Am I reading this right?
"In a separate case a British producer, Rufus Ffoulkes, was jailed last week on a child pornography charge for putting a 16-year-old boy in a gay porn film in which he had unprotected sex.
The US company which released the film had refused appeals to stop selling the DVD until it was approached by Newsnight.
"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/7277000.stm
Can someone PLEASE tell me the US company that released the film?
Lloyd its Puppy Productions - the dvd is called "Royal Raw Auditions"
Have a read of:
http://dewayneinsd.blogspot.com/2008...-underage.html
what idiots
where's the justice department
Seriously! I thought I read that wrong at first. I was under the impression this was for his personal pleasure and was not released to the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by jIgG
Thanks Mickey.
Does anyone else find it amusing they are talking about underage kids in porn and right at the bottom of the page is a HUGE selection of Brent Corrigan photos? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by forbiddenRed
Regards,
Lee
just noticed that. yeah. it is strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Did you see this quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by forbiddenRed
"Unprotected sex is standard in the gay porn industry."
WTF??? I would hardly stay "standard". :angry:
I've heard that a number of times.
I think it's a rationalization the bareback producers use to justify their decisions.
Interesting, though, that icreme just announced they are dropping all bareback production and will in the future only shoot condom content.
I've also noticed several other (smaller) producers that had been mostly bareback that have recently either stopped producing bareback entirely or started producing safer content again in addition to bareback.
The other thing is, models seem to be becoming more savvy about the issue. Several prominent twink models that had previously done bareback have publicly come out publicly against it and have said that now they've been fully educated on the risks, they will no longer bareback and are advising their friends and other models against it also.
Well, I think consenting adults have a right to make an informed decision for what they do in their own bedroom. However, I think there should be more education on the dangers of barebacking. I have a friend who barebacks, but only as a top because he doesn't believe he can get HIV that way. That tears me up inside because he's obviously not aware of exactly how dangerous it really is.
And the idea that this scumbag producer talked an impressionable 16 year old into endangering his health in this way is disgusting and he should be put away for life. And what really burns my ass is that the media, as usual, makes this situation representative of the whole gay adult industry.
:) yeah Lee everyone knows Brent Corrigan is a friend we are neighbors and I help them out! I don't exactly hide this fact look at the front page of my blog! AND SEE BELOWQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee
I had to check this thread out everyone has been "visiting" from GWW today.
I want to add something I am getting some scuttlebut (nothing confirmed yet) that the UK Authority's are contacting ALL the models they can find from any Rufus Foulkes videos and that of his partners. To check age docs.
I have been contacted by two people who seem very knowledgeable about his operations who also state his HIV test checks were "criminally negligent or simply nonexistent despite his public statements.
FYI about Brent Corrigan
Yes we all know Brent was underage and a "Junior" in HS when he first filmed for Cobra.
Still does not excuse Brent's fake ID right? Nope and he has admitted as much, but what about Bryan when he was told in June 2004 he had an "underage problem" he told Brent and his BF to shut up and get me an ID any ID that shows your 18!
That is Criminal Conspiracy AFTER the Fact!
Bryan KNEW how old "Brent Corrigan" was so its not like the Boy tricked the Producer. Bryan was an Ehebophille! We have sworn statements from 6 boys that Bryan knew the true age's of his "underage boys" and could have cared less. All turned over to DOJ for NonAction as usual!
FYI I turned Bryan into the FBI in 2003 in the case of a San Diego boy I knew was 17
No response,
Rest easy guys DOJ does not PROSECUTE, use all the 16 and 17 year old boys you want just stay away from 15 year olds! :rolleyes:
Not to get into a pissing contest, but that simply isn't true.
The Innocent Images division of the FBI, charged with investigating underage porn issues, is overloaded and prioritizes cases. They do not start an investigation simply because some random guy makes a complaint, even if the random guy is a model. They also do not act quickly, and even when they do act, they are not public about it until the investigation is concluded.
