Bad news from the Obscene Publications Unit

[DaveKnell]

This from ETO which, taken at face value, would appear to have some really unpleasant implications for a number of us:

>>> UK firms which continue to offer for sale unclassified DVDs, either
>>> through their stores or their websites, or mobile have been issued
>>> with a stark warning from the Obscene Publications Unit - they could
>>> face prosecution,
>>> and a recent case which came to court resulted in a prison sentence for
>>> a UK
>>> trader.
>>>
>>> The trader, who operated an affiliate scheme with an overseas DVD
>>> supplier, was targeted after police made test purchases of two films
>>> via his website
>>> eight months ago and he was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications
>>> Act.
>>> The case reached court six months later when it was heard by a jury, as
>>> are
>>> all cases brought under this Act.
>>>
>>> The trader, whose home address was raided by 12 officers at 7
>>> o'clock in the morning, told ETO: "The court didn't understand what
>>> an affiliate was; they
>>> were under the assumption that I had a warehouse full of porn."
>>>
>>> He was found guilty, fined £1000 plus costs and sentenced to 42 days
>>> in prison. Although he only served 21 days, the nature of the
>>> offence meant he was classified as a sex category offender and he
>>> was forced to serve the sentence in the company of rapists and
>>> paedophiles.
>>>
>>> Speaking after being released, the trader said: "The police are
>>> looking at stopping any sales of porn over the Internet or mobile.
>>> It's a crime that is
>>> very easy to catch and the police are just using search engines to
>>> locate
>>> affiliates."
>>>
>>> After seeking advice from the arresting officer on what he could
>>> legally offer for sale, the trader was told that if he distributed,
>>> circulated, sold, let, hired, gave, lent or offered for sale or hire
>>> unclassified or R18 material by any means, including video
>>> messaging, webcam, streaming or download, or if he aided or
>>> conspired with someone else to do the same (meaning to act as an
>>> affiliate) it would be a "racing certainty" that he
>>> would be prosecuted again. He was advised that the only type of material
>>> he
>>> could legally offer for sale is that which has been rated 18 by the
>>> BBFC.
>>>
>>> Chris Bedwell, Inspector in Charge of the Obscene Publications Unit
>>> at Clubs and Vice in the Metropolitan Police, confirmed this,
>>> adding: "We will target
>>> any firm who is committing an offence under the Obscene Publications
>>> Act. If
>>> a film is unclassified you cannot sell it in this country and if it is
>>> an
>>> R18 it can only be sold in person at a licensed sex shop."

--Dave

[xcite-tv]

are there any names and dates ?

looks like we are all under this ruling

[SmithsMedia]

are there any names and dates ?

looks like we are all under this ruling


I thought you as a responsible content producer classified all your movies before publishing?

Maybe its time to move into selling S/C topless only :(

[dvtimes]

This from ETO which, taken at face value, would appear to have some really unpleasant implications for a number of us:

>>> UK firms which continue to offer for sale unclassified DVDs, either
>>> through their stores or their websites, or mobile have been issued
>>> with a stark warning from the Obscene Publications Unit - they could
>>> face prosecution,
>>> and a recent case which came to court resulted in a prison sentence for
>>> a UK
>>> trader.
>>>
>>> The trader, who operated an affiliate scheme with an overseas DVD
>>> supplier, was targeted after police made test purchases of two films
>>> via his website
>>> eight months ago and he was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications
>>> Act.
>>> The case reached court six months later when it was heard by a jury, as
>>> are
>>> all cases brought under this Act.
>>>
>>> The trader, whose home address was raided by 12 officers at 7
>>> o'clock in the morning, told ETO: "The court didn't understand what
>>> an affiliate was; they
>>> were under the assumption that I had a warehouse full of porn."
>>>
>>> He was found guilty, fined £1000 plus costs and sentenced to 42 days
>>> in prison. Although he only served 21 days, the nature of the
>>> offence meant he was classified as a sex category offender and he
>>> was forced to serve the sentence in the company of rapists and
>>> paedophiles.
>>>
>>> Speaking after being released, the trader said: "The police are
>>> looking at stopping any sales of porn over the Internet or mobile.
>>> It's a crime that is
>>> very easy to catch and the police are just using search engines to
>>> locate
>>> affiliates."
>>>
>>> After seeking advice from the arresting officer on what he could
>>> legally offer for sale, the trader was told that if he distributed,
>>> circulated, sold, let, hired, gave, lent or offered for sale or hire
>>> unclassified or R18 material by any means, including video
>>> messaging, webcam, streaming or download, or if he aided or
>>> conspired with someone else to do the same (meaning to act as an
>>> affiliate) it would be a "racing certainty" that he
>>> would be prosecuted again. He was advised that the only type of material
>>> he
>>> could legally offer for sale is that which has been rated 18 by the
>>> BBFC.
>>>
>>> Chris Bedwell, Inspector in Charge of the Obscene Publications Unit
>>> at Clubs and Vice in the Metropolitan Police, confirmed this,
>>> adding: "We will target
>>> any firm who is committing an offence under the Obscene Publications
>>> Act. If
>>> a film is unclassified you cannot sell it in this country and if it is
>>> an
>>> R18 it can only be sold in person at a licensed sex shop."

