|
STICKY: ChiefCensor
- Please no spam, libel, slander
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
Therumbler {30908. Posted 28-Mar-2016 Mon 14:11}
A similar thing happened with Monkey. The BBC only aired 39 of 52 episodes. It took over 20 years for the remaining episodes to be dubbed and aired. braintree {30907. Posted 26-Mar-2016 Sat 15:04}
It was made in 1968, did the rounds of ITV then reappared on the early Sky cable service where they showed more than ITV but still not all 17 episodes. I don`t know why ITV only aired half the series. I had people all over the UK keeping an eye on their local region but we never got past 9 episodes. As a 35mm show made by Hammer it`s ripe for rediscovery and I`ve emailed the Horror Channel to see if they might be able to get hold of it. About 15 years later Hammer teamed up with Fox again to make Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense. Awkwardly timed around 73 minutes each these haven`t been seen for years either but they did at least get a long deleted dvd release. It was aired in the US as Fox Mystery Theater. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30906. Posted 26-Mar-2016 Sat 01:01}
braintree.
Re Journey to the Unknown
So obscure that I didn`t even know that I was missing it. braintree {30905. Posted 24-Mar-2016 Thu 16:33}
It`s good to see The Horror Channel have done deals with several companies in order to acquire their catalogue of Hammer titles. Studio Canal, Sony and Universal movies all popping up. It would be great if they could give us a real scoop though and pry the Hammer tv show Journey to the Unknown from the claws of Fox. Shown only as half a series in the 80`s on ITV the show hasn`t been seen since so instead of bringing us the good but easy to obtain Hammer House of Horror how about something that will generate real excitement among Hammer fans. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30904. Posted 22-Mar-2016 Tue 23:11}
phantom, I take your point that police pc/phone checks are not a new thing explaining the rise in prosecutions.
I try to scan local news papers for extreme porn prosecutions but haven`t really noticed the dramatic rises being suggested being reflected in the number of local newspaper stories.
Maybe something to do with dangerous pictures found whilst scanning for other crimes. I noted that one article that said that extreme porn prosecutions associated with child abuse cases was specifically excluded from the figures being discussed, but maybe this exclusion does not tend to associations with other crimes.
phantom {30903. Posted 20-Mar-2016 Sun 07:36}
Dave,
I don`t know whether police procedure has changed notably in that respect for the period to which these figures refer.
I would assume they were already checking mobile phones of folks arrested before this increase.
That`s why I suspect that the increase in the figures might be due to the expansion of what pictures which now qualify as `extreme` (so-called rape imagery, etc).
What is clear is that something significant seems to have changed to generate such a dramatic increase in prosecutions.
Given that the increase of scope by the law is the only change I know about for certain, it is the only thing to which I can point.
In keeping with the law, this increased scope is far from clearly defined, making it a perfect catch-all.
My main concern is that we are not seeing the absolute increase of prosecutions but merely the indication of an upward trend. Who knows at what annual figure of prosecutions it might eventually come to rest.
It is why I think this is now out of control. One thousand prosecutions per annum was obscene, given the parliamentary belief that this would at most affect a dozen per year.
But if prosecutions are now to rise to a multiple of the previous one thousand per annum then we are now really heading into legal nightmare.
No one in their right mind could ever claim that this was the parliamentary intention of the statute. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30902. Posted 19-Mar-2016 Sat 21:43}
phantom, re `I can only imagine that the increase is due to the widening of the parameters of the law by the current government`.
Surely the increase is down to the current police tactic of searching the phone and PC of anyone picked up for a suspected crime. Eyes must light up often when something is found that is `dangerous`. Another crime detected and solved. (Such prosecutions must register as near 100% success rate for the records and performance related pay. After all not many such `crimes` are reported but left unsolved. phantom {30901. Posted 19-Mar-2016 Sat 18:54}
575 prosecutions for extreme porn in Greater Manchester in one year?
This is getting way out of control.
We were running at roughly 1000 prosecutions a year - nationally.
Now Greater Manchester alone seems to account for over half that figure.
