(AD) Jennifer Brooks is retiring from spanking, closing HotSpankings.
Jen
I am retiring from the spanking business and closing down my company,
Brooks Applications and HotSpankings.com. Last day is March 31, 2009!
I am having a BLOW OUT SALE on all spanking merchandise, everything
must go! DVD's are 1/2 price! Spanking Magazines are $5! VHS tapes are
$10!! Please come visit my site and grab yourself some great spanking
stuff at rock bottom prices. I am selling my house (it goes on the
market this weekend!) and I am moving. All inventory must go!
http://www.hotspankings.com
A huge "THANK YOU!" to everyone who has been part of my spanking life
over the years, it has been a great ride, I will miss you all I
appreciate and cherish your friendships and love, support and
conversations that we have shared over these years! The very happiest
spanking times to each and every one of you. Go after your spanking
dreams and make them a reality, you deserve to be happy!
Jennifer Brooks
Brooks Applications
Jennifer Brooks
Brooks Applications
PO Box 675750
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Phone 858-759-8706
FAX 858-759-2226
Website http://www.hotspankings.com
Email: Jenn...@hotspankings.com
__________________
Brian Downstairs
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
If you send me pictures, you deserve a spanking!
"Jen" <Broo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8cf2e7cb-933b-4897...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Alex Birch
retiring from the job. It just ain't done! Seriously though, Jennifer, may
I wish you a happy retirement and thanks for bringing so much pleasure to so
many people over the years through everything you have done within the
'kink'.
To say you will be greatly missed is a massive understatement. I wish you
the very best of everything in the future.
Alex
spanking
domino
wrote:
>Spanking friends,
>
>I am retiring from the spanking business and closing down my company,
>Brooks Applications and HotSpankings.com.
Being on this side of the pond I was never able tobe a customer of
yours, but I'm sorry to hear you're closing down.
I'm hoping it's because you've made a fortune and are retiring to
spend it at leisure rather than through any adverse circumstances.
Wishing you all the best for the future
love
domino
spanking
Tony Elka
domino <dom...@Domin-o.org.uk> wrote:
> Being on this side of the pond I was never able to be a customer of
> yours, but I'm sorry to hear you're closing down.
I'm reasonably confident that Jennifer Brooks has plenty of spanking
video customers in the U.K., just like my company does.
Tony
Bird
This is a story I wrote for the 2008 SSC -- an homage of sorts. It seemed appropriate to repost it.
This is in a form I think of as "radio drama" -- all dialogue with no descriptions ("he demanded" or "she said coyly") and no stage directions except for ellipses to indicate pauses. I trust the voices and all else to the reader's imagination.
LISTS
by Bird
Patrick Dempsey, George Clooney, Scott Martinez, Dan Watters, Orlando Bloom. That's your list?
Anything wrong? Lemme see yours.
OK
Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biehl, Halle Berry, Naomi Watts. And Kate Austen on Lost? She's a character, not a person.
I'd still like to sleep with her.
Like you'd really have a chance of meeting, let alone boinking, her or any of these others.
I know. But the deal is five people that IF it happened, after we're married, we'd each be OK with. So if Halle Berry and I . . .
Hey, it's not funny.
Sorry. You and Halle Berry. Right. I'm so OK with that. No problem.
And McDreamy is panting to do you, right? But if he was, and if I sign off on this list, then no complaint. . . . . But who's this Scott Martinez.
Some guy in accounts. There's no way really. He's disgustingly faithful; he doesn't even flirt with the really pretty girls. Besides, he's getting transferred to Phoenix. But I kinda have a thing for him.
And Dan Watters?
A guy I used to know.
Know?
OK, date.
You dated lots of guys.
He was . . it was special.
You never told me about him.
Like I say, it was special.
But you're telling me now.
Well, we're getting married, and . . . I guess I'm using this list to tell you something.
About him?
About me.
What?
It's hard. I mean, we're pretty good together, you and me, the sex and everything.
He was better?
Not better, just different. Maybe better too.
How?
This is really hard for me to say. But . . . well . . he used to spank me.
Spank you?
Yeah, it was like all these games we'd play. We'd pretend I'd used his car without permission or acted slutty in front of other guys. Sometimes I'd put on this schoolgirl outfit, and he'd be the principal. It'd always end with me over his lap with my panties down and him spanking me.
Hard?
Yeah. My ass would get really red.
Did it hurt?
What do you think? I'd try to squirm away, or I'd put a hand behind me, but he'd just clamp my wrist. Or he'd make me put out my hands and he'd tie them with a silk scarf, and then I'd go back across his lap. Sometimes he used a ruler. God, that stung.
You didn't tell him to stop?
That's the really weird thing. It hurt, but then, I kinda liked it too. It was like I didn't want it, but I wanted it. Does that seem too weird to you? I know we've never talked about this before. But . . .
No, go on.
A couple of times I spanked him. Either way, the sex afterward was just . . . like nothing I've ever. . .
Better than . .
Yeah. I'm really sorry. I can take him off the list.
That's OK. But I want to change something on mine . ... OK, here.
Wait, I can't quite . . . You crossed out Scarlett Johansson, and . . . What's this name? Jennifer something?
Jennifer Brooks.
Who's she?
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-3097E...@88-136-209-74.adslgp.cegetel.net...
Yes but just in case HM Customs and Revenue have a spy planted on SSS we
can't ADMIT to importing spanking videos. Its OK to buy them once they're
here though:) Mad country or what? :)
Alex
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes but just in case HM Customs and Revenue have a spy planted on SSS we
> can't ADMIT to importing spanking videos. Its OK to buy them once they're
> here though:) Mad country or what? :)
It's highly unlikely that a customs spy reading posts in SSS would
connect your email address with your shipping address. And to what end,
just to seize a spanking video?
They're far more concerned with terrorism and narcotics.
Tony
roger419rabbit
>
> It's highly unlikely that a customs spy reading posts in SSS would
> connect your email address with your shipping address. And to what end,
> just to seize a spanking video?
>
> They're far more concerned with terrorism and narcotics.
>
> Tony
The tend not to like videos that are not BBFC approved and have been
known to seize them.... and its possable that a spanking video would not
even get R18 here as they could decide that it "depics a violent sexual
act" and should be banned.....
also they would levy an inordinate level of tax on it regardless even if
they didn't know the content!
Tony Elka
roger419rabbit <roger41...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The tend not to like videos that are not BBFC approved and have been
> known to seize them.... and its possable that a spanking video would not
> even get R18 here as they could decide that it "depics a violent sexual
> act" and should be banned.....
>
> also they would levy an inordinate level of tax on it regardless even if
> they didn't know the content!
Except that doesn't happen.
Tony
Steven
news:gmcppj$bp5$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> The tend not to like videos that are not BBFC approved and have been
> known to seize them.... and its possable that a spanking video would not
> even get R18 here as they could decide that it "depics a violent sexual
> act" and should be banned.....
>
> also they would levy an inordinate level of tax on it regardless even if
> they didn't know the content!
That is really scary stuff, and I can understand why some folks would not
even want to take the risk, even if that risk is a slight one.
Steven (spanking)
Tony Elka
"Steven" <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> wrote:
> That is really scary stuff, and I can understand why some folks would not
> even want to take the risk, even if that risk is a slight one.
"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once."
- William Shakespeare
Tony
spanking adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. Watchmaker steady his delicate hands
for barbecue parties on blood red sands
zprymantis
>
> That is really scary stuff, and I can understand why some folks would
> not even want to take the risk, even if that risk is a slight one.
>
> Steven (spanking)
"A coward attacks from behind an octopus, the truly stupid risk their
freedom purchasing porn oversees."
ooO Julie Shakespeare Janitori Ooo
:)
z
Projected IFR = 9
Steven
<zprym...@smilingwithteeth.com> said:
Young lady, I see a typo here!! Now find it, fix it, and this time,
GET IT RIGHT!!!!
Fondly,
Mr. E JS Grey
--
Update at the NEWS!!!
http://smilingwithteeth.com/news/
wo ning yuan you yi ge zhen zheng de peng you, ye bu yao hen dou xu jia
de cong bai zhe.
zprymantis
> On 2009-02-04 20:43:39 -0500, zprymantis
> <zprym...@smilingwithteeth.com> said:
>
>> On 2009-02-04 17:04:11 -0500, "Steven" <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> said:
>>>
>>> That is really scary stuff, and I can understand why some folks would
>>> not even want to take the risk, even if that risk is a slight one.
>>>
>>> Steven (spanking)
>>
>>
>> "A coward attacks from behind an octopus, the truly stupid risk their
>> freedom purchasing porn oversees."
>>
>> ooO Julie Shakespeare Janitori Ooo
>>
>> :)
>>
>> z
>>
>> Projected IFR = 9
>
> Young lady, I see a typo here!! Now find it, fix it, and this time,
> GET IT RIGHT!!!!
>
> Fondly,
> Mr. E JS Grey
Dear Mr E JS Grey,
I am very sorry about the typo or possibly a spelling error, I want to
be the very best - Secretary - for you. Thank you for your helpful
suggestions.
The word is ... overseAs.
fondly,
zee holloway
projected IFR = 3
--
Spanking New Updates
at the SWT News!
http://smilingwithteeth.com/news/
Steven
<zprym...@smilingwithteeth.com> said:
Very good girl!!! You may take another gold star now.
Happily,
zprymantis
>
> Very good girl!!! You may take another gold star now.
>
> Happily,
> Mr. E JS Grey
Oh Wow!! That makes three for me and one for Julie. :-)
fondly,
zee holloway
--
For a spanking good time!
http://www.smilingwithteeth.com/
domino
<roger41...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>The tend not to like videos that are not BBFC approved and have been
>known to seize them.... and its possable that a spanking video would not
>even get R18 here as they could decide that it "depics a violent sexual
>act" and should be banned.....