--Dave

Yes this has poped up before.

Its basicly the police wasting everyones time as in truth there are for more people selling pirated dvd's and not paying tax. Its one of those in theory laws. Simply as the law does say a firm can sell dvds outside the uk and post them in, and also a client can order dvd's over the net from other countries.

When the law was set up, it must have been done prosuming people would not mail order dvd's!!!!

Its a bit like it your walking down the street, and stop. In theory your breaking the law.

In theory anyone who has and moving image (film) on there site could in theory be breaking this law too.

Does it worry me? Well 21 days in prisison sounds like a holiday to me. Plus £1000 which I would simply pay £1 per month.

It reminds me a few years ago when supermakets desided to open on sundays and simply paid the fines. Its just a joke.

But all it does is turn people off from the law.

In fact its one reason why people are getting fed up with the UK and moving to other countries.

[Mattyboy]

Or get a legal business set up overseas.

[dvtimes]

I thought you as a responsible content producer classified all your movies before publishing?

Maybe its time to move into selling S/C topless only :(

No. Its about mainly promoting porn films.

If you link to a dvd site, its unlikly they will be uk classified (as in going through the uk film sensors), as they sell only outside the uk, but post them in.

The law states that All films must (in the uk) go though film sensors (about £3K). This is regardless of content. Although education and some other types can be non classified.

This applies to only moving images. Photographs do not.

But those rated as r18, must be sold in licenced sex shops. Plus you have to go into the shop to get the dvd.

But even non r18 films must be classified to sell in the uk.

But of course you may be thinking, what a pain to do somthing legal. Youy see its the criminals who are having a great time simply pirating the dvd's, and selling them. They make far more money. Vaery unlikly to get court. And do not pay tax. Its only the tax payers that are made to be the criminals.

Its great being in the UK. By the way if you have not guessed it yet, I do not respect the law, and if I ever got a criminal record, it would simply mean nothing to me these days.

[JT]

To be honest. I am always amazed how UK webmasters go on and on about the US record keeping 2257 law and none of them seem to care about our own Obsene Publications law :twocents:

[dvtimes]

Or get a legal business set up overseas.

But the point is, how do you promote it (I presume you mean web based). Simply as anyone in the uk in theory is breaking the law.

I think in this case its not the dvd business that was fined, it was simply somone promoting them.

In other words, have a link to a site that may be selling dvd's, and you are resposible.

So in theory is you promoted Amozon and they shped a non uk classified film to the uk, its you who is in truble.

[Paul Markham]

To get the Obscene Publications Unit interested it has to be some pretty heavy stuff.

This guy was prosecuted under the prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. Not The Video Recording Act, which is what the BBFC is about.

Just make sure you are not selling DVDs to be delivered by post and all of the content is within the BBFC guidelines.

Then go check with a lawyer who understands this industry.

[Paul Markham]

Or better still move to the Czech Republic and see lwhat you like to the UK.

Well within reason.

I can sell a DVD to be delivered by post to the UK, people in the UK can't. Aren't you glad about the EEC?

[dvtimes]

To be honest. I am always amazed how UK webmasters go on and on about the US record keeping 2257 law and none of them seem to care about our own Obsene Publications law :twocents:

I think its different if you produce content and want webmasters to promote your site or sell content to them (to those in the usa) as if you cannot satisfy these requiements then in theory your wasting your time.

But, to me in truth. If the police want to nick you. They will nick you regardless. I think an old lady got nicked for feeding some birds the other day. Sorr, these days the law in my books is a joke. It simply tagets those that are easy to nick. The real scum criminals play the system so much that the police leave them alone as they know they will get no where.

[dvtimes]

Or better still move to the Czech Republic and see lwhat you like to the UK.

Well within reason.

I can sell a DVD to be delivered by post to the UK, people in the UK can't. Aren't you glad about the EEC?

Yes, but if they link to your site, then they can get arrested. It not just the people selling the dvd's. Its the people who promote them too.

So if your adult sites sell dvd's then anyone in the uk promoting your sites could find a few days in the nick.

If you read the first post, its not the person selling the dvd's who was fined but an affiliate.

[strictlybroadband]

To get the Obscene Publications Unit interested it has to be some pretty heavy stuff.

They purchased DVDs featuring fisting and scat, and used those in the prosecution. What's notable is that this guy wasn't selling anything, he was just an affiliate. This has implications to anyone sending traffic to non-UK sites.

[Elisha Jade]

They purchased DVDs featuring fisting and scat

yeah surely under the obscene publications act it still has to be pretty "questionable" content rather than straight hardcore / solo ?

