Å

It sounds like the loaded word 'trafficking' actually just means giving a prostitute a lift.

Based on an article from ic South London

A brothel boss who ran a string of lucrative parlours trading on the "unique international flavour" of his girls was jailed for 15 months.

David Sibley employed scores of women from India, Africa and eastern Europe in 16 successful sex parlours across London and the south-east.

For more than two years he made good profits from the vice business, Southwark Crown Court was told on Friday. He was soon earning enough to invest in 10 properties. But his empire was smashed when police mounted a surveillance operation that showed Sibley ferrying women from one brothel to another. [is this what justified the trafficking charges mentioned below?]

A female cop also went undercover and was interviewed for a position at a brothel in Downham after answering an advert in advertising magazine Loot. She was told: You will be expected to give more than just a massage.

Sibley was arrested along with another man in June. The court heard there was "no suggestion of coercion" in relation to any of the women.

The prosecutor added: As well as these brothels, it is clear from documentation he was renting a number of other properties on short-term leases. The overwhelming implication is there were 16 different premises in all which were being used for prostitution.

Sibley admitted conspiring to control prostitution and converting criminal property between April 2004 and June 2006. Two further counts of trafficking women within the UK for prostitution were ordered to lie on file.

The judge told him his ill-gotten gains would be seized from him in confiscation proceedings next year.

Lots of words such as conspiracy bandied around. Makes me wonder whether if these films were actually being sold.

Based on an article from ic South London

A man who sold films such as Teeny Danish Dog Lover, Animal Action and My Horse has been jailed for four years.

Jurors said the could watch only six minutes of one of the films found at the home of Zhong Li before leaving the courtroom in disgust and refusing to watch any more.

At Inner London Crown Court, the jury decided the films, which included footage of dogs, horses, ponies, tortoises and snakes, were obscene and found Li guilty.

Sentencing him, Judge Robert Prendergast said: 40% of the DVDs were pornographic and in this particular case, deeply so. Women and girls having sex with dogs, horses, ponies and as far as one can tell, a goat. I am satisfied that your continued presence in this country is deeply detrimental and I make a recommendation to the Home Secretary that he should deport you, when you have completed your sentence, back to China.

About 500 animal porn films were discovered at Li's home amid a huge collection of 40,000 unclassified and pirated adult films.

The court heard that the films seized had fake packaging with logos including Paramount, Dolby, Columbia and Walt Disney. Prosecutor Jonathan Polnay said the counterfeiters were defrauding film companies of profits by copying and distributing mainstream films without permission.

Li denied the charges but was found guilty by a majority of 10 to two of conspiracy to publish an obscene article and conspiracy to use a trademark without authorisation, and unanimously guilty of conspiracy to supply unclassified video recordings and conspiracy to defraud.

Based on an article from UTV

A sex shop in Belfast caught illegally selling R18 DVDs and videos has been handed a heavy fine.

Misstique owners Sharman Enterprises Ltd were fined £6,250 at Belfast Magistrates Court after 600 recordings were seized because they were unclassified or had a hardcore rating.

DUP councillor Nelson McCausland said: This business has been using every device it can to remain open without the requisite license and has managed in the past to evade the law, [And lets not forget that Belfast Council have also been using every device they can to impose a blanket ban on sex shops based upon their own morality rather than the strict justification of harm required by human rights legislation]

The council has refused to grant Misstique a license and the case has been taken to the House of Lords by Sharman Enterprises. Sharman has fought a lengthy legal case against Belfast City Council's decision to deny them a license.

Trading Standards officials visited the premises on February 7 last year. The owner was prosecuted under the Video Recordings Act 1984. There were 10 specimen charges brought before the Resident Magistrate.

This was the highest fine this year. There were three successful prosecutions of sex shops in Northern Ireland this year.

Nutter Esmond Birnie from the UUP added: I am disturbed that this material is being sold in these circumstances and I am glad they have been fined although £6,250 will hardly make a dent in their profitability. Hopefully this will provide some deterrent and that is to be welcomed."

