There is a distinction in law between stills and motion pictures. Still pictures are not covered by the Video Recordings Act. Motion pictures (film/video/dvd)are. So there is no requirement for still pictures to be distributed from licenced sex shops.
R18 material is nolonger considered to be obscene in the eyes of the law. If it were then anybody selling it would be liable to procecution under the Obscene Publications Act regardless of where it was sold in the UK.
The Post Office Act does not talk about obscene material it refers to indecent material, which is much broader in the eyes of the law and could cover many 18 certificate works. Fortunately such requirements are usualy simply ignored as they are now totally unworkable. Put simply the law has degenerated into an inconsistent and pointless nonsense.
R18 Court Cases
-
Paul Tavener
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: R18 Court Cases
contact [email]admin@ofwatch.org.uk[/email]
Re: R18 Court Cases
So, technically, it would be possible to take amazon.co.uk to court for posting 'indecent' materials?
~~~~~joe king~~~~~
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
-
Knave Editor
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: R18 Court Cases
Wessex wrote:
"This is why a certain magazine company (based in Essex) are now asking for ?20 a set to return unwanted material....so they can return it by courier.... although it only costs about a fiver to send by post (recorded delivery) and as far as I am aware they have received everything I have ever sent them, by post, without any problems. Seems to be a good rip-off/tie-in with the local courier company........."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Charging to return unwanted material has got nothing whatsoever to do with ripping snappers off or a tie-in with the local courier company. It's got everything to do with cutting thousands of pounds off the company's annual postage bill ??a bill hugely inflated by having to return countless unsolicited sets that were never going to be anywhere near usable in terms of quality.
"This is why a certain magazine company (based in Essex) are now asking for ?20 a set to return unwanted material....so they can return it by courier.... although it only costs about a fiver to send by post (recorded delivery) and as far as I am aware they have received everything I have ever sent them, by post, without any problems. Seems to be a good rip-off/tie-in with the local courier company........."
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Charging to return unwanted material has got nothing whatsoever to do with ripping snappers off or a tie-in with the local courier company. It's got everything to do with cutting thousands of pounds off the company's annual postage bill ??a bill hugely inflated by having to return countless unsolicited sets that were never going to be anywhere near usable in terms of quality.
-
jobbydealer
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: R18 Court Cases
The Home Office describe this as a 'grey area'. In effect the Home Office is saying that they are unsure as to how the courts would interpret 'supply' so the courts will decide.
If you walk into a licensed sex shop and purchase an R18 video them all is well.
If you telephone a licensed sex shop and ask them to send you a copy of an R18 video then does a problem arise?
The answer to this question lies in where the courts believe the supply took place.
To answer this question I would examine Article 30 of EC law which concerns itself with trade within the EC.
If you had a shop in Amsterdam (for instance) and sold, quite legally, R18 videos, would it be the case that because you did not hold a UK sex shop licence you could not supply that type of material to a UK customer.
At first sight, Article 30 would consider this to be a barrier to trade and as such unlawful. If the material is open to trade in the UK the EC supply should be treated as one and the same.
The defence may state that as with tobacco this is a case of distance selling so Article 30 is negated.
This I believe would not stand all square because tobacco and alcahol have mitigation with duty tax and porn does not.
Furthermore, it would be quite legal for a supplier in Amsterdam to supply to a UK customer a hardcore sex video that did not have an R18 certificate.
If the video was stopped at customs and it did not offer exposure to the OPA then the customs would have no valid reason to stop the supply.
To take this a stage further. Let us say that in Holland a video exists entitled, SEXMAD.
A video distributor in the UK buys the rights to SEXMAD and asks the BBFC to certificate it as an R18.
The BBFC pass the film - without cuts - and give it an R18 certificate.
Now we have a situation whereby the UK distributor can supply the film but the distributor in Holland cannot. They both have EXCATLY the same film but the rules of supply differ.
Is that not a technical barrier to trade. Here we have a UK supplier holding a monoply over a film that a person in Holland could sell if only he had a sticker that said R18!
