See also Religious Watch Forum

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

 emark    {25609.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 14:06}       
There was an interesting thread I saw on Informed Consent recently, where IIRC someone was trying to get hold of some R18 anime (and it was for some workshop type thing I think, not even personal use), but they were simply unable to get anyone to mail it to them apparently because of restrictions in the laws - they were only willing to mail it out to a shop with a sex licence, for them to then pick it up from.

 Shaun    {25608.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 09:32}       
phantom wrote:

"
Spider,
why abolish R18?
"

It would remove the requirement to have to go personally to a licenced sex shop, and at the same time perhaps remove the need for sex shop licences, though I think they`d still need one if most of their other trade was also sex related.

Fining and threatening people with JAIL for selling R18 material elsewhere, when now the SAME material can be freely downloaded on the internet certified by BBFCOnline, subject to a few extra restricitons is simply plain barmy.

It seems that our politicians are interested in little else but pandering to "moral" mouthpeices...

(is it moral for someone to go to jail when it cannot be shown that they`ve caused anyone any harm, or were likely to do so ?)

...rather than being rational, fair and reasonable. These qualities, sorely needed in people who put themselves forward to run the country and decide what our laws should be, seem to be sadly lacking in the current brigade of MPs who only seem to be interested in lining their own pockets, and trying to maintain a position where they can continue to do so.

 phantom    {25607.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 06:53}       
Spider,
why abolish R18?
After all, isn`t it a helpful denominator of what`s porn?
Sure, I know, defining porn is like debating the length of a piece of string.
But I`m not sure if I`d get rid of it if I were King of BBFC for a day, as it could be a helpful marker for people.
Then again I`v hardly strong views in that respect.

As long as adults would be free to make up their own minds, I`d be more than happy.

There would however be one additional point I`d address. Namely that of the BBFC finding new work for itself. I would abolish any recent new criteria which require higher age certificates for things such as `animal cruelty`, etc.

The mere idea that John Wayne films are being butchered in order to comply with such new demands for DVD release seems ludicrous.

 Spiderschwein    {25606.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 01:52}       
I have to say, I`m with Shaun on this. If I ran the BBFC the following things would change:

- EVERYTHING would be allowed at 18.
- 15 would become 15A and thus make it the responsibility of the parents to decide what their children are mature enough to see.
- Abolish the R18 rating and roll it all into 18.

 MichaelG    {25605.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 23:36}       
Re: Shaun [25604]:

"Or are the films to be delayed for a month or so in case someone objects to videos they HAVE NOT seen.."

As soon as I read about this, I suspected that this would be the case. How many times have Beyer or Brazier whined about movies which you know for a fact they haven`t seen? I remember Brazier, in his attempts to bring the BBFC under government remit a while back, claiming that the 9 minute rape scene in `Irreversible` must have been glamourizing rape purely because of the length of the scene(!). Clearly he hadn`t viewed it...

The notion that the BBFC pass a movie uncut after scrutinising it very carefully, then have to review or reverse their decision just because some snivelling tosser with nothing better to do with their time, who hasn`t viewed the material in question, decides to complain about it is going to make an absolute mockery of the whole rating system.

But then, perhaps that`s the idea. The more complaints and appeals the BBFC receive will perhaps be seen as indicative of the ineffective, out-of-touch status of the BBFC, reflective of a genuine demand for stricter censorship and will lead to the introduction of a tougher, more `publically accountable` body, run by our ever-so `publically accountable` government. Result? State censorship, my friends...

I guess all we can do is, as phantom suggests, use the system to our advantage by lodging a complaint every time the BBFC cut or refuse to classify something. May not work, but it`s worth a go. After all, anyone can appeal or complain, not just the nutters...

 Shaun    {25604.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 14:47}       
So what is supposed to happen ?

The video is passed, distributed, and then that twat Beyer objects ? Or some other freedom robber objects. Do the distributers have to recall all the unsold videos and shred them ?

Or are the films to be delayed for a month or so in case someone objects to videos they HAVE NOT seen..

I`ve Already complained bitterly to John Healey MP.

FREEBORN ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO WATCH WHAT THE BLOODY HELL THEY WANT TO, the only exception being material PROVEN TO HARM. IE REAL CHILD ABUSE.


