egafd.com

> 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.

> I would also add that we're pretty much off-topic, here,
> unless you can name the *British* female performers... No,
> forget I said that, please don't! I don't even want to think
> about it!

And the A in BGAFD is definitely "Adult" ... not "Animal"

ordered when rocco meets kelly - took 8 days
good stuff

i'm dosed up on various flu medications, so apologies if my brain is even less able to follow a train of than usual. i've read your previous post back and can't see any mention of, "pee/poo, "hard" s&m, fisting, group gay sex, etc. etc."

your summation of what the c&e officer said goes:- "the normal customs procedure is to confiscate tapes and then wait for the addressee to initiate legal action to recover them".

if, instead, it had read:- "the normal customs procedure is to confiscate tapes which fall outside r18 guidelines and then wait for the addressee to initiate legal action to recover them", i wouldn't have made a post.

sorry, if i'm still getting hold of the wrong end of the stick but as yourself and phil k. have suggested, it's not really much of a topic for this forum anyway.

I just assumed that we were all up-to-date about the customs guidelines. I was drawing a distinction between "normal" seizures and ones where they prosecute. The question of what guidelines determine the "normal" seizures is pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. You wouldnt't take my phrasing to indicate, for example, that customs seize *all* tapes (inc Sound of Music, etc.) they find, now would you? No. I was talking, by implication, exclusively about the cases where they have already made the decision to act. See?

Sorry about the excessive reply, I just can't bear to be misunderstood! FWIW, here's my post trying to make sense of the semi-literate customs officer

Agree about the off-topic.

Get well

i'm not very relaxed about being misunderstood, either.

i guess you wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with us.

i hereby declare this thread well and truly interred!