The class action (which may not be called that in the UK as a more relevant form will be used) has been handled up to now by a group of volunteers, including those editing this web site. They are now in the process of preparing and passing over the case material to the solicitors. If you want to become involved, this is your chance, and no matter how much you have suffered, you must stand up now if you want your name and justice restored. You cannot expect the volunteers to come looking for you when the action is rolling.

Further details at Inquistion21
If you are an Oree and want to join, email info@inquisition21.com

In an historic unanimous judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the whole basis of the searches carried out under the auspices of Operation Ore in the UK has been rendered illegal.

The decision concerned a Gerard Keegan and his family and was not related to Ore but is very relevant. On the 21 October 1999, at 6 AM, the police, headed by a Sergeant Gamble smashed down Gerard Keegan’s door. They purported to have been looking for an armed robber, but through extremely sloppy detective work, they raided an innocent family’s house. The raid lasted only 15 minutes and Sergeant Gamble apologized and offered to pay for the door, and, as far as he was concerned, that was the end of it.

However, the family were traumatized and Gerard Keegan decided to sue the police. The case ran through the domestic courts and, not surprisingly, they all found in the police’s favour. But Keegan was nothing if not tenacious and he decided to take the case to the ECHR.

The case was deliberated by the ECHE until the judgment was handed down that the police acted illegally under articles 8 and 13 of the Human Rights Act and that the family should be awarded compensation.

The crux of their judgment was that the police didn’t put enough effort into determining whether the object of their search was indeed on the premises. They just handed a virtually blank form to the magistrate who, as always, didn’t bother to examine any evidence, but just signed the search warrant. This was what incensed the ECHR judges, because it was, in their learned opinion, a breach of the Keegan’s right to privacy. Because it fell outside the get-out clause in article 8 in that the action was neither legal (proscribed by law) nor proportionate.

The judgment basically states that the police should provide evidence to the magistrate that the person (or things) they intended to search for on the premises would actually be there and that they had reason to suspect a crime had actually been committed and they had evidence to support it.

Which brings us to Ore. There was no evidence - save for credit card names and addresses, which in themselves proved nothing, particularly in light of the fact that the police made no effort to determine whether card fraud was involved - that any crime had been committed - in other words, it was a blind fishing trip. And the sort of thing that is absolutely verboten under this new ruling.

To put it in a nutshell, the police acted illegally and I would urge ALL Ore victims to get in touch with info@inquisition21.com

And in future the police will have to gather evidence enough to convince a magistrate who, at long last, will actually be required to view the evidence before a warrant is issued.

Hooray for the ECHR!

Based on an article from 24 Dash

A father and son who ran a business copying and selling pirated DVDs had the largest haul of i pornographic titles ever found in Cambridgeshire.

Cambridgeshire County Council Trading Standards seized around 1,500 DVDs, most of them hardcore pornography.

Paul Scattergood and his son Philip were caught selling pirated DVDs on Oakington Market as part of a joint operation between Trading Standards and the Police last August. The men's homes were raided and further DVDs and computer copying equipment was discovered and seized.

Cambridge magistrates' heard how officers went to the market to look for stolen items, counterfeit goods and carry out routine checks.

On the Scattergood's stall Trading Standards Officers found what appeared to be a mixture of unclassified and classified pornographic DVDs and videos for sale. Films of this nature must be classified and those classified as R18 can only be sold at licensed sex shops.

A search of the stall and trader's van revealed 7 CD's, 153 DVD's of "mainstream" films, a further 174 DVD's of pornographic material and 52 pornographic videos.

The Trading Standards and Police Officers searched the home of Paul Scattergood. There they seized 271 video tapes and 856 DVD's (the majority being pornographic) and also computer equipment. Officers then went to Philip Scattergood's home where they found a few more disks.