Mandatory classification should be ended for adults.




PS: I might not be quite as irritated, but the truth is, that the criteria the BBFC do work to, has been determined after very heavy and diligent public consultation. You know, kind of democratically and in the spirit of human rights law.

WHICH IS MORE THAN I CAN SAY FOR OUR APPARENTLY IGNORANT OBTUSE POLITICIANS who are getting involved in this.

 DarkAngel5    {25603.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 10:52}       
Re "Beyer`s Board of Film Classification"...

"Critics say that, in recent years, it (the BBFC) has adopted a perilous policy of allowing practically anything to be seen by adults"

Oh, how DARE adults be allowed to make their own minds up as to what they feel they should and should not be able to watch for themselves.

 cor    {25602.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 09:07}       
phantom - Beyer`s Board of Film Classification:

the `right to appeal` will likely come in the structure of two questions within a form on their site; `what title offended you?` and `which part would you like cut..?` I doubt it will be an open appeal process where one can challenge existing cuts.. but if it is, I`m 100% behind you.

"Critics say that, in recent years, it (the BBFC) has adopted a perilous policy of allowing practically anything to be seen by adults" -so they are accused of treating adults like adults? Shame on them, don`t they know British adults are supposed to be treated like children...

The PM said: "Starting from January, everyone under 25 who has been unemployed for a year or more will receive [be forced into] a guaranteed [underpaid, dead end] job, work experience [slave labor] or training place [painting and art classes] .... has made it mandatory for them to take up this work and have benefits cut [starve or forced into crime] if they do not." -great, we have no right to live, no right to eat, and we are still the highest taxed country in the world when we are forced into dead end, piss poor jobs by our all knowing government. Minimum wage for everyone, except those we don`t like.

 sergio    {25601.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 07:48}       
I recently emailed the BBFC about some cuts at contact_the_bbfc@bbfc.co.uk

I resent the email and they still haven`t replied.

What do I do next?

 phantom    {25600.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 06:46}       
Beyer`s Board of Film Classification:
`It is also expected that the public will be given new rights to appeal against the rulings of the BBFC.`

Fine. Two can play that game. I suggest we put our heads together and design a template letter or two. Then put it up in easy access on this site for people to simply cut and paste.
Finally, I suggest we all fire off such letters of complaint for - every BBFC decision! - insisting that it was too harsh, too censorial and that the artistic merit has been utterly destroyed by prudish vandalism.

Let`s see how they like Gordon`s appeal procedure then...;)

 emark    {25599.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 15:29}       
dano: Did Ian Tomlinson have intentions of winding up the police too?

As for protestors, where is your evidence that the ones who were attacked in any way deserved? The evidence we actually have suggests otherwise.

Just because a minority of other protestors may have been up to no good doesn`t justify violence against someone who just happens to be in the same city. London is a big place!

Generalising against all protestors (and even non-protestors) is no better than generalising about all police officers.

I`m not sure what reading the Guardian has to do with this? What paper would you recommend?

 pbr    {25598.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 14:01}       
Cleared of obscenity:

"A report from a consultant psychiatrist also said it was baseless to suggest that reading such material could turn other people into sexual predators."


...and the sky parted, golden light shone down upon the people... and the government and her majesty`s opposition sat with their fingers in their ears reading the daily mail...

 phantom    {25597.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 13:10}       
dano {25596}

I cold not disagree more, Dano.
Sure, there might be some left wing professional demonstrators out there, who - if they are not tunnelling in a field to prevent a bypass - are always at some sort of a demo.
Sure, they might wind up police.

But so what? If I wind you up in the street, does this give you license to assault me, preferably with a club (i.e. a baton)?

I have a friend who is a police man.
I could never do his job. Not least as I could not take the hassle and stick these guys get. But then that is their job.

I am against prosecuting individual officers for what happened at the G20 demonstrations. I think that amounts only to scapegoating.

The actual fact is that these officers are essentially acting in accordance with what is expected from their superiors.
The entire institution of the police is currently out of control.

The whole 9/11 aftermath has led to a bad mix of authoritarianism and heavyhandedness which is utterly unacceptable.

Current police behaviour is a prime reason for why we should not have ID cards in this country. Imagine the consequences.