>
>also they would levy an inordinate level of tax on it regardless even if
>they didn't know the content!
I know some 'merkins (especially ones in the business of selling
spanking videos) would like to have folk this side of the pond believe
that it's perfectly ok to import spanking videos from the US.
I'm even willing to believe that most people who do buy videos from
overseas manage to do so just fine.
However, a *lot* of folk, including a lot of english people do not
realise how far-reaching the powers are of Her Majesty's Revenue and
Customs Service.
Even before the introduction of the spanking new law regarding extreme
pornographic images, Customs officers had the power to open and
inspect all and any mail coming in from overseas. If they found
anything they deemed to be obscene, they could search your home
without requiring a warrant issued by a court, and seize anything they
believed might be incriminating evidence. That means any videos,
dvds, cds, books, computers etc. Woe betide you if they also found a
bit of puff or anything else.
The new law on Extreme porn came into effect on 26th January in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The MInistry of Justice on 26
NOv 08 said :
The Criminal Justice and immigration Act 2008 introduces a new
offence, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the possession of
extreme pornographic images.
This document provides general information for members of public on
the new offence of possession of extreme pornographic images in Part
5, Sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
These sections are due to come into force on 26th January 2009 in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Anyone interested can go to
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-extreme-offence.htm
and download the pdf and have a read.
Or try reading :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/
Since our 'beloved' government has created other laws (passed becasue
of the fear of the bogeymen terrorists, oh my!) which were almost
immediately corrupted to use against ordinary citizens, I personally
have no confidence that there will not also be mis-uses of this law.
For example - how about the bit that says - well, an image which on
its own is pornographic might be deemed ok if its used in the context
of eg a documentary. But, OTOH, an image from a classified film
*might be deemed pornographic* if it's extracted out of context and
kept for sexual purposes. So a clip out of - I dunno - pick any
mainstream movie that has pix of violence - although available legally
and mainstream could be enough to get you hounded under this brave new
law.
If you want a good laugh - try reading the definition of obscenity...
Volunteers to be the first test case in this law - please form an
orderly queue.
regards
domino
spanking
Tony Elka
domino <dom...@Domin-o.org.uk> wrote:
> I know some 'merkins (especially ones in the business of selling
> spanking videos) would like to have folk this side of the pond believe
> that it's perfectly ok to import spanking videos from the US.
And thousands of them do. With no problems whatsoever.
It's possible that you might actually be enjoying your fear, you're
practically marinating in it. Doing your part to help tyranny too, a
frightened populace is a docile one.
In any case, for those of an anxious temperament, there's always online
downloads, clips4sale, etc.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. underwater, does it matter, antimatter?
nuclear reactor, boom boom boom boom
I guess everything's irrelative
I'm a janitor, oh my genitals
Paul Murphy
>
> Volunteers to be the first test case in this law - please form an
> orderly queue.
>
> regards
> domino
>
> spanking
It would certainly seem that perrsonal freedom has taken a serious hit
in the British Isles. It's being rapidly deconstructed in the USA as
well. And now, we have not only the Bureaucrats of the Beltway
(euphemism for our Federal Government, for readers across the pond). to
concern us. Google is acting more and more like an intelligence
gathering agency. They keep a rrecord of every search you've ever made,
along with identifying information. So, if ever, in a moment of extreme
curiosity about Muslim terrorists, you thought to yourself, "Whatever
are these morons thinking?" Google knows you looked for those sites.
This week, Google announced a new "service," whereby they will tell you
the present location of any cell phone, anywhere on earth. This means
they have access to the records of the phone companies down to the cell
tower level, and one wonders where they got that.
"1984" is a little late in coming, but it seems to be upon us.
Paul
Kevin
(in article <o7uko49h0cmdvf082...@4ax.com>):
> I know some 'merkins (especially ones in the business of selling
> spanking videos) would like to have folk this side of the pond believe
> that it's perfectly ok to import spanking videos from the US.
Speaking from personal experience I had spanking videos from 2 US suppliers
seized by UK customs, ah, those lovely letters they send out, quite frankly I
have no intention of ever buying spanking vids from abroad again, it's not
worth the risk or indeed the cost.
Legal downloads are probably the way to go for unfortunates like me who live
in the UK, I mean download to own and keep not download and view for a few
days/weeks.
--
Kevin
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-3C4B2...@AToulouse-552-1-42-74.w92->
> It's possible that you might actually be enjoying your fear, you're
> practically marinating in it. Doing your part to help tyranny too, a
> frightened populace is a docile one.
>
Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
utter drivel ?. Domino is not marinating in it, she is stating some common
sense facts about British law. And as for videos and your attempt to
display our concerns as fanciful marinating, I can tell you as a victim of
this, that such fears are far from groundless. You have, I believe, never
lived in the UK and have no idea how our laws are enforced. Over 6 years
ago I imported some videos from Amsterdam, one of which was a hard core BDSM
film. ( I reported this on SSS at the time) Why I was selected I will never
know but I suffered a 7am raid on my home and the confiscation of 12
spanking videos - mainly RGE/ Lupus ones which they took exception to. I
was not charged with any offences by the Customs but they refused to return
the videos. I told the Customs they had been purchased legitimately through
British mail order sources and not even imported by me and their response
was 'So sue us'
I understand that , as a spanking businessman, you have a vested interest in
not seeing overseas customers frightened off but that's no reason to mock
perfectly valid concerns from people who actually live in the country under
debate. All you do is sell to it...and your customers carry the risk, not
you.
Alex
spanking
domino
<Corne...@Cabbage.com> wrote:
>"1984" is a little late in coming, but it seems to be upon us.
yes indeed...
domino
spanking
domino
<alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
>utter drivel ?
It's got nothing to do with common sense - it's to do with a personal
vendetta. Anything I say in here, Tony has to jump on... I have him
killfiled now, so I never see what he says except via third parties.
It doesn't surprise me that he is once again pontificating on a
subject on which he knows nothing and on which he declines to do the
research although it's widely reported and commented on in various
official sites. After all, why let the truth get in the way of his
opinion.....
regards
domino
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
> utter drivel ?
Is this your way of saying we disagree?
Tony
spanking adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. A number of slaps on the buttocks delivered in rapid succession,
as for punishment.
Tony Elka
domino <dom...@Domin-o.org.uk> wrote:
> It's got nothing to do with common sense - it's to do with a personal
> vendetta. Anything I say in here, Tony has to jump on... I have him
> killfiled now, so I never see what he says except via third parties.
I rarely reply to your posts. You happened to say something I not only
disagreed with, but have genuine experience with. In this instance,
based upon thousands of transactions, none of which ever led to a
problem for my customers.
And I was quite sincere in my observation that you appear to be enjoying
playing the voice of caution in the face of government oppression. That
sort of thing only adds to a climate of fear and self censorship.
Exactly what they want.
Clearly, you and others disagree. That's to be expected in an open
forum, and should be welcomed.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. A number of slaps on the buttocks delivered in rapid succession,
as for punishment.
6. "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend,
it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie
Tony Elka
Kevin <kevi...@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Speaking from personal experience I had spanking videos from 2 US suppliers
> seized by UK customs, ah, those lovely letters they send out, quite frankly I
> have no intention of ever buying spanking vids from abroad again, it's not
> worth the risk or indeed the cost.
Do you remember who the producers were? I'm betting neither were my
company.
> Legal downloads are probably the way to go for unfortunates like me who live
> in the UK, I mean download to own and keep not download and view for a few
> days/weeks.
That's why I mentioned Clips4Sale earlier in this thread.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. "Rosa sat, so Martin could walk. Martin walked, so Obama
could run. Obama is running, so our children can fly."
-Ed Welch
Alex Birch
Elka says...
>
>In article <gmev2...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> "Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
>> utter drivel ?
>
>
>Is this your way of saying we disagree?
>
from personal experience whereas your mockery of their opinions is based on
nothing but sales returns accounted for 5000 miles away (approx distance of Las
Vegas from our shores, isn't it?)
You are of course free to hold whatever views you like, stupid or not, on
whether residents of Britain are 'marinating in fear' but a few 'IMO's would not
come amiss particularly as your opinion is just that and not based on factual
experience of our legal system or the powers of our Customs.
Alex
spanking
--
'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin
Tony Elka
Alex Birch <birc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <shadowlane-EBB9D...@74.sub-97-136-209.myvzw.com>,
> Tony
> Elka says...
> >
> >Is this your way of saying we disagree?
> >
> No. It's my way of saying residents of the United Kingdom can sometimes speak
> from personal experience whereas your mockery of their opinions is based on
> nothing but sales returns accounted for 5000 miles away (approx distance of
> Las Vegas from our shores, isn't it?)
So the experiences of my thousands of customers in the U.K. don't count?
Tony
spanking adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary
security, deserve neither liberty or security."
- Benjamin Franklin
Steven
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:02:59 -0000, "Alex Birch"
> <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
>> utter drivel ?
>
> It's got nothing to do with common sense - it's to do with a personal
> vendetta. Anything I say in here, Tony has to jump on... I have him
> killfiled now, so I never see what he says except via third parties.
Very wise move Domino. It's like trying to talk sense to a person
suffering from dementia. It's an argument you simply cannot win.
>
> It doesn't surprise me that he is once again pontificating on a
> subject on which he knows nothing and on which he declines to do the
> research although it's widely reported and commented on in various
> official sites. After all, why let the truth get in the way of his
> opinion.....
