|
sergio [27175. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 13:56]
`While all the above scenes are shocking and uncomfortable to watch, this film IS very good.`
`...that being said, I`ll be surprised if they were phased by the necrophilia / rigor mortis sex moments,...`
Sorry? Isn`t that now illegal?
`While I`m no fan of censorship (I wouldn`t be on here if I was), I do believe that a metaphorical line should be drawn in the sand, especially when dealing with children and sex in films.`
I was just watching this with Heather Brooke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdszORp_-fk
Interesting what she says at the end ... `...some sort of provable harm that can happen...` pbr [27174. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 12:41]
Following on from Sergio`s comment...
"as it does suggest you can easily drug and anally rape a child"
...this may come as a surprise........... sergio [27173. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 06:54]
`While you don`t actually see anything as such, the repeat viewings could be seen as being titillating and arousing for certain viewers`
Is it me or does that sound moronic? pbr [27172. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 23:51]
@Cappy - can`t say I`m entirely sure what you`re trying to express there... if you`re trying to suggest that the previous ruling clique had a healthy respect for the ideals of liberty (and I hold no dillusions that the Tory belief in it goes any further than crass NIMBYism, but frankly, that`s a step up from where we were...) then... well... let me just say we`ll be in disagreement on that :)
Oh yea... as Tony has come out of his crypt... you may all enjoy this particular little documentary:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-britain-went-to-war/4od
I recommend you watch the whole thing, it`s about the Miners Strike, but if you`ve not got the time, skip straight to 47:00 to get the background, and then at 48:41 someone will appear and he will speak words, words which will bring you the most sardonic smile you`ve ever had... Cappy [27171. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:26]
@pbr liberal views ??? Are you having a laugh when the liberals have just got into bed with the tories hmmmmm !!! and i dont know what the crack is with william coz there was a jeremy and norman for the liberals. Now you have a condem f lies all over the place Cappy [27170. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:23]
@pornomania Yep the do gooders are having a right laugh saying we can watch and regulate whatever we want coz we know its better that way you arseholes Pornmania [27169. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 12:58]
Did any of you watch Logun`s Run on Film 4 yesterday at 4.45pm in the afternoon? It was the uncut version with full nudity. Nudity in itself according to censorshiop law as I understand and as long as it is not sexual should not really be censored even in daytime if there was warning before hand, however there was a scene at the beginning when Jenny Agutter wearing very little with glimps of buttocks came to see Michael York for sex. Another scene at an orgy had full frontal nudities. pbr [27168. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 05:39]
I see your Daily Hate and I raise you MichaelG!
While looking for any news on the Freedom/Repeal Bill I found this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291007/Nick-Clegg-launches-Freedom-Bill-cut-red-tape-reduce-nanny-state.html
And the comments are... delightful... my pick is this one:
I know, people fought for freedom of expression so that they could talk about things in an open discussion without fear and all we have left is the DM
- John Alex, London, 03/7/2010 01:49
...I can only hope that the poster`s comment has the meaning I think it does and that the Hate`s moderators aren`t as sharp as they think they are... MichaelG [27167. Posted 28-Aug-2010 Sat 23:50]
Anyone fancy a laugh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1306470/The-Girl-Who-Played-With-Fire-review-No-spark-Swedens-gloomy-Noomi.html
Tookey gets it wrong again! After giving `The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo`, one of the most critically acclaimed movies this year, a feeble 2 stars, he now gets the knives out for the sequel.
"Once again, the origins of this piece in Scandinavian TV are evident."
Once again, Tookey`s world-class stupidity is evident. They`re based on a trilogy of books, you fucking halfwit.
"The murky lighting, dull camerawork and slack editing (especially obvious during the action scenes) aren`t of the quality you`d expect in a Hollywood film."
Er... perhaps because it`s a Swedish film, not a Hollywood film, with none of the excessive budgets or colossal salaries from the latter. Any real film critic would, you`d think, be glad of the chance to review something a little bit different to the norm. Not this juvenile minded cretin - he`s probably just upset because there weren`t any fluffy talking animals or toys that come to life in there.
And no review of `A Serbian Film`, Chris? What`s all that about then? pbr [27166. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 10:32]
@ Hartfordshire conviction....
"Sergeant Dey said: We are the first officers in the county to make use of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – possession of extreme pornographic images – and it was only possible by the fantastic support from FACT and BPI."
...FACT and the BPI are protecting their beastiality catalogue? O_o
"The investigation into him took nearly a year."
...your taxes at work... goatboy [27165. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 04:16]
I`ve not seen it, but A Serbian Film is reportedly VERY over the top, I don`t think it`d have got through unscathed at any point, though if the tories are wanting bloody Medal of Honor banned, I can see why the bbfc wouldn`t want to pass the baby rape movie uncut at the moment, I`d guess they`d think it`s not worth it in terms of the level of heat they`d get, although it`s interesting the bbfc say in the press release "the Board does not regard these images as likely to contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978", which does raise the question of what the justification is for cutting it.
And of course the irony of this is the film, uncut, is on the pirate bay website, so the bbfc doing this may well increase interest in seeing the uncut version, which anyone with a computer and broadband can do anyway. MichaelG [27164. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 21:11]
Re: goatboy [27163]:
Didn`t know about this, thanks for the info. Very interesting point you make about the activities of the BBFC in relation to which political party are in power. Don`t know if we`re just seeing a number of particularly troublesome releases which they would have felt compelled to hack chunks out of regardless, or if they feel obliged to be a little more ruthless with the scissors now the Tories are back in power. Perhaps they`re still a little wary of the party who gave us the original VRA.
It`s also very interesting to consider that under CommuNuLabour, despite their overarching implementation of draconian, fist-clunking, stifling policies, one thing that did improve was the relaxation of censorship of entertainment, at least in some ways.
And no, that doesn`t mean I want the fuckers back in power... goatboy [27163. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 17:36]
Surprised it`s not mentioned here yet, the bbfc have ordered 3 minutes 48 seconds of cuts to A Serbian Film, 79 cuts, and a screening in London this weekend for frightfest is off as Westminister council won`t allow them to show anything but the bbfc approved version.
Though to be honest I think it was optimistic of frightfest to think the film, which has a scene where a newborn baby is raped, would get through the bbfc, especially given the tories are back in power. MichaelG [27162. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 12:08]
I`d just like to say a big `THANK YOU` to the BBFC for the heads-up about cutting the piss out of the `I Spit On Your Grave` remake - I really appreciate their transparency - and also for doing their bit to ensure that the distributor of this movie loses sales because no-one wants to watch something that`s been rendered incoherent by their excessive meddling and pruning. Dissuading movie fans from going to see the cinema release and from buying the DVD - the recession rolls on thanks to self-important, hand-wringing cunts like this.
I mean, what is the fucking point when I can order it totally uncut from the US Amazon site months before it gets released here anyway? The BBFC should just wind up right now and pack all their employees off to the nearest job centre...
Oh, and after his comments about `Medal of Honour`, Liam Fox can fuck right off too - the first member of the Coalition to royally get my back up. Every government has at least one, don`t they? DoodleBug [27161. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 22:55]
phantom [27159]
Loved that last comment phantom :-)
As far as I`m concerned the BBFC were doomed once DVD`s became popular at the end of the 90`s. DVD importation kicked in in a big way and there are so many UK based importers around you can have the latest uncut epic through your letterbox within 2 days of ordering it.
bleach [27160. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 15:21]
The new Medal of Honour game has also been rated 18 for violence. The first game of the series to get above a 15. phantom [27159. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 12:32]
DoodleBug [27158]
Well, the gents at the BBFC must continue to justify their existence.