With South Yorkshire appearing also to report a dramatic rise (albeit that their figures are mixed in with those of OPA), I think the national totals are going to reach eye watering levels.
Remember that parliament was assured at the time in the impact assessment that, at the most, 12 prosecutions per year were predicted - because prosecutors were only going to go after the most extreme, depraved cases.
It therefore seems that Manchester alone has made up for roughly 50 years worth of prosecutions for the whole nation, if one was to grant the impact assessment any credence.
This is utterly insane. A veritable orgy of pointless prosecutions.
I can only imagine that the increase is due to the widening of the parameters of the law by the current government. phantom {30900. Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 17:10}
Isn`t it peculiar how a polemic always gets deemed a diatribe.
Some folk are quite capable of typing a goodly few sentences without bleeding from the eyes... joshua {30899. Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 12:38}
Wow Phantom, that`s quite a diatribe. Don`t expect me to be an apologist for the BBFC so all I can say is, if you see any further posts from me you`d best avoid them; it`ll do wonders for your blood pressure! sergio {30898. Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 03:15}
` it’s hard to understand why Cohen and his cowriters decided to stage the world’s most elaborate and explicit elephant-sex gag`
Ah, inter elephant sex not human/animal sex. Beasts are beastial, so when they have sex it is beastiality? sergio {30897. Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 02:54}
According to Mr Cohen, the MPAA doesn`t understand the term "beastiality", "I had to read them the definition of beastiality".
Is he saying that if there is a scene he wants and knows will cause trouble (how?, how does he know it will cause trouble?), then he shoots a longer - 9 minute scene so he can argue for 6 months about what to cut out? It`s all a bit rather vague. phantom {30896. Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 11:01}
re: Let`s jail everybody, especially men...
Alright, I`m a little confused here.
We all know that prosecutions for POSSESSION of `extreme porn` have been running at around 1000 per annum since the law`s inception.
So this article seems a bit of a googly. It speaks of PUBLISHING.
We`ve not really had much on publishing in recent years. Not least of publishing according to the DPA. (up to five years - remember how that came about? we did that. lol)
First off, what police seem to have reported here is a trebling in
"cases of publishing extreme porn and other supposedly obscene materials" in West Yorkshire.
So they are chucking the figures regarding the ancient, decrepit OPA in together with those of the DPA, thereby blurring the lines - no doubt deliberately.
Meanwhile England and Wales have seen 10644 cases of obscene publication? Ten thousand???
What on earth does that mean? Surely this cannot mean ten thousand prosecutions. But if it simply includes the running totals of publications of every offender, then it could mean that a hundred people have been prosecuted for publishing a hundred images each.
Can anyone make sense of this? We need the expert.
Harvey, Harvey! Wherefore art thou, Harvey? Melon Farmers (Dave) {30895. Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 03:41}
Therumbler
Indeed the censorship of particular words does seem rather blinkered to the infinite wit of man to dream up equally effective (or insulting) words as those being censored. Therumbler {30894. Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 02:44}
Banning search terms on Instagram backfires:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/instagram-pro-anorexia-ed-eating-disorders-study-a6923856.html phantom {30893. Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 18:42}
Now hang on, Joshua.
This affects workers` rights, maybe.
But the rights of what sort of workers?
These people have voluntarily subscribed themselves to a rather odious organisation.
People who do not share in the outlook of such an organisation do not do that.
What I mean is, liberal minded people do not volunteer to be censors.
Only censorious people do. It is a self-selecting crowd.
So this is a group of people who intellectually set themselves above us all.
They deem themselves capable of watching material they think we cannot handle.
The arrogance of this position is self-evident.
I find it hard to sympathise with such people.
After all, what sympathy do they show to those who are prosecuted due to offending their judgements? None, I guess. Else they would not do that job.
In short, you are asking us to sympathise with judgemental folks who care not one jot what their work does to others.
As for your mentioning their child protection credentials again; what child protection?
I agree that certification provides a service to parents who wish to have an idea of the age suitability of material. (Something the BBFC is notorious for getting wrong time and again.)
