UK Sex Sells News

Supporters of an East End gay pub are battling to stop it being included in a hit-list of sex entertainment establishments the council wants to close down.

Around 750 people have signed a petition to exempt the White Swan in Commercial Road from Tower Hamlets Council's plans to ban any venue from offering lap-dancing, pole-dancing or sex shows.

Campaigners, who first presented the petition in November, now accuse town hall chiefs of ignoring their concerns as they have had no response despite being told they should receive one within 28 days.

The White Swan's popular Wednesday nights sometimes feature male strippers but the campaign group is arguing there are no advertisements that could offend passersby and no prostitution or sexual activity of any kind.

Daryl Stafford, leading the campaign, said:

If we live in a truly multi-cultural society where people truly respect the lifestyles of others this simply would not happen. The venue has run its comedy male amateur strip night for 26 years without a single complaint.

And with a touch of 'I'm alright Jack', he added:

The legislation was originally set up to stop women being exploited and coerced into the sex trade... But there are no women involved in this. It's a men only night and stripping is voluntary."

Jack Gilbert, of LGBT group Rainbow Hamlets, said:

If they are making an argument that something is a social nuisance or has a history of causing anti-social behaviour and exploitation then the White Swan does not meet any of these criteria at all.

A council spokesprat said:

There was a record number of responses to the consultation and it was clear that residents felt strongly about the matter. No decision has been made in relation to which premises would be deemed to be sex establishments.

And with a particularly inept piece of politically correct confused thinking, Conservative group leader at Tower Hamlets, Peter Golds told BBC London:

I, like most reasonably minded people, have concerns about scantily clad women being exploited....BUT...consenting adults looking for a laugh, a joke and comedy is not exploitation.

Birmingham City councillor Nigel Dawkins has called for the sex establishments not to be allowed to use pornographic images on their websites.

Since last January, lap dancing clubs have had to apply for a Sexual Entertainment Venue licence. The committee has the power to refuse the licences and set the conditions under which they have to operate.

Dawkins said he wanted another condition put on the licences:

I think we should make it a condition that on their websites they do not use porn to advertise their clubs because they are using pornography to sell their business and that's a scandal, he said. They wouldn't be allowed to use these images on their windows, but they are free to use them on their websites.

Licensing committee chairman, Councillor Bruce Lines  said they had no powers over the internet. But the committee agreed to ask its officers to prepare a report for a future meeting on the possiblity of restricting how clubs advertised themselves on their websites.

The BBFC published it's decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law. It cut 2:35s with the comment:

Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

This decision was published after the R v Peacock case where a jury unanimously cleared films depicting full on urolagnia of obscenity.

Sergio enquired of the BBFC whether anything has changed regarding the R V Peacock case and received an email from the BBFC:

The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is incorrect.

There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.

Yours sincerely,

J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

Plymouth Council has proposed suffocating restrictions to prevent adult fun and the chance for local people to make a bit of money.

Repressive new licensing laws will mean that only one sex shop or cinema and two lap dancing venues will be allowed in Union Street.

The city centre will be allowed just one sex shop and no lap dancing venues.

All other parts of the city will be generally considered out of bounds.

A one-year licence will cost £3,900, and the annual renewal fee will be £3,200 under proposals agreed by the Cabinet.

The licensing policy will go to the full city council at the end of this month for approval.

A total of 46 responses were received during a public consultation.

Hooe Baptist Church called for premises such as supermarkets and filling stations to be included as sensitive buildings.

A bid for a new lap dancing club in central Dundee has been thrown out by councillors over bollox fears it could increase crime in the area.

The application, by Stars Sports Bar, run by Jimmy Marr, wanted to change the use of Mangos Nightclub in the Seagate into a lap dancing venue.