Personally I do blame the current political climate created by the Labour government for the policing crisis. It`s not about crime levels, not about laws. But about the forces acting as though there were no rules of proportionality by which they needed to abide.

Anyone read Clarkson`s column in the Sunday Times? After all, just why did they deploy spy drones against the revellers at Stone Henge? It`s a bunch of hippies, not the Taliban...

And who could forget the recently released footage of two female campaigners clearly being `roughed up` and kept in prison for 4 days by police for daring to photograph them and question them regarding their numbers and insignia.

Being awkward and difficult is a right, Dano. That applies to loony lefties as much as it does to guys wanting to view porn without Gordon Brown`s approval.

But this whole institution seems rotten. If they`re not shooting Brazilians they`re beating up on demonstrators, or forcing tourists to delete pictures of London buses, - or they`re defying High Court orders whilst pretending to be martyrs in the tabloids...

There is simply no argument for what the police have been up to as of late. Their victims being lefty vegetarians with purple hair makes no difference at all. They are becoming a law onto themselves and the next government is going to have a hell of a challenge in reining them in again.

 dano    {25596.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 12:45}       
Ian G. I found the whole G20 police thing a bit silly really. Some protestors went to the protests with the intention of delibratly winding up the cops because they knew that when they get a crack over the head they can bleat to their Guardian reading chums about police brutality and infringements on civil liberties.
Of course police activity needs to be kept in check but the whole thing was ruthlesly exploited by the POLICE ARE FASCIST PIGS brigade who don`t believe in any kind of law and order and believe that crime is caused by social injustice and therefore the police are persecutors of the poor.
Not something I really subcribe to meself!

 dano    {25595.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 12:43}       
Re: That Girls Aloud thing. I noticed that Julie Bindel got her two penceworth. More or less suggesting porn and rape are the same.

Oh and that Inglorious Moral Crusaders pic is hilarious.

 IanG    {25594.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 09:19}       
More deluded hypocrisy.

"Committee chairman Keith Vaz said: It is clear that concerns about the policing of the G20 protests have damaged the public`s confidence in the police, and that is a great shame."

Not half! We pay these thugs to keep us safe from harm, not CAUSE us GBH!

"The ability of the public and the media to monitor every single action of the police through CCTV, mobile phones and video equipment should mean they take even greater care to ensure that all their actions are justifiable."

One would think so, Keith baby but, YOUR FUCKING MORALLY BANKRUPT GOVERNMENT decided to make criminals of people snapping pictures of the police "while performing their duties" back in February!!! Please, make your tiny warped mind up, you thrice disgraced excuse for a politician!

 Shaun    {25593.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 03:30}       
Just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm

"
Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog

A former civil servant who wrote an internet blog imagining the kidnap and murder of the pop group Girls Aloud has been cleared of obscenity.

Darryn Walker, 35, of South Shields, South Tyneside, was charged under the Obscene Publications Act after the blog appeared on a fantasy pornography site.

He appeared at Newcastle Crown Court, but was cleared on Monday.

His defence argued that the article was not accessible, and could only be found by those looking for specific material.

"

 emark    {25591.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 18:30}       
FFS - now there`s an alleged uproar about material on the BBC *after* the watershed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5628315/BBC-bows-to-viewers-and-curbs-swearing-after-9pm-watershed.html

 emark    {25590.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 10:19}       
It`s odd because Politics has published many articles, including by the editor, against both this law and the "extreme porn" law - e.g., see this one by editor Ian Dunt: http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/legal-and-constitutional/analysis-a-law-against-drawings--$1283157.htm . So I don`t know if it`s just unintentional or not, but it`s annoying for Zoe`s biased rant to be up their apparently unchallenged.

 SasaMisa    {25589.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 10:03}       
emark [25588]

Hmm, you`re right about all the comments being deleted from that site as I left quite a sizeable one myself. So did another guy on my own forum, come to think of it, after I linked directly to that page the same night.

Talk about removing anything that doesn`t agree with your point of view, and I say this after checking about a bit since older articles appear to have their comments sections intact (meaning, it`s doubtful it`s caused by a system-wide error on the site).