Bryan was either being investigated by innocent images, or about to be at the time of his death. This information came directly from innocent images.
Also, it's interesting the story that Brent is telling now, because it's a completely different one than he was telling a couple of years ago. But that shouldn't be much of a surprise.
The "story" has never changed it is just being more widely reported because Bryan is no longer around to threaten to "rearrange that crooked smile and fullfill all your prison rape fantasy's"
I have been involved with Bryan Kocis since 2001 and I did in fact report him to the FBI and watched as absolutely nothing was done about this man,
I am simply tired of people who say DOJ acts THEY DO NOT!
YOU are correct about priority's which is why I made a public statement on my Blog months ago
Boys age 16 and 17 may be filmed with impunity in the US DOJ has to date NEVER PROSECUTED a case.
Jeff Browning 1990's ????
And Brent Corrigans underage video was withdrawn by distributors not by any action by the FBI in fact you can still buy all 4 titles overseas. They were never flagged by DOJ as Child Porn and will not be
Priority's again.
The story changed completely from the one Sean told me in the summer of 2005, as he was deciding to tell Bryan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbertdidporn
Tell that to the 23 people who were arrested yesterday in an international child porn bust based in the US.Quote:
I have been involved with Bryan Kocis since 2001 and I did in fact report him to the FBI and watched as absolutely nothing was done about this man,
I am simply tired of people who say DOJ acts THEY DO NOT!
As far as I know, the DOJ is not in the business of flagging *any* titles as CP.Quote:
And Brent Corrigans underage video was withdrawn by distributors not by any action by the FBI in fact you can still buy all 4 titles overseas. They were never flagged by DOJ as Child Porn and will not be
Wrong Bryan was informed in April 2004! that he had an underage problem when he was approached by Chris Henriquez's ex BF Jonathan Deverell. This is who broke the news to Bryan about Seans true age. In June of 2004 Bryan confronted Sean about the ID and his Age.
Any other statement (even by Sean in 2005)was cover for Bryan, indeed the early settlement negotiated in December 2006 had a provision where Sean was to categorically state
"I lied and Bryan was not aware of my true age in June 2004" Sean refused to sign such a statement and it was amended by Aty Sean Macias to read "I Bryan Kocis was not aware of Sean Lockharts true age June 2004"
Looks like semantics till you realize Bryan Kocis required exoneration and Legal cover for the filming in June of 2004 and his subsequent sexual relationship with a boy he KNEW to be underage! Why do you think I was so vehemently opposed to ANY accommodation or settlement with Bryan Kocis in December 2006?
That settlement would have taken Sean OUT as a witness in any Federal case against Bryan.
Chip why would you have had any conversations with Sean of any substantive nature in 2005? Sean was exclusive to Cobra he could not work with you and Grant Roy was in the picture during that time. Regardless Sean did not reveal ALL about the age issue in 2005 because of the legal & personal threats Bryan was making at that time.
I criticized both Grant and Sean for not playing hardball and having Bryan arrested for Statutory Rape (indefensible under California law its a strict age issue) I was told this was not done to protect Brent Everett and Chase Mackenzie who would be chargeable as well.
My response was "Too bad so Sad" Bryan needs to be targeted and arrested.
Too many people in this business KNEW about Bryan and his Ehebophilla and did NOTHING and still defend him to this day!
You are being deliberately facetious you know full well the arrests yesterday involved young children (as young as 2) in violent rape and sexual abuse.Quote:
I have been involved with Bryan Kocis since 2001 and I did in fact report him to the FBI and watched as absolutely nothing was done about this man,
I am simply tired of people who say DOJ acts THEY DO NOT!
you said,,,
Tell that to the 23 people who were arrested yesterday in an international child porn bust based in the US.
Grant Roys attorney Zeke Cortez researched the subject (male underage teens)and stated flatly to me in his office in August 2006 that not one prosecution has been recorded by DOJ since 1991 involving the filming of 16 or 17 male models.