[Paul Markham]

yeah surely under the obscene publications act it still has to be pretty "questionable" content rather than straight hardcore / solo ?
It's probably the scat that slammed the cell door shut.

Be careful who you promote, you might think it easy money. But tell that to the judge.

[Elisha Jade]

yeah i am :) :)

[strictlybroadband]

yeah surely under the obscene publications act it still has to be pretty "questionable" content rather than straight hardcore / solo ?

Obviously, the police will target the "low-hanging fruit" - in other words the stuff that's likely to win them a case. You'll just have to pull the snuff videos from your site Elisha, and you'll be OK. ;)

[DaveKnell]

They purchased DVDs featuring fisting and scat, and used those in the prosecution.

Thanks - that's the bit I was missing. The arresting officer's quoted as saying that any R18 material would be problematic; I couldn't see how that would fall outside the Obscene Publications Act and still be legal to sell in sex shops.

--Dave

[SmithsMedia]

Thanks - that's the bit I was missing. The arresting officer's quoted as saying that any R18 material would be problematic; I couldn't see how that would fall outside the Obscene Publications Act and still be legal to sell in sex shops.

--Dave

its to do with the distribution - my understanding is that you can not ship porn by mail esp XXX dvd's.

[Paul Markham]

Thanks - that's the bit I was missing. The arresting officer's quoted as saying that any R18 material would be problematic; I couldn't see how that would fall outside the Obscene Publications Act and still be legal to sell in sex shops.

--Dave
He was talking bull shit. He can't stand up in court and argue it's obscene yet legal if it had a certificate.

SmithMedia, that's a Post Office prosecution, nothing to do with the Obscene Publication Squad.

[mOBSCENE]

He was talking bull shit. He can't stand up in court and argue it's obscene yet legal if it had a certificate.

SmithMedia, that's a Post Office prosecution, nothing to do with the Obscene Publication Squad.

There seems to be total confusion in this article between trading standards laws and the OPA, which are pretty different things. Either the journalist or the police or both haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

I think the moral of the story is that it is probably a good idea stay within BBFC guidelines when choosing what to promote as an affiliate.

OPA prosecution: "This hardcore scene would deprave and corrupt the common man who watched it. Discuss"

Defence: "Here are 3 examples of exactly the same act, distributed legally and passed by the BBFC. Would the almighty BBFC pass any material that would deprave and corrupt the common man?"

Case thrown out.

[Pandemos]

Interesting to read the CPS guidance on OPA prosecutions at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_e.html


"Charging practice

Specimen indictment (Indictment Precedent Manual).

The particulars should clearly identify the obscene article e.g. "an Internet website entitled "Welcome" (exhibit reference KDW/6)."

It is impossible to define all types of activity which are suitable for prosecution; however, the following categories are those most commonly used:

* sexual acts with children
* sexual assaults upon children
* portrayal of incest
* buggery with an animal
* rape
* drug taking
* flagellation
* torture with instruments
* bondage (especially where gags are used)
* dismemberment or graphic mutilation
* cannibalism
* activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a person's body)

The principal factors influencing whether a prosecution under section 2 is required are:

* the degree and type of obscenity together with the form in which it is presented: for example the impact of the printed word will be less than the same activity shown in film or photograph;
* the type and scale of any commercial venture should be taken into account;
* whether publication was made to a child or vulnerable adult, or the possibility that such would be likely to take place;
* where publication took place, especially if material can be readily seen by the general public, for example in a newsagents or market;
* the defendant's antecedents, especially where there has been a previous conviction, or caution, for a similar matter;
* The degree of participation of the proposed defendant(s). This becomes relevant where the defendant can employ the statutory defence that he had no knowledge of the contents of the material under section 2(5) of the 1959 Act.

Where proceedings under section 2 are instituted, the number of articles to be placed before the Court should be manageable. The use of too many articles, or charges, could be counter-productive and have a negative effect upon the jury.

The Crown Prosecution normally advises on no more than six articles as being sufficient to highlight the different types of activities portrayed or described, unless there are particular factors in a case, such as multiple defendants, seizure of material from more than one location etc.

In cases where a large amount of material suitable for prosecution under section 2 has been seized, the use of specimen charges should be considered."

[SmithsMedia]

Interesting to read the CPS guidance on OPA prosecutions at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section12/chapter_e.html


"Charging practice

Specimen indictment (Indictment Precedent Manual).

The particulars should clearly identify the obscene article e.g. "an Internet website entitled "Welcome" (exhibit reference KDW/6)."