For some people, they like to choose their own truths, which is
whatever suits their agenda at the time. Obviously it's apparent here
once again. Why take a risk, even a slight one, for something as
unimportant as a spanking video?
>
> regards
> domino
>
> spanking
Hugs and many loving spanks,
Steven
Tony Elka
Steven <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> wrote:
> Very wise move Domino. It's like trying to talk sense to a person
> suffering from dementia. It's an argument you simply cannot win.
"Psychological projection is the phenomenon whereby one projects
one's own thoughts, motivations, desires, feelings, and so on
onto someone else."
-Dr. Karl R. Wolf
Tony
spanking adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. You can only protect your liberties in this world by
protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free
if I am free. - Clarence Darrow
GrumpyOldPapa
> In article <gmev2m01...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> �"Alex Birch" <alexbi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then talk
> > utter drivel ?
>
> Is this your way of saying we disagree?
>
No, its his way of disparaging anybody who disgrees with the Gospel
According To Saint Alex.
Get used to it.
Papa
spanking
Tony Elka
<cadf4f6b-112f-41a8...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
GrumpyOldPapa <Grumpy...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:45?am, Tony Elka <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
> > In article <gmev2m01...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> > ?"Alex Birch" <alexbi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Tony why do you have occasional periods of lucid common sense and then
> > > talk
> > > utter drivel ?
> >
> > Is this your way of saying we disagree?
> >
>
> No, its his way of disparaging anybody who disgrees with the Gospel
> According To Saint Alex.
>
> Get used to it.
>
> Papa
> spanking
Now, now. It's such a nice day, let's not spoil it.
Tony
spanking –adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by
force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it
can never be recovered. - Dorothy Thompson
Alex Birch
"GrumpyOldPapa" <Grumpy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cadf4f6b-112f-41a8...@y38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> No, its his way of disparaging anybody who disgrees with the Gospel
> According To Saint Alex.
>
Well coming from Pontificating Pete who has the definitive answer to almost
everything, that takes the cake! Am I not justified in suggesting that
those of us who live in the UK might just be more aware of some of its
little legal nasties than a guy who lives in Las Vegas? Even if he is a
video mogul and a legend in his own lunchtime?
Alex
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Well coming from Pontificating Pete who has the definitive answer to almost
> everything, that takes the cake! Am I not justified in suggesting that
> those of us who live in the UK might just be more aware of some of its
> little legal nasties than a guy who lives in Las Vegas? Even if he is a
> video mogul and a legend in his own lunchtime?
You didn't answer me before, when I asked why the experiences of
thousands of UK spanking video customers doesn't count, yet your opinion
does?
Tony
Steven
Alex, this is my take on things, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems to me that both yourself and Domino are saying that there are
these laws on the books that could cause a problem for a citizen should
they purchase certain types of merchandise from overseas that meets
certain criteria as being obscene or violent.
From what I've read here, was your point it's not the probability of
being prosecuted that is in issue? I think you are saying that any
chance, no matter how slight is simply not worth the risk, which to me,
makes this an individual choice, which should in my opinion not be open
to scrutiny by anyone else.
After all, the worst thing in life is to not follow your gut, do
something anyway and then have to face the consequences. You wind up
kicking yourself asking, why didn't I trust my own judgement?
Steven (spanking is as spanking does)
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-370E9...@adsl-99-136-209-74.dsl.tpkaks.sbcglobal.net...
> You didn't answer me before, when I asked why the experiences of
> thousands of UK spanking video customers doesn't count, yet your opinion
> does?
>
I am telling you, from personal experience, that I was one of thousands who
fell foul of the UK laws on importing videos which our authorities consider
to be 'abusive and violent'. I am also confirming that it is not legal to
import films which do not have a BBFC certificate. Those are not opinions
they are facts. It is NOT a legal activity in the UK to import spanking
films. That is NOT to say you will always get either caught or prosecuted -
but neither should you believe that what you are doing carries no threat of
legal sanction.
Now I quite accept that your company may have a very successful record in
selling to the UK - and God forbid that any comment I make should hamper
your British profits in any way - but, though I'm sure you get regular
return orders, you don't KNOW that none of your customers have been
prosecuted, do you?
In any event, the thread was not about 'Shadowlane' products , it was about
Jennifer Brooks originally - whose record, I'm sure is probably equal to
yours. I'm certain that most videos/DVDS DO get through without challenge,
after all the Customs would be overwhelmed if it stopped everything.
Yes it probably is after the 'hard' end of the market , like Lupus and
possibly Mood, where there are severe welts and sometimes blood. But that's
a question of degree. It still does NOT mean that anyone who orders any
spanking film from abroad is free from prosecution. The threat is always
there.
It is therefore the responsibility of the individual to determine if that
risk is worth taking, and I'm sure for thousands of your customers the
answer is 'yes'.
But it ill behoves you, from your ivory tower in Nevada, to pour scorn on
Britons who are aware of our laws a damn sight better than you are. Sure Mr
Big Shot, your thousands of customers show an encouraging piece of evidence
to you. But you're not the whole spanking industry. The thread was not
about you, and the comments were about legitimate concerns by anyone with
sense in the UK. But don't worry, I'm sure your British sales will continue
at a pace. No need to lose any sleep over loss of profits just yet.
Alex
spanking
Rogue the Brozne Firelizard
Tony, given that Customs would have no need to contact you, and your
customers who had their stuff confiscated have a vested interest in not
drawing the wrath off further action, is possible that you sales data
might not actually have relevant data beyond stating that some do take
the risk, and no indication of how big of a risk it is?
--
Boy brats need spanking too
Tony Elka
That wouldn't explain the vast majority of our U.K. video customers
being repeat customers.
There was one customer that had a video confiscated approximately 15
years ago, and he had the courage to go the customs office and demand to
know why, face to face. He left with the property he'd paid for.
Some choose to live in fear, others stand up for themselves.
Tony
spanking - adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. The Rutles: All You Need is Cash
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I am telling you, from personal experience, that I was one of thousands who
> fell foul of the UK laws on importing videos which our authorities consider
> to be 'abusive and violent'.
Do you remember approximately when this was? I'm not looking for an
exact date, just wondering if this was in the first half of the 1990's,
or the second half or since the year 2000? Late 1980's perhaps?
Because I know for a fact that Her Majesty's Customs is far more
concerned with terrorism and narcotics these days.
> Now I quite accept that your company may have a very successful record in
> selling to the UK - and God forbid that any comment I make should hamper
> your British profits in any way - but, though I'm sure you get regular
> return orders, you don't KNOW that none of your customers have been
> prosecuted, do you?
I believe that we would know. My law firm tracks cases specifically
like that. Larry Flynt/Hustler uses them too. We do this for a living
you see.
> But it ill behoves you, from your ivory tower in Nevada, to pour scorn on
> Britons who are aware of our laws a damn sight better than you are. Sure Mr
> Big Shot, your thousands of customers show an encouraging piece of evidence
> to you. But you're not the whole spanking industry. The thread was not
> about you, and the comments were about legitimate concerns by anyone with
> sense in the UK. But don't worry, I'm sure your British sales will continue
> at a pace. No need to lose any sleep over loss of profits just yet.
Ivory tower. Pouring scorn. Mr. Big Shot. Losing sleep over loss of
profits.
Such animosity, Alex.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. A form of physical punishment in which a beating is
applied to the buttocks.
Tony Elka
Steven <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> wrote:
> From what I've read here, was your point it's not the probability of
> being prosecuted that is in issue? I think you are saying that any
> chance, no matter how slight is simply not worth the risk, which to me,
> makes this an individual choice, which should in my opinion not be open
> to scrutiny by anyone else.
Anything said in an open forum is open to scrutiny.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. "A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the
prerogative of the brave." - Mohandas Gandhi
sarah nada
After some back and forth with Alex and others about British customs enforcement
when it comes to spanking videos, Tony wrote:
>There was one customer that had a video confiscated approximately 15
>years ago, and he had the courage to go the customs office and demand to
>know why, face to face. He left with the property he'd paid for.
Good for him. Not everyone is in a position to do that.
>Some choose to live in fear, others stand up for themselves.
Could you sound any more pompous? I'm saying this because I sometimes like you
- you're being a dick.
I don't remember the details, but Alex did have an awful experience with customs
a few years ago, and he did write about it here at the time. Getting your
fucking house raided is no joke.
I don't live in Britain and don't have much interest in spanking videos. But if
I did and did, I probably wouldn't order any that posed any risk whatsoever.
Does that mean I'm a horrible coward whose wretchedness chips away at the rights
and freedoms of the body politic? Maybe a little, but mostly it means I pick my
battles, and that's not one I'd pick.
If you have lots of happy British customers, that's great. But it doesn't make
Alex's experience any less real or less relevant, and I expect you know it.
Sarah
--
- it's hotmail dot com not dot common - spanking -
Tony Elka
sarah nada <circ...@hotmail.common> wrote:
> After some back and forth with Alex and others about British customs
> enforcement
> when it comes to spanking videos, Tony wrote:
>
> >There was one customer that had a video confiscated approximately 15
> >years ago, and he had the courage to go the customs office and demand to
> >know why, face to face. He left with the property he'd paid for.
>
> Good for him. Not everyone is in a position to do that.
>
> >Some choose to live in fear, others stand up for themselves.
>
> Could you sound any more pompous? I'm saying this because I sometimes like
> you - you're being a dick.
Sarah,
I'm sorry you don't care for my tone, I could say the same thing about a
few others in this thread.
I am speaking out in response to those that help oppression by being
advocates for caution. If more people felt the same way, we'd all have
a lot more personal freedom, on both sides of the Atlantic.
