the law in Jockland a few years back, and in court they made me pay a victim surcharge for £40 IIRC, on top of my fine. It's some bullshit charge they stick you with in the courts just to squeeze more money out of you, it doesn't mean a thing.
 
I just don't understand the rational behind arresting someone for clear fiction. Now, if this user is right:

I took a look at the only other article and it seems to suggest the had actual child porn before

Then I think its fine to say "if we find out you're looking at anything that's tangentially related to CP, real or fictional, then we're taking you in.", but these articles do such a shit job at explaining what happened, so I'm just confused. One thing's for sure though:

Moon must pay a £114 victim surcharge. There were no court costs.
This sounds like bullshit for a variety of reasons. The court just wanted more money, that's it.
 
> has cartoon porn
> gets house raided by a swat team

I not entirely certain, but Im pretty sure I seen something exactly like this situation once as a parody skit or something.

> Prosecutor admits there are no sentencing guidelines
Literally even the prosecutor says it's bullshit but will still prosecute anyways.

>£114 victim surcharge
What fucking victim?

Unless the other articles are true, that this guy had real CP or actually offended before, then fuck him. Why was he still on the streets?

I bet the Engerland police knows about actual abuse of children they received tips for, but they all involve some migrant groping an 8 year old white child so they wont do anything.
 
Last edited:
Back