You can call me paranoid if you want, but given this rotten government`s track record during its last term, this reeks of censorship. I mean, weren`t they doing the exact same thing just last month with YouTube, when `Gordo` realised no-one gave two shits about him or his speech and were gearing up to say exactly that in spades.

 emark    {25588.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 06:14}       
I`m glad to see Barnado`s and Eaves4Women listed - in fact quite a number of the organisation responses to the Government consultation on "extreme porn" (predictably, in favour) were charities (consultation response numbers in brackets):

Barnardo`s (176), CARE (234), Childnet (186 - http://www.childnet-int.org/downloads/response_pornographicMaterial.pdf), CHIS (Children`s Charities` Coalition for Internet Safety - which includes Barnado`s, so they effectively responded twice!) (394), Kidscape (20), Lawyers` Christian Fellowship (295), Lilith (Eaves4Women) (? - http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/lilith.html), Lucy Faithfull Foundation (397), National Council of Hindu Temples (151), Salvation Army (351), The Christian Institute (330), Wearside Women in Need (303).

(There may be more that I`ve missed.)

They typically promote the same old myths about porn, either calling it abusive, claiming it causes crime, claiming that a child might say it, or comparing it to child porn. Some such as The Christian Institute and Lilith (Eaves4Women) argued against a wider range of porn.

I don`t know how many of these receive Government funding though.

I knew that Eaves4Women received Government funding (and their response was endorsed by Liz Kelly, who then went onto write the Government`s Rapid "Evidence" Assessment), I had no idea they were a charity too!

I appreciate charities may sometimes get asked their views on things that are political, and go beyond their realm of expertise, and I suppose the fault lies with the media for promoting their views - but responding to consultations should surely be counted as lobbying.

I imagine a similar thing applies to the consultation of sexual cartoons of under-18s. Talking of which, remember this claptrap from the NSPCC? http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/culture-media-and-sport/comment-we-need-to-ban-these-images-$1283060.htm (Hmm, I`m sure when I last looked, there were loads of comments disagreeing with the article - I know I left one myself - now they are all gone?)

 phantom    {25587.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 06:04}       
sergio [25586]

`So, when any charity gets asked what their views are they are campaigning.`

Well, I`d disagree about answering a question being campaigning.
However, I find Leather`s statement nonetheless bizarre.
So for example what about all those feminist bodies? They are not primarily political in nature?
Anti-racism, or homosexual campaign groups? Again, is their primary concern not political?

Dare I say it? Liberty? Aren`t they inherently a political organisation?

I`m beginning to wonder what the Dame had to drink that day...

 sergio    {25586.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 03:06}       
To campaign.

To campaign is to make your views known.

Campaigning is political.

So, when any charity gets asked what their views are they are campaigning.

Therefore most charities are acting politically.

Campaigning is allowed for charities, not for new laws
Charities can be political if you think that expressing your views is political. They are allowed by law to express their views but not to lobby for new laws

http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=1620
`...Commission chair Dame Suzi Leather. She said: “No…you cannot have political purposes and be a charity. You can carry out campaigning activity…but it is not lawful, in our view, for charities to be set up to have political purposes.”`

 bleach    {25585.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 02:08}       
Latest old cuts. This is the Aussie film Fair Game not the Italian snake film. This clip is shown more or less in it`s entirity in the Ozploitation documentary.

FAIR GAME was classified `18` for video in 1987 with the following cuts -

At 44.5 mins - Remove all but first establishing shot of woman`s clothes being cut, and reduce substantially the following scene in which car is driven wildly with her tied to the front, removing in particular all shots revealing her naked breasts (ELS where no breast exposure is clear may remain).

 MichaelG    {25584.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 01:35}       
Re: Janus17:

Just had a look on the fakecharities.org website and there`s some fascinating stuff on here. Check out the full list:

http://fakecharities.org/

Effectively, CommunNuLabour are bunging OUR money in the direction of any lobby groups/organisations which are in support of their numerous agendas, ranging from climate change to higher alcohol prices. Camouflaged propaganda might be a good term for it, although I can think of other less polite names.