Both men pleaded guilty to having equipment for making false Trade Marks. Paul admitted 15 specimen charges of contravention of the Trade Marks and Video Recordings Act while Philip admitted to 14 similar contraventions.

Philip Scattergood was given a 200 hour community punishment order and told to pay £300 in legal costs. Magistrates asked for a report to be made before sentencing Paul Scattergood

Cambridgeshire County Councillor John Reynolds, who accompanied officers on the operation, said: What surprised everyone was the size of the haul of pornographic films. These films are licensed and classified for a very good reason and I praise the work of Trading Standards and the Police for removing them from sale.

Based on an article from The Sun

Matthew Bushell was prosecuted for hiring the services of an escort girl and refusing to pay.

He owed her £720 but instead sent a text saying: Sorry Tracy. Did not have a penny at the time. Hope you got home safely. Furious Tracy called police and they arrested Bushell.

Bushell had agreed a fee of £120 an hour including travelling time. She travelled 70 miles and romped with Bushell at his home.

He pleaded guilty to dishonestly obtaining services. Southport magistrates gave him a two-year supervision order with £65 costs.

The Crown Prosecution Service explained she did not face charges because the agreement he failed to honour was for her time, which is not prostitution and not illegal.

Note that the use of the term money laundering does not mean that these unfortunate guys were gangsters or racketeers. The Government now class any use of 'illegally' obtained funds as money laundering. Even fiddling an expense claim is now considered as money laundering.

From X Biz

The owners of a Reading mail order adult video service will go to prison after pleading guilty to charges of money laundering and illegal film distribution.

Russell Tyler and John Wilkins pleaded guilty to the charges stemming from a December 2004 police raid. During the raid, officers uncovered thousands of videos and DVDs as well as an operation for copying, packaging and distributing the films, prosecutor John Price told the Reading Crown Court.

According to Price, the BBFC rated many of the films R18. By law, it is legal to sell such films in licensed sex shops, but distribution via mail is forbidden.

Tyler and Wilkins, who did business under the name Vulcan, operated out of Tyler’s licensed XTC sex shop. According to Price, the two made more than $160,000 in profit from the sale of films.

According to Price several of the films featured “unnatural activities between adults,” including coprophilia — the practice of using excrement for sexual gratification. None of the films seized involved children, animals or any other illegal acts, Price said: The people taking part are volunteers, and there is no suggestion that they were sold to anyone other than enthusiastic connoisseurs of pornographic films.

Judge Christopher Critchlow rejected requests by attorneys that the men be spared jail time. Sentencing the pair to 21 months in prison, Critchlow commented that many of the films were “obscene, degrading and corrupting.” But, Critchlow added, he did take note of the fact that all of the films depicted activities between consenting adults.

Thanks to alan

A quick Google search for the "learned" judge finds some interesting examples of sentencing:

• three years' community rehab for bloke who had already killed someone and had now threatened to kill a priest
• nine months suspended for paedophile porn
• community order for driving like a nutter
• community order for nicking a steamroller
• 18 months for causing death by dangerous driving.
   
• And now 21 months for distributing some consensual adult porn, most of which could apparently have been sold legally in a sex shop, or by mail order from anywhere else in the EU....

Based on an article from This Is Dorset

Former madam Donna Powell has been told to hand over £40,000 of the money she made from brothels following a court ruling. In December last year she pleaded guilty to profiting from a brothel in Rolleston Street along with her partner Andrew Kyte, Powell also ran a brothel in Bristol.

A special hearing was held yesterday at Bristol Crown Court where a judge decided that £40,000 of her assets should be confiscated. At the same hearing, the court ordered that £29,240 be confiscated from  Kyte, who was also fined £1,600.

Powell, who was given a 200-hour community service order last year, remains rightfully unrepentant about what she did. She believes the courts and police should put more effort into catching "proper criminals": You would think they would have better things to do with their time,

She said she was not surprised at the amount of money she has had confiscated, but believes the court case has cost the taxpayer far more.