Katherine Sharp of the nutter group Dundee Violence Against Women Partnership voiced her strong opposition to the undesirable development. She ludicrously claimed that the move would result in an over-provision of adult entertainment venues in the city and could create a problem with prostitution in the surrounding area. She said:

Lap dancing is harmful to the women involved. They are often verbally abused by men and propositioned for sex. Support of this application would be contrary to the council's duty to protect women and goes against its equality policy as it would support one gender over another.

The ready stock of alcohol at these clubs can make it very unsafe for women. Afterwards many men use public transport and cause problems to women on their way home.

Sharp also claimed that 'research' from other anti-commercial sex groups had shown crime, or fear of crime, increases in areas in which lap dancing clubs exist.

The council's director of city development, Mike Galloway, warned the committee that although a number of moral issues had been raised it was the duty of members to make a decision based only on planning considerations. He said the fear of increased crime, as mentioned by Ms Sharp, could be taken into account as this was not a moral issue but material consideration.

Maryfield councillor Ken Lynn moved to refuse the application on moral grounds anyway, saying that he viewed the plans with genuine distaste. He was seconded by Richard McCready, who again cited morality reasons: We have to consider the vision for our city centre and ask is this something that we want?

All councillors agreed to the motion that went against the recommendation made to them by city planners.

The podcast is introduced as follows:

Well this week it's all about sex again! And you really probably should ensure your children aren't in the back seats if you're listening in the car. Awkward questions might abound. Ben, Kirstin and regular contributor, Jonathan Holt, talk with Alex Dymock once more following the verdict in the Southwark Obscene Publications Trial and are joined by Myles Jackman, one of Michael Peacock's defence team and journalist David Allen Green to discuss the merits of repealing the 1959 Act and what this verdict means for future prosecutions.

...Listen to the podcast

Sergio has also kindly listed articles discussing this R v Peacock case:

blog.indexoncensorship.org/2012/01/06/obscenity-trial-verdict-michael-peacock-pornography/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Peacock
www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/?p=2042
janefae.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/news-feed-an-end-to-obscenity-law/
lawandsexuality.blogspot.com/2012/01/fisting-in-courtroom.html
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/crown-court-prosecution
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/peacock-trial-fisting
obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-of-decade.html
strangethingsarehappening.com/news-obscenitytrial.html
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/07/obscene-publications-act-future-doubt
www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/06/obscenity-trial-law-digital-age
www.lawgazette.co.uk/blogs/blogs/news-blogs/an-obscene-waste-money
www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/bottoms-and-broomsticks
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/obscenity-law-depraved-trial
www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/01/06/comment-are-we-seeing-the-death-of-obscenity
www.theweek.co.uk/law/44124/sleazy-michael-wins-obscenity-trial-over-fisting-dvds
quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/freedom-in-a-puritan-age-or-not/
timeritous.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/r-v-peacock-the-last-obscene-publications-act-prosecution/
sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-ends.html
www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=19392
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16443697
mag.bent.com/news/not-guilty-verdict-in-gay-porn-obscenity-trial/

Xcite Books, the UK's largest erotic publisher, annual awards programme celebrates and recognises companies, reviewers, bloggers and sexperts who value and support the erotic fiction market.

Hazel Cushion, Managing Director at Xcite Books, explained:

The internet and the advent of ebooks has completely changed the erotic fiction market and as yet there's no recognition of this. Customers now have a wealth of review sites, author blogs and internet retailers to choose from so we wanted to highlight and celebrate the dedication of the people behind these.

The nominations are:

Best Internet Retail Site:

• AllRomance.com
• Amazon.co.uk
• AnnSummers.com
• Lovehoney.co.uk
• Sextoys.co.uk
• Sh-womenstore.com

Best Blog or Author Page

• CaraSutra.co.uk
• Kdgrace.co.uk
• LucyFelthouse.co.uk
• Sommermarsden.blogspot.com
• Tonyakinzer.blogspot.com
• Victoriablisse.co.uk

Best Reviewer:

• coffeetimeromance.com
• darkhavenbookreviews.com
• eroticaforall.co.uk
• sextoytesters.co.uk
• simplyeroticreviews.com
• theromancereviews.com

