|
STICKY: ChiefCensor
- Please no spam, libel, slander, etc
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
- Islamic and races issues should be debated in the Religious Forum
Melon Farmers (Dave) {28446. Posted 18-May-2012 Fri 04:55}
Melon Farmers is running late today. Broadband has gone down. Trying back up dongle now. goatboy {28445. Posted 17-May-2012 Thu 07:24}
Ken Loach new film The Angels` Share was cut for category, to reduce the number of uses of `cunt` for a 15 instead of 18. We must protect the 16 and 17 year olds from a word they probably hear every day!
Beyond absurd.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AFF288639/ DoodleBug {28444. Posted 16-May-2012 Wed 13:48}
So, after 37 years the BBFC have now decided that Jaws is no longer suitable for younger children to watch. It has been bumped up to a 12A from a PG for its theatrical re-release in June.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BFF040209/
Don`t they realise that all us adults who saw this movie as a child have still not been traumatised by the experience some 30 years later !!
sergio {28443. Posted 15-May-2012 Tue 06:36}
DM hypocrisy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144145/Madonna-photograph-posing-naked-bed-smoking-cigarette-sells-15-000.html sergio {28442. Posted 15-May-2012 Tue 06:15}
[28441] Yes, seems like the facebook photos are here http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=294&num=402139
Not sure exactly which newspaper has published these. In the article she says a paper published it
`One paper ran a picture of me in a bikini, which was taken when I was 16 and had been snatched from my Facebook page.`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2140092/Madeline-Grant-Oxford-University-student-fined-120-joking-great-rack-liberal-arts-course.html
Melon Farmers (Dave) {28441. Posted 14-May-2012 Mon 21:18}
Sergio
I see a fairly demure (but with vaguley sexy eyes) individually posed photo of Grant in a modest flowery summer dress. No sign of a bikini and not related to the other photos you linked. sergio {28440. Posted 14-May-2012 Mon 05:56}
The picture is on the right - with text`Vote for me: Madeline Grant was previously rejected by a modelling agency for being too big (Picture: Grant Triplow)`
Seems like that was a cut down version of a bigger picture
Actually it looks like this has
http://in2eastafrica.net/oxford-university-student-blasted-for-sexist-attempt-to-win-election-to-librarian-post-by-boasting-about-her-breasts/
or this
http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=294&num=402139
the facebook images
Melon Farmers (Dave) {28439. Posted 14-May-2012 Mon 04:55}
Sergio. Didn`t see anything at Metro. Perhaps they`ve pulled the picture you were talking about. sergio {28438. Posted 13-May-2012 Sun 08:37}
Metro publishes child pornography
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/892266-oxford-student-who-boasted-about-my-great-rack-removes-boob-comments-from-manifesto
Madeline Grant was 16 when the photo in her `bikini` was taken(according to The Mail On Sunday interview http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2140092/Madeline-Grant-Oxford-University-student-fined-120-joking-great-rack-liberal-arts-course.html ) . sergio {28437. Posted 11-May-2012 Fri 01:07}
Nadine Dorries MP threatens Reginald D Hunter
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/196/nadinedorriesmyshotgun.jpg/ Melon Farmers (Dave) {28436. Posted 10-May-2012 Thu 22:15}
Phantom
I bet the jury had a few clues to the background of the defendants anyway. A lawyer friend told me that prosecutors have a vast repertoire of subtle hints available where necessary. One I recall from a chat was that the prosecutor would mention that it was a bit strange that the (bad boy) defendent didn`t seem to have any character reference witnesses. phantom {28435. Posted 10-May-2012 Thu 04:59}
Any views on here regarding what is happening to the Spectator because of Rod Liddle`s article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/09/spectator-magazine-charge-lawrence-trial?newsfeed=true
Funny isn`t it? We`ve got an update on here about Queen`s Speech promises regarding freedom of speech.
Yet when someone expresses an opinion, - one which runs counter to the predominant view of the establishment, - this happens.
True, they have got them on a technical breach. The Spectator is guilty - technically. And the newspaper did grovel in court, admitting is was entirely wrong, in order to placate m`lud.
But is there really anyone in the country who sees any point in this?
After years and years of both tabloid and broadsheet exposure of this case and the accused, a jury would not bring ready opinions into court with them? Well, evidently not. After all, the majesty of English justice and all that. They wear wigs, so it must be beyond reproach.
From what I hear Rod Liddle apparently simply pointed out the obvious. That the emperor was wearing no clothes. Somehow I feel that is what really riled the people in robes. Not some technical breach of telling about a case everyone already knew about anyway.
But there you go. They are guilty. They admitted guilt. So the Spectator was obviously wrong. Because from what we know of the law, obviously only ever people who are guilty ever admit guilt.... don`t they? :) phantom {28434. Posted 9-May-2012 Wed 17:01}
Well, censorship needn`t always be about all things `adult`...
http://www.pharmafield.co.uk/news/2012/05/Cabinet-vetoes-publication-of-NHS-risk-register
this whole issue reminds me of the DPA way back when... there too nothing the government were told, or any legal evaluation ever could be published... it was simply enough for them to say that it complied with the human rights act... after that, they were at liberty to stone wall... governmental privilege...
