egafd.com

All that i am saying is before anyone is named and shamed make sure you have the facts right, and im not sure what you are saying is correct Jim as there are plenty of little gold diggers out there and lawyers willing to represent them, also Judges in civil cases do sometimes hand out generous compensation for defamation of character.

Also you have to bear in mind that there is no law against people engaging in unprotected sex without first having a sexual health check as is quite common practice outside of the adult industry, and a lot of models also cross over to escorting so it would be very difficult to keep a check on it, and i believe that what Terry is highliting is probably just the tip of the iceburg and would urge all adult performers to scrutinise the certs of people they are working with.

As far as naming producers who allow this practice it would probably just make their material more marketable.

"All that i am saying is before anyone is named and shamed make sure you have the facts right"

Yes, Mr Planet, you are absolutely correct about this, as technically you could sue for libel if someone wrote what you considered to be, an incorrect and defamatory statement, about an event, that may or may not have actually occurred.

Of course in the context of a case based on whether or not, someone had asked a girl to work without a test, it would still not be practical to pursue, because the evedence would be based on heresay. Worse still, it would be the testimony of what the court would consider to be people on both sides of, "Ill repute" and therefore of no value.

I'm afraid these kind of allegations must be dealt with amongst ourselves. The only "Court" this kind of argument will ever be heard in, is the "Court of Jeremy Kyle".

Since the year dot the UK has been very relaxed in health issues so this is nothing new, this thread was put on here to make people more aware of the real situation at present.
Nobody can police or enforce certs, condoms or make people liable for infections etc so its up to individuals themselves to check & double check who they are working with e.g. models & producers.

jimslip wrote:

> Of course in the context of a case based on whether or not,
> someone had asked a girl to work without a test, it would still
> not be practical to pursue, because the evedence would be based
> on heresay. Worse still, it would be the testimony of what the
> court would consider to be people on both sides of, "Ill
> repute" and therefore of no value.

planeterotica wrote:

This is the point i am making Jim, if it is only heresay then surely it is unwise to name a person in public, before the internet and certs if somone in the industry had a dose the message would soon get around by word and mouth but it was a smaller industry back then so these days vigilance is needed with who you are working with in making sure their certs are bona-fide.

You're right of course, the whole concept of, "Naming & shaming" on any topic, is littered with potential problems. Least of all because of the potential for embittered people trying to get revenge on another person for whatever reason. Also often there is an element of, "Six of one and half a dozen of the other" in all the assertions and accusations being thrown about.

To be honest, it's an impossible situation and OEJ is correct in not immediately, naming the alleged culprits.

Good word, "Alleged" I believe if you place this word in front of a statement, it stops it from becoming a slander or a libel.

eg "Allegedly, David Cameron has a penchant for dressing up as a woman in his spare time" is OK to say or write, whereas, "David Cameron dresses up as a woman in his spare time." is not.

I think the difference is that in the first sentence a question is posed as a possibility which is open for discussion, whereas in the second it is a statement of fact.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

Planeterotica wrote:

That may be the case Terry but imagine a scenario where a model who was believed to be working bareback without certs was publicly named and shamed and then that model decided to sue for loss of earnings you could be looking at ?1000s.


Mark my words: It will never happen!

Ive been privvy to alot of things in this business and even if a model caught HIV they wont even sue for reasons too long to even go into but the short version could also be down to sheer laziness. For examples of this one need not lok further than the US

Ive seen models lose out on thousands and not bothered to take people to court for all the shouting, screaming and chest beating and I'm seeing it happen again now. This business needs a massive shake up and all that hiding for fear of legal action has to stop.

I'll beat that rap by countersuing the model for ruining my business and costing me thousands in all the shoots I had hoped to do but was scuppered because theyve contaminated everyone I wanted to work with!

The legal system is a joke and should be played like the game it is. The difference between who wins or loses is whose pockets are the deepest and whether you are prepared to waste money and thats another reason why people in the industry are seldom up in court in front of a judicial system that doesnt recognise our legitimacy anyway

Planeterotica wrote:

All that i am saying is before anyone is named and shamed make sure you have the facts right

Oh yes! Absolutely!I would never pick up my lance and ride a white charger into battle unless i knew for a fact what I was getting into. Accusing anyone of ayhting is a ery serious matter if you cant back it up with facts.

At best this will result in a "fuck you fuck you back I'm gonna bash you up " situation which is a giant waste of time and only alienates people in an environment where we are trying to promote dialogue.

What Jim Slip says makes perfect sense as this topic is something that has been discussed at length at various meetings and it seems the onlyreason why people dont take charge and do something is because of this shallow threat.

If I have you bang to rights then you can bet I'll take you up on that challenge if you throw down that gauntlet. I'm licking my lips and rubbing my hands in glee waiting for the day just to prove this

GTF Productions wrote:

I have been made aware of a very large company that never checked a girls or any other performers certs on a recent productiohisses the large companies should take a lead but this is an issue that needs to be addressed by everyone.



This is the big problem with this business GTF. People all see the bad things going on but dont say anyhting about it.

Dont you think there should be some transparency between people in the same business wh use the same talent.

It does highlight a major problem why the AIM like scheme we proposed to get in place died a death in the face of such huge support but when it came to show and prove, everyone was suddenly busy.

If we dont share this kind of info then we all pay the price for it in the end

As the industry is unregulated you cannot enforce the use of certs but you can make life harder for those who wish to take risks by refusing to work with them or to use them in any future productions, and once a name or two is doing the rounds and they find their bookings drying up others will get the message. myself well i wouldnt name and shame on the internet rather an odd whisper in peoples shell like, the word soon gets around...