O/T Home Sex Shots of Brit Superstar Model

[P R Mann]

Ah, "AVN" . Just as I suggested.

See, P R Mann knows his stuff and has his finger firmly on the pulse of the adult industry - Hey, he has to, that's his living. So what he says you can pretty much take to the bank.

The chaps at AVN may or may not be aware of Sullivan's business practices. The suggestion is irrelevant anyway since they will not care either way. AVN is a trade mag it sees adult entertainment from a business perspective, not a punter's perspective. If an adult entertainment business is doing well and forging ahead - like Sullivan's - then that is the kind of news that industry insiders are interested in. Hence the article in AVN. Sullivan's business practices may be quite sharp, but he does not blatantly do anything illegal. If people fall for his scams through greed - expecting to get something for next to nothing, though having gutter brained tastes in sex or through just being plain stupid - then that is their lookout. Cavat emporor - buyer beware.

An interesting article watters - you were right to bring it to our attention. You should have just put it into some kind of context.

P R Mann.

[woodgnome]

did i say the articles you posted weren't relevant? however, both marcus and elmer mistook you for the author and quoting the source is a simple measure to prevent this kind of misunderstanding. the copyright issue is also something we have to take into account and this too, is easily addressed by citing the origin of the text.

[magoo]

Oh dear. PR Mann defending DS and blaming the punters for being ripped off. Well I should have expected it really bearing in mind Dibbles pro-Thatcherism posts last week. I have to say PR you really do excell at alienating your customers by calling them greedy mugs. I think I might stop that cheque I just sent you.

As for DS. Yes he is very carefull re breaking the law (I doubt he enjoyed the prison sentence he got years ago). But for years he has breached the Trade Descriptions Act and various other consumer related legislation through his downright misleading advertising (or LIES as we call them in my line of work). Porn buyers will not go whinging to Watchdog or Trading Standards due to embarasment. DS was claiming in his mailshots that h/c had suddenly been legalised as far back as 1988. His other favourite ploy was to say he had found a "loop-hole" which enabled him to supply h/c. Now bearing in mind that most punters had no internet access and honest firms like Your Choice were denied advertising space by UK papers and mags (mostly owned by Sullivan, Desmond and the Golds) how do you expect them to be able to find proper h/c. I am sure most forumites will agree that before the internet the only way to get h/c was through pirates who advertise in local free ad papers. Davey has evaded prosecution by Trading Standards because porn-consumers are too embarrassed to make a fuss and he plays on that.

Magoo (not greedy)

[P R Mann]

Magoo you?re misinterpreting my post same as you (and others) misinterpreted waters post.

I have never, and would never, defend Sullivan and his business practices ? I feel he is bad for the industry, he is dragging it down to gutter level and generally bringing it into disrepute ? confirming the prejudices of anti-adult entertainment bigots. My own personal philosophy is entirely the opposite of Diddy David?s. I say spend loads of dough on it, make it a respectable, feel good, quality product (much like Private?s business ethos) ? but charge the punters accordingly.

Yes, I may have suggested that Diddy Dave?s punters were ?greedy mugs,? but I didn?t say that any of MY companies? clients were greedy mugs, did I? Because they are self evidently not. We charge decent money for our wares, make no bones about it, no offers of ?49 full length movies for just ?6.99! Liquidation sale! All stock must go!? And our punters ? many of them from back in 92 are happy to pay it because they know that what we advertise in our catalogue is precisely what we have got for sale and that is precisely what they will get if they order it. HCC and the rest don?t give any patronising bull - even at the risk of ?alienating? punters. Because we have clear principles on what is right and what is wrong for us.

I didn?t say that Diddy Dave absolutely never broke the law, said he didn?t ?blatantly break the law? I was not defending him, just stating fact as I perceive it. We all know (in the trade at least) about Dave?s sharp practices, so there? no need to reel them off, we?ve been aware of them for many years. Yes you're correct in suggesting that he got away with it because of the social stigma surrounding porn. If he had been selling cars, washing power or holidays he would?ve been featured on Esther Rantzen's consumer program every week. But those poncy middles class twats at the BBC and ITV wouldn?t want to do a program on that, because they don?t see porn as an ?appropriate? consumer related subject ? A program on how ?exploitive of wimmin? it was yes, but certainly not from a consumers perspective ? they didn?t want to give the impression that there were lots of ordinary people out there who CHOOSE to buy porno, who LIKE to buy porno.

I suggested that it if anyone did get stung by Diddy Dave then it was there own fault ? Of course, because they thought ?Cor, 49 full length movies for just ?6.99! I?ll have some of that!? In their haste to get something for nothing they didn?t stop to think that you can?t get something for nothing or more precisely they didn?t want to face the fact that you can?t get something for nothing ? Those punters were cheap bums and they are part of the problem affecting the industry driving down prices and standards. I?m afraid I don?t have much sympathy for them.

