egafd.com

You recently deleted two posts pointing to a site which makes serious allegations about an organisation which purports to help models. Other message boards also tend to remove any posts critical of this organisation; and the effect is that all debate of the issue has been stifled.
It may be that you fear legal action against you, but I think it would be nice if somebody on the net were to take a principled approach to this matter, and ask the organisation in question to respond to the criticisms made. I know for a fact that some of the criticisms are valid - anybody can check at Companies House and see for themselves that the company that this organisation continually refers to does not, and never has, existed. Likewise, no charity has ever been registered.
Over to you. Why won't you permit this matter to be aired? Whilst not being strictly on-topic, it is closely related, and it is also a matter for genuine concern.
Regards
George

maybe we know more about the matter than you do?

maybe we are looking into matters ourselves?

maybe there was more than a whiff of something very dodgy about the two posts you refer to?

maybe there is a history to this matter that you are unaware of?

maybe you have an interest of your own that remains undeclared?

maybe you could have emailed us with your concerns, before making unwarranted assumptions and then posting them to the forum, without a proper understanding of the issues involved and our reasons for acting as we did?

George makes a valid point, but it's also a double-edged sword, as my posting about johnmasonstudio.com points out.

Anyone can make sweeping statements about videographers, models, websites and videos via the BGAFD, and Alec and Phil do a pretty good job of policing those posts and removing ones which they deem either one-sided or without merit or potentially libellous. As hosts of the site, they would be liable for any legal action so it's not in their interests to allow what some people may feel is genuine debate. The brutal fact is that a lot of posts on this site are spurious and insulting, whether they're intended to be or not. As such, I think the guys do a good job.

If everyone was *forced* to leave a genuine, non-web based email address then things might be different. If someone wants to criticise someone else, then it's only fair that they do so openly, rather than hiding behind fake email.

I'm all for protecting models' interests, since they're the lifeblood of this business. It's a very tricky line for any moderator to walk, but if there are companies out there ripping girls off, then there's another way around it. For instance, you could always post a notice suggesting that 'a certain company' is doing various things (which you'd then list). You could then invite people to email you direct so you could fill them in on just what has been going on. It takes the legal fears away from Alec and Phil that way too.

webmasterjms@coolpiranha.com wrote:
> [snip]
> Anyone can make sweeping statements about videographers,
> models, websites and videos via the BGAFD, and Alec and Phil
> do a pretty good job of policing those posts...

Not forgetting woodgnome! But thanks for the support.

Sorry, I didn't meant to leave WG out of that bit, but I did mention him elsewhere in the post!

For some reason, his posting didn't appear in the thread when I wrote mine. Guess we were posting at the same time. But the points he makes are valid.

This site could easily become a libel nightmare. As it is, it's only a few of the old guard who go off on one after a few whiskies. And we know who they are!

Many years ago I suggested to all the pro photographers/videographers that there should be a strictly policed database and I volunteered. Many of them said "yea, yea" but it all came to nought because so many decided -by way of afterthought-that they could be missing out on capturing new girls before "the opposition" and so decided to go their own way.
The same syndrome applies to media who accept model ads. Some check out the bona fides of advertisers, some do not.
Until a few years ago, model agencies were controlled by the Employmeny Agencies Act and subjected to the same strict regulations, but for some wierd reason this restriction was lifted with the consequence that now anyone can walk out of the pub tonight and declare him/her self a model agency tomorrow.
The industry as a whole is on a path of self destruction simply because of an inherent mistrust of competition and pure selfishness.
There are certain exceptions of course and they survive, but at a cost.
The backbiting and sniping ostensibly referred to above is typical of the current climate.
Years ago, when a model signed with an agency on an exclusive basis, it meant something - now, it means shit and mostly because the "agency" makes all sorts of promises it cannot keep and the girl goes elsewhere. The girls are not entirely without fault in this matter, but that is a different subject.

I once tried to trace some dodgy bastards through Companies' House.......
And got exactly nowhere.
This is all 'Watchdog' stuff........it takes about 20 min. to register, and about the same, to de-register, a "Company".

M arcus, I well remember the days of genuine model agents, and they were shit, too! How many of us tried to book girls only to be phoned on the day by agents and told that the girls grandmother had died for the fourteenth time that year?

The adult business in this country is seen as easy money by the unscrupulous. When you can buy a DV cam for 200 quid, suddenly youre a fucking film director, when people like you have been banging away (excuse the pun) at your trade for years. Its infuriating to say the least. As to a properly policed board. Never happen. There are just too many egos involved and as you point out, photographers guard their girls the way dobermans guard my local junk yard. And the quality these days is pretty similar too.

I met a photographer this week who charges girls 300 notes to do their portfolios for them. Even today, girls are being duped into this kind of shit. And the guy only shoots on print film. I wanted to give him a piece of my mind, but I couldn't spare any of it. Just goes to show that the rip off artist is alive and well.

I would urge anyone (male or female) who is thinking about getting into the adult business to post something up here asking questions, and then email any of the moderators for advice. They can then put you in touch with *reputable* people, or you can email people direct from here. And if they use a web based email account, steer clear of them just in case!

It did seem that the allegations being made above were by a rival organisation (and one whose own website didn't exactly fill a viewer with confidence!) - I haven't a clue whether they stand up or not. Those wishing to take the matter up should perhaps do so directly and if that doesn't work then they can publicise the fact without reliance on the crack BGAFD team of libel lawyers.

Fully endorse the action of the moderators on this.

It is the job of the moderators of this site to police it at their will and discretion, and they do a damn good job.
Most people who's posts have been deleted -mine too-know damn well they have overstepped the mark and stand corrected/or apologise, without bleating like a stuck pig or prtosting innocence like some mug who has just been nicked and cannot stand the heat.