But the BBFC – and its workers - are a cabal which is instrumental in the infantilisation of our country. They are at the forefront of those claiming that all should be treated as children in order to protect children.
Their recent aggressive campaigning to achieve overlordship of sports and music videos proves that very point.
If the BBFC can achieve such power through its lobbying, it would be an easy thing for internal pressure from within the BBFC to finally achieve an end to outright censorship in this country (something they do by denial of certificate).
But your supposedly poor, hard done by workers are unlikely ever to do us that favour.
Because they are all subscribed to the dogma of denying us `for our own good`.
They are all convinced that they know better.
And now you wish to rally our support for their cause?
These people willingly make their living from causing misery. People go to prison because of the folks for whom you are asking us to care.
And the latter more than likely enjoy the idea of the former being incarcerated. No doubt, they`d claim is was for `child protection`.
Meanwhile, in what other country could censorship workers get the sort of rates they get at the BBFC?
North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Or are they in fact the best paid censors in the world?
Whose pay will you ask us to care for next?
Will you be launching a campaign to secure the pay of `Enhanced Interrogation` Officers at Guantanamo Bay? That too would merely be about workers` rights, no?
The people at the BBFC clearly choose to do what they do.
Of course they do not like the idea of getting paid less.
But the job of censor is not one one chooses because one has three kids to feed. One chooses it because one is a judgemental bigot.
I have no problem with bigotry becoming less expensive in this country.
It already costs enough – in ruined lives.
So if the management are offering voluntary redundancy, I suggest folks take it.
If they`re so highly qualified as they think they are, they`ll no doubt have no problems finding proper jobs in the City.
Or who knows, being such experts they could start making films. No doubt theirs would be better than anyone else`s – given their `expertise`.
Unless of course they all want to stay at the BBFC, no matter what, so they may continue to enjoy their feeling of power.
But then, please, they should spare us any talk of not getting paid enough.
p.s. I love that implicit claim that the majority of the population in this country back the BBFC. It`s so perfectly – unsubstantiated. Very much the way in which BBFC workers operate. But then, it is `a friend` of yours we`re talking about, isn`t it? ;)
p.p.s. Joshua is a biblical name, no? :) joshua {30892. Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 17:39}
Thank you Phantom. I know a lot of people do share your views. But I think quite a few more people than you realise do value the BBFC, not least for its child protection role. I`ve been following them for years and I remember adverts for the Examiners (some time ago now) always used to mention a need for some experience in child development as a necessary attribute (one reason why I could never apply myself unfortunately.) But, all this misses the point. Whatever your views on the work of the BBFC, this dispute is about workers` rights - I understand the Management are offering voluntary redundancy or redeployment to Compliance Officers, with a hefty reduction in pay and status. This is hardly taking their responsibilities seriously. Apparently the Unions are already involved (Unite I believe) so perhaps we can expect Red Len to be storming the gates of Soho Square sometime soon!
In answer to The Rumbler - you`ll have to put that question to the BBFC although, judging by the murmurings of discontent, the answer you get may well depend upon who you ask.
My friend told me there is a lot more to this story. I will certainly try and get more information as and when I can and post again. phantom {30891. Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 07:00}
Not sure I`d welcome Corbyn`s support for decriminalistion of prostitution.
First off, he`s really the last any libertarian movement needs as a would-be ally. Seen as having a serious credibility problem and predicted to crash and burn at the next election, his support may well only tar the movement with his brush - and render them a bunch of loons in the eyes of the public.
Second, given the number of `wimmin` surrounding Corbyn in the Labour leadership, I would ask how genuine this support is and whether it is not pre-conditioned by the simultaneous introduction of other feminist policies. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30890. Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 23:12}
I`m not sure of the practical difference between the two roles but `compliancy officer` has the ring of dumbly checking against current rules, probably being assigned to kiddy cartoons and porn. Perhaps the perception of `examiners` is that they interpret rules rather than blindly follow them, so are given the more border line films to consider.
In today`s news that `Fat Cat` David Austin will now be known as the BBFC CEO rather than its Director. Surely this is another nod to `child protection` becoming a big business.