In a way this is very much in a similar vein... except here there are actual court orders which are simply being thrust aside... by them simply saying that they don`t want to...
Curious how politics works in this country... releasing any info on NHS policy is apparently a matter of `national security`... :)
Melon Farmers (Dave) {28433. Posted 9-May-2012 Wed 02:31}
MichaelG
Well the USA isn`t far enough away to escape the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141196/Porn-USA-Orlando-crowned-Americas-Pornography-Capital-list-100-smuttiest-cities.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Interestingly this nonsense was noted in America:
http://business.avn.com/articles/video/Daily-Mail-Takes-Aim-at-Porn-Addicted-Orlando-475067.html
They seem to have got the Daily Mail down to a tee. AVN writes:
"and wouldn`t you know it, the Daily Mail, Britain`s reactionary tabloid, which is currently gnashing its teeth over porn on the internet and calling for a nationwide "opt-in" program that would filter all porn sites by default, has taken note of Orlando". MichaelG {28432. Posted 8-May-2012 Tue 22:32}
And STILL it continues:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141247/Children-aged-8-addicted-Internet-pornography.html
They`re not going to be happy until we`re all living in fucking Iran... MichaelG {28431. Posted 8-May-2012 Tue 14:55}
RE: Melon Farmers (Dave) [28430]:
That`s absolutely superb and utterly priceless, my friend, thank you! Melon Farmers (Dave) {28430. Posted 8-May-2012 Tue 04:32}
MichaelG
A good report in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/apr/30/porn-panic-daily-mail MichaelG {28429. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 22:13}
When it`s not working, why not wheel out a grieving parent mourning the loss of their child to tip the scales in favour of your argument?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140962/Sara-Payne-backs-block-online-porn-says-images-encourage-perverts-turn-fantasies-reality.html
After all, it wouldn`t be the first time, would it? goatboy {28428. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 19:55}
Prometheus is mpaa rated R for “sci-fi violence including some intense images, and brief language.”
This is some what amazing, given it apparently cost $250 million.
Picturehouse cinemas are saying it`s a 15 in the UK. emark {28427. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 14:43}
Re: Courtney Stodden: She`s 17 - which as I`m sure ppl know is now in the age for "child" porn.
I don`t know if it would be illegal, but the UK law says "erotic posing", which I think this clearly is, even if genitals aren`t shown, so I think it`s reasonably borderline.
I don`t think it should be illegal, but I think things like this show how mad the law is. I mean, whether or not that`s "porn", is it okay for adults to be sexually turned on by pics of 17 year olds, or isn`t it? And if exploitation is a concern, aren`t pics shown in a mainstream paper to millions more concerned than a teenage couple privately sharing pics?
And yes, even more funny in the context of the Mail`s "Block Online Porn" campaign - amusing article on this at http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/apr/30/porn-panic-daily-mail (it might even be worth it if the Daily Mail gets blocked...)
sergio {28426. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 11:02}
R18 BBFC cuts for April 2012
Number of items=30
No. Cuts=8
Cuts ratio=26%
Cuts of interest:
`with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act`
Whose interpretation is it? Does the BBFC `interpret` it? Does the BBFC interpret the CPS who interpret the OPA? In all probability the CPS is wrong and so is the BBFC.
LOVE ME LONG TIME
Cuts required to remove urolagnia in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and to remove a sequence encouraging the restriction of breathing during sex in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984. sergio {28425. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 07:41}
`Sergio. She looks way too old to be worried about.`
I am not sure if the law works that way. The law is the law. I`d be interested in to who would actually go to prison etc.
Even this lawyer seems to have got the level wrong - according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography it`s more like level 3 isn`t it? Melon Farmers (Dave) {28424. Posted 7-May-2012 Mon 05:53}
Sergio. She looks way too old to be worried about.