They do so most of all by finding `potentially harmful material`.
(the beauty in this lies of course in the adverb)
Some might argue that this creates an inherent conflict of interest. After all, what happens would the BBFC - heaven forfend - not find anything to ban in a calendar year?
Would not significant numbers of staff then be deemed superfluous?
Well, yes. Thus they will happily continue to find material from which we need to be protected.
It follows therefore that, as long as there are censors, there will be censored material. Which in turn will be used as an argument for the continued need for censors. Ah well...
There is however something which will throw a spanner into these works.
I can imagine that functionaries in Whitehall already will be fearfully toward the internet and the evermore practical proposition of global film distribution via the net.
We already know that this is happening to a large scale in video piracy, but it is bound to take off legally in some form sooner or later.
It will then very quickly become an irrelevance where you live, or where the seller is based, when downloading your legally purchased movie.
Essentially we all know this is going to happen. It is a matter of time.
At such a point the BBFC, finally, will be rendered powerless.
Sure, they will still be able to oversee cinema releases. But anything regarding video will very quickly - and irreversibly - slip from their grasp.
And hey, we will all be there - to spit on their grave. ;) DoodleBug [27158. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 09:39]
After hearing about the problems the makers of the remake of I Spit On Your Grave had in the U.S. trying to get a rating I made a prediction that it wouldn`t pass uncut in the UK and it looks like I was right :
This work was cut. The cut(s) were Compulsory. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 21s were required. Details of cuts below may contain spoilers of plot details.
Company was required to make a total of seventeen cuts during three separate scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material (in this case, shots of nudity that tend to eroticise sexual violence and shots of humiliation that tend to endorse sexual violence by encouraging viewer complicity in sexual humiliation and rape). Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. phantom [27157. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 07:02]
emark [27154]
re: A Sadistic Prosecution...
Yep, it seems an interesting step change here.
First off, this is not bestiality which seems to have been the mainstay of DPA prosecutions thus far.
Also, it`s not something tagged on to some other charge. Or at least that`s how it reads in this article.
What is unclear however is why the police raided his properties.
Was this really a raid to find 3 movies and 26 photos of BDSM?
Or was it - as I would deem more likely - a raid for something else which proved fruitless? Thus, the DPA once more would be the fall back charge in order for police to justify their actions and not be seen to be wasting their time.
The mention of BDSM in this is extremely worrying.
Also the vagary of the lingo used seems very suggestive of much lesser material than this law was ever (claimed to be) set up for.
But then I do approach this with an element of `I told you so`.
To me the most contentious paragraph in this law has always been `likely to result in serious injury`.
From the start I asked, how likely is a likeliness?
What is the difference between, say, a possibility and a likeliness?
And that`s before we ever get into the notion of `serious injury` in this context.
I have always suspected that it is the `likely to` which possibly opened this up to all matters BDSM.
Now true, we do not know the details of this. And we have no way of ever finding out. Perversely, this means that we - some of the best informed people on this matter in the country - therefore still remain clueless as to what actually is culpable under this law.
But then that is why this is bad law.
One can not know.
The prosecution is thus at liberty to try it on - no matter what.
Authoritarian nirvana.
Truly one of Blair`s legacy laws it seems.
For I would definitely call that a legacy. pbr [27156. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 10:37]
@Cartoon Banners...
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tuna Empire work isn`t being displayed for its porn quality... Tuna Empire satirised Bin Laden... and this is Denmark... pbr [27155. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 00:21]
*amused aside*
...Dentist in sadomasochistic shocker...
*rollseyes* emark [27154. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 15:45]
Another "extreme porn" case that seems to involve only humans, with no other charges: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/
This may also be the first case where the defendant admits having an interest in BDSM (as opposed to looking at "shock" images for curiosity, etc). Shaun [27153. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 05:47]
Fourty five years ago when I was but seven, we used to play "Allies and Germans" in the school playground. I once even took the part of hitler.
These morons who whinge, moan and demand censorship and try to do "good" haven`t got a clue. Nor do they realise just how much HARM they are doing.
There may be less censorship in some spheres, but that`s only due to modern technology and the fact the politicians cannot control it.
In many ways we have lost LOADS of freedoms since I was a kid.
So much for that freedom site of the government`s. It is clear they don`t have any intention of even considering the MOST popular ideas.
Politicians in this country are not fit for purpose and should be treated with complete disdain like the charlatans they are. They prostitute their position, and abandon their former stated principles completely for a bit of extra time in power. It makes me sick. pbr [27151. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 14:48]
When I first saw the headline play as the taliban I though "damn that`s brave"... but what it actually means is that in multiplayer, someone has to be on the other team...
=/ Do they really need a gamer to explain that when you`ve got competative play and only 2 teams... someone has to be on the other team?
I mean... come on now... shall we ban all WW2 games in case someone plays as an axis power? What about going back further... is that Napoleon: Total War on my shelf an insult to those that died at Waterloo?
I mean good grief... MichaelG [27150. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 11:59]
taken them a while, but here we go:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305164/Medal-Honour-Liam-Fox-outraged-video-game-play-Taliban.html
This is the first bit of controversial entertainment that anyone from the Coalition has called for to be banned!
"I am disgusted and angry. It`s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game"
It ain`t that hard mate. I bet it`s going to go down a storm in places like Luton and Bolton with young members of certain minority groups who idolise the likes of Abu Hamza and who jet off for summer holidays to remote parts of Pakistan to... er, `learn new skills`.
`I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.`
Yeah, they`re going to do themselves out of thousands of pounds of sales just because you said so....
If I were him, I`d be rather more concerned about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305076/Iran-goes-nuclear-Fears-regime-plans-bomb-gather-pace-Russian-atomic-reactor-started.html pbr [27149. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 04:25]
Yet another surreal story out of Kent... there`s something awry with that force... emark [27148. Posted 20-Aug-2010 Fri 18:47]
Nice to see the Guardian turning into the Daily Mail. Janus17 [27147. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 23:30]
Re: Just 3 Victims of Paying for Sex Law...
Just love the Guardian`s approach to this. They don`t seem to be able to accept the facts. There aren`t prosecutions because there just aren`t the ludicrous numbers of trafficked or coerced women suggested by the likes of CommuNuLabour idiot Denis McShane a couple of years back. There aren`t prosecutions because it`s so damn difficult to prove, which should have been taken into consideration by the halfwits who created the law in the first place.
`Men who use brothels are escaping a new law intended to crack down on the coercion of women into prostitution, the Guardian has learned.`
Yes, they`re likely `escaping` because the women they visit haven`t been coerced or forced(!). Fuck me.
Now APCO claim that at least 2,600 prostitutes working in brothels in England and Wales had been trafficked from abroad. `Trafficked` - meaning they have been led, coerced or forced into coming here by a third party who will gain from the situation, or are they girls who have come here of their own volition? Irrespective of being assisted in arriving or travelling - if this is the criteria for establishing `trafficking` cases, you may as well go after the airline company by which they arrived too - I`d just love to know how the term is being defined.
As for the figure, how can they possibly know this? One week it`s 2,500, the next it`s 80,000, depending upon who you`re listening to at the time. But with only three cautions (and no prosecutions) since April 2009, don`t all these massive figures seem, well, just a little... unlikely? sergio [27146. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 04:01]
Irony:
Next to story of `Prudish council` and `Artist John Vesty `
was
` * Kelly Brook is a goddess in gold as she FINALLY puts some clothes on for Piranha 3D premiere But slashed dress was still rather revealing
`
I am not sure why he is `astonished` - has he never displayed nude paintings before? Of course the opinion of a few council officials is flimsy.