Best Sexpert:

• Dr Gabrielle Morrissey
• Dr Laura Berman
• Julie Peasgood
• Pamela Stephenson Connolly
• Tracey Cox
• Violet Blue

Best Publication:

• Attitude
• Cosmopolitan
• Diva
• ETO [Erotic Trade Only]
• Jade Magazine
• Skin Two Magazine

Timetable:

• 1st January to 10th February 2012: Finalists announced, open for public voting
• 14th February 2012: Winners announced

A morality campain to block a lap dancing club from operating in Consett has been revived.

The opening of Red Velvet in Consett was granted five years ago under the old licensing regime. Nutters were vocal at the time but license was allowed.

The owners have now been forced to apply for a new licence under the new legislation that allows for morality objections dressed up as 'concerns' about the area.

North-West Durham MP Pat Glass is urging people to register their objections with the council. She spewed:

This club was never wanted by local people and its activities are completely out of keeping with the local area.

It is surrounded by three churches, and is close to homes, primary schools and Derwentside College.

But in fact the venue is in perfect keeping with the local area. It is even located above a fish and chip shop.

Glass prattled on:

At the time that the initial licence was granted local people, churches and organisations were very angry that they were not given the opportunity to object to the licence, but they have that opportunity now and can object to the renewal.

I would encourage anyone or organisation who objects to this club and its activities to provide their objections to Durham County Council.

If local people work together we can prevent the renewal of this licence.

People have until January 18 to express their views to the council.

Chris Ashford has written an excellent report of the trial:

On Friday 6 January 2012, a historic case came to a conclusion in Courtroom 7 of Southwark Crown Court in Courtroom 7. Michael Peacock was unanimously acquitted, after a four-day trial that saw the outdated obscenity law of England and Wales in the dock.

Peacock had been charged under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for allegedly distributing obscene gay DVDs, which featured fisting, urolagnia ('watersports') and BDSM.

Peacock had advertised the DVDs through Craigslist, his own website (which also promoted his services as a male escort), and in a magazine. The Human Exploitation and Organised Crime Command (SCD9) or London's Metropolitan Police --- which encompasses the former Obscene Publications Squad --- saw the advert and began an investigation.

...Read the full article

The International Union of Sex Workers is delighted by the unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all counts in the trial of Michael Peacock that concluded at Southwark Crown Court on Friday 6th January.

Michael's courage and determination in pursuing this case was the first challenge to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for many years. Understandably, most people charged with offences under this Act plead guilty as an innocent plea followed by a court case that returns a guilty verdict will result in a harsher sentence. This has the effect of leaving police and CPS opinion of what is obscene untested.

The DVDs that were the subject of this prosecution were sold through Michael's website, sleazymichael.com, and on Craigslist. They contained scenes of male fisting, urination and BDSM. Michael was charged with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to deprave and corrupt. The jury saw a substantial amount of the content which the police and CPS deemed illegal and required less than two hours deliberation to return unanimous not guilty verdicts on all counts. Therefore material showing the activities depicted is no longer defined as obscene in law.

It's time to decriminalise sex between consenting adults. Lady Chatterley trial of 1960 (R v Penguin Books) is still quoted as precedent in obscenity trials; the jury's response in R v Peacock shows public opinion has clearly moved on considerably.

Catherine Stephens, activist with the International Union of Sex Workers, says:

In a week that has also seen the collapse of the Sheila Farmer trial for brothel keeping, it is time to decriminalise the sexual activities of consenting adults, whether or not they are in front of a camera. These two trials were an appalling waste of public resources: the law as it stands does nothing to enhance the safety either of the general public or those who work in the adult industry and often actively increases the dangers we face.

Michael Peacock says:

Responsible treatment of pornography would allow adults who want to access sexually explicit materials freedom to do so and protect those who are underage or do not wish to view such content. The current legal framework fails to do either of these things. I give my thanks to my legal team at Hodge Jones Allen, the judge who heard my case and the twelve people who served on the jury whose maturity and commonsense has changed the law.