The Daily Mail seem to be churning out all sorts of nonsense in support of their deafult porn filter campaign. They are based on so little new stuff and just regurgitate old copy. Surely the readers must be getting bored, even if they agree with the idea. Here`s an example
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140441/Children-young-11-exposed-porn-Smartphones-laptops-accessible-warns-addiction-specialist.html?ito=feeds-newsxml sergio {28423. Posted 6-May-2012 Sun 00:56}
According to a prominent lawyer, the Daily Mail has published child pornography.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2138455/Courtney-Stodden-poses-make-free-strips-bubble-bath.html
Delete your harddrives and erase your eyeballs. Melon Farmers (Dave) {28422. Posted 4-May-2012 Fri 05:00}
More from the ever amusing Daily Mail
From Terry Pratchett saying that internet communication is leading to kids not being able to communicate
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138791/Texting-tweeting-social-networking-damaging-childrens-ability-communicate-says-Pratchett.html#ixzz1to0OwjBY MichaelG {28421. Posted 1-May-2012 Tue 22:27}
More fuel for Keith Vaz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2137757/Are-creating-generation-murderers-Shoot-em-ups-train-gamers-shoot-real-guns-accurately--hit-victims-head.html sergio {28420. Posted 1-May-2012 Tue 00:48}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/myanmar-filmaker-portrays-comically-tragic-struggle-with-censors-who-sanitize-national-image/2012/05/01/gIQAnETKtT_story.html
`The board’s mandate is limited to screening films made for sale`
Now that`s interesting! Melon Farmers (Dave) {28419. Posted 30-Apr-2012 Mon 09:07}
Sergio
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/bkmm9p70rl/YG-Archives-Pol-SundayTimes-results-27-290412.pdf sergio {28418. Posted 30-Apr-2012 Mon 08:21}
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2137325/Online-porn-Why-government-ignoring-evidence-porn.html
Therumbler: What was the url for the yougov survey? Therumbler {28417. Posted 30-Apr-2012 Mon 01:40}
The poll is genuine it seems but they omitted the part where it says that most people would prefer to be asked whether their net is filter, rather than asking it to be unfiltered.
Go to Yougov, the relevant question is the last one on a survey that was published on the 29th of April. MichaelG {28416. Posted 29-Apr-2012 Sun 22:26}
They`re at it again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137121/Two-thirds-public-Daily-Mail-campaign-want-online-porn-blocked.html
Really? Try reading your own reader comments and you might see a different story.
Another `specially commissioned` poll, guaranteed to elicit exactly the required responses, no doubt...
MichaelG {28415. Posted 29-Apr-2012 Sun 22:22}
Re: phantom {28412}:
The removal of horse falls from films remains one of the most enduring, yet nonsensical and irritating hobby-horses (sorry!) of the BBFC. The amount of movies and fantastic action scenes that have been ruined at their idiotic behest is staggering - and this is in spite of disclaimers seen at the end of most films to state that no animals were injured during the making.
What makes this even more ridiculous is that horse racing is broadcast live virtually every day of the year on television, so weirdos who get off on the sight of horses falling over (if indeed such a person exists) will have plenty of material to fuel their fire easily within their reach. We all saw the tragic events of this years Grand National, so I fail to see the problem... Melon Farmers (Dave) {28414. Posted 28-Apr-2012 Sat 21:23}
Reversing
The BBFC censorship of R18 games is written into law via ammendments to the Video Recordings Act included in the Digital Economy Act.
Phantom
Yes totally pointless. Just adds to the suffocating costs and red tape that means we are less likely to see old movies on DVD. [and of course adding to the uncompetitiveness that is driving the western world into decline] Melon Farmers (Dave) {28413. Posted 28-Apr-2012 Sat 21:00}
Reversing
The BBFC censorship of R18 games is written into law via ammendments to the Video Recordings Act included in the Digital Economy Act phantom {28412. Posted 28-Apr-2012 Sat 09:07}
re: Genghis Khan
so half a minute of film cut because the horses don`t fall the way the BBFC wants them to? Odd thing, gravity....
In 1965 apparently that couldn`t corrupt us.
Fair to assume the version that has been screened on TV for all those years has been that of 1965.
Strange therefore that one would seek to cut it.
After all, surely after it`s been shown a few dozen times on terrestrial television the nation is already comprehensively corrupted.
What possible damage could a DVD release thereafter possibly do?
Anyway, I`ll now go out and find myself a horse to torture.
After all, I have seen Genghis Khan and therefore I now just can`t help myself... Reversing {28411. Posted 28-Apr-2012 Sat 03:30}
Do you know if the BBFC will retain powers to classify games with hard 18 content? Melon Farmers (Dave) {28410. Posted 27-Apr-2012 Fri 20:42}
bleach,
Yes BBFC ratings will appear no more on games.
The enabling bill had a few special cases where BBFC ratings could still apply to games but these will be rare.
In particular the BBFC retain powers to classify games with R18 level depicitions of sex.
There was also loads of complexity about what happens if a nominal game includes say a movie or TV programme. And of course if a nominal movie disk contains a game. I`m not sure if all the months of wrangling have refined the rules about such special case. bleach {28409. Posted 27-Apr-2012 Fri 15:25}
PEGI Ratings
Does it mean BBFC rating wont be implied at all - I quite like owning BBFC rated games seems like they are more "adult" even if some PEGI are as explicit. MichaelG {28408. Posted 26-Apr-2012 Thu 21:30}
Predictably, CommuNuLabour have now decided to get involved in the online porn debate:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135835/Online-porn-Now-Labour-joins-battle-opt-adult-material.html
The only surprise here is how long it`s taken them. This is not looking good.
What`s really worrying here is that the Hate Mail use, as support for their argument, the case of Peter Chapman, who met a 17 year old through Facebook and went on to rape and murder her.
`This is one of many stories that demonstrates that currently we don’t have the right safety precautions online for our children.`
Sorry, but how would a blanket ban on porn have stopped this? Am I missing something? Previous >>
|
