UK Love Doll Forums  
Untitled Document

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 30-03-2019, 11:05 AM
ranger42's Avatar
ranger42 ranger42 is offline
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 128
Default TDF post regarding CPS guidelines on dolls

Phil from The Doll House has made a post over on TDF regarding new Crown Prosecution Service guidelines regarding possible offences and considerations surrounding them in relation to dolls.
The post is here: https://dollforum.com/forum/viewtopi...f=268&t=114145

The thread was quickly locked there, I don't think because of anything said but because of where these discussions tend to lead. The same might be a good idea here too.

It is definitely worth reading. It's not as bad as it could be, but there are some worrying aspects too. Also, this is about prosecution rather than investigation, and if anyone gets this far then they have already lost a great deal.
__________________
My Girls - Kara, Jasmine and Leah
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 30-03-2019, 11:22 AM
DanDub DanDub is offline
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: East Sussex UK
Posts: 163
Default

Yeah i saw this last night, i think they would rather us buy dolls at 5ft5 weighing over 40kg just to please them
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30-03-2019, 11:27 AM
Tommo10's Avatar
Tommo10 Tommo10 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,021
Default

Thanks Ranger,
Very interesting reading
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30-03-2019, 11:42 AM
algaeholics's Avatar
algaeholics algaeholics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Halifax, UK.
Posts: 2,293
Default

"In Conegate Ltd. v H.M. Customs and Excise [1987] 2 W.L.R. 39 a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles."

No such concession was made - the CPS are lying.

The ECJ made their ruling based on adult dolls being obscene.

If the adult dolls were not obscene, the ECJ would not need to have been involved in the case at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-03-2019, 12:16 PM
Karrot's Avatar
Karrot Karrot is offline
Golden Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: @ The Patch
Posts: 5,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
"In Conegate Ltd. v H.M. Customs and Excise [1987] 2 W.L.R. 39 a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles."

No such concession was made - the CPS are lying.

The ECJ made their ruling based on adult dolls being obscene.

If the adult dolls were not obscene, the ECJ would not need to have been involved in the case at all.
Are they not paraphrasing here , do you think?

CPS said no.
ECJ overruled them
CPS now say a concession was made (because they had to)

Either way an interesting read with a couple of point I thought were very eye opening, but I will not discuss further here.

But from reading that I would say that Dolls like the Piper100 and 130 should be allowed. They may be small in height, but the sculpt is 100% adult.

K
__________________

The Patchlings
....and so I said to her, "Yes, they're very impressive, but you'll look bloody daft doing that on a horse!"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30-03-2019, 12:39 PM
algaeholics's Avatar
algaeholics algaeholics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Halifax, UK.
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
"...a concession was made that adult sex dolls were not obscene articles..."
Did non adult sex dolls exist in 1987?

What I'm getting at is that obscene items of any kind cannot be stopped at the border unless SPECIFIC laws exists in UK domestic legislation preventing it.

There is no specific UK domestic law preventing distribution/resale/ownership of dolls of any stature.

These CPS guidelines are telling us that adult dolls are not obscene. This is plainly incorrect.

Both adult and non-adult dolls are obscene and should be subject to the same protection under the Conegate judgement.

They are attempting to make a black and white argument out of something that is decidedly multicoloured.

or... to paraphrase; they are selectively ignoring the ruling of the European Court of Justice.
__________________

Last edited by algaeholics; 30-03-2019 at 12:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30-03-2019, 12:57 PM
Karrot's Avatar
Karrot Karrot is offline
Golden Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: @ The Patch
Posts: 5,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post

or... to paraphrase; they are selectively ignoring the ruling of the European Court of Justice.
Ah, I misunderstood your point

K
__________________

The Patchlings
....and so I said to her, "Yes, they're very impressive, but you'll look bloody daft doing that on a horse!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30-03-2019, 01:53 PM
The-Doll-House's Avatar
The-Doll-House The-Doll-House is offline
Active New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Chislehurst (SE London)
Posts: 25
Send a message via Skype™ to The-Doll-House
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
Both adult and non-adult dolls are obscene and should be subject to the same protection under the Conegate judgement.

They are attempting to make a black and white argument out of something that is decidedly multicoloured.

or... to paraphrase; they are selectively ignoring the ruling of the European Court of Justice.

Hi Algaeholics - Long time no speak


Am I misunderstanding you here?
If both adult and juvenile dolls are both obscene, then they can legally be impounded by HMRC at the border, as per the 2 century old law.


Wouldn't the Conegate case argue that they are not obscene, on the grounds that they are legal to sell/own in the coutry in question?


Apologies if I'm missing the point here.
__________________
Kind Regards,

Phil

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30-03-2019, 01:59 PM
mcsurfie's Avatar
mcsurfie mcsurfie is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by algaeholics View Post
Did non adult sex dolls exist in 1987?

What I'm getting at is that obscene items of any kind cannot be stopped at the border unless SPECIFIC laws exists in UK domestic legislation preventing it.

There is no specific UK domestic law preventing distribution/resale/ownership of dolls of any stature.

These CPS guidelines are telling us that adult dolls are not obscene. This is plainly incorrect.

Both adult and non-adult dolls are obscene and should be subject to the same protection under the Conegate judgement.

They are attempting to make a black and white argument out of something that is decidedly multicoloured.

or... to paraphrase; they are selectively ignoring the ruling of the European Court of Justice.
The problem may be arising because the original ruling the ECJ may have only be referring to inflatable sex dolls.

No disrespect to those who like inflatable sex dolls, but a TPE/Silicone doll life like. Therefore, there may be the need for legal challenge to update the original ruling to cover TPE/Silicone dolls.

I've said this before, the manufacturers of doll - if using real life women as models - can help. They can be asked to carry contact details of the model and their age that can be verified if need be by the UK Border Force.

That way those who love petite women can buy smaller dolls to an acceptable size if the head is modelled on someone above 18.

It's not that those sort of women don't exist as yesterday. I've seen quite a few including yesterday at my local hospital. Two of the staff had the height (around 140cm) and figures of a young teenage girl, but facially you could tell they were over 20.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 30-03-2019, 02:04 PM
algaeholics's Avatar
algaeholics algaeholics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Halifax, UK.
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-Doll-House View Post
Hi Algaeholics - Long time no speak

Am I misunderstanding you here?
If both adult and juvenile dolls are both obscene, then they can legally be impounded by HMRC at the border, as per the 2 century old law.


Wouldn't the Conegate case argue that they are not obscene, on the grounds that they are legal to sell/own in the coutry in question?


Apologies if I'm missing the point here.
Hi Phil, I'm still around, not being locked up yet...

Conegate Ltd did not argue obscenity. It was the UK that decided this.

Conegate never said either way, they didn't need to.

It's the fact that they continued to be considered obscene by the UK that the ECJ became involved.

The ECJ did not judge whether they were obscene either, but appear to base their final ruling on the assumption that they were. (I'm sure the ECJ would have preferred to be at the pub if they were not considered obscene...)

So essentially, the question on whether they were obscene or not did not come up in ECJ 121/85 decision.

For anyone who's wondering what we are talking about; see: https://www.allieandmaria.com/ConegateFullJudgement.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:43 AM.


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