It is impossible to define all types of activity which are suitable for prosecution; however, the following categories are those most commonly used:

* sexual acts with children
* sexual assaults upon children
* portrayal of incest
* buggery with an animal
* rape
* drug taking
* flagellation
* torture with instruments
* bondage (especially where gags are used)
* dismemberment or graphic mutilation
* cannibalism
* activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a person's body)

The principal factors influencing whether a prosecution under section 2 is required are:

* the degree and type of obscenity together with the form in which it is presented: for example the impact of the printed word will be less than the same activity shown in film or photograph;
* the type and scale of any commercial venture should be taken into account;
* whether publication was made to a child or vulnerable adult, or the possibility that such would be likely to take place;
* where publication took place, especially if material can be readily seen by the general public, for example in a newsagents or market;
* the defendant's antecedents, especially where there has been a previous conviction, or caution, for a similar matter;
* The degree of participation of the proposed defendant(s). This becomes relevant where the defendant can employ the statutory defence that he had no knowledge of the contents of the material under section 2(5) of the 1959 Act.

Where proceedings under section 2 are instituted, the number of articles to be placed before the Court should be manageable. The use of too many articles, or charges, could be counter-productive and have a negative effect upon the jury.

The Crown Prosecution normally advises on no more than six articles as being sufficient to highlight the different types of activities portrayed or described, unless there are particular factors in a case, such as multiple defendants, seizure of material from more than one location etc.

In cases where a large amount of material suitable for prosecution under section 2 has been seized, the use of specimen charges should be considered."

so this means I can no longer promote my best sponsor?????????

They make gang rapes a drugged up gagged women who has previously been tourtured before cooking them up into a stew all washed down with a pint of piss. When they are done with her they take the donkey on ;-)

[strictlybroadband]

so this means I can no longer promote my best sponsor?????????

They make gang rapes a drugged up gagged women who has previously been tourtured before cooking them up into a stew all washed down with a pint of piss. When they are done with her they take the donkey on ;-)

That's become a really stale niche. :)

[SmithsMedia]

That's become a really stale niche. :)

Yeah i think it was the gagging that was seen as too risky ;-)

[dvtimes]

Most of you are going off tract with this.

THE reason why he was arrested and charged was simply promoting a site that sells unclasified porn dvd's. Not what was on them.

Do you not understand that. Forget about the content, its irelavent. Its the fact that it was not sold within a UK sex shop un the UK.

If the same dvd's had been sold in a licenced sex shop then it would have been ok.

[mOBSCENE]

Most of you are going off tract with this.

THE reason why he was arrested and charged was simply promoting a site that sells unclasified porn dvd's. Not what was on them.

Do you not understand that. Forget about the content, its irelavent. Its the fact that it was not sold within a UK sex shop un the UK.

If the same dvd's had been sold in a licenced sex shop then it would have been ok.

No, if he was prosecuted under the Obscene publications act it is nothing to do with licenses or sex shops. It has to do with the "deprave and corrupt" test. You cannot charge someone under the OPA for not selling DVDs through a licensed sex shop, that would have to be a charge under the Video recordings Act for R18

[xcite-tv]

I can sell a DVD to be delivered by post to the UK, people in the UK can't. Aren't you glad about the EEC?

No you cant..... as HM Customs and Excise can sieze it when it comes into the UK



Anyway the arresting officer in this case has NO idea what the CPS will, or will not take to trial...

[mOBSCENE]

No you cant..... as HM Customs and Excise can sieze it when it comes into the UK


AFAIK they only seize material that is well outside BBFC guidelines as it is perfectly legal for any punter in the uk to order DVDs from abroad so long as they do not feature material on the prohibited list - there are thousands of adult DVDs let thru customs every day, sold by foreign suppliers. This is why the whole sex shop restriction thing is such a travesty for british businesses.

[gawdi]

No you cant..... as HM Customs and Excise can sieze it when it comes into the UK


Thats true, but it looks to be a safer option than selling from the UK. My understanding is that post from the EU/ECC/Common Market, is not subject to customs and excise inspection... apart from the cursory once over by tracker dogs....

What is the legal status of the intended recipient though?? Or is this what these new offences of accessing or having on your pc are intended as a catchall legislation?

[mOBSCENE]

They make gang rapes a drugged up gagged women who has previously been tourtured before cooking them up into a stew all washed down with a pint of piss. When they are done with her they take the donkey on ;-)

That was on Channel 4 the other night :)

[Smooch]

Originally Posted by SmithsMedia

They make gang rapes a drugged up gagged women who has previously been tourtured before cooking them up into a stew all washed down with a pint of piss. When they are done with her they take the donkey on ;-)

That was on Channel 4 the other night :)

Aye, they got an Arts Council Grant to fund it as well! Hippies! :wank2:

[Simon]

>>> After seeking advice from the arresting officer on what he could
>>> legally offer for sale, the trader was told that if he distributed,
>>> circulated, sold, let, hired, gave, lent or offered for sale or hire
>>> unclassified or R18 material by any means, including video
>>> messaging, webcam, streaming or download, or if he aided or
>>> conspired with someone else to do the same (meaning to act as an
>>> affiliate) it would be a "racing certainty" that he
>>> would be prosecuted again. He was advised that the only type of material
>>> he
>>> could legally offer for sale is that which has been rated 18 by the
>>> BBFC.

