Rufus Ffoulkes Writing Bad checks to a Model will bring you down

UPDATE; Puppy responds,,,

I talked to Thomas Bjorn this morning about the Rufus Ffoulkes story. Thomas assured me he has reviewed his records and Harry the 16 year old in question was in one Video.

Royal Raw Auditions 1

This video has been pulled and will be destroyed and he recommends all retailers pull and destroy their copies.

Richard the model who made the complaints against Ffoulkes (for non payment) was 18 and the two films with Richard below were never released by Puppy productions in any event.

Thomas pointed out although Puppy Productions and other distributors take 2257 record keeping seriously there is as yet no way to Verify a model’s (or any employee’s)true age in the United States although a system to verify citizenship may address age as well.

Bjorn requires a model to hold his id to the camera as well and make an “On Camera statement” of his true age as well as providing the Gov’t issued ID for inspection and photo copy.

I want to thank Mr. Bjorn for taking the time this morning to respond and clarify which video was involved in Rufus Ffoulkes conviction on February 29th 2008 in Ipswich Crown Court.

Earlier post,,,

I posted Friday based on early reporting from JC Adams and Jim the story from the UK where Prolific Porn producer,director and star “Daddy Darby” Rufus Ffoulkes pled guilty to Check Fraud AND a single count of filming a model under the age of 18. The video in question is Royal Raw Auditions 1 released in 2005 starring Harry (the 16 yo) and a model named Richard. There has been a lot of speculation over the weekend especially after it was revealed Ffoulkes has 58 convictions (mostly frauds) since 1981 with his first being a conviction for sex with a 13 year old boy.

I received several comments and emails anonymously by someone with some obvious knowledge of and contact with Rufus Ffoulkes. I am going to post the latest one below since I believe this Anon has some definite inside information on this case.

 

There has been a bit of confusion in my previous posts because of the name David Holborn being mentioned in one of the news reports. As it was a name that I had not heard before and as I knew it was not the name of the model called Richard, I assumed that it must be the name of the Harry model. However, after reflection, I realised that it was highly unlikely that the real name of any model would be mentioned in a court or by the press, especially when the age of the model at the time of the offence was given as 16.

It now turns out that one news report used the name of the Crown Prosecutor (David Holborn) as being the model’s name!

I have done some further digging and can now give what I hope is the definitive version of the events that led to the court case. This will, I think, provide all the information needed to assure webmasters, dvd retailers etc that they do not need to pull any Rufus Ffoulkes film from their shelves other than Royal Raw Auditions 1.

As I mentioned, it was the model Richard that went to the UK authorities with a complaintof fraud against Ffoulkes – he did several scenes for Ffoulkes over a period of about a year, some of which he had been paid for with bounced cheques. Probably to make the police take his claim seriously, Richard also claimed to the police that some of the scenes were filmed when he was under 18, and also that one of the models in one scene (which Richard identified as being from Royal Raw Auditions 1) was only 16. He also said that Ffoulkes was very lax about getting definitive ID from his models, and was accepting forms of ID (student cards, travel cards etc) that were notoriously easy to fake in the UK. (The drinking age in the UK is 18, so there are a large amount of 16 and 17 years with fake Ids so they can get into pubs and clubs).

Prior to going to the police, Richard approached three companies that were selling dvds that featured himself asking them to assist him in getting payment from Ffoulkes. He also mentioned that he was “probably” underage when he filmed those scenes, although offered no proof at that time or no evidence that the IDs on file for him with those three companies were not genuine.

The films and companies were:-

Royal Raw Auditions 1 (Puppy Productions)
Bareback Brit Boys (Load – the predecessor company of LoadXXX)
Daddy’s Bareback Slave Boys (Shoot Productions, but sold by STB)

Royal Raw Auditions 1 was officially released on dvd but distributed only in the USA. Bareback Brit Boys was officially released on dvd, but distributed only in the UK. Daddy’s Daddy’s Bareback Slave Boys was available only on the internet as a dvd-r copy, and was never professionally replicated as a commercial dvd.

As soon as Richard approached Load and STB with doubts about his age, Load immediately took Bareback Brit Boys off the market and STB immediately stopped selling Daddy’s Bareback Slave Boys. This was over two years ago, and neither title has been commercially available since.

Royal Raw Auditions 1, as previously mentioned, has recently been withdrawn by Puppy – but is still available on many dvd retail websites and theatre streaming sites. It is about this film that Richard made the assertion that another model (Harry) was 16 at the time of filming. However I do not know Harry, nor do I now know if Harry was mentioned in the charges or court documents (as David Holborn is obviously not Harry). I do know that Harry only made one scene for Ffoulkes – the one used in Royal Raw Auditions 1.

Richard went on to make a few films for other companies after he filed the police complaint – he was DEFINITELY over 18 at that time he made those other films. The ONLY films affected by the Ffoulkes conviction are the 3 films above – no other films that list Rufus Ffoulkes as Director are in doubt, nor any any others that Richard appeared in.

At the time Ffoulkes filmed the questionable scenes with Richard and Harry, he was not doing this professionally – he filmed the scenes for his own private use. (One of the reasons Richard got so angry was that he was told his scenes would never be sold commercially. When he saw himself on the cover of Royal Raw Auditions for work he had not been paid for, he naturally got annoyed!)

Ffoulkes subsequently entered the industry in a far more professional manner and, in partnership with others, has made dozens of films over the past two years.

Last year his company were the largest producer of twink material in the UK. Everything made since he turned “professional” was filmed to US identification
tion standards with pictures of the model holding up next to his face his passport or drivers licence.

However when he first entered the industry he made the mistake of using the privately filmed scenes with Richard and Harry alongside new professionally-filmed footage (Royal Raw Auditions 1 was, I think, one of the very first Puppy films featuring British models).

In conclusion, the only film that industry participants should withdraw is Royal Raw Auditions 1. No other films were or are in doubt. The UK police investigation was not actually an investigation into use of underage models. It was a local police investigation (without any national police involvement) into Ffoulkes defrauding several models by not paying for their services. At no time have the police widened their investigation on the underage angle beyond Richard and (because Richard mentioned him) Harry. There appears to have been only one criminal charge filed of underage filming, although with the David Holborn confusion, I am not 100% sure if the charge relates to Richard or to Harry. It is definitely one or the other.

I am sure the police spoke to several other models who were defrauded by Ffoulkes, as the charges included multiple counts of fraud. If there had have been any doubts about the age of any of these other models, he would have been charged with more than one count of using an under age model.

Finally, Ffoulkes had several opportunities to pay Richard what he was owed before Richard went to the police. It wasn’t a huge amount of money – less than £1,000. If he had have done, this matter would never have come to court. That must be a decision Ffoulkes is now bitterly regretting!

My apologies for keeping these comments anonymous. For family reasons, I have to keep a low profile – although I am quite heavily involved with the adult industry in Europe.

I will keep this post updated.