UK Love Doll Forums  
Untitled Document

Go Back   UK Love Doll Forums > Dolls in General Forum.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-04-2019, 09:05 PM
shamus's Avatar
shamus shamus is online now
Platinum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 2,468

Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
or as a minimum number of seizures to reach based on arbitrary managerial targets.
Though said in pseudo jest I have thought for some time that is actually some mileage in that thought!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2019, 05:17 AM
mcsurfie's Avatar
mcsurfie mcsurfie is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 628

Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
Until they decide otherwise on a whim, or as a 'points means prizes' exercise for the employees, or as a minimum number of seizures to reach based on arbitrary managerial targets.

As an aside, I have recently learned that something encouraging illegal activity is more likely to be considered obscene.

That being said... These inflatable 'stag-do sheep' had better be taken off the market pretty smartish as they could, using the same CPS logic, encourage certain undesirable activities with animals. Certainly anyone releasing them at football matches would be guilty of an 'obscene publication'...

Stop the bus, I'm getting off...
The answer I got from an eBay seller is that the Border Farce don't seem interested in the taller busty dolls as it would be harder to justify seizing a doll that obviously has the figure of a woman.

Any doll over 160cm and a DD cup or over should be safe for an individual to import. The Border Farce might hold it, but I think they would find it very hard to justify seizing it and trying to get the police involved if someone decided to fight back in court, especially if the CPS see it isn't in the public interest to prosecute

After all, if a Judge decides that such a doll isn't representing someone underage, then technically it would be even harder for the Border Farce to use it as a prosecution as in law they would have been passed as not being illegal.

Alternatively, if you have enough money and are reselling, buy in bulk - enough to fill a number of 40ft shipping containers. Ask the supplier to put the smaller ones at the farthest point from the door - only a few dolls deep - and the tallest and heaviest ones to fill up the rest of the container and see if the Border Farce want to unload every single doll in the containers to check them.

That way you can test the resolve of the Border Farce to see if they then want to unload every single one to inspect them without the need afterwards to visit a chiropractor to get their backs sorted out.
Reply With Quote
Old 21-04-2019, 03:56 PM
algaeholics's Avatar
algaeholics algaeholics is offline
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Halifax, UK.
Posts: 2,293

I'm not the only one thinking the CPS have offered a half arsed attempt at clarification...:

We can work with definitive parameters...

We cannot work with vague inferences or continued dithering and the investigative process will not be any easier for the plods on the ground.

This 'guidance' will not make it any easier for any of us attempting to stay within the law.

The only solution I can figure with the present situation is to strengthen your floors, take up body building and buy heavier than an average 18 year old every time.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2019, 12:20 PM
algaeholics's Avatar
algaeholics algaeholics is offline
Platinum Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Halifax, UK.
Posts: 2,293

Finally a little sense is emerging...

Sadly, it didn't stop the client being arrested, detained, accused, interviewed and dragged through the court process for months (maybe years), trial preparation and possibly financial costs etc.

The solicitors key points:

1. the prosecution was not in line with the new guidance
2. ‘expert’ evidence in this case should not be relied upon
3. there were sufficient features of the doll to mean that it was not ‘unquestionably’ a portrayal of a child
4. a lack of evidence suggesting our client was aware of any prohibition
5. the advertising of the items as ‘adult sexy dolls’

If point 1 is true, maybe this is a case of 'malicious prosecution' and compensation may be available.

I particularly like that they've put 'expert' in quotes. We ALL know about these 'experts'...

The dark tunnel of inconsistencies has a spark of light...

Last edited by algaeholics; 08-07-2019 at 02:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2019, 04:51 AM
Anung Un Rama's Avatar
Anung Un Rama Anung Un Rama is offline
Bronze Member
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 236

Interesting, and very much like I have been highlighting from those same guidelines.

Not here to debate, merely making an observation of interest.

And...if that representation of the legal company is any good, then their client is Britain's next Multi the expense of the tax payer, as no doubt compensation would be funded from government coffers.

One kind off wonders, if enough maliciously prosecuted citizens then pursued compensation, and the "govna" had to keep justifying the expense of paying out compensation, well...I know, not here to debate, merely surmise...sooner or later...a decision would be made to no longer risk the payouts for BS prosecutions, that invariably are not going to result in a guilty finding.

Thus perhaps it would be fiscally prudent to focus attention back to real crime and the preservation of homeland security.

Once again, not debate, merely an observation.

Just a regular UKLDF member that knows a lot about dolls I am not snooping around for another forum!
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.