egafd.com

Yes, I've seen that blog, as it's the one I refer to in my post. The problem is, though, that he doesn't give an official source for the supposed list. He says the new regulations (i.e. the Statutory Instrument - it's important that it is one, rather than a new bill/legislation) shift the standard from the CPS's OPA guidance to the BBFC's "lower" R18 standard, and yet the BBFC - however obliquely - are clearly trying to distance themselves from the list as published in the press. Yes, some things on it always were restricted from R18 releases, but then a lot of things clearly weren't.

Instead the lawyer says: "According to Nikki Whiplash, a regulated video on demand service provider who attended a recent ATVOD and BBFC led seminar on the impact of the new regulations, the following sexual activities will be deemed either acceptable or unacceptable at R18 classification level..." No disrespect to Nikki Whiplash, but relying on hearsay from a single secondary source isn't very convincing.

To a certain degree I think the level of confusion suits those who do want more censorship, because it's clear that a lot of people - including those in the industry - have taken the reported supposed list at face value, some of whom have changed their business practices accordingly (this thread being prompted by such an instance). The reality is, though, that nobody can be bound in advance by rules by an authority supposedly in a position to exercise them, if that authority doesn't publish those rules in the first place. Clearly it's not the BBFC, and even ATVOD's website says they haven't re-formulated their rules yet.

Confusion reigns.

Stripey: "No disrespect to Nikki Whiplash, but relying on hearsay from a single secondary source isn't very convincing"

As long as he keeps winning the cases on appeal does that matter?

The statutory instrument he is referring to is ATVOD



Stripey: "To a certain degree I think the level of confusion suits those who do want more censorship, because it's clear that a lot of people - including those in the industry - have taken the reported supposed list at face value"

I totally agree with you. In fact I think the confusion is more to get people to comply. ATVOD are clearly not being transparent anymore because that's giving people the ammunition to shoot them with

Try calling them and you will be made to feel like you are in breach of the law they pushed forward to protect the kids that doesnt protect kids at all

Which sites have closed down due to these new regulations? Yes, UK sites have pretended to be up and running, but in fact are closed down. This has nothing to do with these new regulations. They've closed down because customer became bored with the same old crap being offered up.

In fact if you search properly you'll still see UK sites flourishing - as they aren't concerned about these new regulations affecting them. Sutcliffe is still up and running producing his stuff; Sneakypee is still running; Suburban Amateurs is still running; Vintage Flash/Pantyhosed4U is still running; Nylon Stocking Sluts is still running; Michelle Thorne's site is still running; Messy Angel is still running; Garry's Girls is still running - and on the very day these new regulations came into force Glimpse-It announced they were relaunching. So, what's all the fuss about?

Lady Sonia's site has gone super soft. Offering an extra year for free for current subscribers for what can best be described as lingerie and art nude videos

I was google an adult actress ans she was doing "the regular" stuff but she was doing also some fetish stuff for the site Kinky Kicks.

So I got a list on google of the same fetish style sites.

and I checked out some of those sites and Kinky Kicks is still operational and another same fetish site Ballbusting Universe is closed.

So Kinky Kicks is British and the content is on a server outside of the UK and Ballbusting Universe not.

Boobs will be banned next unless there is a kid on the end of a nipple sucking for food.

They've already tried banning that one out of disgust because its all about protecting the kids Ron.

Sod the fact its mother needs to feed it for it to live we have to protect it beccause a naked breast is pornogrpaphic and a kid on it is just... illegal!. Its disgusting!!!! !laugh!

I know mate its world gone mad shit

Fear the titties! Theyre gonna getchhaaaaa!

People need to be rewired from the Vicotorian era of deep seated judeo-christian guilt

"Sod the fact its mother needs to feed it for it to live we have to protect it beccause a naked breast is pornogrpaphic and a kid on it is just... illegal!. Its disgusting!!!!"

Mate, are you drunk or something ? I can't even make sense of that.

one eyed jack: "As long as he keeps winning the cases on appeal does that matter?"

It would be better if the cases never went to court in the first place. It's also not cynical to point out that that lawyers benefit from such confusion, as well, otherwise they'd have not work/income from such cases.

one eyed jack: "The statutory instrument he is referring to is ATVOD http://www.atvod.co.uk/

http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultatio ... s-guidance "

No, this is the SI, and it is this that has the force of law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014 ... 916_en.pdf

Whatever version of rules ATVOD come up with, they have to conform with the BBFC, who have already indicated that the "banned list" isn't theirs. If ATVOD chose to be more restrictive, it'll leave them open to legal challenge. The question is whose wallet is big enough?