She stands by her belief that prostitution is the "most natural thing in the world" and has no regrets about her past: I think women are entitled to do it as long as it is their choice and they are not being forced into it.

Powell said prostitution should be legalised to make it safer for the women involved. But she said the only way to deal with it was following Amsterdam's example, by setting up designated red-light zones, away from residential areas.

Powell, who rented the Swindon property and called herself Suzy, admitted two charges of controlling prostitution between August 31, 2002 and May 1, 2004 "for the purposes of gain." She and Kyte both admitted two charges of keeping a brothel used for prostitution between April 30 and October 31, 2004, and between April 20 and November 25, 2004. Kyte also admitted two charges of living on prostitution between August 31, 2002, and May 1, 2004.

Based on an article from This Is Wiltshire

A businesswoman who turned her talents to brothel keeping, amassing a £640,000 turnover in just 13 months, was jailed for eight months. Vanessa Coleman admitted running two venues for prostitution in Bournemouth.

Prosecuting at Bournemouth Crown Court, Robert Grey said the brothels in Wimborne Road and Christchurch Road had been advertised on the internet and in the press as Annabelle's Escorts: On the face of it they were massage parlours but customers would visit the premises for sex and girls would visit clients in their homes or hotel rooms. The defendant employed a number of drivers to make that possible.

Grey described Coleman as "a fair employer," with "maids" to introduce clients to her girls and keep the premises clean: The bedrooms in the Christchurch Road property, which the defendant owned, were lavishly decorated, with red walls, ceiling mirrors and a sunken bath. Plentiful supplies of lingerie were available with various costumes which the girls would wear. Customer satisfaction forms were handed out to clients after they received services.

Grey said Coleman had kept "very good financial records" from April 2004 until her arrest in May last year. When police searched her home they found credit card receipts, printed spreadsheets and a breakdown of the earnings from both brothels, which totaled £640,000.

Coleman told police she was "an efficient businesswoman," having worked in the sex industry running escort agencies and as a prostitute.

She would advertise for the girls and interview them. There were two shifts and she made between £3,000 and £7,000 a week, added Grey.

Defending, John Blandford said Coleman's assets were not "particularly substantial" and stressed that even the investigating officer had described her as "compassionate and caring": Police said they had seen old people going in and coming back out five minutes later with a smile on their face. No-one was hurt. She was a fair employer and didn't exploit women. None of them were coerced. The girls were provided with safe accommodation and she wouldn't tolerate drugs.

Sentencing Coleman, Judge John Beashel said: I accept you didn't corrupt the girls and there was no exploitation. But you knew this was unlawful and you made a lot of money for it. I am satisfied the custody threshold has been passed.

Good to read a report free of the much exaggerated concept of trafficking

Based on an article from Yorkshire Post Today

Two women have admitted running a Halifax brothel. Briggs and Ray pleaded guilty to assisting in the management of the brothel known as Roxy's at Salterhebble Hill.

Halifax magistrates heard the premises had been trading for several months as a massage parlour and was advertised on the internet Tom Snape, prosecuting, said: There is a website and when you click on a link there are reports from customers who have had experiences of sexual intercourse there, stating what they have paid.
They give girls marks in relation to the services they have received. [the great www.punternet.com]

On March 24, a plainclothes police officer attended Roxy's. When the officer went inside he s was invited to sit down on a Chesterfield suite and asked if he would like a drink before he was shown into a room downstairs.
A number of rooms were made up as bedrooms and many contained TVs playing porn films.

Boxes of pornography were found along with condoms and other items associated with the sex trade. Both women were arrested and admitted to the police that the massage parlour was a brothel.

They told officers they answered phones, took bookings and collected money from clients. Briggs admitted having sex for money but Ray said she only acted as a receptionist.

They were both conditionally discharged for two years and Ray was ordered to pay £43 prosecution costs.

