Having once beaten the Old Bill in Court re videos, it has been suggested to me several times that I should take out a private prosecution v the BBFC in the matter of Restriction of Trade(selling only through licensed sex shops).
I'm sorely tempted-if not even eager-for a fight of this nature.
However,civil litigation is horrensously expensive and whilst all my earstwhile mates in this biz would happily kick in a few quid, it needs more than that.
Question. Anyone out there have contact with A VERY GOOD LAW FIRM to act on a "No win, No fee" basis, same as the insurance claim deal constantly advertised on TV etc.
BBFC
-
woodgnome
Re: BBFC
correct.
i think the best bet (not that i know anything) is to go to court citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms recently incorporated into our law.
as r18 material is deemed no longer to be a moral danger to society at large, the law would seem to be on shaky ground in continuing to restrict the ability of consenting adults to distribute it to other consenting adults. or is that too logical?
where's magoo when you need him?
i think the best bet (not that i know anything) is to go to court citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms recently incorporated into our law.
as r18 material is deemed no longer to be a moral danger to society at large, the law would seem to be on shaky ground in continuing to restrict the ability of consenting adults to distribute it to other consenting adults. or is that too logical?
where's magoo when you need him?
-
David
Re: BBFC
I doubt you will find a law firm to take a case such as this.
the no win no fee under CPR (civil procedure rules) works like
this
If you are INJURED and you pursue a claim against the responsible
party (such as the person who run into the back of your car)
you are legally entitled to claim your reasonable legal costs.
The case does not have to go to court, obviously the costs are
less if so insurers (my job) settle out of court to keep costs
to a minimum. When your claim for compensation is agreed the
law firm retains those legal fees - this is how they make a
profit. (A ?1500.00 whiplash settlement would generate about the
same amount in fees?) this rule applies to all injury compensation claims. Its basically a government stelth tax so they dont have to fork out for legal aid. In your case you would not be able to claim legal costs even if you won, hence why law firms would not be interested unless the are prepaired to work for free, which I very much doubt. If you want any more info mail me, prehaps with details of where i can obtain dirty anal kelly in rome 2 (the uncensored euro version not the R18 or american format. Thanks.
the no win no fee under CPR (civil procedure rules) works like
this
If you are INJURED and you pursue a claim against the responsible
party (such as the person who run into the back of your car)
you are legally entitled to claim your reasonable legal costs.
The case does not have to go to court, obviously the costs are
less if so insurers (my job) settle out of court to keep costs
to a minimum. When your claim for compensation is agreed the
law firm retains those legal fees - this is how they make a
profit. (A ?1500.00 whiplash settlement would generate about the
same amount in fees?) this rule applies to all injury compensation claims. Its basically a government stelth tax so they dont have to fork out for legal aid. In your case you would not be able to claim legal costs even if you won, hence why law firms would not be interested unless the are prepaired to work for free, which I very much doubt. If you want any more info mail me, prehaps with details of where i can obtain dirty anal kelly in rome 2 (the uncensored euro version not the R18 or american format. Thanks.
-
lurker
Re: BBFC
Hopefully, some lawyers can provide some better info...
but my understanding is that the Video Recordings Act and
the BBFC are connected in the following way (prepare for
a long post).
The VRA gives the Secretary of State the statutory power
to appoint a certification authority to classify films.
This certification authority happens to be the BBFC,
which is a private organisation run by the movie
industry.
The BBFC have no control over the definition of what is
a licensed sex shop. They are involved in the process
of defining what material is suitable for R18... but
so are the Police and the Crown Prosection Service.
Marcus might be able to demonstrate that the BBFC is
acting in a monopolistic manner only if he can demonstrate
that the BBFC by overcharging for its certification
services, constricting access to the UK market for
independent film-makers (including porn film-makers).
But if Marcus wants to challenge the monopoly of the
licensed sex shops, that is a government creation
(through the VRA) rather than a BBFC creation -
the BBFC is, at best, an accomplice.
My two cents worth. If the 'Ban the BBFC' site was
up (britishboard.com) I am sure Marcus would find some
allies there. Personally, I wish him every success. I have
a number of his tapes and think they are excellent.
but my understanding is that the Video Recordings Act and
the BBFC are connected in the following way (prepare for
a long post).
The VRA gives the Secretary of State the statutory power
to appoint a certification authority to classify films.
This certification authority happens to be the BBFC,
which is a private organisation run by the movie
industry.
The BBFC have no control over the definition of what is
a licensed sex shop. They are involved in the process
of defining what material is suitable for R18... but
so are the Police and the Crown Prosection Service.
Marcus might be able to demonstrate that the BBFC is
acting in a monopolistic manner only if he can demonstrate
that the BBFC by overcharging for its certification
services, constricting access to the UK market for
independent film-makers (including porn film-makers).
But if Marcus wants to challenge the monopoly of the
licensed sex shops, that is a government creation
(through the VRA) rather than a BBFC creation -
the BBFC is, at best, an accomplice.
My two cents worth. If the 'Ban the BBFC' site was
up (britishboard.com) I am sure Marcus would find some
allies there. Personally, I wish him every success. I have
a number of his tapes and think they are excellent.
-
magoo
Re: BBFC
David, much of what you say is correct. "No win no fee" or conditional fee agreements are limited to personal injury cases. The lawyer takes a gamble. If the case is lost the lawyer does not get paid a penny but if the case is won or settled before trial then the insurers of the loser pay the lawyers reasonable costs. These costs are calculated purely on the amount of work done (ie amount of letters, phone calls and time spent) and will be assessed by the Court if they are not agreed. As you will know insurers always haggle and knock down the amount of costs claimed. Provincial solicitors will typically charge an insurance company ?80 per hour (London firms much more) with a 50% mark up for care and conduct if they have not used a barrister. Most plumbers charge about the same hourly rate or more. I know one solicitor who went off and became a plumber to make more money!
Anyway as it may be hard to recover costs from the government/bbfc as opposed to an insurance company I cant see any firm taking it on even if Law Society Rules permitted it.
Anyway as it may be hard to recover costs from the government/bbfc as opposed to an insurance company I cant see any firm taking it on even if Law Society Rules permitted it.