Perhaps this explains the cost reduction programme hitting staff pay. Therumbler {30889. Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 15:50}
What difference is there practically between a compliance officer and an examiner? phantom {30888. Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 13:30}
Interesting story Joshua.
Although I feel obliged to say that I do not value the people at the BBFC at all. Much of their work has little value and they do not actually do much - if anything - for child protection.
They may claim to. But claiming is not doing.
Personally, I believe the BBFC ought to be abolished and a new certification service ought to be founded in its stead - albeit without the power to deny certification.
Moreover nobody previously hired by the BBFC should be admissible for employment by this replacement agency.
Such is the nature of the `infection` I judge to reside in the BBFC, the above step would be necessary to assure the BBFC`s corporate culture does not take hold in the new company.
Incidentally, their downgrading of staff should be welcome by any person concerned about censorship issues.
For years the BBFC have claimed to possess nigh on mythical `expertise` in matters of taste and decency in films.
It should be interesting to see them publicly trying to continue these claims when they internally insist that such expertise does not exist among their staff and therefore need not be paid for in wages. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30887. Posted 9-Mar-2016 Wed 22:11}
Thanks Joshua, interesting stuff. I will add something to the main website, maybe it will stir some extra input. joshua {30886. Posted 9-Mar-2016 Wed 16:49}
Apropos of nothing at all...I met a friend for a drink the other day and he was telling me about someone he knows at the BBFC. Apparently, their new Director is not only the first one appointed from within during the BBFC`s 100 year history but also the first to take up post in the middle of a bitter industrial dispute. It seems this fellow has been getting rid of the Examiners and replacing them with Compliance Officers - you know, the kind they have at the Beeb and Sky etc. They get paid a lot less than the Examiners (hey, who are we to worry about that I hear you cry) but they are also young, and inexperienced...and the collective knowledge and experience accumulated over years is being made redundant, unless they take a huge pay cut and take the compliance jobs as well. I don`t know about everyone else but I actually value some of the work they do there, especially looking out for the protection of children and shafting these people seems pretty damn short sighted to me. I`ll see if I can pump my mate for more info or get him to reveal his source! Therumbler {30885. Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 15:51}
Hear, hear. phantom {30884. Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 14:10}
I think it was the great Dave Allen who once remarked that many think the definition of a fanatic to be someone who cares deeply for what he gets to do and how he gets to live his life, whereas the true definition of a fanatic is that he cares for what YOU get to do and how YOU get to live your life.
In these days of Al Qaeda and Islamic State that jape of his is more applicable than ever.
But it hardly applies only to such Islamist extremists.
We have student unions on the rampage, desperate to no-platform people whose opinions are deemed too dangerous to be expressed.
We have witnessed ever greater encroachment into the realm of private sexuality with curbs on pornography and political declarations that this or that sexual behaviour `has no place in our society today`.
In a similar vein, child protection is increasingly being used to police adult behaviour, thereby effectively abolishing the realm of adult expression by insisting that all the world must be child-friendly.
Self-appointed witch hunters patrol the net, ready to pounce on anyone who dares to utter `the wrong thing` online. By means of social media this can within minutes result in a storm of self-righteous vigilante hatred, ruining someone`s life instantaneously.
Even the sciences are not immune to this new era of fanaticism. Climate change researchers not wanting to share research data with climate change critics is a worrying example of how `the wrong opinion` now also seems to have taken hold of academia.
In a strange twist of irony, the fanaticism of Islamic terrorism seems to have led to a dogmatic government approach which itself seems fanatical in its willingness to excuse anything, as long as it has the tag `anti-terror` attached to it.
Meanwhile, the Blairite laws that serve political correctness which allow for the silencing and punishment of anything that some people choose to call `incitement to hatred` grant huge powers to the state to interfere in what YOU get to do and how YOU get to live your life.
If you forgive the digression:
I believe it was the stalwart US libertarian Harry Browne who always liked to declare that `government never solved anything`. What he meant was that people, communities, societies solve societal problems, not governments.
So if government implements the will of society then things work out. However, when government announces that it seeks to `send a message to society` with a particular law it stands little chance of ever solving a problem; not least because that is not what government is for.