`But former actor Mr Vesty, 57, and his supporters insisted that none of his paintings were erotic or pornographic.`
Again, that is his and the supporters opinion. If it is not erotic then it must be bad art.
(`No nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even if it be only the faintest shadow — and if it does not do so it is bad art and false morals.` - Ch. 1: The Naked and the Nude by Kenneth Clark)
I am not sure if this is censorship. They put them up and then take them down and then put them somewhere else - a gallery.
I wonder if some of the people were so turned on by the pictures that they couldn`t take the acres of flesh.
Council officials, public/staff and opinions of offence.
Interesting game, how many opinions of offence does it take to take a picture down? cor [27145. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 15:38]
RE: "in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?"
granted none, but in no other spheres do we need to, how can we maintain the right to remain silent until your day in court when you had to talk the last time you were in court. Or ensure a fair second trial when the first is on public record, likely sensationalized by the media potentially biasing the second jury? Or a speedy trial the fourth, or fifth time around?
now i feel like i have to explain the value of the right to remain silent, how it protects the innocent and condemns the guilty by the very nature of evidence itself.. but I`ll assume you understand this principal and move on.
The courts are only half the problem, being under investigation can be a life destroying process where none of your belongings are your own and every move you make is twisted out of context to make a case against you.. this process has to have an end, a conclusion, otherwise its just an exorcise in terrorism.
RE"If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result..."
...there will always be new evidence, doubts, inconsistencies, but we`re not setting up a method of scientific study here, this isn`t a proof or a theory that can be re-tested every time someone spots a vulnerability, its someones life, someone who, when accused of a crime, should be aloud to clear there name once and for all, and then move on without continual harassment or fear of being retested if someone sees a circumstantial weakness in them.
I think we need to look at what exactly we want from justice, if its simply to find the absolute truth, then a scary, intrusive system will be the answer, my hope is that its `to convict the guilty where possible, taking every precaution to protect the rights of the innocent and wrongly accused` - considering an innocent man in prison *means* a guilty man on the street i can`t see how anyone can disagree with me, the process itself should accept that some errors will happen that we can`t fix - or it would make the whole system worse.
pbr [27144. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 14:20]
I`m very much aware of the value of the double jeopardy rule, consider though... in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?
If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result... there should be a mechanism to retry the offence... the question is how you determine what`s compelling and how many bites or rather, in what circumstances can the cherry be bitten again... cor [27143. Posted 16-Aug-2010 Mon 03:05]
RE: Double jeopardy..
I`m not an expert in law, but to me double jeopardy is more than just another addendum to law that can be easily scrapped or re-written. I believe its the foundation of out system, by that i mean the concept of `clearing your name`.
Without it i think there will be 3 fundamental differences in how our justice system will operate;
first, accepting the minimalist attitudes of public sector workers, cases will be brought with little to no evidence, and little to no prep, in the knowledge that if a conviction fails the more `new` evidence they can put forward the greater the chance of getting another trial.
second, where charges will be brought against the innocent more readily (as a side effect of the first point) people who have `cleared their name` will still be under investigation after the trial, their every move scrutinized and taken out of context for an indeterminate amount of time, there will literally be no way for them to re-join normality.
and third, there will be even more pressure on the innocent to plead guilty, to get a lesser sentence and put an end to their torment -knowing it likely wouldn`t end even if they won their case now.
RE pbr [27142]
unbending rules are our only protection from the public servants that do everything but serve the public, rules like `innocent unless proven guilty` or the right to remain silent, or the concept of clearing your name in court (supported by double jeopardy). Without them we rely on the judgment of people i wouldn`t trust with the remote to my TV. pbr [27142. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 12:05]
Double jeopardy is a double edged sword... it`s pro preventing the state from trying you over and over and over and over ad infinitum has to be balanced against the shitstorm that is... say... being acquitted then writing a book about how you did it... if you did it... *rolls eyes*
I think it`s something which needs considerable care... but... an unbending rule regardless of the facts... that`s dangerous too... on balance... double jeopardy is something which can be sacrificed - if there are the proper gatekeepers and penalties for abusing its absence...
There haven`t been that many egregious cases of abuse since we lost it this side of the border... though... 2 `wobbly` shall we say... ones come to mind... Teddy [27141. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 06:38]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10977281
I find this absolutely incredible! 800 years of jurisprudence...not a bit of it; our wonderful politicians know what`s best. I thought that Nu Labour were bad, but the SNP are of an even worse ilk, if anything. pbr [27140. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 10:13]
RE: Consent to prosecute
I was looking for some statistics... didn`t find what I was looking for, did drop by and get some details on consent to prosecute though:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/consent_to_prosecute/#a06
"Where the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings is required, this may be given by a Crown Prosecutor by virtue of section 1(7) Prosecution of Offences Act (the 1985 Act)."
So... everyone above caseworker and associate prosecutor is able to consent :) and I`m making the assumption that AP`s can`t I don`t know for sure... my understanding is that AP`s are non-qualified (as in they`re not solicitors/barristers) staff... that`s what I`m basing the assumption on... and a sliver of hope... Spiderschwein [27139. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 04:39]
RE: Bel Mooney and music that`s poisoning kids minds.
The 80s were innocent?!
This was the era of glam and big hair and "Girls, Girls, Girls," and groupies and cocaine-fuelled excess.
I am with her on the unnecessary flesh-baring though. I do think that a lot of it is just put in because the object is to shift some units and cover up for mediocre actual product. Then again I don`t buy it, so... pbr [27138. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 03:13]
@ Harvey
I`m sure the most -noticeable and reported- trouble will be with the prisons, but it`s always easier to bellow rhetoric on cutting "admin" rather than "the front line"... Harvey [27137. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:23]
@ pbr,
I tend to think the biggest trouble will be with prisons, rather than the courts. pbr [27136. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:17]
@ Harvey
lol, I chuckled when I saw the met chief (granted, different budget) saying he "rather likes sending villians to jail"... I see ground work for a scuffle between the hang-em and flog-em wing of the Clarke & the Treasury coming... and I can guess which side the foaming at the mouth sections of the media are going to bay for...
But in all seriousness... Courts have this awful habit of getting terribly backlogged... if you take 15,000 people out of the MoJ and the only bodies it runs I can think of with real numbers are HMPS, HMCS and HMTS... and yea... legal aid has become something of a target of choice...
...could be all kinds of trouble...
In other news... I was most amused by The Sun`s new campaign to shop benefit frauds... talk about biting the hand that feeds you... Harvey [27135. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:09]
@ pbr
Well legal aid was being squeezed even before the government`s finances got so out of shape. But I take your point that when the budget gets slashed, there will be less justice to go around.
Although... the slashing of budgets at the MoJ could work to prevent the CPS spending money on such nonsenses as the tiger porn man`s case. So it`s swings and roundabouts. pbr [27134. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:46]
@ Cappy
Marriage is 16 with parental consent...
Legally 16-18 is a weird place... even weirder following the age of neo-labour, naturally...
@ Harvey
I wasn`t really commenting on the case, more thinking outloud on the legal aid and fair hearings... looking forward to how the butchery at the MoJ will bear out on Art 6... not just legal aid... but the actual ability of the Court office just to push the paper necessary! Harvey [27133. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:46]
pbr, IanG
re: McLibel.