Not everyone was "in a position" to help runaway slaves before the civil
war in the USA, or hide their Jewish neighbors from the Gestapo in
Holland. Fortunately, some people know when to say screw the law, and
my personal safety be damned, I'm gonna do what's right.
If they could risk their lives for a principle back then, the rest of us
can stand up and tell our governments to fuck off when it interferes
with our personal freedoms in this day and age.
Best,
Tony
spanking adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. To strike with the open palm, especially on the buttocks.
Steven
for your rights and be brave and fight the good fight. For your
country, for your loved ones and for yourself if the cause be just. To
me, buying a spanking video does not constitute such an urgent need
that I'd be willing to subject myself to possible (no matter how slight
the chance) prosecution at the hands of my government.
Steven (spanking can lead to a sore bottom)
Tony Elka
Steven <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> wrote:
Today it's a fetish or just plain sex video being targeted. Or perhaps
a violent video game. Tomorrow, political speech?
In the 1950's they went after "horror" comics, in the 1980's they
targeted heavy metal music/lyrics.
It was during my lifetime that comedian Lenny Bruce was repeatedly
arrested for "obscenity" while performing his stand-up act in various
clubs. Not in some rural town in Alabama. It happened in New York
City, San Francisco and even Sydney, Australia.
When it comes to standing up for principles, by all means, pick your
battles. Freedom of speech happens to be towards the top of my list of
causes. Sure there's some self-interest in it, but that doesn't account
for all of my motivation, I've always felt strongly about it.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
domino
wrote:
>Does that mean I'm a horrible coward whose wretchedness chips away at the rights
>and freedoms of the body politic? Maybe a little, but mostly it means I pick my
>battles, and that's not one I'd pick.
Indeed - and goodness knows there are battles enough to pick - in the
UK the govt is chipping away at our personal liberty at a rate of
knots, eg Govt are looking to allow detention without charge for up to
58 days (used to be *3*) - or... in the news in the past couple of
weeks - the parents who removed a girl from her school when they
discovered that the school had installed cctvs in the toilets (just in
case, you know, that they suspected illegal activities were going on
in there)
In 2000, we got RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) which
laid out what could and couldn't be done in surveillance. At the
time, it was intended to collect evidence where criminal activity was
being investigated. These powers were extended in the wake of 9/11.
At the time, civil liberty groups and indeed anyone with a brain said
that these powers would be misused and the govt insisted that of
*course* they wouldn't.
Hohohoho - not even ten years later, we have councils using these
powers, not to investigate criminals, but to spy on ordinary citizens
in the hope of netting one or two crims along the way (eg, pet-owners
falling foul of the dog-fouling law!) After all, we're all just
criminals waiting to be discovered.
If we want to battle the govt, we have issues more serious than the
importation of spanking videos...
ANyone interested in the reosion of civil liberties in the uk might
find these articles informative :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2696031/Anti-terrorism-laws-used-to-spy-on-noisy-children.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2342364.0.how_local_councils_use_antiterror_laws_to_spy_on_ordinary_people.php
love
domino
spanking
domino
wrote:
<nods> exactly so - check out what I've just said in reply to Sarah...
love
domino
spanking
love
domino
Steven
>
>
> Today it's a fetish or just plain sex video being targeted. Or perhaps
> a violent video game. Tomorrow, political speech?
>
> In the 1950's they went after "horror" comics, in the 1980's they
> targeted heavy metal music/lyrics.
>
> It was during my lifetime that comedian Lenny Bruce was repeatedly
> arrested for "obscenity" while performing his stand-up act in various
> clubs. Not in some rural town in Alabama. It happened in New York
> City, San Francisco and even Sydney, Australia.
>
> When it comes to standing up for principles, by all means, pick your
> battles. Freedom of speech happens to be towards the top of my list of
> causes. Sure there's some self-interest in it, but that doesn't account
> for all of my motivation, I've always felt strongly about it.
>
> Tony
>
>
Throughout history governments have in one way or another repressed the
governed. We need the brave souls like Lenny Bruce, Jackie Robinson,
and Abraham Lincoln, to name just a few. But most of us are just
regular people and as regular folks most of us would not wish to
challenge our government and be embarrassed. I'm sure those in the UK
would not want it made public they purchased a spanking video from an
overseas vendor and got arrested. To my way of thinking, and only
speaking for myself, I wouldn't take that kind of risk just for a
spanking video.
I wonder what the reaction would be to US vendors of any kind of porn,
be it spanking or otherwise, if a foreign government could prosecute
any foreign vendor for shipping any pornographic tapes to their shores?
Would vendors be brave and risk legal ramifications including
incarceration? My guess is there might be a few, but most of them
would have to comply with the law, whether they liked it or not.
Right now, the risk, and I know it's not a huge risk, still lies with
the purchaser of the products and I would never criticize them for a
decision to not take any chance of winding up in major trouble over it.
Steven (spanking has its own unique flavor)
Tony Elka
Steven <j...@smilingwithteeth.com> wrote:
> I wonder what the reaction would be to US vendors of any kind of porn,
> be it spanking or otherwise, if a foreign government could prosecute
> any foreign vendor for shipping any pornographic tapes to their shores?
> Would vendors be brave and risk legal ramifications including
> incarceration? My guess is there might be a few, but most of them
> would have to comply with the law, whether they liked it or not.
I take that chance every day, in my own country, by shipping spanking
and sex videos to all 50 states. We didn't have much in the way of
obscenity prosecutions during President Clinton's two terms, and I don't
expect the justice department will make it much of a priority during
President Obama's administration either. They'll probably only go after
child porn and bestiality which is fine by me.
But under presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush II, there was plenty of legal
prosecution for obscenity. The producers invariably won in court, but
it's very expensive for a defendant from Los Angeles to defend his gang
bang video in a Kentucky court. Three or four "wins" in a row and he's
probably bankrupt. That was the strategy of the prosecutors, your tax
dollars at work.
Back when we published our magazine Stand Corrected, the owner of the
print factory did six months in a Federal prison, just for printing box
covers for adult videos. He probably could have won in court, but he
pled guilty and took the six month sentence as a deal, to stop the
prosecutor from going after his wife, who didn't even work in the
business. Prosecutors play dirty, they used the same tactic on Tommy
Chong with his glass pipe mail order business, take a plea and we won't
hurt your wife.
You don't have to live in China to know that freedom is a fragile thing.
Tony
Tony Elka
domino <dom...@Domin-o.org.uk> wrote:
> If we want to battle the govt, we have issues more serious than the
> importation of spanking videos...
It's ALL the same battle.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. To strike, with the open palm, especially on the buttocks.
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-803EF...@news.newsguy.com...
> sarah nada <circ...@hotmail.common> wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you sound any more pompous? I'm saying this because I sometimes
>> like
>> you - you're being a dick.
>
>
>
>
> Sarah,
>
> I'm sorry you don't care for my tone, I could say the same thing about a
> few others in this thread.
>
Sarah has got it spot on. The last thing I wanted on this thread was yet
another spat with you. But there are times when you do you sound such a self
righteous dick, putting yourself up as the flagship of human rights, saving
the British from their own 'cowardice'. Do you realize how self satisfied
and pompous you sound? Suggesting that British citizens, whether we like
our laws or not, should sacrifice themselves on the altar of 'liberty' over
a spanking film?
I'm sure you feel strongly about Freedom of Speech and this is an American
mantra that gets chanted over and over as if you are the only people blessed
with it. It exists here - sometimes to the disgust of many - when Mullahs
are free to incite violence against the rest of us. That's a red herring.
We have a law on what the authorities consider 'abusive pornography'. You
may not - but you have other restrictive laws that we don't. In any event
I doubt if many - including you, with all your sanctimonious values - would
feel quite the same about risking a criminal record, if you lived here and
were simply a customer and not a fat cat. It's not quite on the scale of
breaking apartheid or hiding Jews in wartime in the pecking order of brave
humanitarian acts , now is it!!
I doubt if many of my fellow citizens would feel too happy about ending up
with a criminal record - no matter how unlikely YOU think that is - unable
to get a job, having to declare it on every application for any post, simply
on the basis of standing up for Tony Elka's view of how the world ought to
work.
Alex
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Sarah has got it spot on. The last thing I wanted on this thread was yet
> another spat with you.
It's obvious to me that you wanted precisely that.
Tony
spanking -adjective
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-DDD35...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...
> In article <gmjfi...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> "Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sarah has got it spot on. The last thing I wanted on this thread was yet
>> another spat with you.
>
>
>
> It's obvious to me that you wanted precisely that.
>
That's because it confirms what I've always thought. You're an arrogant SOB
who only cares for his own opinion. It's not as if you come to this
discussion from an objective point of view. You're here because you want to
push Shadowlane and its interests at every opportunity. You're a
businessman - why not? But it's equally clear that you haven't the least
interest in what happens to Britons who may get arrested as a result of
buying your or any other spanking films. You're only interested in
protecting your market. Maybe you should be honest enough to say so.
Alex
spanking
sarah nada
>Not everyone was "in a position" to help runaway slaves before the civil
>war in the USA, or hide their Jewish neighbors from the Gestapo in
>Holland. Fortunately, some people know when to say screw the law, and
>my personal safety be damned, I'm gonna do what's right.
Apples and howitzers - a totally fatuous comparison.
There are plenty of causes and principles for which I'd risk my freedom and
safety, but this is not one of them.
A more apt comparison: I think the prohibition of marijuana is stupid and
harmful, but I'm not planning to walk down the street smoking a fatty and
screaming fuck the police anytime soon.
