I'm thinking of joining a watersports sites in the UK, but I'm wondering on the legality of joining and downloading from such sites ? Anyone know the answer ?
cheers
bargpole
Watersports - legal ?
Re: Watersports - legal ?
I was arrested for having a piss in an ally in Birmingham in November 2001 if THATS anything to go by
The West London of my youth is now on dvd
I've met the man on the street............and he's a cunt
I've met the man on the street............and he's a cunt
Re: Watersports - legal ?
Is that a deliberate spelling Ace?
Ally as in girl's name or do you mean alley as in lane.
Mart
Ally as in girl's name or do you mean alley as in lane.
Mart
Re: Watersports - legal ?
yes, alley as in lane not as in McBeal.
The West London of my youth is now on dvd
I've met the man on the street............and he's a cunt
I've met the man on the street............and he's a cunt
Re: Watersports - legal ?
I'm no expert in law but I'm pretty sure that it is legal to join sites featuring watersports seeing that it is legal to own porn featuring w/s in the UK - you can buy w/s from overseas and legally have it in the UK so why can't you see it on the internet? It's just that w/s isn't premitted by the BBFC as it is considered "degrading" or "dehumanising" so it can't get into an R18 film.
Re: Watersports - legal ?
There's a Sarah Daykin pee scene in Ben Dover's Anal Spunkfest - passed for R18 by the BBFC.
Just thought you might be interested.
Just thought you might be interested.
-
Bruce Barnard
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Watersports - legal ?
Just interviewed the BBFC for my new book. Here's the current policy at Soho Square:
"The Board are not big fans of ?squirting?, because it presents a window of opportunity to include footage of urination. Something that is acceptable in a non sexual context, but quickly becomes a major taboo if any sexual activity is taking place at the time. The R18 guidelines directly address this concern, so no pornographer can claim naivety of the rules as an excuse to appeal rejected footage: ? Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence, or activity which is degrading or dehumanising (examples include the portrayal of bestiality, necrophilia, defecation, urolagnia) are forbidden.? This rule also means ?fisting? footage will be trimmed as a matter of routine, although producers can get around this clause by making sure that the performers insert only four fingers; if the thumb remains visible then everything is fine and dandy.
The consumer driven demand for including water sport footage in films, highlights a number of problems the BBFC face when coming to decisions on specific titles, as well as policy making for the R18 category in general. As they are unable to pass material that risks facing charges under the notoriously vague Obscene Publications Act (1959), they need to apply strict criteria to what they will allow for public consumption. This avoids the professional embarrassment of having coppers mounting sex shop raids, and confiscating material that bears a legitimate BBFC classification tag. The Obscene Publications and Internet Unit of the Metropolitan Police, when asked on their guidelines on bringing charges under the act stated, ?the minimum we can prosecute for is urination of defecation into another?s orifices?; so the Board tends to take a cautious approach."
"Cut and Paste" (Flesh Trade) Published 2004
"The Board are not big fans of ?squirting?, because it presents a window of opportunity to include footage of urination. Something that is acceptable in a non sexual context, but quickly becomes a major taboo if any sexual activity is taking place at the time. The R18 guidelines directly address this concern, so no pornographer can claim naivety of the rules as an excuse to appeal rejected footage: ? Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence, or activity which is degrading or dehumanising (examples include the portrayal of bestiality, necrophilia, defecation, urolagnia) are forbidden.? This rule also means ?fisting? footage will be trimmed as a matter of routine, although producers can get around this clause by making sure that the performers insert only four fingers; if the thumb remains visible then everything is fine and dandy.
The consumer driven demand for including water sport footage in films, highlights a number of problems the BBFC face when coming to decisions on specific titles, as well as policy making for the R18 category in general. As they are unable to pass material that risks facing charges under the notoriously vague Obscene Publications Act (1959), they need to apply strict criteria to what they will allow for public consumption. This avoids the professional embarrassment of having coppers mounting sex shop raids, and confiscating material that bears a legitimate BBFC classification tag. The Obscene Publications and Internet Unit of the Metropolitan Police, when asked on their guidelines on bringing charges under the act stated, ?the minimum we can prosecute for is urination of defecation into another?s orifices?; so the Board tends to take a cautious approach."
"Cut and Paste" (Flesh Trade) Published 2004