I think the facts of the McLibel case also bear on the ruling. It was McD who sued Steel & Morris. They were not seeking legal aid to bring a case of their own, but to defend themselves in an action brought against them. AND it was a very unequal struggle between a wealthy multi-national and two individuals of limited income. So while the ECHR upheld the claim of the McLibel 2, that in their case they had been denied a fair trial, that`s far from being a ruling that the discretionary awarding of legal aid is in conflict with article 6.
But in the recent comparable and notorious libel action against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association I don`t think he got any legal aid to defend himself. Though the BCA eventually dropped the case, he was left with a legal bill well into six figures. Singh wasn`t denied a fair trial. He just had to pay for it. But then the BCA probably paid a similar amount, if not more to exercise their right. Cappy [27132. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:06]
Bigoted self centred twats who sanction what we can see on our TV and what we cannot MUST be deluded morons who thrive on backslapping tuxedo wearing middle class bigots who think they are high and mighty.
Marriage - 16 years
Alcohol - 18 Years
Smoking - 18 Years
Watching porn on Internet - Any age
With pin technology would a 5 year old be able to see pornographic images on TV? - the answer is no why? a 5 year old just about has learned to do baisc of basic tasks to learn how to live .
But Hey the same 5 year old can use a computer and if he has learned any playground words and remebered to put them in a google , bless google it corrects any spelling mistakes and give some answers , all it takes is a five year old to click a few times and hey presto
Now the older kids will be more averse to surfing and closeted away in their own rooms god only knows what they get up to on their computers
You have heard the stories of children "chatting" to strangers and so on
Children develop as mirrors of ourselves in quite a lot of ways , A drinking smoking mum or dad will have a smoking drinking developing child
It is high time the "do gooders" allowed some freedom to "Adults" to enjoy their "products" without being treated as children pbr [27131. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 11:37]
RE: McLibel etc...
I`ve got nothing to do with any kind of legal aid work... but... if I recall rightly back on the LPC the way that the state might get out of their Art 6 obligation is to set up a system which says thou shal never have legal aid for X, Y, Z but, there is a "discretion" to allow it... but I wouldn`t bank on that discretion being exercised all that often... DarkAngel5 [27130. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 11:31]
Regarding that Daily Mail article, I`ve just posted this comment, we`ll see if it gets published...
"Mike Stock is a complete hypocrite, what about those early "Kylie" videos which he co-wrote the songs to? I seem to recall her prancing around in some fairly evocative clothing, he didn`t seem to object to sexy dance videos when the royalties from them were lining his pockets!" dano [27129. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 09:15]
Re: Bel Mooney...
Present personal opinion as fact and subjective surveys as evidence of actual harm and you can say Eamon Homes is poisoning children`s minds.
Take things totally out of context to apparently show how music and music videos is sending out horrible messages to young people...
Like Rihanna and Eminem`s song which she reckons is glamoursing domestic violence. According to Bel Rihanna is justifying the victimisation of women!
No don`t bother to actually try and understand what the song is about (it`s about an abusive relationship, there are plenty of them about already and they started long before singers and rappers started talking about it) just take it by your own prejudiced agenda and decide that it`s gonna make kids hit each other!
Take personal offence towards what`s out there as evidence of actual harm. It`s always done and never proves anything! Shaun [27128. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39]
I wish someone would censor the Daily Mail. Better still close it down forever.
IanG [27127. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39]
Harvey, I`m sure you`re right but I do know I heard (in the TV documentary about the subject) that the ECHR or ECJ ordered the UK to change its legal aid policies when McD brought its entire corporate might against two UK citizens who were simply publicising the TRUTH about McD`s products.
------
While I`m here, I thought you good folks might like to read this (as succinct as I can make it) argument against OFCOM`s illegal activities.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=594135#pid594135
MichaelG [27126. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 23:26]
Comedy hour in the Mail again, courtesy of Bel-fucking-Mooney:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302594/Lady-Gaga-IS-poisoning-childrens-minds.html
Dear God... it`s about as interesting as reading the safety instructions on a bottle of Domestos. But a whole lot less useful or worthwhile... Harvey [27125. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 16:32]
IanG, AFAIK there is no general entitlement to legal aid for civil cases. Though the ECHR does say that to ensure the right to a fair trial there should be legal aid for criminal proceedings AND to determine civil rights.
Other claims are assessed on merit, and even then any legal aid is means tested. Even with a strong case, you have to be virtually destitute to qualify for anything. Taking a simple case to the High Court to get a judicial review could cost you anything up to £10k in fees and lawyers charges. IanG [27124. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 08:00]
Harvey, I thought following the McD libel case that the ECHR had ruled the UK MUST provide Legal Aid in civil cases? Harvey [27123. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 19:17]
Civil cases involve individuals or parties who each fund their own cases as far as court and if applicable the losing party may have to pay some or all of the costs of the other. The state acts as judge and in some cases there is a jury. It is almost impossible for an individual to get state funding to bring a civil action.
In criminal cases it`s an individual up against the state itself. If the state prosecutes you, it will provide legal aid to cover the basic costs of hiring lawyers to defend yourself. If you lose, you will be sentenced to jail or a fine or other punishment, but you won`t be handed the bill for the costs of the prosecution.
So in prosecuting criminal cases there is a sense in which the state, with its vast resources, can always "have a go". It knows it will cost the same to fight you and lose as to win so the only decision is whether to fight the case against you rather than any other case. The only sanction would be that you could sue the police for malicious prosecution. You would need to show malice or a malign motive and as it`s a civil action, you`d only need to show that malice was more likely than not rather than beyond reasonable doubt. But... you`d need to raise the money to bring the case in the first place - it being almost impossible for an individual to get state funding to bring a civil action. If you win you`d be awarded damages. I know of at least one Ore case where a the police are being sued for malicious prosecution. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4769650.Photographer_to_get_retrial_over_child_pornography_damages_claim/ It`s still winding it`s way through the legal morass.
Beyond that, if the police actualy falsify evidence or lie or withhold material they know would help you defend yourself, they could be open to criminal charges themselves of perverting the course of justice, perjury, misfeasance in a public office or contempt of court.
Spiderschwein [27122. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 11:21]
RE: Dodgy Prosecutions to "have a go."
Well, in civil cases, if you bring a truly hopeless case that`s designed just to vex, you may end up with a wasted costs order against you if you`ve behaved "improperly, unreasonably, or negligently" and caused the opponent to incur unnecessary costs.
Isn`t there any equivalent provision in criminal cases? IanG [27121. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 06:19]
phantom, "That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best."
Now, now, phantom, I`m sure you know far better than to question the justice system in this manner. After all, these 12 good citizens are symbolic of the 12 Apostles chosen by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are believed to be duly guided by the Lord God Almighty to reach the correct verdict according to `His` will via their conscience.
The authority to hand out justice in the Royal Courts of Justice is derived from God through `His` representative on Earth, the Crown of England, Defender of the Faith, HRH Queen Elizabeth II.
Of course, this entire system of divine justice pays little respect to Article 9 of the HRA 1998, as beliefs alone are not supposed to be allowed to impede, restrict or otherwise affect the rights and freedoms of other human beings. This inherant injustice is only compounded by legislation that creates supposed `offences` out of unproven and deranged beliefs that assume possession of so-called `extreme images` can provoke extreme or dangerous behaviour.
However, whatever the shortcomings of the justice system, 12 independant members of the general public are probably far better placed to assess and represent matters of `public decency` than the 7 biased, bigoted and misguided twats, namely:
Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam(Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor
that are the OFCOM Content Board, lord and masters of all that we are allowed to see and hear in the broadcast media.