The only thing that surprises me about this 'grey area' is that Sullivan or Goldstar have not taken this is matter to the EC courts.
With regard to the Post Office in the UK taking action over the posting of indecent material I would refer readers to the review that brought about the VRA and the MPA, whereby the Post Office stated that it was not within their scope to judge what was or was not indecent and that the relevant authorities (police, customs) should force them to open internal mail by warrant.
To conclude, article 30 and 31, in my opinion, offer protection to any UK supplier, however, opposing thoughts would be welcome.
If you walk into a licensed sex shop and purchase an R18 video them all is well.
If you telephone a licensed sex shop and ask them to send you a copy of an R18 video then does a problem arise?
The answer to this question lies in where the courts believe the supply took place.
To answer this question I would examine Article 30 of EC law which concerns itself with trade within the EC.
If you had a shop in Amsterdam (for instance) and sold, quite legally, R18 videos, would it be the case that because you did not hold a UK sex shop licence you could not supply that type of material to a UK customer.
At first sight, Article 30 would consider this to be a barrier to trade and as such unlawful. If the material is open to trade in the UK the EC supply should be treated as one and the same.
The defence may state that as with tobacco this is a case of distance selling so Article 30 is negated.
This I believe would not stand all square because tobacco and alcahol have mitigation with duty tax and porn does not.
Furthermore, it would be quite legal for a supplier in Amsterdam to supply to a UK customer a hardcore sex video that did not have an R18 certificate.
If the video was stopped at customs and it did not offer exposure to the OPA then the customs would have no valid reason to stop the supply.
To take this a stage further. Let us say that in Holland a video exists entitled, SEXMAD.
A video distributor in the UK buys the rights to SEXMAD and asks the BBFC to certificate it as an R18.
The BBFC pass the film - without cuts - and give it an R18 certificate.
Now we have a situation whereby the UK distributor can supply the film but the distributor in Holland cannot. They both have EXCATLY the same film but the rules of supply differ.
Is that not a technical barrier to trade. Here we have a UK supplier holding a monoply over a film that a person in Holland could sell if only he had a sticker that said R18!
The only thing that surprises me about this 'grey area' is that Sullivan or Goldstar have not taken this is matter to the EC courts.
With regard to the Post Office in the UK taking action over the posting of indecent material I would refer readers to the review that brought about the VRA and the MPA, whereby the Post Office stated that it was not within their scope to judge what was or was not indecent and that the relevant authorities (police, customs) should force them to open internal mail by warrant.
To conclude, article 30 and 31, in my opinion, offer protection to any UK supplier, however, opposing thoughts would be welcome.
-
marcusallen
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: R18 Court Cases
Whilst we all agree that we should be allowed to buy our chosen product freely and in a convenient way, i.e. mail order and we all further agree that UK laws are ridiculous and hypocritical, the fact remains that only a European Court ruling will change the situation.
There have been very cogent and coherent observations to this thread but:
(a) who can afford to take it to Europe
(b) who has a vested interest.
"The Big Boys" are ECSTATIC about the status quo. They have a virtual monopoly (legally) and the last thing they want is competition in the form of a free market.
Indy's cannot afford the Court fees involved, I know, I tried it and unless I can find a nice easy safe to crack I have to do what all the rest of Indy's do.
To get to Europe would come to around ?70,000.
Anyone want to start a fighting fund!!
There have been very cogent and coherent observations to this thread but:
(a) who can afford to take it to Europe
(b) who has a vested interest.
"The Big Boys" are ECSTATIC about the status quo. They have a virtual monopoly (legally) and the last thing they want is competition in the form of a free market.
Indy's cannot afford the Court fees involved, I know, I tried it and unless I can find a nice easy safe to crack I have to do what all the rest of Indy's do.
To get to Europe would come to around ?70,000.
Anyone want to start a fighting fund!!
Re: R18 Court Cases
ask a footballer ...
~~~~~joe king~~~~~
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Free pics and movie links of British porn stars
Latest British porn links: [b][url]http://british-uk-porn.com/blog/[/url][/b]
Re: R18 Court Cases
maybe you didn't see this link, higher up the thread: