Re: an alternative ....
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2001 2:38 pm
> the comment you paraphrase from a supposed customs officer
> via aft is plain wrong, if made recently.
Not at all. You misunderstand it. See below..
> hmc&e now permit entry of all video material that is
> compliant with the bbfc's guidelines on r18 certificated
> videos.
I think we all know this, here. What does that have to do with what I was saying? I was pointing out the difference between where customs feel the material contravenes those guidelines (eg. pee/poo, "hard" s&m, fisting, group gay sex, etc. etc.) - in which case they will merely confiscate the goods - and where they have intercepted material involving children or animals - in which case according to the (imho fairly credible, as far as being a C&E) poster to aftvx, customs will initiate a prosecution.
I note the difference because a prosecution is quite a different matter than just getting a letter informing you of confiscation and holding no threat of any legal action.
> via aft is plain wrong, if made recently.
Not at all. You misunderstand it. See below..
> hmc&e now permit entry of all video material that is
> compliant with the bbfc's guidelines on r18 certificated
> videos.
I think we all know this, here. What does that have to do with what I was saying? I was pointing out the difference between where customs feel the material contravenes those guidelines (eg. pee/poo, "hard" s&m, fisting, group gay sex, etc. etc.) - in which case they will merely confiscate the goods - and where they have intercepted material involving children or animals - in which case according to the (imho fairly credible, as far as being a C&E) poster to aftvx, customs will initiate a prosecution.
I note the difference because a prosecution is quite a different matter than just getting a letter informing you of confiscation and holding no threat of any legal action.