As for matters of logic or, indeed, interpretation of legislation, the OFCOM Content Board appear to have abandoned all logical conclusions made by reasonable people as confirmed in legal precedents and elevated themselves far above the law we must all obey. They see fit to restate legislation intended to guide them in creating their Standards Code (section 319(2)&(4) of the Comms Act 2003), in their pathetic excuse for that supposed Standards Code. They even dare to publish so-called `guidance` that displays their inherant prejudice that should, and indeed must, fall foul of every principle of due impartiality (see section 1.18 of their stakeholder guidance) and fitness to stand in judgement.
sergio [27120. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 01:28]
"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as `pornographic`"
Interesting, how many `experts` does it take to measure a piece of string?
DarkAngel5 [27119. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 11:11]
Re "Sweeney Todd with Balls".
I`ve seen an advanced screener copy of "Meat Grinder", and whilst it is indeed quite bloody in places, and features a few yucky "ouch" moments, its nothing that hasn`t been seen before.
Hostel and some of the Saw films are notably gorier! Harvey [27118. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 10:14]
emark [27115]
In the OPA case I think you`re referring to (Girls Scream Aloud), yet again the prosecution offered no evidence. So we can only guess what may have happened in the trial.
The press were reporting that the issue was concerning who may have been likely to read the story and the court may have allowed an expert to unravel the workings of the internet and the story site where the article was posted for the benefit of the judge and jury. phantom [27117. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:50]
Harvey {27113. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 18:39}
"Would he have been allowed to call experts to testify that the image was not pornographic? I would expect the court to say it was a matter for the jury to decide and that they could be expected to do so purely by looking at the image itself. "
Yes, the expert cannot enter into the sphere in which the `average citizen` is supposed to have all the expertise required.
It`s almost comical what lengths are needed in order to keep a structure upright which, left to its own, would collapse.
The semantics of bad law.
That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best.
I wonder what credibility would be ascribed to a political poll of 12 people by MORI regarding the current popularity of the political parties. Anyone?
I think we all know it would be deemed not broad enough by far to represent the nation`s sentiment, - that is before even considering the regional and local variations in juries which are all said reflect a `national` standard.
Now I do find it funny how we are happy to have experts interpret oil paintings for us on TV to tell us why something is a masterpiece or art per se – something on which apparently there is such a thing as expertise, - but we are all suddenly elevated to the level of experts when it comes to judging the relative offensiveness of porn.
So for artistic nudity we require an expert. For offensive nudity the lack of an expert will do.
Now sure, the supposed `expertise` simply rests in the hands of the jury to prevent stalemate of experts. (i.e. the defence brings half a dozen testifying it`s ok, the prosecution brings half a dozen to testify it is not).
But in essence this boils down to keeping the law practicable. (not practical, mind)
In the end it is just semantics.
The entire idea of obscene publication or dangerous pictures is flawed.
There is no way of measuring obscenity, be it by experts, or by laymen.
A law on obscenity is a law on the length of a piece of string.
Were this law a house, it would have no roof.
But the courts nonetheless would maintain the strict rules regarding the choice of the house`s wallpaper.
Else the illusion fails. The illusion that this is real. That there is logic in this.
In truth we are dealing not with logic, but – to borrow a phrase – with pseudo logic.
We develop rules and conventions, note precedents. All to maintain the illusion that we can precisely quantify that which we have emotively proscribed in law
Namely whether any random piece of string is of the permitted, albeit undefined length, or whether it is intuitively too long or too short.
Now repeat after me:
`The Emperor is wearing clothes. The Emperor is wearing...` phantom [27116. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:45]
Harvey {27106. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 17:23}
“Lastly... Backlash - please publish the names of the individual police and prosectors who staged this outrage.”
I definitely second that motion.
I have oft argued that there should be some comeback on prosecutors.
Fines, docked pay – something.
It seems to me that they frequently abuse their position, simply `having a go` to see whether a conviction can be achieved, irrespective of guilt.
I trust the early Romans had a reason to brand those lawyers who made unfounded accusations in court with the Greek for `false accuser`.
It meant that the accusing lawyer had a risk of his own and consequences to bear. No doubt he would thus see to it that he was certain of his facts before he brought a case.
Whereas today our dear prosecutors garner large wages irrespective of success or failure and reap no penalty if they are found to have brought frivolous charges.
Thus, with no consequences to themselves, it soon becomes a game to them.
A game of have-a-go prosecutors who no doubt think it a laugh if they get an accused to fold under the pressure before it ever comes to a trial in which they never could have produced actual evidence.
A game completely divorced of morality or justice.
A very dirty little game indeed. emark [27115. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 04:29]
Didn`t a similar thing happen with the OPA case last year - the case collapsed because of expert witnesses who would argue that the image wouldn`t be likely to deprave and corrupt? I don`t know if that`s something that is seen to require an expert witness. dano [27114. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 04:17]
Re McDonalds, Fantastic Four and Campaign For A Commercial Free Childhood:
Groups like the Campaign For Commerical Free Childhood are right-wing organsiations seeking to censor media under the guise of a faux left/liberal agenda.
Perhaps even more irratating and insulting than overtlty right-wing Christian pro-censorship groups like the Parents Television Council such so calld "liberal" campaign organisations take the view that the majority of ordinary people and their children are illeducated and easily manipulated morons who can be "brainwashed" into buying any old shit by "manipulative" retailers.
They arrogantly take up the mantra of "protecting" children and also some adults (usually from the lower/working classes who the anti-corperate left-wing believe are thick, stupid, illeducated and easily led by clever marketing and adverts) from "evil" corperations who apparently commit the mortal sin of trying to sell stuff to people. (SHOCK HORROR BIG COMPANIES TRY TO SELL STUFF FOR A PROFIT...WHO KNEW???)
They have aligned themselves with so called anti-corperate activists and anti-capitalist anarchists who believe that their paid for middle class educations makes them so much more able and intelectual capable of resisting advertising and consumerism than everyone else!
Like the pro-censorship right-wing the left-wing pro censorship anti-corperate lobby believe people are stupid and need to be stopped from seeing things for "their own good".
Harvey [27113. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 18:39]
Would he have been allowed to call experts to testify that the image was not pornographic? I would expect the court to say it was a matter for the jury to decide and that they could be expected to do so purely by looking at the image itself. There was similar argument as to the admissibility of expert testimony in relation to the apparent age of a person featured in an image. The Appeal Court ruled that it was a matter for the jury alone to decide if it was a child.
"In R v Land (1997), the Court of Appeal held that a jury is as well placed as an expert (e.g. a paediatrician) to assess any argument addressed to the question whether the prosecution had established that the person depicted in a photograph was a child, and in any event expert evidence would be inadmissible: expert evidence is admitted only to assist the court with information which was outside the normal experience and knowledge of the judge or jury." [http://www.inquisition21.com/pca_1978/#_int_age_unk]
The whole point being that if the courts accept that it takes an expert to decide, how could any ordinary person, reasonably know whether any image they possess is of a child (or indecent or pornographic or extreme)? Though I admit that the way the DPA is worded expects the jury to decide on the motivation of the person who made the image, I`m sure the courts won`t torpedo the whole offence by admitting it takes an expert to decide.
