Actually there was a case in 2012 of someone tried under this law for having fisting videos. They weren't convicted. This is strong evidence (and precedent) that fisting per se would not fall under this law.
I read a story like that and it seems to be the usual British approach of actual convictions coming down heavily on judges and juries' sense of what's wrong and right rather than what the law says or suggests. (A good thing IMHO!) :-)
That it even made it to court meant there was a case to answer but the actual outcomes seem to be more sane and based on the context than the law itself.
Well that law, like lots of laws, is open to interpretation by judges/the legal system/etc. That's how laws and judges and trials are mostly supposed to work. The judges/jury didn't ignore the law, they merely had to interpret the law and see if the facts of the case fit it or not.
I believe the crux was that the law said it was illegal to have porn that showed damage to the anus, so does fisting fall into that category or not? The outcome was no, fisting doesn't count as damage to the anus. The "stupid law" wasn't ignored, it wasn't a case of "people using their own moral compasses", it was a jury & judge interpreting a law, like normal.
That it even made it to court meant there was a case to answer
The cynic is me notices that the accused was a lawyer who helped prosecute corrupt police officers.
Actually there was a case in 2012 of someone tried under this law for having fisting videos. They weren't convicted. This is strong evidence (and precedent) that fisting per se would not fall under this law.