Personal favourite (after `Eaves` of course) has to be this:

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/living-streets92.php?searchresult=1&sstring=living+streets

A pressure group wanting urban speed limits reduced to 20mph receives £438,213 (67% of total income) from the taxpayer. If it achieves its aim, there will be a huge rise in speed traps to enforce it, ergo a huge rise in speeding convictions as motorists attempt to adapt to the change, meaning a significant increase in revenue from speeding fines going to... the government!

Also, ever wondered why it seems so difficult to deport migrants and asylum seekers, even when they`ve broken the law? Here`s why:

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/migrant-helpline98.php?searchresult=1&sstring=migration

Total £10,025,226 (96% of total income) received from the taxpayer. So it isn`t courts and judges fucking up the program when it comes to removing these people from our country, as various immigration or Home Office officials will tell you. It`s this government bunging £10million of taxpayer`s money to an organisation whose sole purpose is to assist these people in remaining in Britain and to resist the `unjust and inhumane` nature of UK immigration laws.

No, you really couldn`t make it up. Hideous, wasteful, self-promotional scams, perpetrated under the radar by this most revolting government in a time of national financial crisis. Absolutely deplorable.

 Janus17    {25583.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 00:48}       
For anyone who`s been following the ongoing saga of the P4P legislation, this will likely prove very interesting, however completely unsurprising:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/26/sex-trade-prostitution-bill

No, the feminazis were never going to give up that easily, were they?

Now then, anyone would think that the Eaves project would be a `charity` in the sense that all of it`s funding comes from fundraising, recruiting new members, public donations etc. etc. - right?

Nope.

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/eaves-housing-for-women136.php

`Eaves` accounts for 2007/08 show that it—and its various projects—received voluntary donations of just £116,321 on total funding of £5,220,203. More than 69% of its funding came from the taxpayer — over £3.6 million.`

Did you know that the money you pay in tax was being used in this way? I certainly didn`t.

So let`s just get this in perspective. The Home Office, along with other government agencies and Councils give money to an organisation, with the completely misleading status of a `charity`, whose raison d`etre is to lobby the said government for further bad legislation. You couldn`t make it up.

Perhaps this is yet another way of doling out taxpayer`s money to NuLabour cronies and chums, perhaps it is a way of cheating the lobbying system by getting the taxpayer to unknowingly fund `research` (read `propaganda`) which is specifically designed to support forthcoming or planned legislation. Likely it`s both, but one thing is for certain. Even by NuLabour standards, this stinks.

What this basically amounts to is that this wretched government is engaged in the curious activity of spending taxpayers` money to to lobby itself!

The plot begins to quickly thicken as you take a look at the accounts for this `charity`, which appear on the http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk website.

Out of their total budget of £5.2 million, £2.5 million goes on staff costs, and £232,000 on `Head Office Costs` plus £209,000 on Office Rent vs. only £295,000 on housing, plus perhaps the £422,000 on `RSLs`. For an organisation that is supposed to be in the business of saving and housing `rescued` working girls, this is a peculiar spending profile. Over 60% of the total goes on Eaves`s staff and their offices.... meaning at best they are grossly inefficient and, at worst, a sham. Typical NuLabour.

The aforementioned RSLs are another revelation; an RSL is a Registered Social Landlord, to whom they have sub-contracted provision of housing for ex-working girls. So, housing spend is £717,000, but income from charges to residents is then booked as £612,000 + £469,000 = £1,081,000, giving a profit of £364,000!

How can a charity whose purpose is to house rescued working girls make a profit from them? `Controlling for gain`, anyone? Or, even better, how about `exploitation of vulnerability`, that choice little bit of wording that Fiona McTaggart is desperately attempting to shoehorn into the P4P legislation? Both would seem to be applicable here.

Also, it would appear that in times of recession, `charities` such as this certainly aren`t struggling to fund new recruitment (naturally, when the bottomless pit of taxpayer`s money will be paying for much of it). This month alone, Eaves/Poppy Project and all their related manifestations/divisions are recruiting for EIGHT new positions:

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880750/female-resettlement-worker/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/877152/family-relationship-worker/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/877153/support-worker/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880748/female-amina-worker/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880749/female-advice-and-support-centre-worker/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880745/female-senior-support-worker-outreach/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880746/female-anti-trafficking-officer/

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880747/female-exiting-prostitution-worker/

Combined salaries at lower end of the scale are over £218k, and naturally, all jobs are restricted to women (Harriet must be so proud of herself).