So, I still believe they planned to run a specific defence (most likely that the image had been sent without him having requested it) and that`s the reason why the prosecution folded. But because it was never actually tried, it is possible for both the prosecutors and the defence to make all kinds of claims about what would have happened if it had been and we are left wondering exactly why the CPS bottled out. emark [27112. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 15:03]
According to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/ , it says:
"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as "pornographic", arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature." Harvey [27111. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 09:43]
pbr [27107]
Yes, the decision will be made on behalf of the DPP by someone lower down the food chain. But that doesn`t mean the buck stops anywhere else, but with Kier Starmer. He takes home the pay-packet, so he carries the can for the blatant nonsense of giving his consent to charging someone when there was no evidence to bring to court.
It`s an angle Backlash could use in their campaign. Perhaps by asking those in Parliament who had opposed the DPA during the passing of the legislation to start asking awkward questions at the DoJ about the consent given in the Holland case or by making the general issue of the CPS coming to court with "no evidence" something which one or other of the Select Committees would like to investigate. Harvey [27110. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 09:25]
emark [27108]
Although strictly speaking the question of whether an image is "pornographic" and "extreme" (according to the wording of the DPA) is only able to be decided by a jury, the return you get for pleading not guilty is a stiffer sentence should the jury decide otherwise as there would be no consideration given for you having entered a guilty plea. That could mean going to jail rather than getting a fine or community payback. So faced with the decision to plead guilty or not, an accused person would have to think there was a more than reasonable chance of a jury deciding in their favour before they`d take that gamble.
But you are quite right that if the nature of the image really was in dispute, it should have gone to a jury trial in both cases.
The reason why I think there was no such dispute in Holland`s case is that the news reports refer to him "having a defence". Now, there are specific defences available to someone charged with possession under the DPA. One of those defences is that the image was sent to the accused without him requesting it and that he had not seen or did not know it was an "extreme" image. Again, I`m guessing that this was Holland`s defence. Because, if the issue had been about whether the image was in fact "pornographic" and/or "extreme" the newspaper reports would not have referred to him "having a defence".
In Holland`s case, he was probably advised first by someone who was not familiar enough with the DPA and was possibly confused having previously dealt with indecent image cases, where downloading is usually charged as "making", for which there is no similar defence. In Nelson`s case it sounds like he`d made enough admissions (probably in interview *before* consulting a solicitor) that he couldn`t resort to that defence. He could have entered a not guilty plea and put his future in the hands of a jury to decide whether a video clip of "genital mutilation" is a) "pornographic" and b) "extreme", but if they decided it was both, he could now be cooling his heels in prison rather than scrubbing graffiti. He may well have got quite sensible advice that given his admissions, damage limitation was better than being a martyr to the cause of individual freedom in the face of bogus claims of harm and of grieving mothers wanting to believe that their daughter didn`t die pointlessly. bleach [27109. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 05:19]
@Ian G
Ofcom / Adult PPV
On pay-per-view as everyone here knows it is probably no more explicit than something you`d get on a free FHM DVD except on the off-chance you might see a woman playing with herself. As for encryption cards I think PPV has a lockout system anyway. What a load of nonsense. You could have potentially seen more explicit material on Eurotrash or late night Channel 5 back in the day. To be honest if a consumer pays £9.99 a month to view a UK adult channel they are being ripped off. Also, wouldn`t having hardcore PPV in the UK also create jobs? The typical viewer also isn`t the dirty mac brigade they`re normal with health sex lives or husbands of politicians. emark [27108. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 04:35]
"he hung himself once he admitted that he could have deleted the video from his phone, but didn`t. (Which is why he was asked that question, of course) Then the advice would almost certainly have been that he`d pissed on his one possible defence"
I agree that he was given crap advice, though one can still reasonably plead not guilty, questioning whether such an image counts as illegal - on that note, I`m not sure what the planned defence for Holland case was, was it that he hadn`t seen the image, or that it was hoped not to count as "extreme porn"? But yes, I agree with your comments. pbr [27107. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 00:40]
Indeed Harvey, you know though...
Although the statutes say `not without the DPP`s consent` they don`t *actually* require the DPP personally to consent to it, there`s a mechanism within the CPS to consent on the DPP`s behalf, I`m afraid I`ve not actually gone looking for how far down the deligated authority goes... persumably it should be fairly easy to find...
But yes... your points about the these non-cases making it past quality control, they`re as pertinant as ever. Harvey [27106. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 17:23]
pbr, emark
Not just good news, but fantastic news regarding Andrew Holland. A lot of credit should go to Backlash.
And again - YET AGAIN, we have the spectacle of the prosecution deciding to charge someone and when they plead not guilty, turning up in court and offering no evidence. Parliament needs to take a serious look into this as it`s becoming a ritual. Charging practice demands that the prosecution believe there is a reasonable liklihood of obtaining a conviction. How can that be possible when they are not prepared to put any case before the court when someone stands up to the browbeating and doesn`t roll over and plead guilty?
The details of Holland`s ordeal are no surprise to any of those who`ve been hit by the truck of an indecent image allegation as hundreds were during Op Ore. I`m sure there were people here who thought it was an exaggeration to claim that just an allegation could lead to loss of employment, and separation of familes for up to a year. Let this example prove that it`s no exaggeration at all. If things wee running to form he`d have been told the only way he`d see his child again was if he admitted his guilt, because that`s what happened to plenty of people I know when they were hit by Ore. And although he walks from court an innocent man, there`ll be no compensation offered to Holland, and no help in trying to put his life back together, though I hope Backlash will continue to keep in touch with him and offer advice, now that the legal process is concluded.
We all spent ages both here and at seenoevil.org arguing the infinitessimal detail of the proposed law - the definitions, the exceptions and the assumptions. But look at what happens even when there is no evidence.
And don`t forget that the DPP has to authorise each and every prosecution under the DPA. All honest citizens should be writing to ask him how on earth he can do that - twice in the case of Mr Holland - when there`s NO EVIDENCE.
Lastly... Backlash - please publish the names of the individual police and prosectors who staged this outrage.
emark [27101]
Re: the Sunderland case, if the remarks attributed to Nelson are correct, he hung himself once he admitted that he could have deleted the video from his phone, but didn`t. (Which is why he was asked that question, of course) Then the advice would almost certainly have been that he`d pissed on his one possible defence - that the image had been sent to his phone without his knowledge and he didn`t know or suspect it to be an indecent/extreme/prohibited image. In the one statement he`s admitted possession and knowledge - so it went to Mags Court and the solicitor is left making a statement in mitigation. The golden rule is, when arrested and interviewed, say NOTHING. If they have evidence, they`ll be charging you anyway. The only reasons for them to interview under caution is either that they don`t have sufficient evidence they can take to court and want you to give it to them, or that you might admit to more offences than the one they`re already investigating. Remember- you are not obliged to say anything. The time to defend yourself against an allegation is in court, if it gets that far, not in the police interview room, where all you can possibly do is make a bad situation much worse.
Sad for the young guy involved, but he is not the first and won`t be the last. Ask yourself how many other copies of this "sick porn" video are being sent around the mobile phone network. Hundreds, maybe thousands, and the comments of the District Judge suggest that if Nelson had admitted sending the video to anyone else, he`d be looking at a spell in jail instead of community payback. pbr [27105. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 14:23]
When [enough] people are willing to stand up and defend unpopular or embarassing issues in the face of tutting opposition. IanG [27104. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 10:59]
Typical brainwashed British nutters.
"That this House deplores the easy access children have to pornography by means of satellite and cable television; and calls on Ofcom, the appropriate regulator, to amend its broadcasting code in order to ensure that access to pornographic material is only available via a secure authentication system."
Upon WHAT EVIDENCE, other than their own discriminatory, backward, puritanical religious claptrap, do these `representatives` of the masses base their deplorable feelings?