Err, I though the Video Recordings Act 1984 didn't cover downloads and the BBFC didn't rate them anyway?

[Paul Markham]

No, if he was prosecuted under the Obscene publications act it is nothing to do with licenses or sex shops. It has to do with the "deprave and corrupt" test. You cannot charge someone under the OPA for not selling DVDs through a licensed sex shop, that would have to be a charge under the Video recordings Act for R18
Spot on.

He was promoting someone selling illegal content. The question now is how was he promoting them, with text or pictures or video?

[Paul Markham]

No you cant..... as HM Customs and Excise can sieze it when it comes into the UK

Anyway the arresting officer in this case has NO idea what the CPS will, or will not take to trial...
And do what with it?

The customs are only allowed to open parcels if they suspect drugs, The videos are not illegal in the country I live and in the country where the company is based sending the content.

Go read the EEC law.

I can appeal against the seizure and will win. BBFC does not apply in Czech.

This is according to the lawyer that defended a company on a Video Recordings Act charge.

Looks like a few people have already put you right already. I should of read more before answering.

[Dirty Derek]

They purchased DVDs featuring fisting

There is a UK site that many people on this board promote which features anal fisting.

[SmithsMedia]

AFAIK they only seize material that is well outside BBFC guidelines as it is perfectly legal for any punter in the uk to order DVDs from abroad so long as they do not feature material on the prohibited list - there are thousands of adult DVDs let thru customs every day, sold by foreign suppliers. This is why the whole sex shop restriction thing is such a travesty for british businesses.


they would stop it all if they could - its not legal to post porn into the UK its not legal to post porn full stop esp unclassfied dvds. When i go to trade shows I never bring back content or promo cd's dvds that you are given.

I think licencing sex shops is a good idea it lets those who want to run a business do so knowing they are legal and stops anyone opening up selling illegal content then disappearing.

What frustrates me about sex shops is Ann Summers, the banks will take her business though turn their noses up at most other adult sex toy stores.

[Paul Markham]

Err, I though the Video Recordings Act 1984 didn't cover downloads and the BBFC didn't rate them anyway?I think I read the BBFC want to have a voluntary rating system for the Net.

As they charge a lot of money to rate movies I would think they have no legal right to enforce rating.

[mOBSCENE]

they would stop it all if they could - its not legal to post porn into the UK its not legal to post porn full stop esp unclassfied dvds. When i go to trade shows I never bring back content or promo cd's dvds that you are given.


Can you point out the exact law that says it is illegal to post porn either to or within the UK? Perhaps there is a law on obscene material, but that does not cover most porn as covered by the "deprave and corrupt" test????

[Paul Markham]

Can you point out the exact law that says it is illegal to post porn either to or within the UK? Perhaps there is a law on obscene material, but that does not cover most porn as covered by the "deprave and corrupt" test????
There is a Post office law that covers sending material via the post. Not sure of the exact wording but it covers posting obscene material via the post. I should know it as I've been found guilty under the law.

The Video Recording Act covers all videos and films, except factual and educational. But these exemptions do not include videos with a sexual content. So if you made a movie of an actual news event about teaching it would be exempt under the law, unless you were teaching sex. Then it's included.

TV, Cable and Satellite are watched over by a committee and I forget it's name.

But ask a lawyer if you are involved in the business. I'm not a lawyer, been a defendant a few times though.

[strictlybroadband]

Spot on.

He was promoting someone selling illegal content. The question now is how was he promoting them, with text or pictures or video?

Not relevant - simply linking is enough.

[strictlybroadband]

I think I read the BBFC want to have a voluntary rating system for the Net.

As they charge a lot of money to rate movies I would think they have no legal right to enforce rating.

The BBFC can see itself becoming irrelevant. They're looking for reasons to stay in existence (and get paid for watching porn).

[Paul Markham]

The BBFC can see itself becoming irrelevant. They're looking for reasons to stay in existence (and get paid for watching porn).
Porn is a very tiny part of what they do. The certificate every movie and DVD sold or shown in a cinema in the UK. By law, long way from being irrelevant.

They would probably like to loose porn as it's been more trouble than it's worth.

[strictlybroadband]

Porn is a very tiny part of what they do. The certificate every movie and DVD sold or shown in a cinema in the UK.

You think that the Internet isn't affecting mainstream movies as much as porn?

In a world where people will soon be able to access every movie, documentary and TV programme via VoD, either the BBFC will need to get mandatory rating on the Internet, or become redundant.

[Pandemos]

From the BBFC's FAQ:

"Can we bring back videos from abroad that are not currently classified?

The Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) makes it illegal to supply any video or DVD within the UK which has not been classified by the BBFC. There are some exceptions to this (eg educational works or works predominantly concerned with sport, religion and music) but all feature films and TV programmes must be classified. Although it is not a customs offence to import an unclassified video or DVD it must be for your personal use only and the content must not breach the prohibition on the importation of indecent and obscene material which reflects other UK law (eg Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, Protection of Children Act 1978). You are therefore entitled to purchase unclassified videos or DVDs whilst abroad, provided they contain no illegal material and are solely for personal use."