Not one!
So what we have as of today,,
One prosecution in the UK on One count of using a 16 year old male model in Gay Porn. One Rufus Ffoulkes
Name an American case.
Where is a name in the US?
Who has been charged?
In ANY instance of 16 and 17 year old males in Gay Porn!
There are no names because NO ONE Not Bryan Kocis NO ONE has ever been arrested ,charged or convicted in such a case!
Believe what you want, I would not have expected anything other than apologia on anything to do with Brent/Sean.
What I heard in the conversations was far from defense/cover for Bryan. And as for the nature of the conversations, why would it matter to you? They weren't about Sean working for us; in fact, that issue was never even raised.
For the record, I'm not claiming that Bryan did not have reason to suspect Sean was underage; he had reports even before the first videos were released, that was clear in the initial conversations. What's different is the nature of exactly when Bryan knew for sure that Sean was underage at the time of the filming of the initial scenes, and who was primarily responsible.
The conversations -- and there were a number of them -- between Sean and I took place before Sean got set up with Chad, and there are emails back and forth that document everything (and unlike those of some of the bloggers, mine are complete with headers, IP addresses, supporting documents, etc.)
Like I said, I don't wish to argue. I would be about the last person to defend Bryan, as I agree that his behaviors, as documented by many, were deplorable. I just dislike revisionist history, particularly when Bryan isn't around to document his side of things, and when the other side keeps trying to revise things further and further to make Sean look more and more blameless.
and... this thread has gotten way off topic. Perhaps we should get back on topic. My bad.
I agree we are off topic but I have my Kocis emails as well, compete with "headers, IP addresses, supporting documents" at least I did until I turned them over.
I disagree Sean has ALWAYS agreed about HIS personal responsibility in the underage porn scandal & age fraud he perpated along with his then BF Chris Henriquez.
It's you people in the BIZ who refuse to acknowledge or accept his Apology and statement of responsibility repeated ad nauseum for the last 3 years!
While nary a word of responsibility or Apology to the "industry" has ever been forthcoming from Bryan Kocis or Chris Henriquez
Finally I told Sean Fuck it the Apology and Fuck them NO ONE in this BIZ reported or OSTRACIZED Bryan Kocis in 6 long years!
We all accepted this Snake in our midst just like the UK producers accepted Rufus Ffoulkes if people cant remove the bad operators can we complain when the sanctimonious media or heaven forbid the govt does it for us?
Last post on Corrigan I promise Chip and I do not mean anything personally toward you so I apologize if you take it that way.
And yes I am well aware of Chads early case work for both in 2005.
Seriously. This thread has gotten way off topic. It has turned from a 16 year old being in a BB film in the US to a "who said what to who when and why they said what they said to who whenever they said whatever they said to ..." Oh dear god you get the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
It's just a damn shame that 16 years old get tossed into the world of bb porn or even porn for that matter. And as Don pointed out it's even more a shame that the media thinks bb is the norm in gay porn.
The ONE good thing that Chip pointed out is that models are becoming AWARE and that is a start. And please, this is not an anti bb statement from me. It would be nice to see that models become aware of what being in porn entails and how it can affect their lives. Either with a condom or without.
Right so back on Topic
Well 60% (figure for Bareback production in the UK) is a big scary figure and how about a small example I went into my Local video store in San Diego The Crypt and looked at new releases,,Quote:
And as Don pointed out it's even more a shame that the media thinks bb is the norm in gay porn.
I started counting the condom titles finally I looked over at John the manager and I said "John what is your ratio now Bareback vs Condom porn"
He had a quick answer "80/20" as in 80 % Bareback,,Condom does not sell period and hardly rents DeWayne".
They had 8 copy's of Eurocremes latest and ONE of Chi Chi's Excess!
The biggest sellers in the Store?
