Melon Farmers

 Melon Farmers

Adult DVDs
Internet Video
Store Reviews
Online Shops
Adult Mags
Gay Shops
New + Latest

 Censorship Forum

  Home  UK   Film Cuts  
  Index  World    Nutters  
  Links  Media   Liberty  
  Forum  US   Info   Shopping
Sex News  
Sex Shops List  

Note that this page does not refresh

Personal Details
Non-Dynamic Messages
Last  40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
All Messages
Today's Messages
Yesterday's Messages
Days prior to yesterday:
 2      3      4    
 5      6      7    
 8      9      10    
Days Ago:
Message Number:
Dynamic Pages

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30233.   Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 09:30]
  Thanks Pooch, great stuff. Do you mind if I repost it on the main MF site? I am sure it would be of interest to many readers. I think there`s a good headline along the lines of How to kill a dead parrot.

Pooch    [30232.   Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 06:01]
  @Dave [30223] and Phantom [30222]. I attended one of the MONTY PYTHON O2 screenings at a local cinema, and in the case of GOLD censoring the 7:30pm broadcast, there were two issues at play here.

Firstly, no one at GOLD was intelligent enough to realise that there wasn`t a cat-in-hell`s-chance of this live show being PG-friendly, for a Sunday evening broadcast! If they did, then they were being extremely naive. As such, no channel could have broadcast the show live at that time of day, on any channel, unless there had been an enforced PIN-locked restriction.

The heavy cuts in the first half of the show, related to THE PENIS SONG (NOT THE NOEL COWARD SONG), and the following two additional, never-before-seen verses, that talk about owning a vagina and an arsehole. As per the Penis Song lyrics, the Pythons used every available term to describe such parts of the body, and on-screen lyrics were visible on the huge screen behind the singers/dancers, including the infamous c-word.

So, to be fair to GOLD, they had no choice to censor it, but they should have been aware that none of this was ever going to be remotely suitable for family viewing, in the first place. Why they didn`t just time-delay everything, and then air it, starting from 9pm onwards, I don`t know? No one would have complained if they`d done that!

Secondly, in the second half, there was a potentially libellous set of jokes about Paul Dacre, the Daily Mail editor, and his paper`s bad review of the MONTY PYTHON LIVE show. I`m not sure if the jokes were left in for the post-watershed repeat on Tuesday night (and again tonight - Friday 25th July), but GOLD didn`t want to risk his wrath on their little channel. Hence, more censorship and editing of that sequence was needed.

Ultimately, whilst the censorship was ridiculous, and ridiculously horrible (the screetchy bleep tone they used was horrific), GOLD really should have known better! They`d already had 9 previous performances to check on the suitability, but were determined to go for ratings, rather than time-delays, and thus opted to air it live, but heavily censor the show, based on a script they had - something that heavily backfired on them, going from the numerous complaints on their Facebook page.

Lastly, the other thing that annoyed people, was the fact that GOLD could have, and maybe should have, announced that their Live transmission wasn`t going to be complete-and-uninterrupted - either because of censorship or because of over-runs. The show ran 15 minutes later than advertised, and I believe that GOLD ended their Live transmission early, during the PARROT SKETCH, just to stay on schedule! If fans had known beforehand, and had been primed that two uncut repeats were planned, then fans would probably have cut GOLD a lot more slack. But no one said anything. And as such, GOLD has been rightly pilloried.

Definitely one of TV`s messiest "Live" showings ever produced, and one that will go down infamously in TV history of how NOT to air something live on TV!

P.S. For what it`s worth, the uncut Live show itself was fab!

Harvey    [30231.   Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 02:08]
  freeworld [30230]

"The charges were later dropped"

Well, there weren`t any charges to drop. Weston was informed that the police weren`t taking any further action regarding his failing to comply with a dispersal order under "Labour`s blasphemy law". That might be because of the freedom of expression clause containined in the 2006 Act, but that would be the Racial and Religious Hated Act 2006? It`s much more likely because the police didn`t exectute the section 27 dispersal order properly - it should be given in writing and that it wasn`t relevant to Weston`s behaviour. The s.27 order is provision of the Violent Crime and Disorder Act 2006 and gives police the powers of dispersal to deal with alcohol related crime or disorder. i.e. nothing to to with preaching racial or religious hatred even if that is what Weston was thought to be doing.

He says he was instead de-arrested and then re-arrested at the police station on suspicion of having committed a racially aggravated offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act.

The Public Order Act 1986 is a Tory law. Sections 4, 4A and 5 being the `go to` offences for any behaviour in public which the police feel like putting a stop to.

If Weston`s account is correct, he was NOT arrested or re-arrested on suspicion of racial or religious harrasment, which is what the DM article claims. It`s true that anyone convicted of a s.4 offence which is motivated by racial or religious hatred stands to be given a more severe sentence, but the s.4 offence is Tory legislation. In the Tory law, you can be convicted for using "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour". There is no exception providing for free expression, but that`s Tory laws for you.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 intoduced new offences of stiring up racial and religious hatred by amending the Public Order Act. If that was what Weston was being accused of he`d be charged with an offence under s.18. If he had been, you could justifiably claim that this was a use of Labour`s blasphemy law, but he wasn`t, so you can`t. However much the Daily Mail, and hangers-on would like to think it so. The DM article is so misrepresentative of the actiual facts of the case, you`d have to think the misrepresentation was deliberate, rather than just ignorance.

A better summary of the facts of this incident are:

1) Police misuse and then misapply the powers of a section 27 dispersal order.
2) Police arrest and detain a person for not complying with the order.
3) Police realise their mistake and use the catch-all provisions of s.4 of the Public Order Act to justify arresting said person.

All very nasty, especially when said person is a candidate in an election, but absolutely nothing to do with the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, however hard the DM tries to shoe-horn it into the story.

freeworld    [30230.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 23:57]
  phantom [30229. Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 18:42]
Persecution of beliefs UK. Here`s an arrest over publicly quoting from remarks about Islam by Winston Churchill in one of his books - the UK now having Labour`s more comprehensive new "blasphemy law". A law which gets used - unlike the one they repealed at the same time they passed the new one. The charges were later dropped - did they realise only negative publicity for such a law could result from trying to convict someone for quoting Churchill? Or maybe they actually read the law itself more carefully?

Actually the 2006 law itself talks about "threatening" expressions intended to lead to religious hatred and includes this provision to supposedly protect people`s freedom of expression.

29JProtection of freedom of expression

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

But this does not appear to stop people being thrown into police cells and having their lives severely impacted upon because those enforcing the law seem to think its existence is a free pass to stamp out any expressions of religious criticism - especially if there has been a complaint. It`s the very existence of laws like this, often dimly understood by the public and even those tasked with law enforcement, which creates a climate of fear over the expression of opinions.

In the pictures look at the number of police there to arrest a single person, someone not acting violently or armed - all being done on the basis of one complaint about a speech.

phantom    [30229.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 18:42]

Interesting indeed.
But as an aside, would the BBC ever have the balls to report on UK government sponsored witch hunts? Because there are plenty of those to report on. But much easier to point at Pakistan or Putin`s Russia and hold one`s nose...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30228.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 11:20]

I have been reading your comments about the licensing of porn clause in the Criminal Justice and Courts bill.

Although it sounds a silly idea to try and license foreign porn sites, there is a horribly practical angle from which it may well work to some extent. It is nothing to do with prosecuting foreign websites or seeking extradition etc, that would be a non-starter.

No it is a plan being hatched by the government to give the banks and payment services a legal certainty for grounds to refuse payment services. The Banks can`t or won`t suspend payment services to legal companies and ATVODs week attempt to convince them that hardcore is illegal under the OPA have clearly failed. BUT if the foreign website wasn`t licensed then that would be considered legal justification for refusing payment services.

Here is a little evidence of the government and ATVOD scheming along these lines:

Maybe the Lords amendments were turned down because the Government themselves are planning to add the licensing scheme, perhaps a little different to Thornton`s

phantom    [30227.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 07:15]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [30225]

"It strikes me that many politicians don`t seem the slightest bit interested in thinking about the actual consequences of their actions. Once they have `sent their message` that`s their job done."

I can only point you to my former MP when I met him about the initial DPA.
When I made clear that the definitions were incomprehensible to any person, his comment was that it was for the courts to come up with working definitions once the law was introduced.

Oh, he decided not to stand again after the expenses scandal.

Yep, a true paragon of virtue, that one....

phantom    [30226.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 07:11]
  freeworld {30224}

I interpret the amendments a little differently, Freeworld.
You see, politics operates on the basis of certain semantic tricks.

With something that is to ban `rape porn` there is crossparty consensus that `something must be done`. Thus, the parties work together.
As you yourself say, there are ready references to the wisdom of prior laws - introduced by the now opposition party.

And that is the key to this sort of legislation. To the casual onlooker things must appear reasonable, reasoned and fair minded.
How is this best achieved? By presenting extreme legislation as being a wise, well-judged compromise.

"In the light of the balance that this Government have sought to strike with this offence,..."
So you see: "balance". Compromise.

How does one best portray one proposal as a compromise? One rolls out some folks with utter whacko ideas, who propose something which is beyond the realms of sanity. This is easy to do with parties effectively cooperating in order to get legislation through.

The government then portrays its proposal as a compromise between the status quo and the extremist idea. Everyone involved then nods wisely and the minister concerned is made to look like Yoda.

The initial idea is then painted as being the compromise between two extreme views. (The status quo being the extreme, untenable libertarian view.)
The fact that the government`s proposition was actually there first, and thus cannot be a conscious compromise, drawn up to strike a balance, is irrelevant. They simply brush that under the carpet.

I`ve seen this trick played again and again. Thus I`m not really surprised.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30225.   Posted 24-Jul-2014 Thu 02:03]
  Great stuff Freeworld, I`ll get something added on the main site.

Fascinating that these people are angling to get so many in serious trouble with the law just serve personal morality whims.

It strikes me that many politicians don`t seem the slightest bit interested in thinking about the actual consequences of their actions. Once they have `sent their message` that`s their job done.

freeworld    [30224.   Posted 23-Jul-2014 Wed 16:59]
  Criminal justice and courts bill

This Xmas tree bill is currently getting the attention of the Lords and a number of amendments have been moved in the past few days. The amendments to the "rape porn" clause 28 would broaden the DPA still further and if enacted would seem to criminalize just about every BDSM image which includes a real looking individual. They would move the offence way beyond the limited kind of real(highly unlikely) or (overwhelmingly) staged rape images covered by the current bill`s wording. Another brand new clause, 42B, is megalomaniac stuff about "licensing" foreign beamed in hard porn ( presumably leading to attempts to extradite foreign citizens who breach such a UK law?).

The movers of these amendments are -
Baroness Thornton (Labour. LSE Fabianite)
Lord Beecham - formerly Jeremy Beecham of Newcastle city council ( a Labour Justice shadow).
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (Mrs Geoffrey. Crossbench) - renowned censorship enthusiast (42B only)

Clause 28 amendments and new 42B (42A in the Hansard extracts)-

The debate on the clauses -

Thornton and Beecham seek to remove the "disgusting/obscene" etc part of the DPA. It may be remembered that this clause was more or less forced on Straw and co at Justice by a fairly rebellious house of Lords during the passage of the original DPA - rightly being seen as something which made the DPA closer to the the existing OPA and also limiting the scope of the material which would be potentially caught by the new offence. Thornton`s words about "cultural harm" (that is some nebulous subjective concept of the sort which figures so importantly in the sloganizing propaganda of the obsessive agitators - a quite different thing to careful, well researched real world solid evidence of harm, which should be the basis of all legislation in a rational democracy) illustrates the nasty totalitarian concepts being commonly utilized by (unfortunately) influential and powerful allies of totalitarianism - being used bit by bit to create criminal laws.

For the moment Lord Faulks (Conservative. Justice) for the govt politely bins the amendments, which are withdrawn by their sponsors.

On clause 28 he says -

"Amendment 36B would replace the Government’s amendments to the extreme pornography offence, including the relevant defence, with a broad provision that would criminalise the portrayal of any sexual activity that involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of physical restraint which prevents participants indicating a withdrawal of consent. This is very broad. It could have the effect of bringing into the terms of this targeted offence the possession of pornographic images that depict any form of non-consensual sexual activity. (Yup!- F W)
In the light of the balance that this Government have sought to strike with this offence, we believe that such an extension to the offence would be going too far. It would, I believe, widen inappropriately its scope and could make too wide a range of sexual activity subject to serious criminal sanction."

Thornton seems to regard not criminalizing all material she and her cronies regard as causes of "cultural harm" as "loopholes", rather than representing limits and balances to counter totalitarian statism.

Lord Faulks appears to incorrectly infer that the "obscene/disgusting" stuff in the DPA was put in deliberately by its (implicitly wise) drafters, rather than having being forced on Straws MOJ by an unquiet Lords to limit the scope of the offence.
He makes clear, once again something those who follow these sort of things know anyway - that in creating the new law, as with so much law these days, the ones primarily listened to have been the noisy agitators, who have got themselves recognized, quite falsely, as invariably being of sound opinion and representative of public sentiment. Evidence of harm is not the overriding concern when it comes to such legislation, but the subjective views of those who shout loudest and most persistently. So, any studies which show real world sexual violence against people reduces with the easy availability of porn, get ignored, and the strident ban obsessed screamers - who may actually be harm mongers, endangering more real people by censorship and criminal laws - are pandered to, treated as fonts of wisdom by Westmonster legislators .

On new amendment 42B (42A in Hansard)-

Lord Faulks points to the ISP filter system as the government`s way of addressing access to adult material, including that coming from outside UK jurisdiction. Thornton asserts it`s not working. Has she told Ms Perry yet? Apparently Thornton has "clear evidence" of the harm being done to children by this material. Has she really? So, Thornton and her pals want to supplant/supplement one unworkable failed system with another.

Discussion of 42B and comments in the link to annaraccoon`s blog. The writers mainly seem to assume it will be in the final bill - but I doubt it. Thornton having withdrawn it.

Beecham`s part in all this is of some significant concern. Being part of Labour`s justice team it could be here we are seeing the kind of broad brush criminalization using the DPA which would come out of a future Labour government - the possibility of which is not very distant.

Here, once again we have an example of what is supposed to be rational legislating, evidence based creation of laws, courtesy of our parliament of fools. Ever crusading to protect us from ourselves, to restrict and even make criminal the consensual activities of adults - invariably utilizing the tried and tested hysteria inducer, the alleged negative impact on "children", the banstibators prime instruments of specious moral blackmail. They will no doubt one day conclude the only solution to " major ills" (many based in fantasy and their subjective prejudices) is to introduce a total ban on the internet, all books, magazines, newspapers, broadcasting, "pictures" of any sort - as these might "harm children"( maybe make them smoke/drink/abuse substances/get fat/assault their future partner etc - the totalitarian crusades are not just about adult porn images).

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

- Groucho Marx

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30223.   Posted 23-Jul-2014 Wed 14:34]

Not even the Spanish Inquisition can use the f-word before 9pm!

phantom    [30222.   Posted 23-Jul-2014 Wed 13:28]
  They censored Monty Python???????????????????????????????????

Harvey    [30221.   Posted 23-Jul-2014 Wed 08:29]
  phantom [30218]

The public announcement regarding Operation Notarise (660 paedos arrested) did have an interesting timing, though I wouldn`t read too much into that.

I would advise reading the NCA`s press release rather than the interpretaions of it which a lot of the press have made. Some points to make.

The announcement that 400+ children have been "safeguarded" almost certainly means that the the suspects with children living at home have been required to live away from their own homes while on bail. The insinuation is that the children involved have been taken into care as a result of suspected abuse. It was the same when Ore burst on the scene. Similar claims of links between consumers of images and abuse of children, but no actual evidence.

The operation was almost certainly a centrally co-ordinated monitoring of target files on peer to peer networks. Nothing terribly hi-tech about it. Just quite a reseouce heavy process as software would be required to hoover up accesses to files of interest and the mass of IP addrersses traced to narrow down the UK ISPs and through them trace individuals. the result will have been a list of names which will have beed disseminated to each local police force to go and investigate the couple of dozen names on their patch. From there, pretty simmilar to the Ore routine, the early morning raid, search, siezure of computers an interview and then a long, long wait on bail while computers are analysed.

My guess is that "the list" will turn up a sizeable number of suspects who are found to be in possession of incdecent images. It will also throw up many false positives, where no indencent images are found, because montoring peer to peer sites and tracing people through IP addresses is not an exact science.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30220.   Posted 17-Jul-2014 Thu 02:11]
  The BBFC Annual Report covering 2013 has been published

phantom    [30219.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 17:51]
  I would also suggest that the case of Babar Ahmed which has just finished in the US should rank among the censorship issue here.
So he designed some websites which `promoted` terrorism? And he did so in the UK? And the UK authorities never charged him with anything?
But instead they felt it convenient to extradite him to the US? Where he is then promptly found guilty. According to US law or ours? He was in Britain after all.

The Babar Ahmed case strikes me as one of the most serious in terms of modern boundaries of freedom of expression in the UK.
We never tried the man. We simply exported the problem. To someone who we knew would find him guilty.

The example this sets is very worrying. On what other matters might Britain never try someone but hand them over to another country? Trip to China or Saudi Arabia, anyone?

If we feel someone has broken our laws with a publication in our country, we ought to have the balls to prosecute them. But hand them over to another country, if we do not prosecute? Surely that`s shameful.

phantom    [30218.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 17:36]
  Yes, I seriously suspect that most of the 660 suspects they`re talking about are related to the 431 children who are supposedly protected now. (Odd, that so much certainty is given to something - before any court trial has even been announced.)
If children were abused, that points to much more old fashioned policing than police cyber spookery. Because it suggests police found a much more tangible, real world way into this large group of suspects, rather than some snazzy cyber surveillance.

And police are particularly coy about revealing how they tracked them down. They imply that is in order to protect their methods. But I suspect it`s because there wasn`t really that much internet IT wizardry involved.

It seems to me the police are going out of their way to imply that they need the government`s emergency powers currently being rushed through parliament. That makes much of the press release PR exercise here a political act. It is very worrying that the police are operating in such a political manner. For I would prefer my police to be non-political.

Interesting Newsnight. The police all but admitted that Operation Ore was a catastrophe and sought to insist that this time they had applied a much more sound approach. But then who do newsnight bring on? Jim Gamble.
And he actually had the nerve to come on and dispute that Operation Ore was discredited. (Even though the police had just plainly distanced itself from it.) The suicides were `tragic`, were they? Seriously?
And then he starts quoting studies... and mentioning Jimmy Savile - before declaring a `war on paedophilia`.
There are not many people in this country who are anywhere near as sinister as that man.
I cannot for the life of me understand why is awarded that much air time.

sergio    [30217.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 15:13]
  Is a (heavily) pixellated image of `child abuse` an illegal image to view/download? (newsnight seemed to show this image)

Is Jim Gamble a politician? A certain arrogant certainty seems to emanate from his authoritarian pores.

braintree    [30216.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 13:33]
  A refund from Amazon has alerted me to the fact that Video Nasties 2 is down to £14.99 . ( Why won`t the pound sign display?) Not sure if thats permanent so grab one while you can . Watched the main feature and it was very good .
The most frightening thing about the many laughable elements of the hysteria is that the British establishment will inevitably fail to learn from history and those involved still don`t seem able to see why the UK continues to be a laughing stock around Europe .
A Dutch commentator says his nation finds the British obsession of a paedophile on every corner a bit of a joke.
Todays story claims that "400 children have been protected" as a result of the arrests . Does that mean that 400 of the 650 accused were abusing someone ? The way I read it was that the arrests were based on people downloading or possessing images . But these days every paedophile story won`t let facts get in the way of some tasty soundbites even if they`re basically meaningless

phantom    [30215.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 08:53]
  Odd, Sergio. I had much the same thought.

Now of course one can never rule out the chance of this just being coincidence. but the odds to seem steep.

One can`t help but suspect that the security services have launched this right in time to back up their claim that they need internet suveillance powers.
Clearly this police operation has taken some time to prepare. So suspects to arrest, houses to be raided, etc have been accumulating for some time.
there is no apparent reason why this operation could not have taken place, say, a month ago.
If the authorities launch this at the very time of the government is fast-forwarding relevant legislation through parliament, one must conclude that it would be an extreme coincidence for the two to coincide.
It looks very orchestrated.

Interestingly, one is implying that these arrests are the result of internet surveillance, but nowhere is it stated outright.
This haul thus may be the result of conventional policing...

sergio    [30214.   Posted 16-Jul-2014 Wed 03:38]
Is this a coincidence? Who actually `plants` these stories? Was it the NCA? Did they arrest all those 650 suspects yesterday? Was it planted by the `BBC`? New draconian laws, let`s get some paedo story (goes the thinking). The new laws are only for paedos? The dark net, the anonymous part of the net which is not anonymous. Tor we come again!

Interesting hint of `causality`
`And he added: "Some of the people who start by accessing indecent images online go on to abuse children directly. So the operation is not only about catching people who have already offended - it is about influencing potential offenders before they cross that line.`

phantom    [30213.   Posted 14-Jul-2014 Mon 17:03]
  re: Extracts: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers...

This really does read as something quite terrifying.
One can`t help but feel that something is afoot here. Not least as the people involved are so utterly untrustworthy. (For one, I would not trust Theresa May with a dead cat, no matter the nation`s security services.)

It seems self-evident that this is being rushed though parliament specifically to prevent any meaningful scrutiny.
There seems to be deliberate sleight of hand here regarding definitions.
And given that this - supposedly - is all about addressing the ECJ ruling, there seems a great many aspects of the ruling which appear completely unaddressed.

And yes, the aspects of territorial sovereignty still remain something one totally ignores.
The motto still seems to be `if we can grab it, we are entitled to.`

And yet media such as the BBC is spending more time talking about the general synod of the Church of England today deciding that it will from now on have female bishops. Interesting priorities here....

braintree    [30212.   Posted 14-Jul-2014 Mon 13:03]
  Video Nasties 2 arrived today . A browse through the contents show this is just as heavenly a release as volume 1 . For those of us who lived through those times it helps bring home how lucky we are today . And the fanzine cover collection is superb. If I had to say one negative thing about the release it would be that the rather generous running times has forced the bitrates a bit low so picture quality suffers in places with pixellation apparent - but only on closeup viewing . The running time and the quality of the content means this one complaint can be ignored . Another great dvd for the collection .

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30211.   Posted 12-Jul-2014 Sat 23:09]
  Hi Pooch

Yes I thought it was a dangerous new presumption that the pre-watershed restrictions `ought` to apply to anytime that children were watching. I bet if anyone dared to publish figures they would find that vast numbers of teenagers ARE still watching up to say 11pm. Any official recognition of this fact would end up with no real answer beyond pushing the watershed back to 11pm.

The reality is that the large majority of teenagers routinely watch post-watershed TV, with the approval, or at least acceptance, from their parents. I`m surprised that moralist campaigners don`t make more of this.

Pooch    [30210.   Posted 12-Jul-2014 Sat 07:19]
  Hi Dave,

Love the "Easily Duped by the Presumption of a Cuddly World... TV complaints at 12A rated trailer shown at 10pm during football" story.

Particularly like the hypocrisy that fans were (allegedly) upset at a CGI ape appearing to shoot a human man in an ad for a sci-fi film, but were (presumably) more than happy to see a real human (Suarez) bite a real man`s shoulder during another recent game?

Football`s a funny old world! ;)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30209.   Posted 11-Jul-2014 Fri 09:18]

Google specified an image rather than a page, so presumably the pages (there are several) with the following image on get blocked


sergio    [30208.   Posted 11-Jul-2014 Fri 01:28]
  Not sure what page google is blocking for Max Mosley and melonfarmers. Which is it?

phantom    [30207.   Posted 10-Jul-2014 Thu 04:16]
  Btw, Cameron`s just been hitting the media again today telling us all how life as we know it could not continue if the authorities were to be stopped from snooping on everyone on the internet. Oddly, paedophiles and terrorists got a mention again....

phantom    [30206.   Posted 10-Jul-2014 Thu 04:14]
  sergio [30205]

I`d definitely take anything which emanates from Maria Miller MP with a large pinch of salt. And 30 sites? Why 30? Why not 23? Or 48? It`s clearly just a made up number. Not least because you don`t need a `revenge porn` website to upload `revenge porn`. Folks can simply upload such pictures onto any porn filesharing site or forum board and - hey presto, - the pics begin to circulate.

sergio    [30205.   Posted 10-Jul-2014 Thu 03:53]
  MP Maria Miller in PMQs on wednesday 9/jul/14 asked a question about revenge porn. She seemed to say that there were 30 sites in the UK (not sure what she meant by that - `a site in the uk`). I am not sure what sites she is referring to.Are they taking the sites down or just prosecuting the perps?

phantom    [30204.   Posted 8-Jul-2014 Tue 15:40]
  Harvey [30203]

"Broadened out, you could see the press enthusiasm for such a law evaporate like morning dew."

Which is why our political masters will never coin it that way. No, it will remain an `anti-revenge-porn` proposal. Further legal weaponry in the `war on nipples`. (you know, like the war on drugs and the war on terror)

I`d describe their approach as paedophiles hiding in plain sight. :)
You know, a bit like Rolf Harris making child protection videos back in the day. In this case it`s just the MP perverts (and their collaborative protectors at the whips offices) creating reams and reams of anti-sexual-perversion law in order to disguise the fact that they`re the most prolific deviants in the country.

And if you think I`m being a tad judgmental on our poor MPs, ask yourself whose standard of judgmental pontification I`m adopting here.... ;)

Hmmm... Dave will be disappointed with me... I`ve not managed to incorporate the word `vile`...

Harvey    [30203.   Posted 8-Jul-2014 Tue 09:33]
  phantom [30201]

"Not sure I quite follow. Could you elaborate?"

The mischief - the harm, if you like, is that a person`s private data has been published without their permission, causing them distress and potentially worse. Unless it falls within the scope of the DPA - That`s the Data Protection Act :) which is unlikely if this is data controlled by a private individual, the only thing to do would be to take out a civil claim for damages against whoever published it. Again if this is a private individual with no powers to get a search warrant etc, it would be very hard to get proof.

So, I`m rather in favour of a criminal offence of misusing private data. But the offence should be just that and include all private data, including private medical and financial information, not just data which comprises a pornographic image.

Broadened out, you could see the press enthusiasm for such a law evaporate like morning dew.

phantom    [30202.   Posted 8-Jul-2014 Tue 05:19]
  Has this only occurred to me or is there an irony in the fact that The Video Recordings Act as well as the Obscene Publications Act and its amendments were most likely voted through parliament by paedophiles, and those covering up for them? :)

phantom    [30201.   Posted 8-Jul-2014 Tue 05:17]
  Harvey {30198}

"The police would not get involved unless there was evidence of a crime being committed, so it would even be doubtful whether a private individual could determine who had posted the images, so know who to take action against."

As I said, I very much doubt even the police will be able to determine who posted what. If such a law comes in, I suspect any people bent on revenge would try not to use a trail that easily leads to them.
And once something has been `replicated thousands of times` who`s to know where it came from or where and when the initial upload took place?
Their only hope is to find evidence of said upload on the suspects` PC. If it`s not there, what else is there.
The potential for malicious allegations here is vast.
and we all know by now that, once they have your computer, they`ll make sure they find `something`.

"It`s being suggested a new law could deal with `revenge porn`, but really it should deal with malicious use of private data."

Not sure I quite follow. Could you elaborate?

"If we see a Bill which uses definitions of `pornographic` and `image`, it will be heading in completely the wrong direction, IMO."

But surely it must say `pornographic`, Harvey. If it says `pornographic` it is a good law by default. Have you learnt nothing? :)

Generally, I just see this as another attempt to create law for law`s sake by the country`s largest ring of paedophiles and expenses embezzlers (aka parliamentarians).

Furthermore, I never trust their motives. We`ve had wave after wave of government action taking away freedoms on the net (oddly these never get equated with civil rights) under the umbrella of protecting us from this or that, so now I am as cynical as can be regarding any new ideas about prosecuting people for doing something online.

DoodleBug    [30200.   Posted 7-Jul-2014 Mon 14:14]

As an update to this piece, it is still possible for anyone with an iPhone to bypass the filtering on O2 by just installing the Opera browser. This will allow you to view any blocked sites including Melon Farmers without you having to register your credit card with O2.

Does anyone have any confirmation if this works with other networks ?

Therumbler    [30199.   Posted 7-Jul-2014 Mon 10:59]

"Leena McCall`s Portrait of Ms Ruby May, Standing, which was removed from the Society of Women Artists` 153rd annual exhibition at the Mall Galleries after being deemed "disgusting" and "pornographic", according to the artist."

Harvey    [30198.   Posted 7-Jul-2014 Mon 05:46]
  phantom [30197]

"So as such there would already be a legal angle from which to prosecute those who do this."

Problem is that the "legal angle" would be a civil action in respect of privacy.

The police would not get involved unless there was evidence of a crime being committed, so it would even be doubtful whether a private individual could determine who had posted the images, so know who to take action against.

It`s being suggested a new law could deal with `revenge porn`, but really it should deal with malicious use of private data. If we see a Bill which uses definitions of `pornographic` and `image`, it will be heading in completely the wrong direction, IMO.

Thing is: if it`s a law which makes malicious or unjustified use of private data a crime, the Mirror/Mail/Sun and co. would scream blue murder that the press was being gagged. It would be entertaining to see them object to what would by then be described as a `revenge porn` law, though ;-)

phantom    [30197.   Posted 5-Jul-2014 Sat 16:25]
  re: Ministry of Justice consider legislation against revenge porn

Erm... once again, it sounds nice.
But how do you actually do this?
It means proving someone has uploaded an image, which they themselves say is replicated thousands of times within minutes thereafter...

As such, the law would be pretty clear already.
Publication without a relevant signed release form, thus without consent.
So as such there would already be a legal angle from which to prosecute those who do this.
But again, how to prove it?

Inventing a new offence will look good in the news papers and the Guardianistas will no doubt vociferously agree.

But to me this sounds very much like Labour`s law banning the setting off of nuclear explosions within the UK. A completely pointless exercise.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30196.   Posted 3-Jul-2014 Thu 23:30]
  Re nudie tee

It always seems that jokes rank highly on the scale of easy offence, followed not far behind by a trivial throwaway remarks. The more trivial it is the more the easily offended get worked up.

phantom    [30195.   Posted 3-Jul-2014 Thu 11:23]
  sergio [30194]
One wonders if it ever has occurred to any of these feminist habitual complainers that millions of women use disembodied, vibrating platic penises on the regular basis.
Ah, but that`s totally different....

sergio    [30194.   Posted 3-Jul-2014 Thu 07:46]
  Naked Tees `do so much damage`

`Trying to explain her visceral response to a "novelty gift", she points out that she saw it just after having read a list of the names of women recently killed by their partners. "The product resonated with me because of the fact that the bodies are headless and two women this year were decapitated," she says. "They have no arms, as if women are purely sexual objects and have no need of a head or arms. People see them as a gimmick, a novelty. But they do so much damage."`

phantom    [30193.   Posted 2-Jul-2014 Wed 05:38]

Interesting how this one is reported under `technology` by the BBC, not under politics or security...

phantom    [30192.   Posted 1-Jul-2014 Tue 08:30]

phantom    [30191.   Posted 29-Jun-2014 Sun 10:31]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [30189]
"I think the word `vile` maybe denotes that the judge is a Daily Mail reader, it seems to be their word of the year"

Lol. Yes, very likely.
Certain folks do seem to resort to certain phraseology.
Cameron of course is always made `to feel physically ill` when he comes across something he doesn`t like; such as prisoners` voting rights and so on...
Both major parties always make laws `to send a message`...
And Labour are quick to claim that this or that `has no place in a civilised society`...

I guess `vile` may well be the new buzzword of the righteously indignated... :)

But when it comes to the old pensioner whose life and reputation has been ruined, one can but wonder what purpose has actually been served, by the arrest, by the charges and by the verdict...
What actual public good has been achieved?

The futility of it all, combined with the severity of its impact, is just breathtaking.
A human being is just written off. And nobody really knows why.

sergio    [30190.   Posted 29-Jun-2014 Sun 09:47]
  slightly misleading - blow job is dif from blowjob - goo gets some blowjob

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30189.   Posted 29-Jun-2014 Sun 01:12]

I think the word `vile` maybe denotes that the judge is a Daily Mail reader, it seems to be their word of the year

phantom    [30188.   Posted 28-Jun-2014 Sat 10:25]
  re: Extreme Over Reaction...

"Judge John Wait told him during his sentencing: I do not regard it as being in the public interest to send you to prison at the public expense. It will be far better for you to be required to go on a programme that will address this kind of offending. This is a vile crime."

Er... would m`lud please explain how it is not `in the public interest` to publish someone with prison who has apparently committed such a `vile crime`? :)

Surely, if it`s `vile`, the man must be punished with the severity the crime demands?

Or, are we just talking bollocks, m`lud?

DoodleBug    [30187.   Posted 28-Jun-2014 Sat 06:52]
  [30186] @pooch

No problem, I wondered if maybe it was funded by a TV network such as with Channel 4 where they made Trainspotting, Shallow Grave etc and SKY TV back in the 90`s with Richard Stanley`s Hardware

Pooch    [30186.   Posted 28-Jun-2014 Sat 04:53]
  @DoodleBug [30184]. The end-credits of the film seemed to show this. The film was made for a Canadian TV channel/film network, and has a copyright date of 2012 plus that TV network`s name. Apologies, but I can`t remember what the name of it was, but they`ve also worked on Canadian TV shows like DUE SOUTH, LOST GIRL, ORPHAN BLACK and a few others. However, if I`ve completely misinterpreted this, then I apologise for the misinformation.

phantom    [30185.   Posted 27-Jun-2014 Fri 13:34]
  I can`t help wondering... that Captain Clegg DVD sleeve...
Is that going to be the campaigning poster for the LibDems at the next general election? :)

DoodleBug    [30184.   Posted 27-Jun-2014 Fri 07:41]
  [30183] @pooch

I`m just curious as where you got the info about it being made for TV in 2012. I can`t seem to find any other reference to this. From what I can tell it was first released in France on 16th October 2013.
The dvd & bluray was also released in France on 6th June but unfortunately they have forced French subtitles

Pooch    [30183.   Posted 27-Jun-2014 Fri 05:30]
  @Melon Farmers (Dave) [30182]: You said: "Perhaps its just down to Europeans being more at ease with strong language, especially in a foreign language."

The film was made for Canadian TV in 2012, albeit directed by a Frenchman (Jean-Pierre Jeunet of DELICATESSEN and AMELIE fame). Last time I checked, however, Canada wasn`t part of Europe, and English wasn`t a foreign-language to either most Canucks nor most Brits, who are - as far as I am aware - the only two countries to have seen the film outside of its native country! LOL Still, I second your sentiment, and appreciate you name-checking me on the story on the front-page of your site. Cheers!

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30182.   Posted 26-Jun-2014 Thu 07:39]
  Doodlebug, Pooch
Good point about the film not being American/British.
Perhaps its just down to Europeans being more at ease with strong language, especially in a foreign language. If the makers had been subject to UK levels of hysteria over `bad` words, then surely they would simply not be in the film.

Pooch    [30181.   Posted 26-Jun-2014 Thu 06:19]
  @Melon Farmers (Dave) [30179] - Glad to help. I`m aware that many Hollywood films add the erroneous "fuck", just to increase the rating, and anime movies in the 1990`s did a similar thing in the UK, in a process known as "fifteening", where a single bit of strong language, or other edgy material was added, deliberately to make the film seem more adult than it was. A shame, that this still goes on. You would have thought film distributors wanted their films seen by as many paying people as possible, irrespective of age.

But, in this instance, I can`t understand why of all the ways you could edit/alter/overdub the word "motherfucker", why they chose "melon-farmer". It just smacks of laziness and incompetence, on the part of the UK distributor. You can`t see the mouth of the lady who says it, so why not have her say "You little shit" instead? Less offensive, and a tad more credible/realistic in my opinion.

@DoodleBug [30180]: You are right, in that this isn`t a Hollywood film, and that it`s not been submitted to the MPAA. With that said, the strong language is extremely jarring, and totally unnecessary, bearing in mind the film`s appeal, content and story. It really does feel like someone has shoehorned in the bad language, simply to give the film in the UK a higher-rating. There seems to be no other rationale to it. The language doesn`t fit in with the character who says it. It doesn`t fit in with the script (an adult being that rude to a 10-year-old boy, in front of his parents), and it doesn`t fit the film either. So, I really do wonder why it was included. Remove the bad language, and this would easily have been given a PG, and meant that it would probably make more money, and be seen by the very people it would otherwise be ideally suited for - 8-12 year old boys!

A very strange and disappointing scenario all-round.

DoodleBug    [30180.   Posted 25-Jun-2014 Wed 14:52]
  [30179] @dave

In the case of this particular film I don`t think the stronger language is in just to bump the certificate. This was a France/Canada production with no involvement from Hollywood studios.
There is no sign of a U.S release yet and it`s not been submitted to the MPAA. In France & Germany it`s been rated as suitable for all and the Dutch countries as 6 and over. Only the UK release had been censored so far.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30179.   Posted 25-Jun-2014 Wed 14:25]
  Thanks Pooch...The news brought a smile. I`ll make a news item of it tomorrow.

I have read a couple of times that one of the side effects the PG-13 is that PGs have become synonymous with young kids films and have absolutely no street cred for the not quite so young kids. Hence the distributors have to bump up these to PG-13 with (usually) a single `fuck`

Therumbler    [30178.   Posted 25-Jun-2014 Wed 14:22]
  ATVOD strikes again, though not at an adult site this time:

Pooch    [30177.   Posted 25-Jun-2014 Wed 04:57]
  FAO Dave (Melon-Farmers): In regards to the recent cutting issue in THE YOUNG AND PRODIGIOUS T.S. SPIVET, I saw the film yesterday, and the censorship is laughable.

Towards the end of the film, the titular character does a TV interview, whilst being manipulated by the lady who runs the Smithsonian Institute. After the interview spectacularly fails, she calls Spivet "You motherfucker", albeit at a distance, and from behind her, so you can`t see her face/mouth!

In the UK version, "motherfucker" has been dubbed quite well by the same actress, or at least someone who sounds very similar, with the immortal "You melon-farmer!"

I kid you not!

I don`t know of many 10 year old boys, who would aspire to be melon-farmers in this day-and-age, but clearly 20th Century Fox (the UK distributors) think so.

If it weren`t for this, and two uses of the word "fuck", which were all completely unnecessary and totally jarring, this would have been a PG-rated film, ideal for youngsters and families. Clearly, the American distributors wanted to upgrade it, to make it edgy and unfamily-friendly.

A shame. Moreso when this seems to have been a made-for-TV movie, from 2012, for Canadian TV! (At least according to the end-credits it was!) It`ll be interesting to see what happens with the censoring, when this comes out on UK DVD and Blu-Ray later this year.

phantom    [30176.   Posted 19-Jun-2014 Thu 04:43]
  Oh, I`m definitely with you there, Dave.
As far as all Home Secretaries since Michael Howard have been concerned, a defendant is by default guilty. Who could forget Jack Straw`s assault on the right to remain silent because, supposedly, it only benefited seasoned criminals who knew how to play the system?

But in the case of GCHQ we are truly observing a frightful double standard in law and law enforcement.
Rumour has it that law is supposed to apply to the state as much as it does to the individual.

But if the state points to the domicile of companies or the physical location of servers in its legal justification and that same defence is closed to citizens, then something is wrong.

It means that GCHQ - an institution of the British state bound by British laws - can spy on a conversation of a British citizen, because facebook, google or twitter are foreign entities. But that British citizen cannot use the fact that facebook, google or twitter are foreign entities, if he is prosecuted by the CPS - another institution of the British state.

The asymmetry of the law here is obvious.
A different standard of law and, even more worryingly, different principles of law appear to be being applied - by the state - to the state than to the individual.
In essence the individual is being made subject to the state.

There could not be a more blatant example of `Do as we say, not as we do.`

And all the while, David Cameron has the audacity to prance around, pronouncing that he wants children to learn about Magna Carta at school. Why? If he`s riding roughshod over the very principles laid down in said document, why bother teaching future generations about it?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30175.   Posted 19-Jun-2014 Thu 00:12]
  Phantom. Re twisting law

Surely it is one of the nasty things of the age that the Government is so keen on getting its citizens jailed. Not only do they create endless new laws to jail people for trivial transgressions from a government approved micromanaged life, they then encourage the authorities to twist the law to suit even more trivial prosecutions, whilst refusing to budge an inch of the law is nudged in favour of defendants.


Assuming a database entry error I think it impossible to tell, cuts duration specified but not the reason. Maybe a default of not cut by taking the detailed video page as higher authority than the summary page. (Maybe a penis pixie got in the works?)

sergio    [30174.   Posted 18-Jun-2014 Wed 02:56]
  I`m confused - Penis Pixies -
Is it cut or not?

BBFC Cuts for May 2014
Number of items=43
No. Cuts=8/9
Cuts ratio=19% or 20%

Cuts required to sequences of abusive activity, in this case, a woman being aggressively force-fed and encouraged to choke. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

sergio    [30173.   Posted 18-Jun-2014 Wed 02:54]
  I`m confused. `I don`t like` and `don`t show before the watershed`, `I think it should be banned` seems like a big jump. The `Sian Williams` bit seems a bit confusing.
`The phrase “Oh, my God” should not be said before the watershed because viewers may find it offensive, a leading BBC presenter has said.`

When did she say that then? In the Radio Times she is reported as saying
`“I don’t like people to use inappropriate language before the watershed – particularly the phrase ‘oh, my God’ because it can offend.” ` Are they extrapolating some saying `I don`t like` to `it should be banned`?

phantom    [30172.   Posted 17-Jun-2014 Tue 17:17]
  re: Communications via US websites are fair game for mass snooping...

Very interesting this one.
I would call it, having one`s cake and eating it.

In essence our spy chief is arguing that the location of the people communicating does not matter. That they are in the UK is irrelevant.
Instead what matters is where the company and the server are located.

Now please contrast that with English internet law on EVERYTHING ELSE.
There the location of the person is important, not the location of the server. should you choose to publish porn, then you - the individual are in the UK and liable under English law - whether the server you have the content on or not is in the France, US or Canada is irrelevant.

Should you be found to have uttered an offensive remark on twitter or facebook, you are deemed to be in the UK and thus liable under English law.
The fact that twitter and facebook are US companies is irrelevant.

In short, the government wants it both ways. We cannot use server or internet company location as a defence, but GCHQ - the government in all but name - can.

It`s pretty blatant.

phantom    [30171.   Posted 16-Jun-2014 Mon 04:27]
  sergio [30170]
I`d guess much hangs on whether the distributor/dvd maker is actually German. If the distributor is British, but has had the DVDs physically made in Germany, he more than likely can`t escape being British.
The fact that a film was shot in the UK should not really make a difference, I guess. Distribution should be what counts.
I believe some exemptions from classification have been deleted recently (such as sport, music videos, etc), but I would assume that education and training material is still exempt.
But again, that would depend on it being a true training video and not something which imitates the style of a educational video, but is essentially entertainment. But I`m assuming that is what you`re describing here. So my guess is you more than likely will not get around the BBFC.
But then I`m hardly a lawyer. Thank the gods....

sergio    [30170.   Posted 16-Jun-2014 Mon 01:28]
  Can a company who makes the video film in Britain say that the dvd is made in Germany? (maybe they used to have a film company there but the video was made/filmed in the UK)

Does a dvd that is sold need a classification label ?
What does need no cert? Does a demonstration film sold on dvd with no sexual content (maybe the presenters are highly sexualized - lol) need a cert? This is in relation to a `craft` dvd. Demonstrating various craft techniques.

phantom    [30169.   Posted 14-Jun-2014 Sat 17:58]
  re:Web of Deceit...

Not sure I buy the `Bilderberg link`.
It`s a nice summary of the attack on civil rights taking place in this country and the completely fallacious arguments which are being forwarded by the political left and right.
But aside from pointing to the dates of Bilderberg Group meetings, there is really no argument being forwarded that this rather ominous cabal has anything to do with the issue.

phantom    [30168.   Posted 14-Jun-2014 Sat 11:36]
  Yes, it really is a bizarre situation.
The proposed prohibition is human rights enhancing as it protects us from cultural harm.

It thus follows that we have a human right to protection from cultural harm, no? Or do we possess a human right to culture?

It is just a bizarre statement to make.

I simply do not understand how you can enhance a right. Surely, you either have it or you don`t.
And cultural harm is a perfidious term.

McGlynn and Rackley of course mean that pornography creates a culture of misogyny; a culture in which violence against and humiliation of women is `normalised`. (There is that terrible word again. They sure didn`t major in English, that lot.)
But clearly the term is subjective in the extreme. It presupposes quite a few things, which are already highly dubious, and is thus a highly flawed concept.

In truth the human rights committee simply grasped at any statement they could make to rationalise the nonsense their party politics demanded they vote through. Clearly someone supplied them with that handy verbiage.
No one, other than a `believer` (for it clearly is an act of faith) can possibly talk in such terms.

But I guess it`s fitting. The DPA was originally introduced with flawed, belated `research` underpinning the government`s proposals. The academics who undertook that infamous meta-analysis were hardline feminists who had already expressed their support for the proposed prohibition.

And now that the legislation is expanded we again find two hardline feminists at the heart of things.

I have always felt that censorship corrupts. Just seeing how desperately deceitful the introduction and expansion of this law has been, only confirms me in that view.

Far from it being the material which corrupts individuals, it is in fact the desire to see material banned which rots the system of government from within.

We have seen ministers of the crown lie on air (Vernon Coaker on BBC radio inverting the results of the consultation). We have seen parliament deceived (select committees being assured of changes which never happened prior to passing the law to the vote in the house). We have seen sham research commissioned in attempts to dress up government opinion as science (who could forget the lamentable rapid evidence assessment of 2007 by Catherine Itzin).
And now we have the parliamentary human rights committee sprinkle a nonsensical press statement with verbiage by McGlynn and Rackley.

If the above doesn`t show the potential for corruption by the desire to censor, then I do not know what does.
So ardent do people become in their conviction that they are pursuing a nigh on sacred goal, that they convince themselves that any action, no matter how illegal or immoral, is justifiable.

We are left with a clearly discernible corruption of the political system, in contrast to the not clearly discernible, alleged corruption by pornography.

For if lying to the public and parliament is deemed acceptable in the fight against porn, is it going to make those politicians more or less likely to lie again on other matters they wish to achieve?

One might say that the means deployed to achieve censorship are considerably more harmful to society than the material which one desires to censor.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30167.   Posted 13-Jun-2014 Fri 01:22]

Yes it is a sad day when human rights are tested by the same group of feminist/PC politicians that create are laws and whom take away our rights on the slight of hand and a nice sounding, but meaningless phrase directly copied from extremist campaigners. Not so much as an example of what is considered cultural harm

phantom    [30166.   Posted 12-Jun-2014 Thu 15:50]
  re: When politicians corrupt human rights to suit their own moralist whims...

Wow. Human rights enhancing?
Err... Dare I ask... Pray, how do you `enhance` a right?
And it is `enhancing`, due to `cultural harm` done by extreme porn?
Err... What is `cultural harm`? lol
How would one establish that something is doing cultural harm? How do you measure cultural harm? Is there a scale of cultural harm like a Richter Scale perhaps? You know, we could call it the Harman-o-meter.

I just tried to google a dictionary definition for `cultural harm`: Nothing.
Very telling in particular that it did not bring up lots of links to matters on extreme porn. Nothing. :)

However, I did find something through google.
The term `cultural harm` seems to have come from: Professor Clare McGlynn and Professor Erika Rackley!!!!!
Yep, the human rights committee has used terminology coined by two anti-pornography feminists. Pure coincidence of course.
If you think I`m kidding, check out:

And tomorrow no doubt, the human rights committee is going to make a press statement on the cultural harm of not eating enough hamburgers. the contributing academic will be one Professor Ronald MacDonald of Durham University.

So, if cultural harm is significant in this legislation, why is it not a definition in the law per se. (i.e. why not `culturally harmful` instead of `disgusting` or `of an obscene character`?)

But there is `strong justification` (so, more than mere `justification`) to introduce this `proportionate` restriction.

One can`t really do anything but laugh at that nonsense.
Cultural harm: the new scourge of our age. Too much porn and you`ll no longer be able to appreciate Beethoven or Rembrandt.

So to summarise: Our rights are collectively enhanced by our futuremore not being able to look at something, as this would cause us cultural harm.

I really have only one thing to say: What?????

phantom    [30165.   Posted 12-Jun-2014 Thu 07:34]
  cor [30164]
I`m sorry, but that`s just contemptible.
To lift sentences out of context like that is reminiscent of US attack ads during elections. Again, it`s simply not conducive to debate. Instead it speaks of a win-at-all-cost mentality.
One seems to be struggling to make headway, thus one resorts to this as a last salvo before walking away.

Whereas I was willing in part to acknowledge that your points had value (only to then find such statements quoted in this way), you maintained a purely dogmatic line. You interpret this asymmetry of approach as indicative of your position being one of pristine reason, mine merely being emotive and based on prejudice.
This however means that your zeal becomes an argument in your own reasoning.

I too enjoyed the discourse. But its ending was far from edifying.

cor    [30164.   Posted 11-Jun-2014 Wed 16:27]

I`m going to try a different tactic here; because I`m starting to see lots of contradictions in your argument, I`m going-to let you answer yourself... so;

"People have not had that right for millennia." = "I agree in principle that the existence of a law, or its longevity does not validate it."

"society does not seem to have suffered greatly." = "[excessive clothing regulations] is in effect a way of rendering an individual invisible." + "I do not believe that the `naked rambler` was treated fairly at all."

"Had he simply been left to his own devices" = "effectively in the lobby of the hotel that is owned by the public."

Maybe this is an opportunity to reexamine your thoughts in this. Lets take that last example to its natural conclusion; If you are only allowed to do what the majority of the `owners` of the space want, then all opinions that are not main stream must be suppressed.. I know you don`t believe that but there is no getting around that eventuality using that logic.

"Public nudity is a minor offence.."
Its not currently a minor offense (ask the naked rambler)..

Anyway, i think we are starting to circle our points, so, unless you have new thoughts on the subject; I thank you for the interesting discourse, and I`m off to read `Two Concepts of Liberty` :).

phantom    [30163.   Posted 11-Jun-2014 Wed 13:42]
  cor [30161]
Again, I understand your point (whereas mine are worthless by definition),
but the right to roam around nude really doesn`t represent that great a notion. People have not had that right for millennia. Society does not seem to have suffered greatly.
On the other hand, we have also experienced a lack of the right for freedom of speech and the results for the society were fairly terrible.
So we`ve had both. And we`ve been able to draw conclusions.

However strongly you try to draw a parallel between freedom of speech and the right to go nude; it really is a very strained simile.
So the point on deriding the various liberties may be well made, but it simply lacks punch when it`s extended to something as comparitively flippant as public nudity. (which oddly was my point from the beginning with the Bruce Willis daughter)

I have granted you from the start that if is a matter of purist dogma, you are correct. But dogmatic resolve is usually a poor guide to legislation.

I see, we`re still no further on the China/Iran argument, or quite a few others. Ah well, I`m a patient man. But then lots of us folks who `have problems` for not seeing things right need to be patient.

When it comes to the naked rambler, what was needed was some common sense and a healthy helping of laisser faire.
Had he simply been left to his own devices, it would never have turned into this battle of wills. But by pernicketily insisting on upholding the fine print of the law, one created a situation from which neither side would back down. The magistrates and the police ought to just bloody be ashamed of themselves. Interestingly, it was that sort of inflexibility which saw emperor Domitian killed. If nothing else they should all be fired.
Or to use court parlance it was simply not in the public interest for the prosecution to go to such extra ordinary lengths. It`s plain idiotic.

Now I know you will say this is a contradiction. i cannot be in favour of the law, yet object to the continual prosecution of the naked rambler. But it is not. Public nudity is a minor offence. I may agree with it remaining so, but I`ll never condone it being mushroomed into such a series of sentences by brainless morons.

So just as I agree with rules against dog fouling, I would not want to see anyone imprisoned for it for ten years.
There is plainly a difference between policing something and turning it into a battle over judicial authority.

"Actually negative liberty should be the default position only being overridden when threat to life, serous harm or indeed threat to other negative liberties occurs. -anything else is realy mob rule."

I`m not sure negative liberty should be the default position overall. (Isaiah Berlin would have fits. He leaned quite strongly toward positive liberty.) There are plenty of reasons where positive liberty overrules negative liberty without there being anything as serious as a threat to life.
`Keep off the grass` springs to mind. :)
When it comes to matters private and to matters of expression, I`ll hand it to you. Negative freedom clearly ought to be the overriding notion, barring very few exceptions.
But when public order is concerned, `res publica` tends to win out. In a way, the bigger the city, the more so.

I remember visiting London once and parts of the city centre were closed off for a Formula One demonstration. I myself was not really that interested and was just looking for a way out of a packed centre, which was tricky, with even the relevant tube stations closing.
But I was much amused at the sight of a man remonstrating with a police man that his human rights were being impinged by his not being permitted to cross the road, even though it was clear that the event had not started yet. The bobby was a stoical and polite as ever and remained utterly unmovable. You just have got to love this country. :)

So it`s not always loss of life and limb that is at stake. It may just be public order per se, or any manner of tradition, whether folks ought to be charged for plastic bags, public events or even national security.
It ranges from the petty to the profound.

One such rule is `clothes must be worn`. It applies from Sidney, to Vladivostok, to New Orleans, to Riadh, to Teheran.

And contrary to your repeated insistence; it isn`t offence. It`s just highly inappropriate. And people will feel repulsed, not offended. Again, you can do it at home to your heart`s content.

I guess you`d say that private property such as hotels and businesses, etc would be entitled to refuse entry to a nude guy. As it`s their property and they should be able to decide who or what comes in.
Well in that regard the public space is the property of the public. `Res publica`.
If you choose to walk along with a ghetto blaster banging away at 400 decibels (and no, I don`t know how loud a decibel is), or whether you`re jiggling along in the nude, you are effectively in the lobby of the hotel that is owned by the public. The public space.
They do actually get a say in what happens in their space.
As in: `keep off the grass`. :)

DoodleBug    [30162.   Posted 11-Jun-2014 Wed 12:24]
  Re : Soulmate UK DVD release

I still can`t believe after all this time that the BBFC still have an issue with the "unknown" more effective method of slitting your wrists, as if it`s gonna cause a wave of suicides throughout the land.

A good example of how wrong the BBFC are is the UK Blu-Ray of The Rules of Attraction which was released accidentally uncut back in 2009 and has never been withdrawn from sale. This also showed the same technique. And yet unsurprisingly I haven`t heard of a single case of suicide in the past 5 years which was blamed on that movie.

cor    [30161.   Posted 11-Jun-2014 Wed 03:09]
I`ve heard this same argument over and over again,

Freedom to protest;
What good is recovering the right to loiter? There will always be that guy who loiters just for the hell of it with nothing important to say (even in front of old grandmas house).. We need the rozzers on him...

Freedom of speech;
What good is there in recovering the right to be impolite? There will always be that guy who is just an arsehole to everyone (even old grandmas), get the rozzers on him.

Freedom of press;
What good is there in recovering the right to write mean things about people? There will always be some reporter writing lies about someone (maybe old grandmas), get the rozzers on them.

I could go on but i think my point is made, just because you wouldn`t benefit from a right doesn`t invalidate it. Just because having a right might cause some (in this case harmless) discomfort is not a good reason to abandon such a right.

"But that`s not quite the same as the question whether you dress."
Of course it is, this is the argument to ban words, "you don`t `need` the word `fuck` to express yourself so we are taking it off you, its not the same as stopping you from talking"... but, in a way, it fucking is.

"there appear to be no oppressed"
Tell that to the naked rambler.. I`m sure he`d be thrilled to know ten years in prison is not oppression.

"Human societies thus create the positive liberty, but their duty is to leave enough negative liberty for individuals to prosper."
Actually negative liberty should be the default position only being overridden when threat to life, serous harm or indeed threat to other negative liberties occurs. -anything else is realy mob rule.

phantom    [30160.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 21:04]
  cor [30159]
So, we`re to assume that the grandmas of this world all hanker for public nudity. unless we have the statistics from the Harman institute of made up facts to `prove` it? I`m not sure, I think sometimes some things are bleedingly obvious. :) Not because I think so, or want to think so.

With China and Iran it seems to me you`re missing the point. Again it seems gamesmanship. the point made seems clear. But the point just doesn`t exist. So it isn`t addressed.

I agree in principle that the existence of a law, or its longevity does not validate it. Often laws are simply never changed because it`s just too politically inconvenient, rather than because they are right.
Drugs law is clearly such an example.
However, in this case one struggles to see any benefit other than the dogmatic adherence to a principle. I think in an opening post on this subject I did refer to the dangers of enforcing liberalism. It ends up as a tyranny in itself, just of a different type. (e.g. political correctness)
The change in law isn`t really wanted, there appear to be no oppressed and it simply seems to enforce a universally approved issue.
One simply wonders what the point would be.

You see, I consider myself a strongly libertarian creature. But I struggle with changes just for the sake of it. This would really serve no purpose.
Who cares about the minorities? What minorities? Bruce Willis` daughter?

1 General principle: Well, I`d forward positive liberty.
2 Psychology: Well it seems already universally established. I don`t think anyone is taking any psychological damage from being `forced into clothes`.
3 Liberty: this is really very much like no 1. Again, the liberty was never `taken`. As I explained it never much existed.
4 Superfluous Law: There will always be one prat who turns up naked at the cenotaph on remembrance day or some such crap. Claiming to be protesting against vivisection, or wanting to save the polar bears. Whereas he just wants to wind everyone up.

Societies self correction may eventually kick in with that individual. But they`ll be another one up long before it does.
And no, that`s not hysterics and hyperbole. It`s just derived from having been around long enough on this planet to know there`s always at least one, ready to throw a spanner into the works, just for the hell of it.
That too, is what the rozzers are for. Not just arresting murderers.

You consider how you dress to be private. I guess you`re right. But that`s not quite the same as the question whether you dress.
If you choose to inflict yourself on the public you effectively become a public matter. Res publica.

Positive liberty is easily defined as the one Home Secretaries always use. `The people have the right not to be murdered by terrorists.`
Negative liberty in turn is the one the suspects rounded up by the Home Secretaries henchmen, simply for having beards, use. `You can`t just lock me up without trial because it suits you and makes you look good in the Daily Mail.`
The rights of the society and the rights of the individual.
We are all familiar with the rights of the individual. We`ve all seen enough courtroom dramas to know that much.
But states and societies have rights too. Not merely because they have power.But simply because they are souvereign entities created to serve and protect their communities. There are communal goods and rights, not merely individual ones.

If you impose too much positive liberty you effectively end up with something like the Nazis or Stalinism. Big states. All powerful. In which the individual counts for nothing.

But too much negative liberty and you live in a everyone-for-themselves society in which everyone carries guns, there`s no safety net of any sorts and no community to speak of. something like Somalia.

In the former case of too much positive liberty, the leader`s ears are everywhere and you dare not speak a word of criticism. Any criticism is an attack on the community and an attack on (positive) liberty.

In a place like the latter however, if you`re strong enough, you can prosper and enjoy almost absolute liberty from any law. You can even feel free to murder people. But would anyone else in that place call themselves free? The total freedom of some will turn it into a hellhole for everyone else.
Certain benchmarks of security and communal cooperation and organisation are simply necessary to establish a basic sort of freedom. These basic freedoms may differ wildly from one part of the world to another. As we have all evolved in different cultures.

This are the two forces. Both are fundamental to liberty.

Not having a BBFC overseeing film censorship will not help a starving man, nor one having to fight off raiders ever six months. On the other hand, having `total security` in a totalitarian state means there`s a Stasi man on every street corner and nobody dare breathe for fear of suspicion.

Human societies thus create the positive liberty, but their duty is to leave enough negative liberty for individuals to prosper.

The Romans were big on positive liberty. their society provided safety through its legions, provided roads, aqueducts, baths, law (including many unwritten codes which governed their society). But they definitely stopped at the threshold of the private home. The paterfamilias was the literal king of his own home - complete with power over life and death.
So quite a strong boundary there. I don`t think anyone told the Roman householder what porn he was allowed to watch. :)
They weren`t daft, those Romans.

But I think they`d have had something to say if Frankie Howerd`s Lurcio would have turned up at the Circus or a religious ceremony in the buff. No one would have been `offended`. They were used to their nudity, the Romans. But all in its rightful place. They`d have seen it as an affront to the rules. The rules of their society which they held sacred.
Lurcio would most likely have been in trouble. No worries, nobody would have got crucified. But he`d have been up before a praetor in no time.

So no Muslims, no Christian bible bashing sanctioned by King James. Just a bunch of easy going, pagan, republican Romans who`d like everyone to stick to the rules and be civil.

Meanwhile if Lurcio wanted to run around the atrium in his home in the buff, no one would have given a damn....

cor    [30159.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 16:31]
  I do not feel I used sleight of hand there, your point seemed to be centered around an epidemic of offense and I tried to zero in on that, if that is not what you meant my apologies for misreading. As for ratcheting up the temperature, I`m just having fun, trying to articulate a point or two.. Same as you.

"It`s [fictional grandma] pretty representative of the sentiment that would be felt. It seems a more than fair assumption to make."
I just disagree, and you should not be assuming offense on behalf of others without any stats, its how half of the crap laws get passed in this country.

"everyone in China goes about in clothes [is forced to] bears no relation to the fact that in Iran women [are forced to] move about in burkhas"
So the forced covering up of different body parts has no relation to the forced covering up of different body parts... I mean I know its in a different magnitude and has some different effects but really, its just different volumes of the same tune.