Clearly, these wankstains haven`t bothered trying to watch `pornography` on UK TV because, if they had, they`d have discovered OFCOM have done a pretty good job of denying ADULTS access proper porn on TV let alone, allow "easy access" to children.
WHEN WILL THE FUCKING TOSSERS SUPPOSEDLY RUNNING THIS CUNTRY GROW UP?
emark [27103. Posted 7-Aug-2010 Sat 06:04]
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf
Note that the law amends the previous law on obscenity in Scotland - it starts:
"In section 51 of the 1982 Act (obscene material)—"
So I would hope that "obscene" is as defined in that Act. Whilst this law is far more broad and worrying than England (due to covering any images of sex appearing to be "non-consensual" even if they are consensual), they did at least tie it to their legal concept of obscenity. Although, I`ve no idea how the Scotland obscenity law compares to the OPA? bleach [27102. Posted 7-Aug-2010 Sat 05:39]
Re: Dangerous Pictures in Scotland
If the image is considered "obscene" is undefinable. Some consider cannibal holocaust to be obscene. Another impractical law. emark [27101. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 17:39]
Good news on the "extreme porn" case - though at the same time, it looks like we also have the first conviction only involving humans, with no other charges:
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp
Here he plead guilty, and was presumably given crap advice (much like the tiger porn guy, before Backlash were able to help). I guess the rule here seems to be that if you challenge them with a competent defence, the CPS will back down, but they`ll still gladly arrest and charge people for any old image they don`t like, in the hopes of scaring you into pleading guilty. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27100. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:49]
IanG, re-STD checking nutters.
I think these condom campaigners have no real interest in being logical or even in porn performers using condoms. They are just your usual anti-porn campaigners who are attacking the porn industry via a new angle. sergio [27099. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:39]
It`s bloody obvious, anyone who fucks or is interested in fucking a tiger must be sick in the head and a danger to children.
Just like when porn actors get divorced, the fucking for a living must ring bells that you are an incompetent and dangerous parent.
It`s bloody obvious.
(level 5 cynicism engaged) pbr [27098. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:11]
Re: Extreme porn
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/
Positive story there...
With this rather worrying element... "We spoke to Holland after the case yesterday and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: "Now I can start to put my life back together."
...now... unless his daughter looks very much like a tiger I`m not quite sure what the connect between the charge and preventing access is...
IanG [27097. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 04:57]
Protection from Nutters...
What`s all this supposed invasion of privacy bull for `adult` actors/workers? If you`re tested colour blind then you`re not allowed to fly commercial aircraft. If you fail a medical check-up then you`re often banned from driving buses, HGVs, trains, planes and automobiles, you`re often barred from operating machinery and/or excluded from pension schemes, health insurance schemes and so forth.
So what`s the supposed difference when it comes to folks working in the `adult` industry? If you test HIV +ve and your bodily fluids are dangerous to those you work with then, I think, your boss and your collegues deserve to know the truth. And if that means you`re not fit for that type of work then so be it. It is after all the safest course of action for all those involved.
In work and business, health and safety issues trump privacy every time - and AFAIK they always have.
IanG [27096. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 06:17]
ASA re ClubOops poster: "We concluded that the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and concluded it was unsuitable for public display."
This `conclusion` is based on one complaint from one complainant after a year on display...
Methinks the ASA is full of shit. Of course, this ASA `conclusion` would perhaps be true if this were a religiously corrupted, sexually repressed and backward shithole...as the ASA obviously seem to believe it is. However, to conclude an ad would cause "widespread offence" and is somehow "unsuitable for public display" after its been on display for a year and attracted only ONE complaint in all that time can in no way lead to, substantiate or support the ASA`s, quite irrational, `conclusion`.
This is biased bullshit coming from the minds of the biased bullshitters. The ASA are clearly not fit to judge. There`s not one shred of rationality in their `thinking`. Not one shred of evidence to support their view.
`Offence` is not grounds to censure ANY material under the terms of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This poster is clearly not a threat to national security; it is not libelous or slanderous; nor is it potentially harmful. A drawing of a partial female figure removing underwear is not physically, psychologically or morally harmful, indeed, I`d bet 99.99% of females remove their undewear in a similar fashion everyday without causing any harm to any on-lookers of any age.
Why I wonder do the ASA believe their Code can be implemented in a way which is compatible with the HRA when the HRA doesn`t allow mere `offence` caused to some cretinous and/or deranged twat to justify censorship? Subjective opinions DO NOT constitute proof of harm. One complaint after a year on display doesn`t tend to suggest there`s any major widespread concern or widespread offence even to these backward, sheltered, inhuman wankstains, that wish to cause widespread retardation of our social progress.
These complainants and the ASA are clearly offended by the mere hint of nudity and/or human sexuality. Why such views exist or, indeed, have any weight or place in 21st century Britain beggars belief. Of course, criminals and religiously deluded fascists alike don`t give a flying fuck what the law says about people`s right and liberties...do they?
emark [27095. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 04:04]
Yes indeed, a label is far preferable to banning, and on commercial advertising only it`s comparable to other such disclaimers. However, I do think there`s a problem in that large numbers of images are manipulated these days - whilst there`s conceivably a difference between say, adjusting the brightness, and making someone look thinner, there`s a lot of grey areas in between, and it`s unclear how the law could draw a clear line. Plus, I think the members of the Girl guides should all make their own choice, rather than being used as support for political lobbying. pbr [27094. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 00:04]
@emark
I was just pointing it out because I thought it was funny that there`d been no amendment to their policy document and also because of Kent police`s... "reputation" *roll eyes*
The issue of airbrushing is for me, a bit of a storm in a teacup... I don`t see a problem with a kite mark in the corner of a magazine or poster... so long as people are free to create airbrushed images then the fact that they are labelled as such is almost a step in the *right* direction... you tell people what something is, they make their choice... it`s almost like... trusting people to make an informed judgment... scary given what we`ve come out of, I know. emark [27093. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 16:28]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10856055 - now the "Girl guides" - or rather, Liz Burnley - is demanding that airbrushed celebrity photos be compulsory labelled.
Aside from the idea itself, again we have an entire organisation being assumed to agree, based on the views of someone at the top. If we`re going to worry about pressures on children, what about the idea of forcing children into political lobbying, trying to coerce them for your campaign, and claiming they give support to the law? Perhaps we should let children make up their own minds.
It is also misleading to simplify complex and serious issues like eating disorders as simply being due to looking at images. There can be many causes (e.g., depression).
One good thing is that it turns out that Lynne Featherstone (the MP who started talking about this issue) has said she had "no desire to impose regulation or restriction on advertisers or others", and hoped they would make changes to their practices on a voluntary basis.
(Part of me wishes they did bring this law in - since just about every image I believe is manipulated one way or another these days, I`d love to see every single advert end up saying "This image has been manipulated", making the law competely useless, and the whole campaign a laughing stock as it becomes the new "This product may contain nuts"...)
And I laughed at this: "Some 42% of 11 to 16-year-olds admitted watching what they ate." - how terrible, obviously it`s much better that 58% of them don`t give a crap about what food they`re eating... emark [27092. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 14:35]
@pbr: Actually, it might not be quite as bad as that. The policy is titled "indecent images of children", and it specifically states (correctly) of the DDA "It is important to note that this legislation does not mirror the indecent photograph legislation". It also says for 11.2 "Indecent image offences stem from two pieces of legislation", given the two laws, but the DDA comes after that.