[mOBSCENE]

From the BBFC's FAQ:

"Can we bring back videos from abroad that are not currently classified?

The Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) makes it illegal to supply any video or DVD within the UK which has not been classified by the BBFC. There are some exceptions to this (eg educational works or works predominantly concerned with sport, religion and music) but all feature films and TV programmes must be classified. Although it is not a customs offence to import an unclassified video or DVD it must be for your personal use only and the content must not breach the prohibition on the importation of indecent and obscene material which reflects other UK law (eg Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, Protection of Children Act 1978). You are therefore entitled to purchase unclassified videos or DVDs whilst abroad, provided they contain no illegal material and are solely for personal use."

Thanks danbrusca.

So in effect, it is not illegal for punters to import adult DVD's so long as they are not obscene, I would also imagine that if they use the OPA as the obscenity yardstick, it would not make it illegal per se to post porn within the uk (only to supply for gain), so for example if you posted a video of you and your wife having sex it would not be obscene and therefore legal to post, but if you posted a video of you and your wife enjoying scat play, it might be considered illegal (but of course they would have to prove it would be likely to deprave and corrupt its likely audience,ie the recipient, and if it's likely audience was a scat connoisseur, it would not deprave and corrupt him as he was already depraved and corrupt, so it could not be considered obscene).

Gotta love the law :(

[Paul Markham]

From the BBFC's FAQ:

"Can we bring back videos from abroad that are not currently classified?

The Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) makes it illegal to supply any video or DVD within the UK which has not been classified by the BBFC. There are some exceptions to this (eg educational works or works predominantly concerned with sport, religion and music) but all feature films and TV programmes must be classified. Although it is not a customs offence to import an unclassified video or DVD it must be for your personal use only and the content must not breach the prohibition on the importation of indecent and obscene material which reflects other UK law (eg Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, Protection of Children Act 1978). You are therefore entitled to purchase unclassified videos or DVDs whilst abroad, provided they contain no illegal material and are solely for personal use."Which means I can sell a DVD to a guy in the UK, but if you're in the UK you can't.

strictlybroadband I'm sure I read that cinemas put more bums into more seats last year than ever before. Which accounts for them building more Multiplex's.

[xcite-tv]

And do what with it?

The customs are only allowed to open parcels if they suspect drugs, The videos are not illegal in the country I live and in the country where the company is based sending the content.

Go read the EEC law.

I can appeal against the seizure and will win. BBFC does not apply in Czech.

This is according to the lawyer that defended a company on a Video Recordings Act charge.

Looks like a few people have already put you right already. I should of read more before answering.

You saying HM Customs are only allowed to open a package if it contains drugs ?????

fucking nonsense.... They actively open and destroy any package that contains illigal substances or banned/offensive material

They even destroy illegally imported alcohol and cigarettes and sieze the vehicles of the people who are illegally importing them and sell or destroy them also

maybe you should read more !!!!

[daveydude]

So what about the "webcam, streaming or download" part?

[Pandemos]

So what about the "webcam, streaming or download" part?

Remember we're talking about the OPA here, so obscene material disseminated by webcam, streaming or download is a legitimate target.

[Paul Markham]

You saying HM Customs are only allowed to open a package if it contains drugs ?????

fucking nonsense.... They actively open and destroy any package that contains illigal substances or banned/offensive material

They even destroy illegally imported alcohol and cigarettes and sieze the vehicles of the people who are illegally importing them and sell or destroy them also

maybe you should read more !!!!
According to the information given to me by a lawyer. We are talking about opening parcels. I would imagine it would also cover bombs. Not talking about seizing stuff in the back of vans.

But even that has been very successfully challenged.

So do you admit you are wrong about the videos?

If it's legal here I can sell it to you, but you can't sell it to the guy who lives next door.

[Kinky John]

Or get a legal business set up overseas.what he said

[Merlin]

I assume you're talking about actual physical DVDs and videos not downloaded porn movies? Do people still buy the physical DVDs now? What is the police attitude to affiliates of downloaded porn vids?

[Pandemos]

I assume you're talking about actual physical DVDs and videos not downloaded porn movies? Do people still buy the physical DVDs now? What is the police attitude to affiliates of downloaded porn vids?

As far as the OPA goes, there is no distinction.

[Merlin]

As far as the OPA goes, there is no distinction.

Well, agreed ... but all publications are subject to that. What we're talking about here is classification of movies. Most porn sites don't classify their porn movies so by implication all UK affiliates of these download sites are guilty. Yeah?

Thought for the day - wouldn't it be better if the police spent more time going after people who want to do horrible things to people (like terrorists) rather than purveyors of porn which shows people doing nice things to one another? Or is that naive?