Government is a tool to provide for its community. A means of pooling resources. It is neither a teacher nor a benefactor. It has no inherent merit or value of its own.
Just as you would not expect your toaster to teach you lessons, you would not really expect it from government.
But as we all know, `sending a message to society` is one of government`s favourite reasons for proposing laws in this country these days.
It might thus be apt to ask whether this is actually an era of fanaticism.
The desire to meddle in the lives of others – both by government, as well as by interest groups and individuals – is perhaps greater than it has been for generations.
All the while the western enlightenment tradition of discourse and reason is under siege.
For innumerable `good causes` exceptions are being demanded.
The phrase `I`m in favour of free speech, BUT...` is so widespread it has become cliché. phantom {30883. Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 08:36}
Freeworld, Dave,
First, Freeworld, the right wing traditionally make common cause with the religious. Hence my allusion to May`s right wing credentials.
When it comes to criminalising men who pay for sex the initiative is indeed that of gender feminists, but society finds itself in a pincer movement by the self styled `liberal left` and the religious.
It is precisely the simultaneous attack by left and right which makes this threat to basic liberty so dangerous.
It is indeed a sad world, Dave. But the hyper aggressive feminist stance is one which has been growing and taking hold for decades now, having its roots in the 1970s.
The source of the `sadness` is that society has remained largely blind to the sheer madness which drives modern feminist theory.
Society is a male conspiracy. They regard all as a `phallocentric` construct. Even science is described as `masculinist`, alien to `female knowing`. they effectively see men as the enemy and seek to destroy society as it is, in order to build from its ashes something more `womencentric`. - I`m not making this up.
Armed with the tag `academic` these loons are being listened to by western governments and have been provided with money to instigate their `transformationalist` agenda in education and many another place.
Please consider that these are people who readily describe `Newton`s Principia` as `Newton`s Rape Manual`.
Again, I`m not making this up.
Any society which grants any degree of credence to such people - who in their dogma are no less fanatical than ISIS - is in for a battering.
The monstrous `no platforming` we are seeing in our universities was self-evidently spawned in the `women`s studies` departments of campuses. It is from there that the language used (`safe zones`, etc) has come.
Society is under siege from myriad political correct claims of equality - all demanding equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity. But the most destructive of these by far is gender feminism. It has utterly divorced itself from previous equality feminism and now indulges in plain misandry.
It has prominent representation in parliament and the media (not least of all the BBC) and seems almost to be taking on the forms of a cult these days.
But still the powers that be are too scared to voice opposition to this madness for fear of being deemed `sexist`.
I think the parallels to authorities not daring to do anything in Rochdale for fear of being deemed `racist` are all too obvious. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30882. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 18:24}
Re Theresa May`s earlier stance
If I have got the right occasion, Theresa May wanted to get a trafficking bill through and simply didn`t want it hijacked by controversy about a new rather rushed anti-sex work measure. I am not sure if this is showed she was against criminalising men.
It`s a sad world when people want to jail men just for wanting to get laid. freeworld {30881. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 17:18}
phantom {30880. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 09:12}
Plenty of "rather right wing" people believe its none of the state`s damn business whether consenting adults choose to pay for sex with other consenting adults. And after all, uber lefty Sweden is the place always cited by p4p advocates as the one to follow when it comes to criminalizing "customers". In fact, I suspect you`d get lots of objections from "Mail on line" types to any criminalization of this kind. This is hardly a burning issue with the general public - the call for criminalization comes almost entirely from the small but noisy totalitarian nutter wing of "feminist" agitation, and from a few obsessive "religious" busybodies.