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> That's because it confirms what I've always thought. You're an arrogant SOB
> who only cares for his own opinion. It's not as if you come to this
> discussion from an objective point of view. You're here because you want to
> push Shadowlane and its interests at every opportunity.
Scarcely every opportunity. I certainly didn't promote my own spanking
video business in a recent discussion about artificial intelligence. Or
the numerous political threads that frequently pop up in here.
And I don't feel as strongly as I do about this issue because of
arrogance. My passion about opposing government censorship is quite
genuine.
> You're a
> businessman - why not? But it's equally clear that you haven't the least
> interest in what happens to Britons who may get arrested as a result of
> buying your or any other spanking films. You're only interested in
> protecting your market. Maybe you should be honest enough to say so.
I'm honest enough to say that none of the thousands of customers we have
in the UK have ever been arrested for purchasing our videos, nor do I
expect they ever will be. And you're not in a position to honestly say
you understand my motivations completely. Unless you're claiming
psychic powers.
And if you were intellectually honest enough to go back and re-read
every posting you've directed to me in this thread, and my every reply,
you'd see that I've been remarkably pleasant and polite with you,
despite your numerous personal insults.
As I will continue to be. You're not a bad person, but you sure as heck
have some serious personal aggression towards me.
Tony
Tony Elka
sarah nada <circ...@hotmail.common> wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
> >Not everyone was "in a position" to help runaway slaves before the civil
> >war in the USA, or hide their Jewish neighbors from the Gestapo in
> >Holland. Fortunately, some people know when to say screw the law, and
> >my personal safety be damned, I'm gonna do what's right.
>
> Apples and howitzers - a totally fatuous comparison.
I'm not comparing the specific issues, that's not what my analogy was
about. As a matter of fact, it's that very difference in the level of
consequences involved that makes resistance to current government
censorship that much more within everyone's abilities.
So I'll say it again. If brave souls in the past could defy their
governments and risk their freedom and lives doing so (like American
Colonists telling the Crown to get stuffed) we can certainly stand up
for our rights to read and view what we want. It can be a spanking
video today, or the right of Lenny Bruce to speak his mind on a public
stage as recently as 1965. Historically, that wasn't so very long ago.
> There are plenty of causes and principles for which I'd risk my freedom and
> safety, but this is not one of them.
As I said to Domino in a previous posting, it's ALL the same battle,
it's just being fought on different fronts.
> A more apt comparison: I think the prohibition of marijuana is stupid and
> harmful, but I'm not planning to walk down the street smoking a fatty and
> screaming fuck the police anytime soon.
I agree, because that tactic would get you arrested without furthering
the cause in any useful way. A better approach would have been to
support the groups that provided legal aid and support to cancer
patients that were arrested for using marijuana for relief from the
misery of chemotherapy, which was happening as recently as the year
2002. A lot of us did that and now in California and other states, we
have legal medical marijuana.
Tony
GrumpyOldPapa
>>> Today it's a fetish or just plain sex video being targeted. �Or perhaps a violent video game. �Tomorrow, political speech?<<<
It's already happening. Nancy Pelosi and her accomplics are trying to
pass laws that will let them ban talk radio. Fox News will be next.
>>> In the 1950's they went after "horror" comics, in the 1980's they targeted heavy metal music/lyrics.<<<
Yes, in the 50's they were also trying to ban comic book violence and
sexual suggestiveness. Anything but Disney was considered
"inappropriate." In my father's youth it was "dime novels" and
"French Post cards."
>>> It was during my lifetime that comedian Lenny Bruce was repeatedly arrested for "obscenity" while performing his stand-up act in various clubs. �Not in some rural town in Alabama. �It happened in New York City, San Francisco and even Sydney, Australia.<<<
And in the past 10 years, Andy Rooney was suspended for saying that
there was too much momosexual sex going on - in the midst of the AIDS
epidemic.
>>> When it comes to standing up for principles, by all means, pick your battles. �Freedom of speech happens to be towards the top of my list of causes. �Sure there's some self-interest in it, but that doesn't account for all of my motivation, I've always felt strongly about it.<<<
Once again, I have to agree with Tony. If they ban Shadow Lane today
and Rush Limbaugh tomorrow, next week it may be my turn or yours.
Papa
spanking
sarah nada
Tony wrote:
>So I'll say it again. If brave souls in the past could defy their
>governments and risk their freedom and lives doing so (like American
>Colonists telling the Crown to get stuffed) we can certainly stand up
>for our rights to read and view what we want. It can be a spanking
>video today, or the right of Lenny Bruce to speak his mind on a public
>stage as recently as 1965. Historically, that wasn't so very long ago.
I don't disagree with you about the principle of the thing, and I know you're
sincere in your beliefs. I object to the sneering, absolutist tone you adopted
earlier in the thread (and which you seem to have toned down here - thanks for
that).
I object to the idea that every person who wouldn't swagger down to the local
customs office and make a scene to retrieve confiscated kink goods is a coward
who might as well be a turner-in-of-Jews-to-Nazis. That seemed over the top. I
know you weren't drawing a direct comparison, but jeez louise.
A lot of people have reasons not to be out about spanking/bdsm. If there were
any sort of public hullabaloo about my sexual habits (tame as they are in the
grand scheme), I would lose my job and probably not be able to find other work
in my field. My family would be embarrassed and hurt financially. It would
really suck, and would not be worth it to me at all.
I'm really glad there are people - including you - out there standing up for
sexual freedoms, but that's not me.
>> There are plenty of causes and principles for which I'd risk my freedom and
>> safety, but this is not one of them.
>
>As I said to Domino in a previous posting, it's ALL the same battle,
>it's just being fought on different fronts.
True enough.
>> I think the prohibition of marijuana is stupid and harmful,
>> but I'm not planning to walk down the street smoking a fatty
>> and screaming fuck the police anytime soon.
>
>I agree, because that tactic would get you arrested without furthering
>the cause in any useful way. A better approach would have been to
>support the groups that provided legal aid and support to cancer
>patients that were arrested for using marijuana for relief from the
>misery of chemotherapy, which was happening as recently as the year
>2002.
Yeah, I sent money to those people too. And I'm a member of the ACLU. And I
boycotted table groups for years and Cracker Barrel to this day even though they
say they've changed their ways. Different fronts, different levels of risk.
I know it's not likely, but what I'd like from you is some acknowledgement that
there is room for honest disagreement.
Tony Elka
sarah nada <circ...@hotmail.common> wrote:
> I know it's not likely, but what I'd like from you is some acknowledgement
> that there is room for honest disagreement.
I never said there wasn't room for honest disagreement.
This whole thing began when Domino told Jennifer Brooks that she never
bought any of her spanking videos because she CAN'T. I knew this to be
untrue, since thousands of people in the UK do so.
We all choose what laws we comply with. The majority of drivers cannot
say they never drove above the speed limit.
Tony
"Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!
Get up, stand up: dont give up the fight!"
- Bob Marley
Tony Elka
<fbc836e8-a3dc-49df...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
GrumpyOldPapa <Grumpy...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's already happening. Nancy Pelosi and her accomplics are trying to
> pass laws that will let them ban talk radio. Fox News will be next.
If you're talking about a return of the Fairness Doctrine, it has been
seriously misrepresented lately.
Here's a good definition of what it actually does and more importantly,
does not:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
If you can't be bothered to read the whole page, here's what I found
most significant:
"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For
instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced,
nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t
require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like
50/50.
Nor, as Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly claimed, was the Fairness Doctrine
all that stood between conservative talkshow hosts and the dominance
they would attain after the doctrine’s repeal. In fact, not one Fairness
Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with
talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the
doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing
hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities,
but none was ever muzzled (The Way Things Aren’t, Rendall et al., 1995).
The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from
a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views."
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
Tony Elka
harry <ha...@nospam-wirepack.nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> That's in s42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876, so it's probably
> a wee bit late to be going to the barricades to protest about this
> particular bit of legislation being passed.
It's never "a wee bit late" to stand up for one's rights.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
Tony Elka
harry <ha...@nospam-wirepack.nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Campaigning against censorship and demanding the right buy, possess
> and watch material of ones choice = right
By all means, go to it. That's good advice for citizens on both sides
of the Atlantic.
> Buying stuff to have it confiscated under a 140 year old law and
> imagining you've made some sort of stand against censorship = dumb
That's a partial equation. How about the thousands of UK citizens that
make the decision to purchase spanking videos, get what they want and
experience no negative repercussions whatsoever?
That's not "imagining" you've made some sort of stand at all.
What percentage of material ordered gets seized by customs would you
say? Five percent? Three, two? The answer is less than one percent.
And of those, how many are prosecuted? Almost none.
Tony
"The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is
before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to
meet it." - Thucydides
sarah nada
Harry wrote:
>> Buying stuff to have it confiscated under a 140 year old law and
>> imagining you've made some sort of stand against censorship = dumb
and Tony wrote:
>That's a partial equation. How about the thousands of UK citizens that
>make the decision to purchase spanking videos, get what they want and
>experience no negative repercussions whatsoever?
>
>That's not "imagining" you've made some sort of stand at all.
If you choose to violate a law you disagree with on the grounds that enforcement
is spotty, and you face no repercussions because enforcement is spotty, that's
not making a stand. It's not even imagining you've made a stand. It's betting
on luck and (at least in that instance) getting lucky.
>What percentage of material ordered gets seized by customs would you
>say? Five percent? Three, two? The answer is less than one percent.
>And of those, how many are prosecuted? Almost none.
Missing the point. If some British people find the risk unacceptable (however
slight it may be), that's their business.