[mOBSCENE]

Well, agreed ... but all publications are subject to that. What we're talking about here is classification of movies. Most porn sites don't classify their porn movies so by implication all UK affiliates of these download sites are guilty. Yeah?

Thought for the day - wouldn't it be better if the police spent more time going after people who want to do horrible things to people (like terrorists) rather than purveyors of porn which shows people doing nice things to one another? Or is that naive?

Second point, indeed, but they get a budget and 2-3 coppers are told to go after porn, and given some big computers. It keeps the moral minority happy that they are doing their bit about the tide of filth

First point, possibly, but guilty of what? Under OPA only if the downloaded material is obscene, under the Video Recordings act, I don't know, it's vague, I think it really can only apply to material goods, cinema etc, not the net. If there is a case where someone has been prosecuted under the video recordings act for internet material I've not heard of it.

[Paul Markham]

Well, agreed ... but all publications are subject to that. What we're talking about here is classification of movies. Most porn sites don't classify their porn movies so by implication all UK affiliates of these download sites are guilty. Yeah?

Thought for the day - wouldn't it be better if the police spent more time going after people who want to do horrible things to people (like terrorists) rather than purveyors of porn which shows people doing nice things to one another? Or is that naive?
Take off your tin foil hat and read the thread properly.

[Merlin]

Take off your tin foil hat and read the thread properly.

"Tin foil hat". Not an expression I'm familier with. Sorry.

As for reading the thread, I have. I'd asked a sort of rhetorical question further up about downloaded movies as compared with physical dvds. I was responding to members comments about that. Sorry if you'd missed that.

[xcite-tv]

So do you admit you are wrong about the videos?




No

I know someone who had a DVD siezed and destroyed by HM customs the other day
and it was a straight porno nothing offensive

[mOBSCENE]

No

I know someone who had a DVD siezed and destroyed by HM customs the other day
and it was a straight porno nothing offensive

Then they have broken their own guidlines as published on the hmrc customs site, see http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD_009828&propertyType=document

Prohibited goods (goods which are banned completely):

* unlicensed drugs, such as heroin, morphine, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD and cannabis. Though cannabis now a Class C drug in the UK, bringing it into the UK is still illegal and may result in seizure and prosecution
* offensive weapons, such as flick knives, butterfly knives, push daggers, belt-buckle knives, death stars, swordsticks, knives disguised as everyday objects, knuckledusters, blowpipes, spring-operated telescopic truncheons, and some martial arts equipment
* indecent and obscene material featuring children, such as books, magazines, films, videos, DVDs and software
* pornographic material, other than that which depicts the type of consensual sexual activity between adults which can be legally purchased in the UK
* obscene material, depicting extreme violence
* counterfeit and pirated goods, and goods that infringe patents when brought into the UK from outside the UK (such as watches, clocks and CDs, and any goods with false marks of their origin) and
* meat, milk and other animal products.

[Paul Markham]

"Tin foil hat". Not an expression I'm familier with. Sorry.

As for reading the thread, I have. I'd asked a sort of rhetorical question further up about downloaded movies as compared with physical dvds. I was responding to members comments about that. Sorry if you'd missed that.
Read the thread again then.

THE INTERNET IS NOT COVERED IN THE VIDEO RECORDING ACT.

Which means it does not matter if the video is classified or not, it's called a "Loop Hole".

However it's still subject to the Obscene Publications Act.

xcite-tv obviously then your friend needed to tell them to go take a running jump. If he actually exists.

What did they destroy it for, it was not obscene and it's not an offence to purchase an un certificated video, the offence is in selling it and as the seller is not based in the UK where is the offence?

[Richard]

Read the thread again then.

THE INTERNET IS NOT COVERED IN THE VIDEO RECORDING ACT.

Which means it does not matter if the video is classified or not, it's called a "Loop Hole".

However it's still subject to the Obscene Publications Act.

xcite-tv obviously then your friend needed to tell them to go take a running jump. If he actually exists.

What did they destroy it for, it was not obscene and it's not an offence to purchase an un certificated video, the offence is in selling it and as the seller is not based in the UK where is the offence?


You're becoming a grumpy old man, Paul.

A shame.

[xcite-tv]

xcite-tv obviously then your friend needed to tell them to go take a running jump. If he actually exists.

What did they destroy it for, it was not obscene and it's not an offence to purchase an un certificated video, the offence is in selling it and as the seller is not based in the UK where is the offence?



If he actually exists ???

I know i have no friends I made it up

how could my "friend" tell them to take a running jump when they had siezed and destroyed it already...and you do not try and get heavy handed with HM customs and excise as they have more powers of search and arrest in this country than the police

The offence is the importation of illegal goods (unclassified video) the buyer can actually be prosecuted as HE is the one importing it not the seller..

I also know someone ... (yes thats two) who has a site selling unclassified DVD and Video* that is based abroad (like most sites) but lives in the UK and sends from the UK and i suspect there are a lot doing that...