The topic was covered today by Nicky Campbell`s Radio 5 phone in, with a shroud waving studio guest given a predominant role and little input to inform listeners that being a client of involuntary prostitutes (which constitutes most of the case for the prosecution for restrictionists) is already a criminal offense. Obviously this skewed the whole thing, as it allowed circumstances which are irrelevant to any further measures - which can only target completely innocuous, consensual activities - to dominate much of what was being asserted. There was a surprisingly good guest in the second half, an academic from Northumbria University, who has completed extensive research on the issue which excellently counters the emotive polemical claims being made by the restrictionists. Of course, with measures like these, logic, rationality, truth etc are up against the politics of grandstanding gestures and government`s usual pandering to screeching organized lobby groups with easy access to the political class. phantom {30880. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 09:12}
Freeworld,
I suspect that it was hardly the rather right wing Theresa May who opposed the idea of making paying for sex illegal.
My guess would be it was the LibDem coalition partners who put a stop to the idea.
Worryingly, that coalition partner is no longer there... freeworld {30879. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 03:33}
No rotten policy stays permanently buried when it comes to UK politics. It just keeps returning and returning until the sponsors of these ideas get their way. Those with long memories will recall that the last Labour government`s home office was on the cusp of making all "paying for sex" a criminal offense when they lost office in 2010. The coalition quietly dropped any further law - which, since we have one making it illegal to " pay for sex" with coerced sex workers anyway, can only serve to criminalize perfectly consensual activities between adults (which is what they do now in Northern Ireland since the law was changed last year).
The gender hate groups who have done so much to ruin feminism, and the pious puritanical moralizers, are being given their opportunity once again, no doubt emboldened by their success in uniting left and right to bring in a broad brush law in Northern Ireland.
Vaz`s home affairs committee are looking at the matter this afternoon - it is on the UK parliament video. At worst one may expect the upshot of this to be another phony foregone conclusion "consultation" prior to legislation; at best "Dave" and co will say what they did in 2010, the current law is perfectly adequate to deal with abusive and involuntary prostitution and further client criminalization is police state interference in personal life. I`m not a fan of Theresa May, but as she was in the home office as secretary of state from 2010 and any plans for client criminalization were dropped then, it might be she is not in favour of such legislation.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/160226-prostitution-evidence/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Melon Farmers (Dave) {30878. Posted 22-Feb-2016 Mon 08:42}
The webserver used by MelonFarmers.co.uk is broken. The engineers are on the job
Update: Now fixed but it took a fair few hours Melon Farmers (Dave) {30877. Posted 18-Feb-2016 Thu 06:47}
Thanks Sergio, That`s a good piece, I`ll make a link to it.
prm2007. The block to imagefap has come up a few times, I`ll have a think on how best to maintain a record, perhaps of major sites blocked in the UK. sergio {30876. Posted 18-Feb-2016 Thu 04:32}
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-this-the-most-inane-government-consultation-of-132722257.html prm2007 {30875. Posted 16-Feb-2016 Tue 05:36}
I notice that www.imagefap.com is still being blocked by almost all UK ISPs
Further details at:
https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?url=http://www.imagefap.com
Interesting to note that TalkTalk Kidsafe does not block access. Melon Farmers (Dave) {30874. Posted 14-Feb-2016 Sun 07:08}
Sadly it seems that the webhost used for melonfarmers.co.uk is suffering a denial of service attack, so sometimes is is not working.
Reported as resolved on 16th Feb sergio {30873. Posted 13-Feb-2016 Sat 07:25}
That`s interesting Dave.
If someone sees these images they are committing an offence, right?
The BBC seems to be judge and jury (they think they are `obscene`). Only a jury can judge?
So, who reported the images? They must have committed an offence at the BBC? Melon Farmers (Dave) {30872. Posted 13-Feb-2016 Sat 06:51}
Sergio. Indeed images who`s obscenity is more related to who is looking at them rather than the content itself. However it does seem an issue best not picked up by melonfarmers, anti-censorship ideals probably don`t go down well in the debate. sergio {30871. Posted 12-Feb-2016 Fri 10:48}
Re: facebook secret paedophile groups: BBC seem to conflate/confuse obscene with illegal. They either are doing this deliberately or are ignorant. Therumbler {30870. Posted 11-Feb-2016 Thu 15:08}
Facebook now allows pictures of art featuring nudes:
http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/facebook-makes-u-turn-on-nudes-after-paris-ruling/ Previous >>
|
