egafd.com

OK this may be contraversial but I feel that whilst r18 may be good news for producers becauase they can sell units to uk sex shops rather than rights to an offshore company like Your Choice it leaves the punters with less choice. As someone involved in the legal game I could forsee the pitfalls of semi-legalisation (i.e. R18) before it came in. And whilst most porn fans were rejoicing I had some reservations. Take the example of Ben Dovers Housewife Hussies which features fantastic squirting scenes which we will never be allowed to see. R18=no squirting or pissing. The republican (George "dubya" Bush) government in the usa has terrified the big companies out there so much that they will not even allow Bens master tapes containing such scenes on thier premises. So what! you may think. I can get it uncut from Your Choice. Well you can`t because Uncle Ben will not release it through an offshore company incase the unlisenced sexshops start selling it and he then gets unwanted enquiries from the old bill! This puzzles me because it never stopped him releasing his stuff through them when h/cc was illegal full stop. (Ben mate can you explain).

So the bottom line is if the law had stayed the same (i.e. sale of porn in uk illegal) then you could have bought this film legally through Your Choice. But thanks to the legalisation of porn we will not see this film.

I hope I have not bored you all.

Mr Magoo (Barrister at Law) Lincolns Inn 1998

how can you say we will "never" see squirting scenes in r18 vids? were you saying the same thing about oral, anal, etc a couple of years ago?

we will see squirting, fisting, urolagnia in r18, when the police are no longer able to gain convictions in cases relying upon evidential depictions of these activities. if juries consistently fail to find these acts as meeting the definition of obscenity, (as happened with consensual sex between adults), the police will have to fall in to line with public opinion - eventually.

as a result, the police will alter their advice to the bbfc about what constitutes an obscene act and the bbfc will, in turn, begin to pass this sort of material, having been assured that they are not in breach of the law when doing so.

in this sense, the unlicensed shops/mail order firms that are willng to sell tapes containing forbidden acts are performing a useful service. failed attempts by the police to prosecute under the obscene publications act will be required, to get things to change.

i don't see how r18 can be blamed for george dubya's administration. if they won't touch some of ben's output stateside because the moral moronity are in control, i don't see how having h/c outlawed here is going to be much help.

on a positive note, you only have to go to soho today to see how rapidly things have advanced - clean premises, decent customer service, more women in the shops, etc. if some prefer the seedier times of old, then the pirates are still there - at least for now. so far, this year, there have been over 550 r18 releases and it seems to me country is a bit more grown up as a result.

Much of what you say is correct but how are we going to see any failed prosecutions under the OPA when the police are simply using the more reliable (in terms of gaining a conviction) Video Recordings Act which does not test what a jury finds obscene but merely relies on the fact that a film has not been passed by the bbfc? There advice on what constitutes obscenity will stay the same as there is nothing pushing them to change thier outdated views. And producers are shooting in line with current police advice in order to get their stuff through the bbfc.

good point but if the police are no longer using the opa, for the reasons you state, then the bbfc's policy of relying on police advice re. the content of r18 videos, seems to be increasingly inappropriate.

the bbfc say that police advice gives them an up to date understanding of the law but if the police are basing their opinions upon ever more ancient examples, this would no longer apply.

if the definition of obscenity is never tested in a court of law, how long can the police continue to assume, on the basis of past convictions, that it is versed in current standards of public opinion? how can it tell the bbfc what is or is not deemed obscene in todays society?

does this dual usage by the police of the vra, while offering advice based upon an increasingly redundant opa, mean we're frozen in a legalistic catch-22 for the rest of eternity?

this might show my lack of a legal mind but surely a law has to be in effect to have any proper basis? why should the bbfc rely on the police for informed legal advice, if they won't implement those very laws?

can feel a headache coming on!

Quite right Woodgnome it is a very strange situation. It would be interesting to hear the response of the bbfc, police and Home Office Policies Unit to what we have discussed. Do you want to e-mail them and see what they have to say? I personally do not think they even realise this strange situatin exists and the police are always the last people to accept that a change is needed so they continue to mislead the bbfc with very old examples of opa convictions. The police never mention in their advice to the bbfc the large number of aquitals there have been under the opa (often involving fisting, piss etc) just as they never mention their reluctance to use the opa due to the high number of aquitals. PC Plod can be a right arse at times.

Brilliant debate lads, this is what keeps this site a cut above
the rest.

It's not just the Old Bill's bloody mindedness it's politics and Jobsworths wanting to cover their backs. Everyone in the public eye, or in public service - politicians in particular - are terrified of being denounced by The Daily Mail, News of the World and the obscenely patronising Sun (cheerfully patting the lower orders on the head, talking down to them, and whipping them up into a mob when it suits 'The Chairman')

On top of that you have poncy middle class political correctness "Sex is something invented by men to oppress and exploit women." Then there's upper middleclass moral minority "Sex is sinful, so we must utilise the power of the state to stop other citizens indulging in this vile practice."

It's the same with Cannabis. Now that's something the (New Labour) middle classes don't have much of a problem with, but they still don't have balls to say "Hey look, Mr stinking rich upper middleclass, reactionary newspaper proprietor. What folks do with their own fucking bodies is there own fucking business. So fuck off 'cause we're going to legalise it whether you like it or not!"

Now, wouldn?t that be grand?

Dr. No.

hiding behind the skirts of the police is a perfect buck passing situation for the bbfc. taking on more responsibility is probably a lose/lose situation, as far as they're concerned.

i've written to the bbfc before and they've responded with alacrity, so it's a worthwhile exercise. it'd be interesting to ask them if they ever query the police over the basis of their 'impartial' advice.

While some valid points have been made, some less so, to get back to the original point - R18 is better than whatever went before by a long way. Some short memories in operation?
R18 has absolutely no impact whatsover on what is or is not legal to buy.

The other thing is that it is now *so* easy to buy uncensored porn *legally* by import, from Europe or the States, where, incidentally they are continuing to release series (eg Hustler XXX) featuring pissing or "squirting". The effect of the Bush administration is exaggerated (Seymour Butts prosecution notwithstanding, which was a local rather than federal matter in LA).

Also, you now know that this Ben Dover tape will be released by Your Choice - who you can buy legally from, any "illegality" is on their side of the deal!

BTW, I always found Your Choice will answer any queries you have, their service is excellent.