Hi Marcus,
you may try another angle as well. You see I am confined to a wheelchair, and nearly all of the so called sex shops are not accessable to me, so mail order is the only way I can buy my por n. Thus discrimination rears it head even in the sex industry, thanks to the short sighted and narrow minded dickheads we call M.P's
BBFC
-
jj
Re: BBFC
So might others with erection problems, etc., or emotional instability precluding a relationship, or even those who are just autoerotic (I THINK that's the correct term)...........you could even get a bit silly and claim a net health benefit from not 'putting it about'. Or as part of a sex-educative process.
Or (and this is REALLY silly: just claim it's nobody else's bloody business what you do with your spare time.
Or (and this is REALLY silly: just claim it's nobody else's bloody business what you do with your spare time.
-
marcusallen
Re: BBFC
Hi Wheeley,
It's a damn good point. However, the powers-that-be would simply argue that your disability precludes you from mountain climbing and that would hardly be discrimination.
We are not dealing with rationale or even common sense, we are talking Politics> When did any politician in modern times ever take even the slightest risk (unless there was a lot of money in it).
My point is simple: If my stuff illegal - nick me.
If not, I'll sell it to any adult.
An earlier point about Counsel's advice. Like I say, I was messed about for ages since I first declared my intentions on this forum. The botton line, as anyone who has ever been in a Court of Law will know, is that every solicitor/barrister opens up by saying "I am instructed by my client....."
So I'm instructing myself.
It's a damn good point. However, the powers-that-be would simply argue that your disability precludes you from mountain climbing and that would hardly be discrimination.
We are not dealing with rationale or even common sense, we are talking Politics> When did any politician in modern times ever take even the slightest risk (unless there was a lot of money in it).
My point is simple: If my stuff illegal - nick me.
If not, I'll sell it to any adult.
An earlier point about Counsel's advice. Like I say, I was messed about for ages since I first declared my intentions on this forum. The botton line, as anyone who has ever been in a Court of Law will know, is that every solicitor/barrister opens up by saying "I am instructed by my client....."
So I'm instructing myself.
-
David J
Re: BBFC
I don't have the VRA in front of me, but as far as I recall it says that R18s may only be supplied in a licensed sex shop to persons over 18. Any other form of supply (including mail order) would therefore be an offence.
As for a good example against the VRA, how about the following hypothetical case:
A local theatre company puts on a production of a Noel Coward play, which is very well received. They decide to make a video to record the production for posterity. With help from friends, etc, they make a video for ?1000 or so. They have a few hundred copies made, hoping to sell them locally for ?10 each to recoup their costs. But as they are taking the vids out of the manufacturer's door, he says, 'By the way, you do know you can't sell those without a certificate, don't you?' They go off to the BBFC, and discover it will take weeks or months to get a certificate, and they will have to pay a ?2000 fee, which they can't afford.
It seems to me that this is a clear case of 'freedom of expression' being infringed, and I think there is a reasonable chance that the VRA could be challenged under the Human Rights Act in these circumstances. The European Convention of Human Rights (which is incorporated into British law by the HRA) provides a right to freedom of expression, BUT the ECHR allows Governments to restrict freedom of expression where this is necessary to protect public order and public morals (and a few other exceptions). The issue for the Court would therefore be whether the VRA goes further than is necessary for those purposes, and I think there is a strong argument that it does. The VRA was introduced in a fit of moral panic to prevent the sale of 'video nasties' (remember 'Driller Killer'?), but it goes vastly wider than is necessary for this.
BUT, BUT, BUT: even if the VRA were found by the Court to breach the ECHR, the Government would be able to revise it to provide more precisely targetted protection for public morals, and I am quite sure that hardcore porn would still be covered.
As for a good example against the VRA, how about the following hypothetical case:
A local theatre company puts on a production of a Noel Coward play, which is very well received. They decide to make a video to record the production for posterity. With help from friends, etc, they make a video for ?1000 or so. They have a few hundred copies made, hoping to sell them locally for ?10 each to recoup their costs. But as they are taking the vids out of the manufacturer's door, he says, 'By the way, you do know you can't sell those without a certificate, don't you?' They go off to the BBFC, and discover it will take weeks or months to get a certificate, and they will have to pay a ?2000 fee, which they can't afford.
It seems to me that this is a clear case of 'freedom of expression' being infringed, and I think there is a reasonable chance that the VRA could be challenged under the Human Rights Act in these circumstances. The European Convention of Human Rights (which is incorporated into British law by the HRA) provides a right to freedom of expression, BUT the ECHR allows Governments to restrict freedom of expression where this is necessary to protect public order and public morals (and a few other exceptions). The issue for the Court would therefore be whether the VRA goes further than is necessary for those purposes, and I think there is a strong argument that it does. The VRA was introduced in a fit of moral panic to prevent the sale of 'video nasties' (remember 'Driller Killer'?), but it goes vastly wider than is necessary for this.
BUT, BUT, BUT: even if the VRA were found by the Court to breach the ECHR, the Government would be able to revise it to provide more precisely targetted protection for public morals, and I am quite sure that hardcore porn would still be covered.
-
watters
Re: BBFC
This is a good question Butsie / Buttsie.
U.K. suppliers cannot post locally in the U.K. but overseas suppliers can post to the U.K. and it won't be stopped as long as the material would get R18 status. This seems a bit strange, and would seem to be restraint of trade for the U.K. suppliers and giving an advantage to overseas suppliers (very against Euro law). Now, there's a route to follow.
U.K. suppliers cannot post locally in the U.K. but overseas suppliers can post to the U.K. and it won't be stopped as long as the material would get R18 status. This seems a bit strange, and would seem to be restraint of trade for the U.K. suppliers and giving an advantage to overseas suppliers (very against Euro law). Now, there's a route to follow.
-
buttsie/butsie
Re: BBFC
It should then be easy for politicians to argue that to legalise mail order would then create jobs-a vote winner.
I will never understand prohibition simply because it has never worked and will never work,that goes for porn,drugs & prostitution-(such an ugly word for a profession that has beeen around since time in memorial).The old cliche that its easier to go with the current than against it it so true.People of all persuasion,classes,races buy porn so why is it still discriminated against.
B...OZ
I will never understand prohibition simply because it has never worked and will never work,that goes for porn,drugs & prostitution-(such an ugly word for a profession that has beeen around since time in memorial).The old cliche that its easier to go with the current than against it it so true.People of all persuasion,classes,races buy porn so why is it still discriminated against.
B...OZ
-
woodgnome
Re: BBFC
under section 12 of the video recordings act (1984) r18 videos are only allowed to be retailed from within a licensed sex shop. it is perfectly legimate to import h/c material, as long as it complies with current guidelines for the r18 classification.
this due to the prevention of such material coming into the country being in contravention of e.u. competition laws, rather than any enlightenment on the part of her majesty's customs and excise.
this due to the prevention of such material coming into the country being in contravention of e.u. competition laws, rather than any enlightenment on the part of her majesty's customs and excise.