Why every town in Britain needs its own sex shop

The trade will go on anyway. I say, control and supervise it rather than ignore it

A chance remark I made at lunch last week ended up on the front page of one the Sunday newspapers yesterday: "Film censor wants sex shop in every town". As a matter of fact, I wasn't surprised to see it, for the author had rung me up afterwards to discuss my views; the headline and the article were an accurate reflection of what I believe.

A chance remark I made at lunch last week ended up on the front page of one the Sunday newspapers yesterday: "Film censor wants sex shop in every town". As a matter of fact, I wasn't surprised to see it, for the author had rung me up afterwards to discuss my views; the headline and the article were an accurate reflection of what I believe.

Parliament has decreed, through the Video Recordings Act passed in 1984, that there shall be a system for licensing pornographic videos, the Restricted-18 category, and this is part of the work of the British Board of Film Classification. The legislation also enjoins that such material shall be sold only through sex shops that have a local-authority permit. These are more strictly regulated than ordinary video outlets.

The argument in favour of this system is that it exerts control where otherwise there would be a huge black market. R18 videos may not show any material that is in breach of the criminal law; the relevant statutes include the Protection of Children Act and the Obscene Publications Act. They may not have the effect of encouraging an interest is abusive sexual activity. Nor may the activities shown be other than consenting. That is the legal territory. Many readers won't like the sound of it. But there is a substantial, persistent demand for pornography which cannot be halted or turned away. Better to subject what I might call ordinary pornography to the light of day than let the whole trade be conducted illicitly in dark alleys where crime flourishes. In taking this view, Parliament was, I think, adopting a sensible, pragmatic approach.

Except that the local authorities have contrived to frustrate Parliament's wish. In fact no more than 65 sex shops throughout the entire country are presently licensed. The bulk of them are in London, with as many as a quarter in Soho. Even in London the licensed trade has to compete against an extensive black market of almost the same size. In many local authority areas up and down the land there are no licensed shops, and thus the illegal trade supplies the entire demand.

Consider what is available in illegal outlets. There can be found material which does involve the use of children and animals, and which routinely mixes sex and violence, pain and humiliation. When the police raid such premises, the result is often that the material is taken in front of the local magistrates for a declaration that it is obscene, and it is then confiscated. However the guilty parties often shrug their shoulders and start up again in different premises in another part of town. Much less often are charges brought in the Crown Court, where a guilty verdict can result in heavy fines and prison sentences.

I can understand why there is a reluctance to grant licences. It is thought that the very presence of a sex shop in town imparts an unwholesome character to the area. Other retailers do not want to find themselves next to one. But here I think that local councillors are acting blindly. The trade will be going on anyway under their eyes. Perhaps they rely upon the police to root out the business. But for the hard-pressed constabulary, this can only be a sporadic and haphazard activity. Only the largest cities have teams of police officers which specialise in obscenity.

I likewise find naive the remarks attributed to John Beyer, the director of the National Viewers and Listeners Association. He was quoted as saying that "the more outlets, the more accessible this stuff becomes." I would put the matter differently: the fewer the number of licensed outlets, the more the illegal trade flourishes.

For me the greatest risk that pornography poses is through its effect on children who might see it. This most often happens in families where children are neglected and abused. The use paedophiles make of pornography to groom children is well documented. Even without abuse of that kind, the harm which can be inflicted upon children must include shock and trauma, precocious sexualisation and the inculcation of the view that immediate sexual gratification is the sole purpose of a relationship. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that involving children in watching pornography is itself a form of sexual abuse.

But outside the cases of paedophila that reach the courts, and the extreme situations that professionals working with distressed children come across in the course of their work, little is known about the extent of children's exposure to pornography. The children don't say and the parents won't divulge. The BBFC will shortly be publishing some research that it has conducted in this area.

Meanwhile I am quite clear. So far as pornographic videos are concerned, the greatest risks to society lie in the unregulated trade. A paedophile seeking material for grooming vulnerable children is much more likely to go hunting on the black market than to enter a licensed sex shop. I say to local authorities - control and supervise the trade rather than ignore it.

aws@globalnet.co.uk