"As for public nudity being a great expression of individuality. Well, if you think so. But I struggle to see it."
I was talking about the choice of what one wears or doesn`t wear, if one has such a choice being a statement and expression in itself.

"Much of it would simply be a thrill gained from sticking up two fingers to `the man` and watching the `prudes` shake with rage. Yeah, right on, siss. Up the revolution... To me that`s just vacuous."
Well, maybe Salman Rushdie`s bodyguard gets a thrill from sticking up two fingers to `the Muslim man` and watching the `religious prudes` shake with rage... your just projecting thoughts into someone`s head and judging them on them, I can do that too...

Its true that modesty has been around a long time, doesn`t mean we should be lawfully enforcing it. Its also true no great public support for changing the law exists, because its persecuting people that would have been trivialized and marginalized anyway, and really, who cares about the minority`s?

"It is hard to see any purpose being served [by legalizing nudity]"
1,General principal - A human being should not be illegal, A human doing something maybe..
2,Psychology - your body is so retched, people need to be protected from the very sight of it, monster, demon.
3,Liberty - state interference needs a better excuse, they take a liberty away simply because they can.
4,Superfluous law - we have both agreed people will don clothes, we don`t need laws to enforce an evolutionary inevitability.

"selectively picking bits to bomb."
Sure, I selectively pick the bits I disagree with, what did you expect? lol

Positive / negative liberty, its fascinating, need to read up on this more, and I largely agree with a dividing line between public and private. However I do consider with what and how much or less one dresses to be a form of expression, and as such your basically saying `you can express anything you want as long as no one hears you..` -which is where I start having a problem with your viewpoint again.

phantom    [30158.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 15:03]
  cor [30157]

Now just a second. That`s sleight of hand:
""For here`s the thing: not all old men the world over will feel `offended` at the woman in the miniskirt "
Really? Because lots of people are offended, oh, that makes a difference then, to hell with any freedom if it might offend *lots* of people... And only for reasons you approve of.. Apologies for the sarcasm, but you get the point."

The above is completely altering the context by selecting only a part of what I said, then knocking it. That isn`t on. I believe you know that full well.

Clearly you`re ratcheting up the temperature here. Which I don`t like per se. I very greatly enjoy this discourses. But only if we keep it on the level. If it becomes a win-at-all-cost scenario, I`ll be gone pretty soon.

"No, its not, therefor i can. lmao at that logic btw. Just because a stereotype, that may not even be accurate, means more to us than a religious belief does not veto anything."

You may simply state it is not universal, thus insisting on your point.
But then insisting that I am opining whereas you are purely factual sort of falls by the wayside, no?
As for the rejection of the point as such. It seems more of a refusal.
It`s not a void stereotype I used, which might be completely inaccurate. I think you know it. It`s pretty representative of the sentiment that would be felt. It seems a more than fair assumption to make.

As for the burkha argument. We`re really going nowhere there. We`re pretty much along the lines of the antisemitism simile you forwarded earlier.
The fact that everyone in China goes about in clothes bears no relation to the fact that in Iran women move about in burkhas because someone insists it`s Islamic (when in fact it`s cultural).
It is a particular rule attributable to a particular society. Clothing clearly is not a particular rule attributable to a particular society. That`s fairly self evident. No matter how hard one insists.

"Cloths and style are widely thought of as being expressions of, everything. Like a language they convey information. Like a language it can be attacked, striping words and conditions, sentiments and phrases until it can express nothing but conformity..."

It`s hard to argue that a universality of people going clothed is not conformity. Clearly it is. But people are in fact very conforming. Much more so than they would ever admit in western society.
As for public nudity being a great expression of individuality. Well, if you think so. But I struggle to see it.

"This is a common argument against freedom of speech, i can imagine people being all kinds of rude to me if they were allowed to... Just doesn`t hold water, its empty hysterics. Now i don`t blame you, i have similar anxieties about nudity, and rude people. I just recognize this is not a good enough reason to curtail rights and liberty`s with laws. -I get the feeling you would agree with this on any other day lol."

I`m just sure not where this profundity of public nudity is to be found.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are very profound liberties.
This was very much the spur of my initial comment behind Bruce Willis` daughter donning the libertarian mantle (by ditching it).
Walking around with your boobs on display isn`t quite the same as taking a bullet for Salman Rushdie.
Much of it would simply be a thrill gained from sticking up two fingers to `the man` and watching the `prudes` shake with rage. Yeah, right on, siss. Up the revolution... To me that`s just vacuous.

It is to find a boundary which one can rail against without actually saying anything of interest. Which is always a plus if you`re from Hollywood. :)

The freedom to bare tits, is not really the freedom to bear arms, or the right to question the decisions of Kim Yong Un.
But it gets one noticed - as it`s sexy. And nobody really cares as it`s total pie in the sky. A bit like Cicciolina running for parliament.

"This is the wrong question, why should this liberty be removed / withheld? is the question we should ask, and you haven`t given a satisfactory answer to me, or, i suspect yourself. Compare the threshold you would need passed for any other liberty to be removed / withheld."

It simply seems to be a default setting in human societies. Somewhen when they started building the city of Ur, they started wearing clothes. I don`t think anyone actually `removed their right`. It just happened. It seems to have established itself as a basic rule in every civilisation and - yes - is policed.
One might thus argue that the freedom was never there. Thus it was definitely never removed. It`s just one of those things which has been running since - literally - the dawn of time.

Thus far there never seems to have been much a demand to see this yoke of oppression abolished. :)
I mean, I do not recall a single revolution in history that was based on the need to run naked.
I know I`m being flippant here. But you get my drift. It`s hard to see that there ever was any groundswell of opinion anywhere to wreck the textile industry.

It is hard to see any purpose being served other than to legitimise those who wish deliberately to cause aggravation by legalising public nudity.

"so why the need for legislation?"
Should I now join in the same spirit and say; `Just because.` ?
I have actually made a fairly broad based argument. But you seem to be selectively picking bits to bomb.

"anti porn laws tend to express the overwhelming popular will, so did anti-equality laws, and anti-sodomy laws, the overwhelming popular will needs to be tempered with the rights of the individual to go about his /her business with the least interference from the state, and such interference should come with a reason better than `its just popular to oppress you right now`."

Are you familiar with the origin of the word republic? It stems from `res publica` and effectively translates into `public affairs` and simply stood for matters of state in Rome. It kind of hits the nail on the head, doesn`t it. The key word here is `public`. :)

To a large extent the world`s various publics are permitted to set down certain rules which govern them according to the way they wish to be governed. This very much represents a freedom of sorts, no? Here we enter the sphere of what Berlin termed `positive liberty`.
But simply ethics lead to a liberal democracy which allows for minorities to be different and co-exist. As long as they don`t openly collide with the dominant norm.

Negative liberty however also demands that the individual be protected in his individual freedoms. This is where freedom of speech, freedom of expression and private behaviour are at home.

So the `greater good` and society largely reside in positive liberty, whereas the individual good and the private sphere reside in negative liberty. Neither are mutually exclusive all of the time, but they can collide.

Now were there to be a rule stipulating you cannot walk around nude in the privacy of your own home, I`d be right next to you on the barricades. It would be a desperate affront to your individual right to self-determination.
But if you insist on your right to flaunt your stuff in public, you simply won`t find me manning the defences.
You are not being told you can`t jiggle your bits. You`re just being told you can`t jiggle your bits ad Mrs Jones next door.

So to my mind this is not at all related to matters of porn.
If Felicity wants to bounce around in public, the public is entitled to have a view on the matter.
If Felicity on the other hand wants to be photographed at a private location and have those pics uploaded onto the net where any member of the public has to actively seeking them out, well, it`s really none of the puplic`s business. As said, res publica.

To apply public morality to a public space; that seems fairly reasonable with me. To apply it to the private domain seems like an imposition.
In a way that`s how matters have been squared with the nudist movement. You guys do what you like in your own resorts. No problem. Just stay away from Piccadilly Circus. It doesn`t really strike me that outlandish.
Is it really that far out?

There seems to be no harm. Only the continuum of millennia and a desire by the public to govern a public space. People are simply being prevented from trolling through Hyde Park to wind others up.

I cannot see the potential for authoritarian abuse. I don`t see the British government taking to imitating the Greek colonels of the 70s by banning mini skirts any time soon. Do you?

It`s really difficult to muster a great deal of passion for this subject. But I do enjoy combing through the fine points of such arguments. It often helps me work out what I really think about an issue. However, only if the spirit in which I do it is reciprocated.

I have said right from the start that I do see where you`re coming from here. I understand the principle you base your view on. I thus do award your view some merit. I just do not happen to agree with it.

cor    [30157.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 10:06]

I`m still seeing nothing that would warrant legislation, your personal insecurity aside (which is not a good enough reason) all you`ve given me so far is disgust, offense(arguably), social engineering, to what end I`m not sure. -And the likelihood that the legislation (or lack thereof) would be irreverent.. surely you don`t think these are good enough reasons to make and enforce laws -or keep the ones we have.

I brought up your `Kylie Minogue test` as an answer to your anxiety concerning the proliferation of nude people, that almost universally people would choose cloths over nudity.

just so we are clear : liberty (merriam-webster);
: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely
: the power to do or choose what you want to

"The burkha is in effect a way of rendering an individual invisible."
Just as nudity is very visible, clothed is less visible, and Burqa`d is invisible .. seems like the definition of a lesser rule to me.

"render even their persona shameful."
As cloths render only part of their persona shameful...

"For here`s the thing: not all old men the world over will feel `offended` at the woman in the miniskirt "
Really? Because lots of people are offended, oh, that makes a difference then, to hell with any freedom if it might offend *lots* of people... And only for reasons you approve of.. Apologies for the sarcasm, but you get the point.

"The other is universal....One cannot therefore conflate the two."
No, its not, therefor i can. lmao at that logic btw. Just because a stereotype, that may not even be accurate, means more to us than a religious belief does not veto anything.

"Nor does it really seem linked to the repression of free expression."
Cloths and style are widely thought of as being expressions of, everything. Like a language they convey information. Like a language it can be attacked, striping words and conditions, sentiments and phrases until it can express nothing but conformity...

"that you can yourself imagine plenty of situations in which you`d feel deeply uncomfortable"
This is a common argument against freedom of speech, i can imagine people being all kinds of rude to me if they were allowed to... Just doesn`t hold water, its empty hysterics. Now i don`t blame you, i have similar anxieties about nudity, and rude people. I just recognize this is not a good enough reason to curtail rights and liberty`s with laws. -I get the feeling you would agree with this on any other day lol.