Tony Elka
harry <ha...@nospam-wirepack.nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> PS good to see that in the 15 years I've been drifting in and out of
> here ASS/SSS hasn't lost it's talent for extended and largely
> pointless arguments :-)
But not too pointless for you to join in. And this particular argument
was pretty much over until you woke it back up.
Jen
I gotta chime in on this hijack, because I SHIP TO THE UK EVERYDAY.
And there has not been 1 customs seize of a package since before
9/11. What used to be and what is has changed.
I will repeat that. Customs in the UK, Canada and hmmm, Worldwide,
have not seized a single package from Brooks Applications since BEFORE
the terrorist attack on 9/11.
Seems your Governments have better things to do these days.
But hey, they love it that you think they will :)
Jennifer Brooks
Hotspankings.com
CrimsnKid6
> Dang people, that was a serious thread hijack, WOW!!
That happems quite a bit on SSS, I'd venture.
> I gotta chime in on this hijack, because I SHIP TO THE UK EVERYDAY.
> And there has not been 1 customs seize of a package since before
> 9/11. �What used to be and what is has changed.
> I will repeat that. Customs in the UK, Canada and hmmm, Worldwide,
> have not seized a single package from Brooks Applications since BEFORE
> the terrorist attack on 9/11.
> Seems your Governments have better things to do these days.
> But hey, they love it that you think they will :)
Based on the non-liability disclaimers RE foreign customs seizures
found on Brooks Applications order sheets, it seems as though you
believe that at least they MIGHT do so.
Not that I'm blaming you--or Tony Elka, Steve Richardson or anyone
else in a similar position--for avoiding liability for the actions of
foreign governments that you obviously can't control, but it does show
that you're accounting for the possibility of customs seizures by
those governments.
I don't know if this was addressed before, but can you (or Tony E,
Steve R or anyone else in the know) tell me if the sending company is
informed when one of your shipments is intercepted by foreign customs?
Because otherwise, given the non-liability disclaimers, there would
be no reason--except maybe for emotional venting--for the intended
recipients to contact the sending company if their shipmemts were
indeed confiscated.
BTW, I will miss your company's products but the going-out-of-
business sale is providing some good bargains RE videos, DVDs and
magazines. (IMHO the apparently recent, not-on-the-net Jay Em drawings
are worth the spanking magazines' reduced costs themselves.)
H.I.A.W.B.,
--C.K.
Tony Elka
<7a27ea04-5539-4955...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
CrimsnKid6 <Crims...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't know if this was addressed before, but can you (or Tony E,
> Steve R or anyone else in the know) tell me if the sending company is
> informed when one of your shipments is intercepted by foreign customs?
> Because otherwise, given the non-liability disclaimers, there would
> be no reason--except maybe for emotional venting--for the intended
> recipients to contact the sending company if their shipmemts were
> indeed confiscated.
There is another good reason beyond emotional venting for the
customers to contact the suppliers. They want what they paid for.
Back in the days before 9/11/2001 when the occasional shipment to the
U.K. was confiscated, we cheerfully sent it again. The second shipment
always got through.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. So make the bad horse gleeful, or he'll make you his mare.
Steve Richardson
"CrimsnKid6" <Crims...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<7a27ea04-5539-4955...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>...
Jen(nifer Brooks) RE foreign (to the U.S.A.) customs seizures:
>snip<
Since CF deals almost exclusively in words, our situation is a bit
different from that of video producers. Virtually all of our out of
the US business is done by download from our site, cfpub-online.com
(shameless plug) and that pretty much completely bypasses the
snoopies. Besides, most customs officials have a hard time with the
concept that the written word can be erotic (I am tempted to say they
have a hard time with the concept of the written word, but I am
trying to play nice.)
steve
>
I don't know if this was addressed before, but can you (or Tony E,
Steve R or anyone else in the know) tell me if the sending company is
informed when one of your shipments is intercepted by foreign customs?
Because otherwise, given the non-liability disclaimers, there would
be no reason--except maybe for emotional venting--for the intended
recipients to contact the sending company if their shipmemts were
indeed confiscated.
BTW, I will miss your company's products but the going-out-of-
Alex Birch
posts, was to point out that the import of spanking films into the UK, films
which do not have an 'R' rated certificate from the BBFC, is strictly illegal
and now holds the importer open to risk of arrest.
This was a statement of fact - that's all - explaining why British citizens who
have concerns for freedom of interference from the police might hesitate to risk
it.
That spawned a sales pitch from, first, Tony and now Jennifer Brookes. I'm sure
both of you are expressing opinions based on your experiences and I can well
believe them, as neither Shadowlane or Hotspankings would probably be considered
in the first rank of violent spanking movies in the way that Lupus or Mood might
be.
That does not invalidate the points that either Domino or I made. It's a
lottery,a gamble, which you may well get away with 99% of the time as the
Customs have bigger fish to fry than mainstream spanking movies. But for the
British citizen it is still a proverbial 'sword of Damocles' held over the head.
We cannot say 'what I am doing is perfectly legal and I need have no concerns
about doing it'. We can only say 'if we are lucky, the customs will not be too
bothered about comparitively mild spanking material'.
But that is NOT a safeguard. It hardly reassures. And while I have no wish to
revisit an argument with Tony, it's a little annoying to hear people 3000 miles
away telling us we should be martyrs for the cause. There are more important
things in life than spanking films - and risking importing them is hardly worth
a criminal record
Alex
spanking
--
'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin
Tony Elka
Alex Birch <birc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> But that is NOT a safeguard. It hardly reassures. And while I have no wish to
> revisit an argument with Tony, it's a little annoying to hear people 3000
> miles
> away telling us we should be martyrs for the cause. There are more important
> things in life than spanking films - and risking importing them is hardly
> worth a criminal record
> 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin
There's a bit of irony in what you had to say, followed by your decision
to include that particular Benjamin Franklin quote.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
Brian Downstairs
other media like ordinary dvds either according to a friend of mine. Seems
the customs are in league with the restictive practices which spawned
regionalised dvds.
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
If you send me pictures, you deserve a spanking!
"Alex Birch" <birc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gpdth...@drn.newsguy.com...
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-DF3D9...@d90-136-209-74.cust.tele2.de...
> In article <gpdth...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> Alex Birch <birc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But that is NOT a safeguard. It hardly reassures. And while I have no
>> wish to
>> revisit an argument with Tony, it's a little annoying to hear people 3000
>> miles
>> away telling us we should be martyrs for the cause. There are more
>> important
>> things in life than spanking films - and risking importing them is hardly
>> worth a criminal record
>
>
>
>> 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety
>> deserve neither liberty nor safety.' - Benjamin Franklin
>
>
>
>
> There's a bit of irony in what you had to say, followed by your decision
> to include that particular Benjamin Franklin quote.
>
> Tony
>
Yes I realised that after I'd sent when it added the sig line <g> but I
still maintain the right to import spanking films is hardly an essential
liberty, even if it's a desirable one, and, annoying though I believe
British law to be, I don't feel like being crucified on some altar of
liberty using spanking movies as my burning spear. I'm hardly likely to go
down in history because of it, am I?
Alex
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes I realised that after I'd sent when it added the sig line <g> but I
> still maintain the right to import spanking films is hardly an essential
> liberty, even if it's a desirable one, and, annoying though I believe
> British law to be, I don't feel like being crucified on some altar of
> liberty using spanking movies as my burning spear. I'm hardly likely to go
> down in history because of it, am I?
It's about as likely you'd go down in history because of it as it would
be that your videos would be seized by Her Majesty's Customs.
Tony
spanking -adjective
1. moving rapidly and smartly.
2. quick and vigorous: a spanking pace.
3. blowing briskly: a spanking breeze.
4. Informal. unusually fine, great, large, etc.; remarkable;
distinctive: a spanking monogram in gold embroidery.
5. It's a brand new day and the sun is high,
all the birds are singing that you're gonna die.
Jen
1) Crimson Kid, the liability note was put on my order forms years
ago, before 9/11. I mostly copied that from everyone else, LOL, and I
have been too lazy to change it. The rare times before 9/11 when
orders were taken (I can count them on one hand), I happily sent them
again and they got through. On my dime BTW. One of the reasons we all
put that notice on our order forms was because we were told by other
shippers that folks in the UK had a habit of "claiming" shipments were
seized so that they could get a new shipment sent. Scamming US
retailers for a second set of movies, which they sold to others. The
disclaimer was in part meant to stop this sort of naughty behavior.
On the rare occasion an order was taken, customers always contacted me
to tell me, even saying "I know you don't cover this, but I wanted you
to know." I of course, always took care of them :) People talk,
loudly, when they lose money. The spanking scene and the business
associated with it is pretty small, we don't sell in the thousands
like porno. We know our customers.
2) To the naysayers, I do not say this to you because I am
"advertising". I am OUT OF BUSINESS in two weeks, what the hell do I
care anymore anyway? I am telling you this as SOMEONE WHO KNOWS. I
ship International. All the time. Nothing is seized anymore. I know.
More than you do, what is happening. Have you all heard of someone
getting stuff taken? I dunno, perhaps. I know for a fact MY PRODUCTS
are not seized, and have not been in years.
Do some vendors get seized? I have no idea, but I know my stuff DOES
NOT. So I can stand by what I tell you as a fact. I think most of
what some of you say is based on what happened years ago, and you are
still in the past. Is it still illegal in the UK to order these
things? Probably. Does your Govt care? Not so much. Hell, anal sex is
still illegal in much of the US, do they prosecute for it anymore,
nah.