Anything by Treasure Island media almost 200 copys of the whole catalog and they reorder constantly!
This is a store with the largest DVD collection in San Diego where they had a Nasty argument among the clerks AND Management in 2002 over even carrying Bareback titles (I know of 3 Crypt clerks who died in the 90's from Aids)
The battle in the trenchs is over the scandal in the UK is just a blip, a speedbump they will all be back to Bareback or they will simply shut the UK biz down!
Very Sad but the market speaks and as we all learned in Economics 101
"Free Markets have NO Conscience!"
People do however,,,
I agree no one can disagree with that! :)Quote:
The ONE good thing that Chip pointed out is that models are becoming AWARE and that is a start. And please, this is not an anti bb statement from me. It would be nice to see that models become aware of what being in porn entails and how it can affect their lives. Either with a condom or without.
This is what I knew of the story as well, from Jonathan Deverell.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbertdidporn
Wait a minute!Quote:
Originally Posted by abostonboy
16?
Personal Pleasure?
WTF?
Over on this side of the pond, I believe that's a Felony.
Chad?
WB Madame, haven't seen you around in a while! 16 is legal in a few states, each state has a different age for the age of consent, now I can't say I would agree with the morals of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
16 is the legal age of consent here in the UK
BUT
18 is the legal age to shoot pornography
A pig is a pig, is a pig. No offence meant to actual pigs.Quote:
Originally Posted by deanb
Gay, het, trans, metro, a pig is a pig is a pig! :thumbsdown: I do believe that age of consent, is not the same as the age you are a legal adult, with the rights. privliages and protection of the Law.
And thanks for the welcome back! We've had Family issues to take care of, but I'm pleased as PUNCH that Roy and I will be in Phoenix.
There's even a tiny lil twist for us - on this our 4th Forum - and you can read about it on ...
Madame Knows The Y Not Version
On The Road Again!
www.ynot.com
:humble:
I think I may have said what I said wrong. I meant HIS personal pleasure, surely not mine. I was just saying I didn't think it was sold. Sorry for any confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame0120
Some interesting points here, but regarding BB outselling condom porn 80 / 20 seems a little odd. I mean, it would suggest that we would all be mad not to make BB porn, yet I and hundreds of others who only produce condom porn still make a decent living. Perhaps what we're really talking about is greed?
Indeed. As I've said elsewhere, our DVD line outsells almost every other twink line out there, and we're 100% safer sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Mason
Yes, there are a small handful of customers who will *only* buy bareback, but the vast majority of bareback buyers will also buy a safe title (or membership) if the material is of decent quality.
As for the stores that claim that safer sex doesn't sell... we have challenged a number of stores to try our DVD line, with an offer to take the unsold product back if we're wrong. In nearly every case, not only does the store sell all of our product, but they reorder more.
I just wish people would stop perpetuating this myth, because they *will* make it reality if everyone manages to convince everyone that you have to produce bareback to be successful.
Oh hunny .. I knew who you were talkin' about. :heart:Quote:
Originally Posted by abostonboy
With all due respect to all parties involved, this thread was originally created to discuss a UK producer using a 16 year old model in a bareback scene. Do we really need to drag this thread out as a personal bashing thread of a man who was brutally murdered?
This is weird.....
They're Distributor, or I believe it's their distributor is still selling this product. It's New Barbary Coast Distribution owned by Treasure Island Media.
I received an email a couple days ago where they have put it on a sale for wholesale of $10.00 each.
I see nothing on their website that the distribute this line or video. Puppy productions doesn't even have the video for sale on their website.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekt
Maybe it was only to email customers. Maybe they were running a liquidation sale, there could be a number amount of reasons it's still not there or that line is not there. Just because it's not listed on a website doesn't mean it's not being sold. We sell to email customers all the time and the items may not be listed on a website.
Nope, I called them, they are not selling it, haven't been for a while, and no email went out offering them on sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by derekt