egafd.com

We all know that the BBFC has trendous power -based on the VRA - their minders.
What to do is simple: challenge this though the English Court system until the only recourse left is the European Court of justice wherein one presents a case based on "restriction of trade"
I started this process a few years ago but had to quit having been informed by a very friendly lawyer that it would cost me about ?70,000!
It is not in my nature to quit anything, but ?70 G was/is out of my league.

However, there have been a couple of cases recently where the distributors were found guilty and have lodged appeals. These appeals will take time - as does any legal process involving several Courts.
I believe they will win.
THEN, AH! AH!,
The ones who have benifited from this diabolical R18 rule for so many years will suddenly have to face true competition in the same way that all other retailers/tradesmen do.

"You must be naive if you believe that the BBFC is an independent body"

Not at all. I did state previously that I expected that, behind the scenes, there were lots of funny handshakes, the dangling of gongs, and the evocation of the old school tie, affecting decisions - as with any other establishment institution. What I was saying was that the BBFC was supposed to be and independent body.


"The Video Recordings Act was a government bill brought in by way of a Private Members Bill. PMB's don't usually stand much chance of becoming law but this one went through unopposed,"

What MP or public figures would champion porn? - it would almost be political suicide. The Daily Mail would love it. There may be MP's who are privately sympathetic, but they could never say so in public. Most of the political classes (middle classes) would oppose it. On one side you have your backbench, back to basics, Tory nutcases, and on the other side you have the pretentious, Guardian reading, 'porn is abuse' 'porn demeans wimmin' nutcases. They're all a set of twats who need a slap.

"The Video Recordings Act 1984 is illegal under European law which specifies the free movement of goods and services as a priority in the EC and ought to be repealed."

I think there's a get out clause in there somewhere - to do with individual states being able to opt out of certain things on 'moral' grounds. But since what is, and what isn't, moral is wholly subjective, it seems to me like a right load of old bollocks. I don't know about you, but I take exception to some poncy middleclass fucker presuming to decide for me (with reference to their airy-fairy poncy political and religious beliefs) what is moral and what is not.

Anyhow, if there is a flaw in the Free Trade law regarding video erotica, why hasn't anyone challenged it? And, have you/are you, lobbying your MP about it?


Officer Dibble

If you think your rights as a filmmaker have been breached and your Freedom of Expression not properly allowed then you can write to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and ask them for an application form.

You must state why you think that your rights under Article10 of the European Convention Human Rights have been breached. (ECHR). None of this will cost you a penny. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR.

Mike Freeman

But the UK govt would win, the same way they did when gays practiced consensual extreme s&m on each other and videod it. They were done for causing abh and went to prision, the European Court upheld the punishment. The govt have the right to define laws within their own borders taking morals & social welfare into account. But where they do break european law is seizing any video destined for personal use in the uk, but the credit card transaction was processed legally in another EU country, regardless of whether it's been R18 rated.

ive been told - second hand but directly from the bbfc otherwise, that there is no reason anyone else cant set up there own film classification system here in the uk.

if u think its that crap set ur own board up.

i personally would have trouble going into block buster and not thinking fashonistas was a comedy tho. i never read the jargon on the box. and if R18 becomes 18 u would never know from the box cover that u werent buying some art house film. R 18 means porn not quentin tarantino.

plus if u abolished r18 u would find the major mainstream film companys getting in on the act and producing more high end porn plus high end reality porn thus shoving out the little guy who doesnt produce so many copies with his disk manufactuer and cant get a cheaper production cost in the long run.

its a killer. r18 is OUR safe guard from the big fish.

ps. has anyone ever actually aproached warner bros about making a porn film?

i would like too just to find out there reasons if they said no.

pps. and just after reading that rob black got off his obsenities case in the US has anyone actually challenged the BBFC on a desicion?

i mean beyond trying to talk there way into getting an r18?

Some of my thoughts on your points:

1. Blockbuster would never carry xxx, it's against their policy. They won't carry any movie in US without a rating, even though getting a movie rated is a completely voluntary process. You can just self certify a movie xxx rated. No video stores in the world mix xxx and regular movies together. Stores usually specialise in one or the other or segregate the store so under 18's(or whatever the age is in a country) can't even enter the porn section.

2. The average punter would love bigger fish to move in and doesn't care that R18 is a safeguard for the current crew. Anyone who wants to use censorship to further their future are as bad as the censors and self censorship to stay within their rules is more insidious and damaging than enforced censorship. Look at the opportunities and not try to maintain a cartel. Compete or go under.

3. No established Hollywood company would ever get involved in porn, it would be commercial suicide for WB or Fox to even admit an interest.

4. The laws in the US are totally different to here, they have freedom of expression and a written constitution. We have the ECHR, but it's not as easy to apply. Rob Black was never going to be found guilty, they just wanted to cripple him financially for being a pain in the arse.

Hi Nachovx,

One does not expect to be able to commit a crime when making a film. The ECHR has to drawn the line someone and this is when real physical harm has been committed. This why the European Court upheld the English Law in the Spanner case.

This brings me to a point: the only reason for censorship in Europe(of which we are a member state) is where real physical harm takes place.
Mike Freeman.