As for drawings, the CAJA 2009 section 62 onwards deals with it.[0] As for publishing text online, there was a case of a man who wrote stories and was convicted I believe under the Obscene Publications Act, though the BBC article just says "six counts of indecent publications"[1]
>I mean, you were wrong then, and you're wrong now, and if you read the law you'd see that.
Wrong about what, exactly? Images of children in sexual situations, or rather, as is described in the act, is illegal even to possess. Unless you know something about the act that I don't, or I've completely misread it - in which case I'm very open to corrections - I'm an optimist that the law isn't as hideous as I am reading it out to be.
>The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.
I was talking about that section of CAJA, I know that OPA is old, but the "lolicon law" is only from 2009.
>he's an admitted paedophile
So what? That's completely irrelevant to any point that's being made. The fact is that he was imprisoned for spreading stories, fiction, and it was through UK law enacted by parliament that this happened.
Your bbc example is telling: he's an admitted paedophile, who was offending against children. The OPA isn't new law, it's very old law.
> He admitted at Preston Crown Court to storing hundreds of child abuse images and posting on a paedophile website.