But if you were to object, I suppose you could make a case that several movies directed by Kylie Ireland have been passed by the BBFC at R18 in the UK, albeit with cuts from around 2-9 minutes in each case, therefore the material you've ordered is broadly in keeping with material permitted in the UK.

It's interesting to see the reasons for the cuts to these movies are variously justified by the "current interpretation" of the Obscene Publications act 1959, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and by BBFC guidelines. Further, I continue to find it quite puzzling that the actions of HM Revenue & Customs, i.e. a government department, with regard to seizing "obscene" material are not dictated by legislation, but by a subjective interpretation of the guidelines of a non-governmental organisation whose policies and guidelines are, equally, entirely subjective, largely based on an intellectual conceit about potential harm to an audience, and the legislation they fall back on is completely out of date with contemporary channels of distribution for adult media.

I'd love to see another legal challenge akin to the case which opened up the R18 market to the current state but I fear that there's every chance things could go in the opposite direction.

[Link]

Thanks so much for your comments. I think i'll just let it go and wave bye bye to a few quid and what looked like a couple of good movies. I just cecked the BBFC web site for Twisted As Fuck and there is no record so I suppose I won't even get to see a cut version.

Never mind.

tdp

[Link]

I had one of those a while back - title I ordered included "lavatorial practices" , as their guidlines term it (I mean liquid btw not scat) and shallow fistings.

I chalked it down to bad experience and heard no more.

www.makepovertyhistory.org

[Link]

Sadly, until such time as UK citizens are allowed to view whatever consensual adult material they wish, it is always a risk when it comes to Customs. With the current proposals to criminals the mere possession of so-called ‘extreme porn’, that the Westminster Government seems determined to inflict upon England & Wales (& Northern Ireland? - the Scottish Government have responsibility for this in Scotland, and claim not to have come to a decision yet on whether to proceed), the ideal seems further away than ever!

Check out Melon Farmers (Government Censorship section) for further info.

Edited by - struan on 11/19/2006 7:48:01 AM

[Link]

www.makepovertyhistory.org

[Link]

As usual, Melon Farmers ('Extreme Porn' section) for further info.

Edited by - struan on 11/19/2006 7:41:47 AM

[Link]

Let's hope it doesn't go through :-(

www.makepovertyhistory.org

[Link]

www.makepovertyhistory.org

[Link]

Back to Struan's point about the potential attempt to censor "extreme" porn, we can only wonder just how this will be defined in law, given that the laws Customs use just now are remarkably anachronistic.

As a point of interest, the page on the HMRC web site which tells us how they define what's obscene refers to the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (yes, that's 18 76):

"The prohibition on the import of indecent and obscene material is contained in section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. It prohibits ‘indecent or obscene prints, paintings, photographs, books, cards, lithographic or other engravings, or any other indecent or obscene articles’ and is maintained on behalf of the Home Office."

Obscene adult material is defined thus:
"Obscene material is any visual material including drawings, paintings and cartoons that contain explicit depictions of certain sexual acts, rape and bestiality, cruelty to animals and excessive violence towards humans. An act is likely to be obscene if it is explicit and can be clearly seen."

That's virtually a cover-all description, and uses what I can only assume to be intentionally vague language (e.g. "Certain sexual acts").

Interestingly no mention is actually made of the BBFC guidelines nor of how these definitions or policies based on them could easily apply to material quite readily and legally available in the UK, from porn to violent and sexually explicit films such as Baise-moi.

As the phrase BBFC appears not to even be mentioned in the HMRC site, does this mean that the often-made repeated belief (viz, that HMRC are using the BBFC guidelines as guidance on what is to be permitted) is one held in error?

Edited by - Gabriel Nine on 11/20/2006 5:09:15 PM

[Link]

When the BBFC were forced to legalise some HC at R18 in 2000, Customs confirmed that they would revise their guidelines as follows:-

Pornography (Updated Guidelines since Autumn 2000)
Here is a letter Customs sent when outlining their new guidelines from 2000

I can confirm that customs has now revised its criteria for assessment of obscene material. This follows a judgement by the court of appeal which led the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to publish new guidelines for its issue of R18 certificates. Customs will therefore no longer seize material depicting sexual activity between consenting adults which falls within the BBFC published guidelines. This will avoid conflict with The Human Rights Act, and existing European legislation and will sustain our policy of seeking to maintain common standards as accepted by the courts, and other enforcement agencies.
Sexual acts which are excluded from the BBFC criteria for R18 certification will continue to be considered obscene. This includes anal and vaginal fisting, urination, defaecation, sado masochism and bondage. We will also maintain controls on material involving children or animals, and also material depicting rape, excessive violence or animal cruelty.

This is taken from the Melon Farmers’ site, but I have a copy of the original letter, so can confirm its authenticity.

Re ‘Extreme Porn’ criminalisation, an Epetiton has just been set up by Backlash, an umbrella organisation for those who oppose the proposals, and can be found here:

'Violent Porn' Epetition

I will post in the Main forum about this as well, for wider exposure.

[Link]

Jacco

PS: it's "liable to deprave and corrupt" not "likely ...", I should know

Edited by - jacco on 11/20/2006 8:20:28 PM

[Link]

"an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."

Edited by - struan on 11/21/2006 7:12:43 PM

[Link]