"If he exsits" .... what a twat

[xcite-tv]

You're becoming a grumpy old man, Paul.

A shame.


Becoming ????

[Pandemos]

The offence is the importation of illegal goods (unclassified video) the buyer can actually be prosecuted as HE is the one importing it not the seller.

There's only an offence if the video contravenes the OPA.

[mOBSCENE]

There's only an offence if the video contravenes the OPA.

Exactly, the links from both the BBFC website and HM Customs and excise say in plain English the average person can import an unclassified DVD as long as it does not contain material outside the BBFC guidelines.

The issue is when DVDs are imported for gain, not for personal use

[Merlin]

Becoming ????

:lmfao: :onguard:

[Paul Markham]

If he actually exists ???

I know i have no friends I made it up

how could my "friend" tell them to take a running jump when they had siezed and destroyed it already...and you do not try and get heavy handed with HM customs and excise as they have more powers of search and arrest in this country than the police

The offence is the importation of illegal goods (unclassified video) the buyer can actually be prosecuted as HE is the one importing it not the seller..

"If he exsits" .... what a twatOk he exists and the custom's had him over. They probably passed the video around the office.

If the video was legal in the country he bought it in the Customs were over stepping their authority by a long way. Look up EEC laws. Exceptions are things illegal to import. Legal porn is not one of those.

You know nothing about this, where as I've enquired to a lawyer and considered importing videos. And actually been stopped by the custom before and after the Video Recordings Act. I was bringing back my own porno videos I made for the US market. Trust me the Customs don't have a leg to stand on and they know it.

Unless it's obscene or intended for resale INSIDE the UK.

I'm not grumpy, just pissed off with fools who prattle on and on about things they know nothing about.

And lastly the video is not illegal, selling it is.

[mOBSCENE]

This is another one of those best ever threads :bandb:

[Paul Markham]

There's only an offence if the video contravenes the OPA.
Stop banging your head against his brick wall. :banghead:

The guidelines have been posted and a fool will know the EEC laws take precedence, but he continues to argue.

Anyone a bit older than 30 might remember Astral Blue, the mail order video company I ran from 1982 to 1995 and will understand I had to be selling to overseas. sometimes videos came back and were opened and checked by Customs, then forwarded on to me. :crown:


:troll:

[Richard]

I'm not grumpy, just pissed off with fools who prattle on and on about things they know nothing about.


If you weren't grumpy, Paul, you would realise the "fools" have no impact on your life and their disagreement with you is not worth the rise in your blood pressure.

You're a grumpy old man.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grumpy

Perhaps "cantankerous" is better :)

Your threads/posts used to be quite insightful and informative, with well reasoned arguments supported by your long and varied experience - though not on this board, I admit. Recently you just seem to be arguing all the time.

Perhaps you need to get laid :D

btw, the EEC became the EU in 1991.

[Merlin]

Perhaps you need to get laid :D



Best suggestion so far.

Lets all go and get laid.... :bonk:

[Paul Markham]

Best suggestion so far.

Lets all go and get laid.... :bonk:
I will fix that problem tonight.

Goodnight girls. :crown:

[Kinky John]

Paul . . totally forgot to Skype you over those models sorry mate - just remembered :(

million and one things going on here . . did you get fixed up ?

[Paul Markham]

Paul . . totally forgot to Skype you over those models sorry mate - just remembered :(

million and one things going on here . . did you get fixed up ?
Nothing fixed yet, hit me up tomorrow.

[Elisha Jade]

After reading this thread I did take a look at the BBFC to see if you could classify downloadable movie clips but I couldn't find anything on there.

[A Priest]

How can sites like strictly broadband and britishporn carry on running with this law in effect then?

[Scottybuzz]

Gentlemen - scary times, scary times indeed.
However lets take a look at some things.

In this thread, we should not be discussing or even pointing out the fact that police should be doing other things like capturing terrorists. Our wavelengths should not be on police policies, there are far smarter people with more influence working on that in other sectors.

Lets also look that I think this was 8 months ago, december by the way, yet we have only heard it in the past few days thanks to our friend the media. Have there been any others who have been caught, as I am pretty sure if the police wanted to catch criminals they would continue, against the same people. Have there been anymore? or was this a one of. But enough policing policy from me.

They are also taking this extremely seriously - 12 officers, 7 o clock in the morning? This wasn't a rap on the wrists. They meant business, maybe to prove a point, or was there something else going down with this guy.

Like someone else said this is the first of a kind, starting of with the bad boys moving down to the semi bad boys as time continues.

As far as i can reading the article and trying to disect my way between the different laws and the internal arguments on this board, I am no closer to finding out the truth from when I first started, except maybe our skins will be saved by the fact he was promoting dirty shit.

or is it because he was sending dvd's in from abroad, which kinda fucks digital downloads.

really i have not answered anything in this thread at all - I apoligise.

[bizarre]

I dunno if this will help anyone, but I have often found the following site helpful:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/

--Alan.