It`s becoming increasingly apparent that the shameful fraud being committed at the top end of the political scale by our swindling MPs is just the tip of the iceberg. The rot is everywhere.

 phantom    {25582.   Posted 26-Jun-2009 Fri 11:24}       
pbr [25581]

Well, who ever said bigots would be good losers?
Just consider for a moment that entire western culture is evolving away from dear Miranda Suit. People like her have been ranting about `the end of civilisation as we know it` for decades. Yet still mankind marches on, further and further away from Ms Suit & Co.

Let`s take recent death of Jackson. Would Ms Suit have had anything to say about him in her day? Of course.
After all, would she be able to live silently in a world in which the leading pop idol frequently grabbed his crotch on stage?
But why stop there? Were not Elvis` pelvic gyrations the height of obscenity in their day? Of course they were.

So you see, Gordon, Harriet and Widdi may be `onside` with Ms Suit, but the rest of the world doesn`t give a toss.

That`s before you even begin asking what `the mainstreaming of pornography` is to be? My guess is, Ms Suit would start banning the likes of Britney, Pink and Aguilera. Not least, of course, because they happen to look much better in a bikini than she does...

But then `morality` has always been a fickle thing. Lol.

 pbr    {25581.   Posted 26-Jun-2009 Fri 10:38}       
iPorn, Miranda Suit, co-founder of the nutter group MediaMarch told MailOnline she was appalled: We are very concerned about the mainstreaming of pornography. It is being packaged in a tempting way and will be disastrous for youngsters who are not equipped to deal with such content. And what about the growing number of sex addicts? I know of cases where they are trying to avoid certain films and magazines, but now even their phone will be a risk for them. We urge the Government to look at the affect pornography has on children and vulnerable adults.`


I choked on my laughter, that is all.

 Shaun    {25580.   Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 02:41}       
Looking at the BBFC online rules, well it seems official:

BBFC R18 works are legally available online, provided that there is an approved gatekeeper system on the relevabt web site, and this includes online schemes targetted at set top boxes as well. Why then cannot such material be sent via mail order (not necessarily through the post, but by courier) after some initial age verification of the customer, and also shown on subscription television services ?

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/BBFConline/BBFC.online_Scheme_Rules%20Edition_1.1.pdf

 Shaun    {25579.   Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 02:36}       
The council have to work with the owners first, to see what steps they are prepared to take to put the property back into use.

There are many steps before the council can "take possession" of the property, and even then they do not possess it in the ownership sense.

The inital scheme last for one year to start with, and then a maximum of seven years.

If it is shown that the property is the "main residence" of the owner, and they are staying elsewhere, for example to work, it is exempt.

See:
http://www.cih.org/display.php?db=policies&id=590

 sergio    {25578.   Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 01:16}       
MichaelG

you are a bit misleading, the house is managed by the council, the rent is given to you the owner and you can apply to get the house back.


`they`ll probably let it to some Afghan asylum seeker and his six kids, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`

`they`ll probably let it to some asylum seeker and his family, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`

`they`ll probably let it to someone who doesn`t deserve it and his family, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`

 MichaelG    {25577.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 23:26}       
Oh, the irony:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195280/MP-couple-dubbed-Mr-amp-Mrs-Expenses-face-having-main-home-repossessed--unoccupied-SEVEN-months.html

Just shows that no-one is safe from CommuNuLabour policy, not even their own kind. Especially amusing that it should happen to possibly the biggest pair of fraudulent, swindling cheats in the party.

But isn`t it scary that the state can do this? If you go and live abroad for ten months, the Communists can seize your property and let it to whoever they choose. Naturally, you won`t see a penny of rent, and the double irony is that while you go to live abroad for a bit, they`ll probably let it to some Afghan asylum seeker and his six kids, paid for yet again by the taxpayer.

What might happen if you had 11 months in hospital? Could you return and find someone else living in your home? Or how about if you owned two properties, made your living from renting one out, but couldn`t fill it with a tenant for a year? Once again, legislation doubtless conceived on loo roll while that self-righteous, arrogant, fat twat Prescott was taking a dump.