It is a moot point in two weeks anyway. I ship the products you guys
are always claiming is going to bring doom and destruction down on
you. Your customs are NOT taking them. I know this for a fact. With
email, customers are always in contact. Repeat sales baby. They buy
more and more and more. Jennifer knows. Maybe customs takes something,
but they don't care about mine anymore, and actually, never really
did. Canada was responsible for most of the few seizures I did have,
and they don't take 'em anymore either.
Carry on with your bickering :) The brave ones will continue to order
spanking movies from the USA and enjoy the heck out of them.
Jennifer Brooks
www.hotspankings.com
domino
wrote:
I had always thought you were a more reasonable person than this...
>2) To the naysayers, I do not say this to you because I am
>"advertising". I am OUT OF BUSINESS in two weeks, what the hell do I
>care anymore anyway?
And yet you still write this diatribe. Not to say you're not entitled
to write it, I'm just wondering why.
> I am telling you this as SOMEONE WHO KNOWS.
No - you are *not* SOMEONE WHO KNOWS. All you know is what you see
from your end. That maybe you've been scammed a few times, that
sometimes folk tell you they've had their videos lost in the post or
whatever. You quite obviously do *not* know what the law in the uk
is.
> I
>ship International. All the time. Nothing is seized anymore.
It may well be that your material isn't seized - good for you if
that's the case. It may be that having suffered at the hands of
Customs officers here, the last thing someone would do if it happened
to them would be to contact the supplier of their porn.
> I know.
>More than you do, what is happening.
Um... yeah - cos you've studied the law over here? No - what you know
is what you see *from your side of the pond*
> Have you all heard of someone
>getting stuff taken? I dunno, perhaps. I know for a fact MY PRODUCTS
>are not seized, and have not been in years.
Well good.
>Do some vendors get seized? I have no idea, but I know my stuff DOES
>NOT.
So, in fact what you are qualified to talk about is your perspective
of what you sell. Ok, fine - but maybe you should have said that at
the start of this.
> So I can stand by what I tell you as a fact. I think most of
>what some of you say is based on what happened years ago, and you are
>still in the past.
Ah, I see, you're giving us your take on all of this without even
bothering to check on the facts of what Alex and I have said.
> Is it still illegal in the UK to order these
>things? Probably. Does your Govt care? Not so much.
Why don't you go and do some research on the UK take on 'extreme porn'
- go look at www.melonfarmers.co.uk,
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/extreme-pornographic-images.pdf
or http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
Now - I know your response will be that 'consensual spanking doesn't
come under this heading' - but - woul dyou want to be the test case
for it? With the attendant disruption of your life, your career, your
family, even?
>Your customs are NOT taking them. I know this for a fact.
*sigh* At most, all you 'know as fact' is that it seems that most of
*your* videos are not being seized.
>Carry on with your bickering :)
Oh - was it just to be amusing and watch us 'bickering' that you
posted this?
> The brave ones will continue to order
>spanking movies from the USA and enjoy the heck out of them.
and the sensible ones will get their videos as downloads online...
Until our fascist government blocks that too. Don't believe me? Go do
the research.
Domino
spanking
Alex Birch
I'm just a little sorry that the word of those who live in the UK is not
respected. Instead it seems that two respected US spanking vendors are
falling over themselves to avoid negative vibes for their export sales.
Both Jen and Tony are ignoring the main issue that under British law it is
NOT legal to import spanking videos which are not classified....and few of
them are.
Tony is taking one tack - that of British moral cowardice - though I suspect
if he were in the same position he would soon jump into line and Jen is
saying 'Go on, import mine, you won't get caught.' I bet, hypothetically,
if the US tightened up on 'decency laws' and told Tony his spanking models
had to wear a thong at least or they would close his business, his stand for
liberty wouldn't last 5 minutes.
Domino has pointed the readers of this group to some very good sources,
including the Melon Farmers, and the information is good and valid. By all
means argue sensibly on this issue but don't fly in the face of reality. I
have already said that the chances of violent BDSM oriented films have more
chance of being stopped and I quite concede that Tony's and Jen's products
have a good chance of not being intercepted.
But that is 'grace and favour'. If the British Government wants to turn the
screw the law is already available for them to do it at a minute's notice.
All I am asking is, don't confuse likelihood of seizure with a legal right
to import. It is not fair to brand those of us who do not want to take this
risk as cowards.
For spanking vendors to keep telling us there is nothing to worry about when
British law clearly says something totally different is not only
irresponsible and misguided, it is totally selfish.
Alex
spanking
CrimsnKid6
seizures of spanking-related products:
> > � �I don't know if this was addressed before, but can you (or Tony E,
> > Steve R or anyone else in the know) tell me if the sending company is
> > informed when one of your shipments is intercepted by foreign customs?
> > � �Because otherwise, given the non-liability disclaimers, there would
> > be no reason--except maybe for emotional venting--for the intended
> > recipients to contact the sending company if their shipmemts were
> > indeed confiscated.
> There is another good reason beyond emotional venting for the
> customers to contact the suppliers. �They want what they paid for.
Seven and a half years ago that would've been likely, I agree, but
assuming that Shadow Lane also started including non-liability
disclaimers RE foreign customs seizures shortly following 9/11/2001,
there would be no reasonable expectation that your company would send
a second shipment without receiving a second payment first--and few
customers would want to risk being *burned* financially by their
nation's customs service a second time, I'd venture.
> Back in the days before 9/11/2001 when the occasional shipment to the
> U.K. was confiscated, we cheerfully sent it again. �The second shipment
> always got through.
Well, your "back in the days" qualification rather makes my point,
I'd say, since things were obviously somewhat different back then--
Shadow Lane's products apparently were seized so infrequently that you
could write off the occasional second shipment as an investment in
good customer relations.
Perhaps the non-liability disclaimers were/are a reaction to
perception more than reality in terms of the increased risk of customs
seizures (particularly in the U.K.), and I accept that (as Jennifer
Brooks explained) they're partially to avoid being *scammed* by
customers using that perception to dishonestly obtain two shipments
for the price of one, but nonetheless those disclaimers are now there
on order forms.
Which means that a customer who's read and clearly understood the
disclaimer would have no pragmatic reason to contact the selling
company if his/her shipment were to be intercepted by customs--which
is why I asked if the sending company is ever informed when a shipment
is seized by customs. Based upon the impression received from both
your response and Jennifer's, I'm assuming that the sender isn't
informed.
Once again, I'm not criticizing any producer/seller of spanking
erotica for including such non-liability disclaimers as part of
current company policy as I can understand the economic reasons for
doing so--but those disclaimers do mean that a company might not be
aware of some customs seizures of its products, that was my basic
point.
However, I do agree with Alex Birch and Domino that there's a
considerable difference between "very low risk" (in the U.K.) and "no
risk" (in the U.S.A.) RE legal action being taken against the
recipients of spanking erotica.
In certain occupations, even the mere accusation of improper
"perverted" attitudes (based on a customs seizure) could end up
seriously damaging a person's career prospects.
The degree of serious career risk involved would obviously vary
considerably depending upon a particular person's occupation...
H.I.A.W.B.,
--C.K.
Tony Elka
<de32081d-629e-4841...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
CrimsnKid6 <Crims...@aol.com> wrote:
> Once again, I'm not criticizing any producer/seller of spanking
> erotica for including such non-liability disclaimers as part of
> current company policy as I can understand the economic reasons for
> doing so--but those disclaimers do mean that a company might not be
> aware of some customs seizures of its products, that was my basic
> point.
My company never included such a disclaimer. As a matter of fact, our
products and prices sheet used to have a statement of willingness to
re-ship in the event of seizure by customs. We took it off years ago
because we needed more room on the form as we added new products. Even
in the old days, it just wasn't ever much of an issue.
> In certain occupations, even the mere accusation of improper
> "perverted" attitudes (based on a customs seizure) could end up
> seriously damaging a person's career prospects.
It's a fairly easy thing to rent a postal box. Purchase an
international money order as payment. Receive your mail under the name
boxholder, occupant or resident, it's as simple as that.
Tony
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm just a little sorry that the word of those who live in the UK is not
> respected.
Respect your words? Is that your way of saying there's no room for
disagreement with them?
> Instead it seems that two respected US spanking vendors are
> falling over themselves to avoid negative vibes for their export sales.
Just reporting our direct experiences. Unlike you and Domino, we have
interacted with thousands of citizens in the U.K. on this very issue.
> Both Jen and Tony are ignoring the main issue that under British law it is
> NOT legal to import spanking videos which are not classified....and few of
> them are.
Yup, we're cheerfully ignoring it. So are thousands of our U.K.
customers. As is Her Majesty's Customs. They're far more interested in
narcotics and explosives these days.
> Tony is taking one tack - that of British moral cowardice - though I suspect
> if he were in the same position he would soon jump into line and Jen is
> saying 'Go on, import mine, you won't get caught.' I bet, hypothetically,
> if the US tightened up on 'decency laws' and told Tony his spanking models
> had to wear a thong at least or they would close his business, his stand for
> liberty wouldn't last 5 minutes.
You'd lose that bet. We don't take our rights for granted, and we put
our money where out mouth is, paying dues to organizations that are
constantly fighting this struggle, including the American Civil
Liberties Union, adult video trade associations, etc. There are
elements in the country that would censor all of adult entertainment if
they could. The USA still has it's Puritans.
> Domino has pointed the readers of this group to some very good sources,
> including the Melon Farmers, and the information is good and valid. By all
> means argue sensibly on this issue but don't fly in the face of reality. I
> have already said that the chances of violent BDSM oriented films have more
> chance of being stopped and I quite concede that Tony's and Jen's products
> have a good chance of not being intercepted.
It's more than just a good chance of them not being intercepted. They
don't get seized, haven't since 1998 or so. We sell spanking videos,
and we're talking about shipping them in a newsgroup about spanking to
customers interested in spanking. I don't see how that's flying in the
face of reality.