So it`s a bit ambiguous, but this may mean they`re just referencing the DDA, but don`t intend the policy to cover it. Or maybe I`m being too optimistic :) pbr [27091. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 12:47]
So... I decided to try some research using just google to find if there`s any reports on charges or convictions under the DDA... So far not found one...
Did chuckle at this wee gem though:
http://www.kent.police.uk/about_us/policies/n/n085.html
"Academic research and experience shows that many people engaged in the use of child abuse images are also engaged in sexual abuse of children."
As it tags the DDA to it... sergio [27090. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 06:10]
BBFC Cuts for Jul 2010
Number of items=69
No. Cuts=15
Cuts ratio=21%
Cuts of interest
ANNA LOVATO - YES MISS
Compulsory cut required to remove sight of potentially harmful sexual activity (in this case, a cane penetrating a vagina). Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Cane cunt can`t emark [27089. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 04:08]
I agree with Harvey about the cartoon porn law. IIRC for the "extreme porn" law, the first arrests came soon after (a matter of weeks) the law cae into force, but it was more like six months before they started being reported, due to the time it takes to come to court.
And yes, I share the worry that keeping track of this information is going to be even harder than the "extreme porn" law (where details are few), with the press just referring to "child porn". sergio [27088. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 01:49]
Interesting prog - in 2 parts? about the drugs in UK. It said Police only have stopped 1% of drugs (or was that cocaine?).
Professor Nutt seemed to be in a quandry over why when the evidence says that banning stuff doesn`t make it better that the thrust of `social and political` action is to `ban stuff`. Anyone got any theories as to why the ban vein seems to be hemorrhaging? I think, if I remember, he mentioned, lower classes doing stuff people don`t understand. Janus17 [27087. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:51]
Re: Raising Awareness of Miserable Nutter Theories...
Well, it would now seem that the feminazis have upped sticks and set up camp in Scotland, being that they now no longer have the ear of the government down here since NuLabour were booted out. Glasgow is now demonstrating attitudes to sex that wouldn`t be out of place in Tehran.
And where did this Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance (TARA) organisation come from? Smells like another `fake charity` to me, doubtless funded by secretly bunged wads of taxpayers cash. `Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance` my arse. The reason nobody`s aware of it is that all the evidence we`ve seen so far points to the fact that, except in a tiny minority of prostitution cases, it just doesn`t fucking exist. If this was such a problem in Britain, how come so few cases have come to light? How come nobody STILL seems to be able to find the large numbers of women these morons keep telling us are trafficked into the country? How come the MET`s Anti-Trafficking Unit was dissolved a couple of years ago?
`Hamilton said: "People tend to think that prostitution is dead sexy, very liberating and that there is nothing harmful about it. It`s portrayed as very attractive women having lots of sex and enjoying it, when in actual fact that`s about 0.005 per cent of women."
Wonder where that statistic came from then... couldn`t have just been made up on the spot perchance, could it?
Once again, we appear to have someone making demands and telling us the `facts` when she likely has zero experience of the industry or knowledge of the people working within it... DoodleBug [27086. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:51]
Re: MichaelG [27082]
Thats the thing I noticed as well. One little comment by the judge and the Mail manage to make a whole article out of the "event"
MichaelG [27085. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:35]
Re: Doodlebug [27082]:
Other than an off-the-cuff remark made by a Judge, is there actually ANYTHING to link this case even remotely with `Blair Witch`?
Nope, but that`s never stopped the Mail, has it? Harvey [27084. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 18:42]
pbr [27076]
The cartoon porn law has only been in effect since April, so it`s still early days in respect of prosecutions getting into the courts. Even if/when prosecutions do get into the courts we`ll only know if reporting is accurate. I can imagine that in many cases it will not be, and reports will just refer to possession of "child porn", whether it be photographs, pseudo photographs or drawings/CGI. The only clue that it was "cartoon porn" might be that a person convicted, but sentenced to less than 2 years jail, would not be required to "sign the Sex Offender`s Register". emark [27083. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 15:31]
I`m confused also - since when did Ofcom regulate bias in the media? And if so, what about the large amounts of one-sided reporting there is in all manner of TV and newspaper articles... DoodleBug [27082. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 14:17]
The Daily Mail were at it again yesterday :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299631/Teenager-carried-violent-Blair-Witch-sex-attack-schoolgirls-jailed-indefinitely.html pbr [27081. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 14:09]
Ofcom regulates Iran`s propaganda organ? rly? dano [27080. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 07:45]
Re: Secret Diary Of A Call Girl....
I have heard this one before from the anti-sex wing of the feminist lobby. Apparently the public are so stupid they can be brainwashed by Bille Piper gyrating about in her undies into believing the prostitution and the entire sex industry is completly without it`s pitfalls!
What causes prostitution....
Poverty, homelessness, inequality.
But fuck that let`s blame TV shows and pop stars!
IanG [27079. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 04:24]
"But Ofcom ruled that the programme did not contain any alternative views. It said: Presenters or interviewers must ensure they are articulating alternative views in a duly objective manner or putting them to interviewees in a manner that achieves due impartiality.
It said: In summary ... we considered the broadcaster did not provide sufficient evidence of alternative views within the programme. Overall the programme gave a one-sided view on this matter of political controversy. Furthermore and importantly, the broadcaster did not provide any evidence of alternative views on this issue in a series of programmes taken as a whole."
A case of Pot n Kettle.
Where`s Ofcom`s EVIDENCE to support their discriminatory CENSORSHIP of `adult` entertainment?
How come EVERY complaint of supposed `offence` felt by childish fuckwits viewing specialist niche channels gets Ofcom`s unmitigated support whilst the ALTERNATE views of the VAST 75% majority of this country go totally unheeded by lord god twat Ofcom?
According to MY RESEARCH of actual VIEWERS` opinions, Ofcom`s claims that programmes "likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience" are totally UNTRUE, BIASED, BIGOTED LIES.
These are the names of the bigoted, clairvoyant LIARS that make up Ofcom`s Content Board:
Richard Ayre
Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam (Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor
Spiderschwein [27078. Posted 2-Aug-2010 Mon 04:09]
Hey peoples.
Do we have this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10830485
Now let`s not speak of Saudi or the UAE again before I start frothing about gender apartheid, the widespread use of slave labour (inc. to build the Burj Khalifa), and the endemnic racism and religious bigotry in those nations. SasaMisa [27077. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 12:39]
Thanks everyone!
It is a bit too soon to tell if the weight loss is having an effect, although it can`t be a bad thing. With any luck, the blood test I`ve got lined up for this Wednesday will indicate at least a step in the right direction.
As for this damn Cartoon Porn Law: if the Government still contains even a modicum of supporters like that jwills in the thread I just replied to again, I think I`ll soon be writing from a prison cell. Just as the way Ofcom really gets IanG`s goat (sorry for mentioning them), I dismay that people like that can even exist in the so called `era of reason`.
I guess Kahlil Gibran was wrong when he said, "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love." (-_-) pbr [27076. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 09:03]
That would be an "indecent [pseudo-]photograph of a child"...
You`re right though, it is odd that they don`t quote that part of the Act... but the definition is a person, whether fictional or not, who is under 18 or appears to be under 18 despite having some features which would imply they were over 18... of course... they do indeed omit the definition of a child... while they do include the bit about having sex with imaginary animals... queer old world... emark [27075. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 08:13]
At first I assumed that "Prohibited Images of Children" was about the child porn laws. Oh wait, it`s actually "pretend `children`, where the fictional non-existent character might actually be over the age of consent". (What do they label child porn as?)
Also curious that this "guidance" doesn`t even bother defining what the law means by "child".
|
