R18 and "Living Off Immoral Earings"

[belmondouk]

that was the time when they nicked the nadia video you did, was it?

[sandie]

i think there is a fine line between doing professional stuff for a saleable product - legit and doin amatuer stuff for peoples own private collections - amatuer style. i believe this can still be classed as prostitution if its not for use as a saleable product at the end of the day.
i may be wrong tho.

[marcusallen]

My reply the other night was probably a bit unclear!(Twas not me guv, it was him -J.Walker).

Anyway, as certain of us know, the outcome of a court case is largely dependant on the attitude of the judge/magistrate on the day.
The Johnsons should never have been convicted in a million years.

When I started my model agency in 1983 it was classed as an employment agency and required licensing by the local council and the DTE. It seemed like a whole lot of beauracratic nonsense at the time, but latter events have proven that it actually was a very good system. Nowadays, anyone can suddenly decide he/she is a model agent.

The law then, relating to making porn, was that if it was to be supplied to a bona fide distributer in the UK then it was OK. If it was for export, there was no problem at all. Naturally both of these options were open to interpretation - this is England after all.

I have another biz which is related to this topic and the law is just as complicated, but largely ignored and un-enforceable.

My appearance at Bow St. was simply for the return of my property -master tapes. The police case was that they should be confiscated because I was making money from obscene material. The Magistrate's decision was that in her opinion, my material was not obscene under the Act and therefore my making money from it was irrelevant and hence the verdict went my way.
It was a landmark case in its way and should be referred to by the brief of any other poor unfortunate who finds him/herself in the dock.

HOWEVER, the question of living off immoral was never broached and would have been laughed out of court. At Bow St. they are Stipendary Magistrates -that means that they are bona fide, legally qualified lawyers, NOT JP's -who can be the local grocer)no offence to grocers) or any similar, local "Pillar of Society"

[MisterC]

A little known fact...

Whether or not an activity is subject to VAT is actually governed by EC law, the Treaty of Rome. The only activities that were deemed to be consistently illegal across Europe to not subject to VAT were drug dealing and contract killing, no way were the Dutch and Germans etc going to exempt their large and completely legal sex industries.

Therefore regardless of whether an activity (particularly sexual) is legal in the UK, C&E will come knocking on the door for their cut.


C

[MisterC]

"HOWEVER, the question of living off immoral was never broached and would have been laughed out of court. At Bow St. they are Stipendary Magistrates -that means that they are bona fide, legally qualified lawyers, NOT JP's -who can be the local grocer)no offence to grocers) or any similar, local "Pillar of Society"

Being already familar with this case I agree - complete twaddle. The local dibble made complete prats of themselves and had to get any kind of result regardless of how much the law had to be twisted to save face. A decent brief would tear this case to shreads, A8 & A10 Human Rights Act spring to mind immediately.


C

[Rem]

Perhaps what should be looked at is the situation we have now with girls doing the 'party' thing. I don't think there is any way this would be covered or excused by the making of legal porn films. Like it or not this is girls selling sex for money, not for the production of anything of lasting entertainment or artistic value, it is also giving a load of very shady guys a chance to make a lot of money from girls who seem to put little value on their time. ?300 for having sex with ten or more guys? No I am not saying they should charge more or less, just pointing out that there is a financial transaction which seems a little out of line, not being a user of the services of prostitutes it is however pointed out to me that some of these girls are charging ?300 to have sex with one guy.

Yes I know the dividing line always has been very thin and that for someone who pays girls for their time I should be careful, I think that what I and other producers do is to provide entertainment for adults using the skills and expertise of our models, male and female. For this they charge and are paid a professional fee?this gets complicated and maybe is not a road to go down save to point out that things have got to a pretty bad state in this business when girls you want for legit work are to busy at sex parties and not available to make films. Are they still models or have we reached the dividing line?

[steve56]

read your post did you mean 300 or 3000 pounds with 1 guy?

[Mark Scott]

Dear Marcus:

Yes the question of "LOIE" comes from the girl paying her agent a cut, and/or living with a boyfriend/husand. But below is the BBFC reply, which I think makes it it clear thar R18 and R18 type would be classed not a prostitution.

"Thank you for your e.mail.

Our understanding - derived from the police themselves - is that they do
not prosecute people for producing or being involved in pornography filmed
in the UK. We are afraid we cannot comment on hypothetical situations in
which agents are or are not involved. As for the discussions we had in
2000, the result of these was the new 'R18' guidelines published on our
website in July 2000. No distinction was to be made between porn filmed
inside and outside the UK."

So the paradox now is that you have show the intent to show you work to someone else not to be prosecuted!

I just noticed instead of "earnings" we've got "earings".

MCS

[marini]

For some reason Amatuer has been adopted by the world of porn as a "non branded item " ie cheap as opposed to priceless.

I know all the arguments about expenses - very reminiscent of athletics.

But I do object to the branding - Amatureto me - means no pay to view.

Gonzo is in my opinion is a better chosen monica for such productions.

I do appreciate "Bendover" because we get to meet UKs.

But on the whole I prefer the 70's to 90's story based stufff, where the acting and scene sets were of some importance.(surely this age must return - gaping asses and pussy great - but no dialogue - brutal assault - not very tittilating - not much humour although Bendover does make a stab at it.

Female performers Kay Parker (British but not listed in this forum - Charlie Chaplin and Bob Hope do not suffer this neglect)and Kaitlyn Ashley being
delicious performers with prescence.

UK performers Layla Jade, Jane whitehouse and Rebekah Jordan (in maturity) do sparkle but don't have the vehicle.

I know your attendance at the latest BGAFD was much appreciated and I
thank you for being there for the fans.

Regards


Peter