Yet again, in CommuNuLabour Britain, the state own everything, including the roof over your head which you work 25 years to pay for. I`ll probably laugh my nuts off if these two crooks end up impaled on NuLab policy, but it still won`t take the nasty taste away left by this vile measure.

Sorry about this, but here`s yet another quote from 1984 which illustrates perfectly that we`re almost there in terms of a full realisation:

"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."

With the DPA, perhaps we don`t even have that anymore...

 DarkAngel5    {25576.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 22:11}       
Good to see Lions Gate getting the slap on the wrist they so richly deserved over their misleading "My Bloody Valentines" ads.

They didn;t tell you it was 3D in selected cinemas only as cinemas needed the new digital projectors to show it, and not many of tem have the new system.

My local showcase certainly didn`t as I found out after trekking 30 miles to see it.

 MichaelG    {25575.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 14:11}       
Re: freeworld [25571]:

Cheers dude, just put this on my wish list on Amazon and will buy it soon!

Some of the related items sound like interesting reading too, ever heard of or read any of these?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007229704/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i3?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007293399/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i4?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1906142343/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i5?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

Re: BBFC:

`82% of recent film and DVD viewers thought the BBFC was an effective regulator` & `The same people agreed with 99% of the classification decisions for the films they had watched`.

Think this might shut Beyer up for five minutes with his constant whining about the BBFC being out of touch with public opinion and not taking into account what the majority of the public want?

OK, maybe five minutes was a bit optimistic. I`d be happy to settle for two and a half...

 sergio    {25574.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 12:46}       
Moral maze
Usual rubbish - waste of time.

 phantom    {25573.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 11:41}       
freeworld {25571}

Not been following this too closely.
Is that line still in there; `by exploiting a vulnerability`?

Because to me that is a panacea of reasons for the prosecution attack dogs.

After all, anything can be `a vulnerability`. Drug addiction for example.
Or how about debt, lack of other income, student loans?

 Spiderschwein    {25572.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 10:20}       
Freeworld.

I`ll look out for that "Liberal fascism."

Another recommendation I have is "The Abolition of Liberty" by Peter Hitchens. I know that in his columns he comes over as a swivel-eyed Mail-reading loon but in his book he actually seems fairly level headed although I don`t agree with absolutely everything he puts out.

Also "Strictly No!" by Simon Hills. This is about the encroachment of the nanny state. The author posits that it all started in the 1970s, when it became clear to the middle-class leftist that "the poor didn`t want to be middle class; they wanted to be rich." This meant that they had to be saved from themselves, if you will - hence the nanny state.

 freeworld    {25571.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 08:15}       
Significant amendments are being moved to p4p in the Lords (clause 14 Police bill).

Both Baroness Miller and Baroness Stern try to tighten the definitions to target those who use people who are actually being trafficked/coerced in theirs; the Tory home affairs shadows (Viscount Bridgeman, Baroness Hanham) have tabled amendments which remove strict liability-this would allow for a far harsher sentences if incorporated (up to 14 years jail, which may appeal to NL`s sourpuss punishment freak hags, unhappy with the non custodial punishment a strict liability law leads to), but would effectively restrict the offense to those who use prostitutes who are "obviously" being coerced. The home office have tinkered again themselves, amending their definition of what makes a person a victim rather than a free agent. Adding threats and force to the wording was originally tabled in some amendments from the opposition parties in commons committee, and the HO minions, after rejecting them there in favor of the original "controlled for gain", have now seemingly accepted them-however, force is not being defined as purely physical-see the amendments tabled by Lord West of Spithead, who is piloting the bill in the Lords for the HO.

Good old Baroness Miller wants the whole stupid clause on p4p (14), removed altogether from the bill.

The bill is on report now in the Lords, and so we will soon see the upshot-at least it looks as if mere "controlled for gain" will not be the criteria itself, which is how it looked after the bill`s commons committee.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/048/amend/ml48-irb.htm

MichaelG {25564. Posted 23-Jun-2009 Tue 10:18}
You might enjoy a book "Liberal fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. I bought it in St Pancras station and spent a 3 hour train journey engrossed-it explains a lot about where the "new" control freak puritanism we are getting flung at us comes from. "Perfecting" humanity by force.
It leads to-

"...the unwanted embrace (of the state) you cannot escape"