Diddy Dave also targeted the lowlife gutter brains that wanted to get some ?Amazing Farm Yard Action!? ?Sandie Loves Her Dog!? ?Caviar Feast? ?Girl Guide Action?. They got shafted and I?m glad. I and don?t have much sympathy for those pervy fuckers either, do you?

But then there are the plain gullible and stupid. If Dave put an add in The Sport tomorrow suggesting that you could see ?Amazing Footage of Charlotte Church Taking 10 Inches? he would get a few grand?s worth of orders by Wednesday, at the very least - A few grand?s worth of idiots. It?s hard to have sympathy for idiots.

But hey, even the great P R Mann has succumbed to one of Dave's devious ploys in the past (early eights) so any suckers out there can maybe take a crumb of comfort from that. I didn?t make a song and dance about it, just put it down to experience, experience that has given me on a different adult entertainment ethos than Dave?s shiffty downmarket one. I could never bring myself to do what Dave has done, even if it meant that I had to remain skint. But I don?t blame Dave (which is not the same as defending him) he?s only doing what a lot of us would do if we were in a commercial enterprise, yes, I blame his punters. It was they who were greedy, pervy and stupid enough on a grand scale to let it all happen.

P R Mann.

[magoo]

I acknowledge most of your points PR but you still are laying the blame on the punter in your last paragraph. Why? Also can I point out that its not just "middle class Guardian reading ponces" who are campaigning against porn. I come from a working class background and believe me they are more gullible to the anti-porn propaganda than anyone. You ask your average coal miner(if your heroine Thatcher hadnt killed the industry) about porn and you would find an extreme disinterest. You go to the same street now and you will find that its not the middle class but the working class who fuel this ignorance. The working class are far more reactionary than you would think.
Personaly I like the Upper Class Landed Gentry who have a healthy approach to sexual matters.

Anyway PR what class are you?

[P R Mann]

I explained at length why, at the end of the day, it's the punters fault.

As I've always been fascinated by how people fit into distinct social groups with their own sub-cultures, philosophies, and outlooks (I'm an amateur sociologist) I am acutely aware of how reactionary the working classes can be. But their conservatism (with a small c) is simply borne out of ignorance. Because they don't spend much time pondering the meaning of life, love and the universe they have to draw their, usually nonsensical and irrational, opinions from The Current Bun or their equally clueless peers. Put them on the spot about their opinion on an important current issue and because they haven?t got one or because they haven?t thought about the issue (to boring) and in order to not appear to be a moron they will just repeat the opinion that The Sun gave them that morning. And to address one of your questions obliquely ? yes, I do speak with some authority on working class issues.

I admire the upper class's positive approach to life to. They just seem to be interested in having a jolly good time - Monaco, Mustique, Ascot, Henley, Glynbourne, etc, without wringing their hands and interfering with anyone else. And though I come from the opposite end of the social spectrum I (metaphorically) take my hat of to 'em. I don't begrudge them and I ain't jealous. If I want to do all those things I can do them ? I just have to make enough dough. I don't expect anyone to give me the dough, becasue if they did I would have no sense of acheivment and that is worth more than money itself.

P R Mann - off t' fillt? tin bath in front urt' fire.

[jj]

I'd have a 'positive approach to life' too if I was the fabulously-wealthy, inbred scion of one of our 'great families'. Having pots of money, a sinecure and a ?50K Beemer would help, too.
Send 'em to the soap mines.....

[P R Mann]

Don't be so negative. If you ain't got a 50k for a splendid example of the Fatherland's atumotive craft, style and expertise - just go and get some dough. I did, even though, by the end of the 80's I was skint, down t' me last fiver I was.

P R Mann - he's a cheery chappy

[mannteufel]

Since when has it been a crime to be "a low life gutter brain", or even just plain gullible and stupid, for that matter? Is it any less of a crime to blatantly rip off the less gifted among us rather than, say, pretend-steal your own gems or conceal your stable of flaming red cars and rip off the insurers?

Remember that he who stands by and does nothing, could be as guilty as the perpetrator, and history abounds with relevant, and discomforting examples. Why then do we all stand agape and marvel at the brazeness being openly displayed?

For most of us; it is not really our business; not a major concern; each to his own. For those who should be gamekeepers, in uniform or in the House, there can only be one plausible reason. Brown paper envelopes, and if you think I jive, please wake up and smell the coffee!

If in doubt, ask your elected representative to explain how such a caper can take place in a First World Country. May we presume that even the low lifes are more important than foxes? Don't be to sure. And who is next?

A word is enough for the wise!

[jj]

It's not 'negative' to want Social Justice.
You can have as many cars and yachts as you like (bearing in mind what such shallow acquisitiveness says about you as a person.......)- ONCE everyone on the planet has enough food, access to clean drinking water, adequate sanitation and tertiary education, and some degree of freedom of thought.
And please don't go on about 'liberal guilt': I don't feel guilty, just bloody angry.....