Uk customs seizure update

[zigsuk]

MFX have said they're willing to have another go at sending my order again if I wish, which is very good of them as it isn't their fault.

They did ask me if I have another address to send it to as this might be safer, however I don't.
Is it worth asking them to re-send to the same address? Is it even more likely to be intercepted than it was he first time?
I expect I will have nothing to lose by trying? I assume I won't get in any more trouble if a second delivery is intercepted?
Any advice appreciated!

[jj]

Ask them to despatch each title separately, and on several days.
Might increase your chances.

[jobbydealer]

My understanding is that you wish to import 'scat' into the UK. If that is correct then customs have grounds to stop the delivery taking place.

When your goods are being stopped by C & E they are saying that in their opinion the goods are obscene and are willing to test the matter under Sec 3 of the OPA.

A Sec 3 trial is a strange affair, in that it the material goods are tried and not the person. Therefore the court has to decide without help or hindrance from the C & E as to whether or not the goods are obscene.

If the court decides that the goods are obscene then the goods are destroyed and that is the end of the matter.

Having said that, if you receive a Sec 3 notice you can elect to carry on publishing (that is importing) the material and with reference to Hansard can request that the test is put to a jury under Sec 2.

If you elect a Sec 2 trial then the case asks the Crown whether the material is obscene. In a case of this type, brought by C & E, they are now asking the jury to take the test.

Only the jury can decide the outcome. Any thoughts that the C & E, the Police or the Judge himself, are not allowed. No one in a Sec 2 trial is allowed to influence the minds of a juror.

If the jury say no, this is not obscene - then you win. If they say yes - then you go to jail.

Simple as that.

Oh, and by the way. If you win the case and then import some more, then the C & E can seize the goods and start the whole procedure again.

There is no precedence in OPA law. Each case is different.

[jj]

This seems perverse under any analysis: if a category of 'sex-act' is once viewed as 'not obscene', why carry on squaring the circle ad infinitum at the taxpayers' (great) expense, just to feather the nests of a bunch of excisemen and lawyers?
Not to mention bloody childish..........

[joe king]

'There is no precedence in OPA law. Each case is different'

I am not sure the BBFC would agree with that. They always use advise from the police who seem to have access to a whole boxful of previous cases found 'obscene'.

[Paul Tavener]

The trouble is the whole thing is a bit of a lottery. If you are repeatedly prosecuted then eventualy you will come up against a conservative jury and you will loose.

Perhaps occasionaly if lots of cases fail the authorities will back off a bit but this does not happen very often. Yes its unfare and yes its awaste of money but money means little to the morality merchants.

[jobbydealer]

I agree, that at first light it would seem that the circle is being squared but that is because you are looking at the film and not the person who is viewing it!

The OPA concerns itself with the viewer and not the material, so if 1,000 people buy the film the film may be tried 1,000 times.

An absolute waste of tax payers money but that is the law.

[jobbydealer]

Under UK law with regard to the BBFC the fact that a film has an 18 or R18 is no defence against a Sec 2 prosecution should you be taken to court for obscenity.

The BBFC may well take advice from the police but neither they or the police can state with certainty that a film is obscene, under UK law only a jury can make that decision.

Previous cases in Sec 2 trials are not relevant.

Say for instance that in October a film was sent for trial under Sec 2 entitled 'Dog Sex' and the jury found that the film was not obscene.

Then, in November the same film is brought to trial again.

The question is; to whom was it published, not was is on the film.

The simplest way to explain Sec 2 is; who is looking at it.

I sell R18 films to persons over the age of 18 from a licenced sex shop - no problem.

I sell R18 films to primary school children from the playground - there minds are open to corruption - say hello to Sec 2!

The obscentity laws at a first glance may seem vague, but as long as you think before you publish you would be hard pressed to fail the test which is to deprave and corrupt.

[zigsuk]

Well it looks like they have been seized again. MFX very kindly re-sent them last Tuesday. In my past experience they have always arrived in less than a week. Here we are on Wednesday and I'm still waiting.
I expect instead I shall be getting the letter from C & E instead.

Looks like I shall have to stick with what I've got or start downloading instead. At least they can't stop that - yet!

I'm not yet on broadband, but without it downloading a movie is impossible. Is it worth getting? How long does it take to download a sixty minute movie, for example, and is the picture quality ok?

[joe king]