Based on an article from the Belfast Telegraph

A Londonderry sex shop owner has pleaded guilty to keeping a potentially dangerous Viagra substitute. Ian Brown kept quantities of the Kamagra drug, which can be dangerous or fatal to users with heart conditions.

The businessman pleaded guilty at Belfast Magistrates Court to two charges of possessing the drug while having reason to believe that the product was intended to be placed on the market. He was fined £800 and ordered to pay court costs.

An earlier hearing before magistrate Paul Copeland heard how Brown kept the unlicensed drug at his offices in Newtownabbey and was caught out when police and Department of Health officials raided the premises in November 2004.

Investigators discovered 150 sachets of Kamagra oral gel as well as 160 blue Kamagra tablets, at the higher end of the normal dosage.

A medical expert at an earlier hearing described elements of the medicine as "dangerous" and said it was potentially "life-threatening" for people with heart complaints, as it can cause low blood pressure.

From an article on 24 Dash

A man believed to have run the "happiest" brothels in Britain was jailed for 18 months.

Dominic Ewa not only ensured his hookers were among the most contented in London, but made a fortune in the process. With up to 40 girls "enthusiastically" plying their £150 an hour charms from no less than 10 bordellos, the Ukrainian was laughing all the way to the bank.

London's Southwark Crown Court heard that he owed part of his success to a string of slick websites, such as A1 Select and Club 18, which promised a variety of pleasures to prospective punters. Ewa pocketed a 50% cut from his international line-up of prostitutes, yet they still enjoyed executive-type "salaries".

One Eastern European recruit could not heap enough praise on "the boss". She told jurors: I made £60,000 in just 12 months. I sent £25,000 of that back home. It was the happiest year of my life.

Ewa had claimed he was nothing less than a "website commander" who simply ran two escort agencies staffed by young women who occasionally chose to provide "extras" he knew nothing about.

But the five woman, seven men jury trying him took just five hours to decide unanimously that he was lying and convict him of two counts of controlling prostitution between May 2004 and September 7 2005. They acquitted him of trafficking some of his workers into Britain for "sexual exploitation".

Passing sentence, Judge Nicholas Loraine-Smith  said that those he used to make him money had often landed in Britain in desperate financial straits. Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of "coercion or corruption". Indeed, you treated them well by the standards experienced by many prostitutes. This was a carefully organised and professional criminal enterprise and while we do not know exactly how many girls you employed you have told us you had about 10 flats in all. You were without doubt the central figure in the case. You were the boss and the profits you made went to you and your wife,

The judge said a confiscation hearing would be held later following an extensive asset tracing exercise in Britain and the Ukraine. He warned that he would use "all the powers of the court" to ensure Ewa handed over all his remaining ill-gotten gains.

There was no suggestion that there was anything but an adult consensual service that all parties agreed to. Bollox laws enforced by vindictive persecutors.

From a biased article on ic Surrey

A Horley man who ran a brothel in the town has been jailed for a year. Roger Durrell employed Lithuanian girls to entertain clients at Little Dell in Lowfield Heath.

Lewes Crown Court heard last Wednesday how he charged customers up to a £100 for services advertised in local newspapers.

Stephen Shay, prosecuting, told the court it was "common knowledge" that sex could be bought for £60 at the brothel, which was raided last April: An undercover officer telephoned a number for the brothel advertised as an escort service in local newspapers. He was quoted a price of between £60 and £100 depending on what he wanted and how long he wanted to take.

Durrell pleaded guilty to managing a brothel and transferring criminal property between June 1 and June 30, 2003.

The court was also told he had £168,000 in bank accounts controlled by him or his Lithuanian wife Loretta, 33. She was also charged but the case against her was dropped.

Waylen Barnaby, defending, told the court: This is someone who provided a facility which enabled people who chose to come to this country to work safely within the sex trade. The attitude to prostitution in Lithuania is rather less strict than it is in this country. Clearly the girls wanted to come here and were free to come and go when they wanted.