Tony
Steve Richardson
known, deals almost exclusively in words. As I have stated before, I
believe that this is well on the safe side of the law. Most of the
censors are not literate enough to realize how erotic the written
word can be, and more to the point, as far as I know there has been
only one prosecution for erotic words in the last 30 years and for
that the government picked a woman who suffered from agoraphobia and
would have been most unwilling to appear in a pubic trial. In
addition, I have been a card carrying member of the ACLU for the last
40 years or so.
Despite the above, the writers' guidelines for CF make it clear that
we will not accept any fiction in which there is both an underage
character and overt sex. As I said above, I don't believe such could
be successfully prosecuted and I think it unlikely that there would
be any attempt at prosecution. That said, there are somewhere around
100 US attorneys, each with a staff of assistant US attorneys, and
god knows how many local district attorneys, most with political
ambitions. It needs only one of these to bring get an indictment.
Once I am indicted, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether or not the
case is ultimately dismissed, it is going to disrupt my life in
serious ways and cost me tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars
in legal fees which the government does not reimburse if they lose.
This is more than I am willing to gamble at this point, even with
fairly long odds it won't come to that.
Similarly it takes only one bored or crusading inspector of Her
Majesty's Customs Service (or whatever it is called) to decide that a
given video violates the law and that the recipient should be
prosecuted. At this point the recipient has lost, the only question
for further adjudication is how badly s/he has lost.
Civil disobedience is a splendid tradition, but very few of us
practise it at all, much less in every case of a law we feel is a
violation of our civil rights. We can admire those willing to
practise civil disobedience to a particular law without disparaging
those who choose not to fight a particular battle.
steve who can't think of a clever way to work the word spanking into
this missive, thus spanking, spanking, spanking, spanking, spanking,
spanking, spanking
satisfied now, bot?
CrimsnKid6
seixures in the U.K.:
> My company never included such a disclaimer. �As a matter of fact, our
> products and prices sheet used to have a statement of willingness to
> re-ship in the event of seizure by customs. �We took it off years ago
> because we needed more room on the form as we added new products. �Even
> in the old days, it just wasn't ever much of an issue.
Given the seeming attitude of the current British government, I'd
figure that it could still end up being an issue.
So does Shadow Lane, although now without a written statement that
it will resend ordered products that are intercepted by a foreign
government, still do so (without demanding additional payment) for its
customers?
You stated earlier that your company did so before 9/11/2001, but
does it still do so now if the situation occurs? Or does that
situation no longer occur at all these days, making such a policy a
moot point?
> > � �In certain occupations, even the mere accusation of improper
> > "perverted" attitudes (based on a customs seizure) could end up
> > seriously damaging a person's career prospects.
> It's a fairly easy thing to rent a postal box. �Purchase an
> international money order as payment. �Receive your mail under the name
> boxholder, occupant or resident, it's as simple as that.
I don't live in the U.K. nor do I ship spanking erotica there
either, so I'm just playing "devil's advocate" here out of curiosity
about the issues involved in this discussion.
So could the British government, using its criminal investigative
authority, determine who was renting an otherwise anonymous postal box
or not? I'm wondering this sincerely since I have no idea myself,
although I'm willing to grant that the government likely wouldn't want
to bother doing so in the vast majority of cases.
Since the Tar Heels failed to defend their ACC tournament title
today and now have to desperately hope that NCAA's tournament
committee (Who can figure the thought processes there?) will offer
them an at-large spot in the "Big Dance," I need something to distract
me from that nagging concern.
So it's either spanking or U.K. customs policy RE spanking
erotica...
H.I.A.W.B.,
--C.K.
Tony Elka
<53f1dde4-aa9d-4849...@t7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
CrimsnKid6 <Crims...@aol.com> wrote:
> Given the seeming attitude of the current British government, I'd
> figure that it could still end up being an issue.
Interfering in the personal business of U.K. citizens on that level is a
luxury that government cannot currently afford, no matter how much they
might wish to. They have other priorities, and I don't see that
changing anytime soon. They are deathly afraid of things like
biochemical attacks sent in the post, etc. Same goes for the rest of
Europe, Australia, Canada, Pacific Rim, USA, etc.
> So does Shadow Lane, although now without a written statement that
> it will resend ordered products that are intercepted by a foreign
> government, still do so (without demanding additional payment) for its
> customers?
Of course. If somebody buys one of my videos, I'll ship it as many
times as it takes for them to get what they paid for. I'm sure the same
could be said about Jennifer Brooks's company until March 31st of this
year. We're losing an incredibly ethical and dedicated company there.
> You stated earlier that your company did so before 9/11/2001, but
> does it still do so now if the situation occurs? Or does that
> situation no longer occur at all these days, making such a policy a
> moot point?
I just took a look, the last time we had a video seized by customs was a
shipment to Ontario, Canada in June of 2002. We re-sent the title, the
customer received it, and has ordered several times since with no
further problems.
By the way, people think that customs destroys all the erotica that they
seize, but it's far more likely the agent takes it home to show to the
wife. Humanity is predictable that way.
> So could the British government, using its criminal investigative
> authority, determine who was renting an otherwise anonymous postal box
> or not? I'm wondering this sincerely since I have no idea myself,
> although I'm willing to grant that the government likely wouldn't want
> to bother doing so in the vast majority of cases.
COULD they? Sure. The British Government could really have double-0
agents with a license to kill too. Are they likely to allocate valuable
resources in short supply for such a frivolous thing as seizing a
spanking video? I can't imagine why they would choose to. What would
they get in return for squandering their resources?
Tony
Brian Downstairs
of the UK laws at the moment. as a matter of Interest, what happens in
places like The Netherlands these days?
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
If you send me pictures, you deserve a spanking!
"Brian Downstairs" <mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kyxul.6589$Lc7...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Alex Birch
"Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
news:shadowlane-47568...@ppp-vpdn-209.136.94.74.yarnet.ru...
> COULD they? Sure. The British Government could really have double-0
> agents with a license to kill too. Are they likely to allocate valuable
> resources in short supply for such a frivolous thing as seizing a
> spanking video? I can't imagine why they would choose to. What would
> they get in return for squandering their resources?
>
You clearly have not taken the trouble - not that I expected you to - to
study any of the evidence, particularly on 'Melon Farmers' which Domino
supplied. You actually don't WANT to hear an alternative argument, do you!.
The Customs don't have to allocate lots of resources to seize a spanking
video. They simply send the word out to seize on a test case basis every now
and then.
I know you don't give a shit but others might want to see this:-
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/enseize.htm
which is British customs seizures since 2000. They don't await new laws.
They don't have to. They just use the blanket regulations which already
allow them to seize what the fuck they like. As you will see, they even
raided a guys home when he imported a legal 'Parental Guidance' certificated
film which is apparently a gay movie about teenagers. Although the Customs
admitted there was nothing illegal in the film, they thought the subject
matter merited permission to knock down his door and look for child porn.
There are countless examples of this. They have far more licence than the
British police ever did and they use it regularly. You don't have to arrest
2000 spanking film importers. You just arrest a couple of RGE/ Lupus
importers, a couple of people who import Japanese horror films and some
booze cruisers. You spread the net wide and arrest by sample - then spread
the news around.
Nobody doubts that you and Jennifer are ethical suppliers who will replace
movies which don't get through. But why do you think they don't get through?
The Customs don't tell the would be recipient each time a film is impounded
if they choose not to prosecute. They simply make a note of the
name....until the next time....
Alex
spanking
Tony Elka
"Alex Birch" <alex...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Tony Elka" <shado...@shadowlane.com> wrote in message
> news:shadowlane-47568...@ppp-vpdn-209.136.94.74.yarnet.ru...
>
> > COULD they? Sure. The British Government could really have double-0
> > agents with a license to kill too. Are they likely to allocate valuable
> > resources in short supply for such a frivolous thing as seizing a
> > spanking video? I can't imagine why they would choose to. What would
> > they get in return for squandering their resources?
> >
> You clearly have not taken the trouble - not that I expected you to - to
> study any of the evidence, particularly on 'Melon Farmers' which Domino
> supplied.
Sure I did, that's why I know that the spanking specific videos they
listed were from Lupus and Raven Hill. Not Shadow Lane or Brooks
Applications. The following is from that very site:
"As I understand it if you endeavour to import a video which is deemed
to be obscene by C&E and it is then seized it is purely a civil matter
and the only action that is taken is the seizure of the tape. If you
then challenge this seizure it is then tried before a magistrate and the
only penalty you may suffer is having to pay costs (usually about £150).
I challenged Cand E when they seized Beach Girl Spankings 1 (Ravenhill)
but ultimately withdrew during the showing of the tape in court because
I felt that the noise the girls were making would sway the magistrate .
I did not however have to pay any costs."
> You actually don't WANT to hear an alternative argument, do you!
I've heard plenty of them in here, and so far, I haven't found them
persuasive.
> The Customs don't have to allocate lots of resources to seize a spanking
> video. They simply send the word out to seize on a test case basis every now
> and then.
I was responding to Crimsnkid's question about the police being able to
find out the real identity of a U.K. citizen who rents an anonymous P.O.
Box.
> I know you don't give a shit but others might want to see this:-
Alex, you don't know ANYTHING about me. If you have anything else you'd
care to discuss, perhaps you could try it without the personal vitriol
next time?
> Nobody doubts that you and Jennifer are ethical suppliers who will replace
> movies which don't get through. But why do you think they don't get through?
The thing is, they do get through. Did you read Jennifer's posting
earlier?
Tony