Hazel Eracleous, Chair of Backlash comments:

Backlash is delighted that a jury decided it is no longer appropriate to prosecute people based on consensual adult sexual activity. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media. We will continue to raise awareness of the unseen consequences of these draconian laws, provide legal advice and defend those same consenting adults caught up in the Extreme Pornography and Obscene Publication laws.

Myles Jackman, solicitor at Hodge Jones Allen with a specialist interest in obscenity cases states:

This case shows the Obscene Publications Act is no longer effective in the age of the internet.

See also Obscenity trial: the law is not suitable for a digital age from guardian.co.uk by Myles Jackman.

See also Interview with Myles jackman: Freedom Fister from vice.com

Jerry Barnett, Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), says:

We congratulate Michael Peacock on his victory. The idea that depictions of consenting adult sexual activity can be deemed obscene is a throwback to an earlier age. The adult industry continues to develop and adopt technologies that prevent children from accessing sexual content. We see no need for adults to be protected from it -- a free society should protect the rights of adults to participate in any consenting sexual act they choose.

In the Press

The judgement seems to have captured little attention from the newspapers with the exception of the Guardian/Observer which has published several items about the news.

See article from guardian.co.uk

Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University, who lectures in sex, communication and culture, and who attended the trial, said:

I think the law does not make sense. All the evidence that was heard was about whether the material had the ability to harm and corrupt. The question now is, what does that actually mean? What is significant is that the jury understood [the issues at stake].

Attwood, like others experts in the field, believes that the law has been overtaken by new understandings of the way in which people think about sexuality and the depiction of sex including whether a process actually exits that leads to moral corruption.

Others who have been deeply critical of the attempted prosecution include solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green. Writing during the case he said:

Obscenity is a curious criminal offence, and many would say that it now has no place in a modern liberal society, especially when all that is being portrayed in any obscene material are the consensual (if unusual) sexual acts between adults.

See also It's time to abolish the obscenity law from newstatesman.com by Nichi Hodgson

Other Comments

See also Obscenity trial ends from sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com by Dr Brooke Magnanti

See also An end to Obscenity Law? from janefae.wordpress.com by Jane Fae

See also 'Obscenity Trial Of The Century' Ends In Acquittal from strangethingsarehappening.com

See also The End of the English Obscene Publications Act from allvoices.com by Mike Freeman

And from the not so delighted

Few nutter campaigners have commented so far.

From article at bbc.co.uk.

The BBC prompted a few words from Vivienne Pattison

Mediawatch-UK said the Obscene Publications Act needed to be tightened up. Its director Vivienne Pattison says the case illustrates the problem with the act:

There is not a list which says what is obscene and what is not. It makes it incredibly difficult to get a conviction on that.

As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults, but porn is damaging.

R v Peacock

Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.

Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.

The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual scene.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

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

Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge Jones and Allen

Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.

In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity.

And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their censorial views.

Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?

The BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.

I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why. This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the censors to be degrading.

Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to those participating.

The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch justifications but continue to ban BDSM.

And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.

The Erotic Olympiad: The art of sexual subversion.
The Gallery Liverpool.
Friday 27th January to 10th February

A love-fest to celebrate all that is exotically erotic in the arts. This unmissable event enters its second year with its best features proudly forward.

From perfectly upstanding sculptures to beautifully well-hung wall art, the exhibition offers the discerning lover of art a lot to digest and appreciate.

In addition, The Association of Erotic Artists are proud to be working in conjunction with The Gallery Liverpool during this event. The Erotic Awards will be sharing their current international exhibition of finalists and there will be a performance by the award-winning Mouse whose outrageous show as Goldilocks is world-famous. She will lead the Sex Workers Show 'n' Tell which will showcase local talent.