Judge Guy Anthony jailed Durrell for nine months for managing a brothel and three months for transferring criminal property, to run consecutively.

Durrell is to face a confiscation hearing in May.

From the Belfast Telegraph

Belfast City Council is heading for the House of Lords in London in the last ditch round of a complex legal battle over the licensing of sex establishments.

The council is challenging a decision of the Northern Ireland Appeal Court quashing an earlier High Court ruling which upheld the council's refusal to grant a licence to Miss Behavin' Ltd for a sex establishment.

Three law lords, headed by Britain's senior judge and law lord, Lord Bingham, have just given the go-ahead for the council to appeal against the Appeal Court's ruling.

A decision just published says the case will centre on whether the council's decision to refuse Miss Behavin' a licence was unlawful or not.

The legal argument, when the case goes before five law lords later this year, will focus on human rights issues and whether the refusal of a licence infringed the rights of the applicants. No date has yet been fixed for the full hearing before the law lords.

The legal battle over sex shops in the city is one that has been going on for some time.

The shop's owner applied for a licence in May 2002 but it was refused in March 2003 when Belfast City Council announced a total ban on sex shops in the Gresham Street area.

The council also said it was unacceptable that the proposed outlet would be near to churches and family shops. Ulster Unionist city councillor Jim Rodgers said a victory for the shop's owner could "open the floodgates" for the pornography industry in Belfast: There's a market for this type of thing but I don't feel we should have it in our city. I fully support this action and I know a lot of people here also support it. It is not good for the image of the city."

SDLP councillor Pat McCarthy has also said that while he is "not opposed to sex shops" he believes care has to be taken about where they are located.

From BOD on The Melon Farmers' Forum

I submitted my case to the ECHR back in April 2004 some 20 months back. It as been logged and is currently sitting on some EU legal Eagles desk in Division 18. Upon previous enquiries I have been told the average time to wait before a case goes to Chambers is approx 18 months obviously I have crossed that freshold although as of yet have still to hear anything. My complaint centres around the states right to apply sections 9, 10 and 12 of the VRA given current access to such material in the United Kingdom freely in one form or another without interference by the state. It also raises issue with the legitimacy of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1982 and challenges the legality of the Governments HRA 1998 Section 6 makes it clear that it is unlawful to act in such a way which violates one or convention rights yet section 4 of the same Act allows the state to ride roughshod over those rights afforded to us under the ECHR and Section 6 of the HRA 1998.. It is clear that all legislation mentioned above engages Article 10, it is for the State to justify the need for it`s application given current levels of access to such material as that currently restricted under the legislation the Internet Satellite TV Magazines and Overseas mail order for example. Not only do we have clear inconsistency relating to access of such adult material we also have senior ministers going on record stating they are happy with the way certain areas of the adult industry are self regulated regarding distribution and supply of pornographic material ie the sale and distribution of explicit porn in magazines through such outlets which are not regulated by the state nor required to be licensed to sell such material and are accessible to the general public. The same general public the states seeks to protect from coming into involuntary contact with such material contained on DVD and video were this medium of supply is restricted by the above mentioned legislation and a licensing regime and that the government sees fit to prosecute and criminalize those who supply such material from premises which under voluntary regulation restrict access to those who have attained the legal age to view such material.