For those with an interest in developing their three-dimensional artistic skills, the private view will feature live vaginal casting by sculptor Len Gifford, as well as live music: a transgender live art performance by the renowned Mandy Romero; and the leadership skills of dominatrix Vanessa who will steer the lost, bemused and fascinated between venues.

The 3rd January 2012 marks the first day of the most significant obscenity trial of the decade; which will ultimately clarify the law on the representation of gay fisting, urolagnia as well as BDSM.

The defendant in the case, Michael Peacock, is charged on indictment with numerous offences under the Obscene Publications Act for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:

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

In this trial, which will be heard before the Southwark Crown Court, the films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture).

These activities feature on the current list of what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently consider to be obscene. Ultimately though, it is a matter for a jury to decide whether these acts are obscene by virtue of whether they deprave and corrupt the viewer.

Interestingly this case seems to have found unofficial tacit support from the BBFC; and the Metropolitan Police's Abusive and Extreme Images Unit (the Met's old obscene publications squad is now part of SCD9): on the basis that this case will establish whether the depiction of fisting and urination pornography is legal or not.

Hence, if the jury decides that such pornography is not obscene, on the basis that it does not deprave and corrupt the viewer; then it is entirely likely that both the producers and distributors of pornography will make such material available for sale, for example via licensed sex shops.

Consequently, this significant obscenity prosecution will either reaffirm or rearrange the boundaries of obscenity law.

Mr Peacock is represented by  Hodge Jones and Allen LLP..

...Read the full article

Update: Follow Live on Twitter

5th January 2012.  See article from lawandsexuality.blogspot.com

The #ObscenityTrial involving the issue of fisting (among others) goes into day three today.

If you're not already doing so, be sure to follow on twitter the excellent activist and scholar, @lexingtondymock. I'd also suggest following the journalist @NichiHodgson. Both have been providing fascinating coverage through their live tweets from the courtroom.

Many of the exchanges today would be comical, were they not so serious.

A regional press ad for a Hustler Club UK which appeared on 15 September 2011 featured a blackboard, a pile of books on top of which sat an apple and a discarded bra. Text stated Back to school. JOIN OUR SCHOOL GIRL PARTY EVERY FRIDAY FOR FOUR WEEKS STARTING 23RD SEPTEMBER. SEE YOUR FAVOURITE HUSTLER HONEYS & STAFF IN THEIR SCHOOL UNIFORMS.

A reader challenged whether the ad was:

1. offensive and irresponsible because it promoted the idea of school children as sexual objects; and

2. unsuitable to appear in a publication which children might see.

ASA Decision: Complaints Not Upheld

1. Not Upheld

The ASA noted the reference to Back to school and associated school items such as books, a blackboard and an apple. We considered that in the context of the ad, the claim Join our school girl party which appeared in conjunction with the claim SEE YOUR FAVOURITE HUSTLER HONEYS & STAFF IN THEIR SCHOOL UNIFORMS was likely to be understood as referring to the Hustler staff as the ones dressed in school uniform. We noted that the ad did not feature any one dressed in school uniform. Whilst we understood that some readers may object to the choice of theme night, we considered that the ad would be unlikely to be seen as promoting school children as sexual objects. We concluded that the ad was not irresponsible and was unlikely to cause serious or widespread offence.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rules 1.3 (Social responsibility) and 4.1 (Harm and Offence), but did not find it in breach.

2. Not Upheld

We noted the ad did not include any nudity, references to sexual activity and did not feature any one dressed in school uniform. We noted the readership figures of the publication and that it was mostly read by adults. Although we considered the ad was unlikely to be seen by children, we noted that it could attract the attention of some children because it was a full-page ad, that featured a blackboard and the text back to school and because it appeared shortly after the start of the new school term. In any case, we considered that children who saw the ad were unlikely to understand the nature of the adult service being advertised. We therefore concluded that the ad was unlikely to be seen by children and that the ad was not unsuitable for children to see.

On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.