I have been prosecuted twice over the years for the supply of R18 classified works from an unlicensed shop. Since my arguments like those submitted by expensive barristers on behalf of companies like Pabo have fallen on deaf ears I decided long ago to make a complaint to the ECHR I have already applied to the High court which surprise was rejected by Lord Chief Justice Poole back in November 2002 so I have been able to prove that I have exhausted domestic remedy and I have also met the test of proving that to follow such a course of action through the domestic courts would prove futile. This as been shown in the inconsistent and conflicting judgements made in such cases as well as the courts inability to acknowledge current levels of unrestricted access to such material making the restriction of the same material on one medium alone DVD and video a social pressing need. At sometime during the course of 2006 the Government of the UK will be invited to justify such interference as necessary in democratic society given the arguments already put forward they will be hard pressed to provide such compelling justification. Furthermore I am relying on cast iron case law in the form of SCHERER V SWITZERLAND Application No 17116/60 March 1994. The appellant ran a unlicensed sex shop it prior to the days of DVD and video but he was showing what the Swiss government defined as obscene material to customers at the back of his store. He was subsequently raided by the Swiss police and prosecuted under Swiss penal code article 204. The court declared that in prosecuting the Swiss authority violated the Article 10 right to Freedom of Expression. The commission concluded that although the films being shown shown might well be deemed obscene since they were being shown at the back of a sex shop (unlicensed) those adults who came into contact with the material had done so of their own free will as the sex shop and movies were accessible to all adults willing to see it. The commission also noted that the nature of the applicants shop was not discernable from the street moreover it was unlikely that the projection room adjacent to the shop would be visited by persons who were unaware of the subject matter of the film There was no danger of any adult being confronted with the film against or without their intention to see it. It is further undisputed that no minors had access to film as there was control in the shop ensuring such persons had no access. It is true that it is primarily for the domestic authorities to undertake an assessment as to the protection of morals of adult persons , since morals vary and the domestic authorities are better qualified to make such an assessment ( well the UK has made an assessment that such material is ok for sale without interference in a magazine without licensing so why can`t the same apply to DVD. In the commission's opinion the present case does not concern the protection of morals of adult persons in Swiss society in general since no adult was confronted with either against their will or unintentionally with the film. Where this is so there must be compelling reasons justifying the interference at issue. In the present case the Swiss government (like the UK) have provide no such justification.

In these circumstances the appellants conviction did not correspond to a pressing social need it follows that the interference was disproportionate to aim pursued and could not be considered necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 10.2 of the Convention.

So there we have it in black and white the case here centered around what the state defined obscene material. The material at issue here cannot be deemed obscene in fact it is lawful. The court stated that while the sex shop itself was not blatantly obvious to passes by because it was a sex shop the proprietor implemented sufficient safeguards ensuring minors had no access to the explicit material. In the UK we are required to put visible warnings on the outside of the store in order to forewarn passes by as to the nature of the shop and what is on view inside thus again ensuring that no adult unwillingly enters the shop. We also install inner doors I had CCTV at the front of my store which was hooked up to a monitor in store I also had a electronic locking device on the door so no one could gain access without me pushing a button. When the case was put to the UK courts the prosecution argued that the Sherer case centered around the viewing of a film in the back of the shop and not tangible goods such as videos and DVDss for sale in my shop and whilst the accepted that I had taken the necessary precautions so that those vulnerable members of society came into contact with it I couldn`t account for the goods once they leave the store. Well excuse me but I`m sure the same goes for a licensed shop or do they follow the customer home and ensure the movie is only viewed when consenting adults are around and that afterwards the video is put away in a safe place I THINKS NOT they are talking utter bullshit the facts are there the case law supports them its simply a matter of time until papers are served on you Mr Blair asking you to justify your bullshit inconsistent law...............

From BOD on The Melon Farmers' Forum

It's approximately 20 months from the date of application for a case to go before a Judge for consideration in the European Court. Well that's how long it took mine anyway, unfortunately even though my argument was not at issue the three Judges who looked at my case could not find evidence of an abuse of any of the Articles under which I had brought my complaint. This was purely an oversight on my part whilst I provided a strong and undisputed argument I neglected to actually provide the court with evidence of the prosecution brought against me in the UK which constituted an abuse.

This was part due to the time period involved I'd simply let my mind get side tracked away from the issue and while I had it in the back of my mind to send the information I was caught of guard in the sense that the court unexpectedly looked at my case straight after Christmas. My case although did not centre around mail order but the requirement of a license to run a sex shop. At least Pabo are paying big guns to handle their application and I'm sure their Barrister will not make the same mistake I did.