"it may not be as artificial as you make it out to be"
Wait a minute, you are the one cheering for artificial endorsement and enforcement of this by law, I`ve always stated it would naturally self correct without interference.

"To add this theoretical liberty would do what?"
This is the wrong question, why should this liberty be removed / withheld? is the question we should ask, and you haven`t given a satisfactory answer to me, or, i suspect yourself. Compare the threshold you would need passed for any other liberty to be removed / withheld.

"unanimous in its desire to keep things zipped up." - so why the need for legislation?

"enforcement expresses the overwhelming popular will." - anti porn laws tend to express the overwhelming popular will, so did anti-equality laws, and anti-sodomy laws, the overwhelming popular will needs to be tempered with the rights of the individual to go about his /her business with the least interference from the state, and such interference should come with a reason better than `its just popular to oppress you right now`.

phantom    [30156.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 06:22]
  cor [30155]

`So you do consider this an affront to liberty, you are just happy to allow it on a smaller scale since you are used to it... no?`

No. :) I do not think every social burden necessarily to be a limitation to liberty.

Any requirement to wear clothes is not by definition a lesser rule, equivalent in principle to the burkha.
The burkha is in effect a way of rendering an individual invisible. You deny them even a face, or you render even their persona shameful. they become a strange, visual Barbapapa (now I wonder how many get that allusion!). Much of it is symbolic of rendering a woman some sort of private possession, insisting that even the sight of her is somehow owned.
None of the above really applies to a woman in leggings walking the streets of Birmingham. :)

So the affront to some old hardline Muslim at seeing a women walk around in a miniskirt is not the same to an old lady not liking to sit on a park bench next to the guy with his balls out.
For here`s the thing: not all old men the world over will feel `offended` at the woman in the miniskirt not dressing in a sufficiently Islamic manner for it being against their religion. But all old ladies will feel scandalised by the guy with his junk on display. (Yes, I`m not an old lady. Yes, I haven`t polled all old ladies in the world. But we both get the point.)
One is subject to one particular world view. The other is universal.
Thus they are not the same thing. One cannot therefore conflate the two.

As said, I do not believe this to be a matter of offence. The requirement to wear clothes in advanced civilisations is quite universal. It`s not really linked to any prophets who came down from a mountain. Nor does it really seem linked to the repression of free expression.

Regarding the `Kylie Minogue test` example, I`m afraid you`ve lost me completely. So I can`t really respond to that point.

As for this conclusion though:
"See just as we don`t need lots of laws to protect us from the oppressive Culture of Muslims, so we don`t need lots of laws to protect us from the embarrassing traditions of nudists."

The point I made regarding Islam, was in response to the claim that there was a threat to British society. I do not believe there to be such a threat at all.
Regarding public nudity. There most certainly is no threat to society. I grant you. As I said, it would not be the end of civilisation.
But not only such things require a law which would end all and everything.

As for the guy with the hardon on a train, etc. I think you dodged that one to be honest. It`s not a question of hysterics. I was simply putting it to you, that you can yourself imagine plenty of situations in which you`d feel deeply uncomfortable, if you encountered folks in the nude in public places.
So I`m not foreseeing `imaginary risks`. For one, hardons are considerably more common than you might think. And secondly, they don`t really represent a risk. :)
But I would foresee a society feeling very uncomfortable on many occasions.

The requirement to wear clothes most likely does nothing else but fulfill that simple function for societies. To make us feel more comfortable interacting in society. We did not evolve as animals to live in cities. Perhaps thus a few adjustments to our animal state are quite normal.
Given that clothing ourselves is one of the first such adjustments we made, it may not be as artificial as you make it out to be.

I don`t believe I am simply arguing this point, because I am defending a status quo to which I am wedded by accident of birth (for one, where would I need to be born, not to be born into it?).
I truthfully don`t think it would add anything to have people walking about naked. To add this theoretical liberty would do what? Especially, if, as you say, nobody would use it due to self-correction...

But essentially this is not really about the rights or wrongs of whether folks ought to wander the streets, exposed to the draft.
You are saying it should not be policed and instead be left to self-regulation; that enforcement effectively renders it a form of repression.

On the other hand I think in this case enforcement expresses the overwhelming popular will. That in fact human society is as good as unanimous in its desire to keep things zipped up.
People are not really imprisoned in their clothes. That seems an awful long stretch.
But there is a spirit of mischievousness, or sometimes just plain spite which will lead individuals to break universal rules just for the sake of it. And perhaps then it is quite handy to have the rozzers on hand.

As an example of people annoying just for the hell of it, I`d field Russia`s pussy riot`s antics in the church. I may not agree with the lengths to which the authorities went, but I saw no problem in police arriving to get them out of there.

I really don`t see myself as an Uncle Tom figure here, enmeshed in the continued oppression of the masses who want to go naked.
Yes, it`s good to sometimes challenge all norms in theory and establish whether they really are necessary.
But I think it might just be part of our condition to keep our pants on in public these days.

And if once in a while someone gets that plastered on a Saturday night out, that they eventually find themselves wandering the high street with nothing but a sock for a hat, perhaps it`s a good idea to have someone escort them away. ;)

cor    [30155.   Posted 10-Jun-2014 Tue 03:32]

Whether its offense, social engineering, or just plain disgust i haven`t heard any good reason for legislation. If you would expand on the statement `public morality and law are not the same thing` to include that you are making a moral argument and not a legal one, I`d happily agree with you.

Try to consider that the disgust/ offense suffered from an old Muslim at the sight of a naked female face might well be equivalent to the disgust/ offense suffered from an old christian at the sight of a naked female breast. It seems to me hypocritical to support one view and not the other (especially since its the view you likely grew up with, and so just an accident of birth).

I`d like to try your `Kylie Minogue test` on this (altered quote);
"So one side can offer [nudity, along with beer-bellies and cellulite] and the offer can offer Kylie Mynogue`s golden hotpants. Which one will win?
If we`re dead honest, which will all guys prefer? Exactly.
And the girls? For all the nonsense being talked about sexualisation, etc none but a very few miliant [nudist] women want [to walk around naked]. None."

See just as we don`t need lots of laws to protect us from the oppressive Culture of Muslims, so we don`t need lots of laws to protect us from the embarrassing traditions of nudists.

"But how ready are you for a train journey next to a nude guy with a hardon?"
This is a fairly good example of the hysteria i was talking about. Not only is it effectively harmless (if a bit uncomfortable) but it is wildly unrealistic, and you should know we have plenty laws written to protect us from imaginary risks. Heaven help us from being corrupted and depraved.

This self correcting process has been shaping us for millions of years, want to see it in action? Round up a thousand random people and tell them that if they want to they can take all their cloths off with no legal consequences. I bet none of them do, the point is that this is not a process that needs to be started and takes time to work. -its been running for millions of years.

"Religion is more of an exponential bomb" true.

"I`m still not convinced it represents any great affront to liberty."
I seem to remember you stating you were against forcing women to wear the Burqa. So you do consider this an affront to liberty, you are just happy to allow it on a smaller scale since you are used to it... no?

phantom    [30154.   Posted 9-Jun-2014 Mon 19:56]
  phantom [30152]
Well, first off, I`m not one for proscriptive legislation on moral grounds per se. I guess I`ve ranted against some of it on here often enough to convince people of that.

And I will admit that I`m not sure myself where I`m going with this here and now. But it is an interesting discourse on the boundaries which make us and so I`m just running with it to see where it takes me. So bear with me.

Let`s start here.
I agree that public morality and law are not the same thing.
The classic example: adultery. Condemned by one, accepted by the other.

I also agree that there needs to be a limit to a punitive response regarding public nudity. The story of the naked rambler proves that quite profoundly.

Regarding the example of the old lady; I still do not think this is about offence. I guess it is more a case of disgust or revulsion, which I believe Vsauce touches on in part.
It may be closer related to a sense you get with people throwing up or urinating in the streets, than having one`s feelings offended.
Perhaps it`s even related to what is often termed invasion of personal space, but visually.

Nudity is a sexual thing. At times it may not be. At times it is.
But how ready are you for a train journey next to a nude guy with a hardon?

If you`re waiting for the lift and then the door opens and there is Alexei Sayle with no clothes on, do you get in? Or do you wait for the next one?

Nudity has the power of making us all feel very uncomfortable. Not just old ladies. It has a strange power. Most likely because so much goes on in our minds and nudity is by definition suggestive.

The self-corrective process is not necessarily as entirely positive as you put it. For one it moves gradually. So it may eventually ostracise the hardon guy standing next to you in the tube at rush hour. But it won`t get rid of him when you would like him gone.
More so the self-correcting process works in both directions. Just as a strong reaction by society can change the behaviour of the individual, so too can it change the behaviour of society. It`s where knee jerk law and moral panics usually are at home. :)

Veering away from nudity for a moment, the self-corrective process is also not necessarily of any use when someone decides to go for a swim in the Thames during the University Boat Race. Some people like making arses of themselves. More so these days. I guess it`s a sort of real life trolling.

I don`t think intolerance to how folks dress (or not at all) is the same as intolerance by religion. Religion is more of an exponential bomb when it comes to possible outcomes. I don`t know of any purely clothes related terrorism.

The middle east has the hijab/niqab/burkha, but it is really a problem for that part of the world. Here women can walk around in hotpants and there`s no law to stop `em.
So the prohibition of nudity in western society we are talking about here is in fact fairly limited, compared to the much more overarching oppression in other parts of the world.

I don`t think nudity in public would be the end of civilisation as we know it, but I think it would make for uncomfortable living.
Especially as the nudes wandering the streets would not tend to be the caliber of person one would like to see nude, but precisely those you`d quite like to know dressed.
So a world of over hanging bellies, cellulite, hairy backs, rolls of fat and the rarely bathed. Or those who aren`t taking their medication. :)
Welcome to the commute! lol

Who knows, there may be good reason society parcels people up in clothes.
I`m still not convinced it represents any great affront to liberty.

It strikes me that, we`re in the territory of ethics here. In a strange way public nudity seems to fall into that territory. Sure, it`s not `thou shallt not murder` I grant you. But I think there`s some sort of universal driver going on.

Anyway, over to you.

cor    [30153.   Posted 9-Jun-2014 Mon 16:11]

"I`m not sure it[being self-correcting] would help in many incidents of public nudity."
If cloths are some kind of socially evolved benefit, or even if most of society just believe this, then the individuals who break this norm would be marginalized and trivialized. This would massively minimize this behavior in the future.. How is that not self correcting? As you have admitted its been self correcting for the past few millenia, most of the time without the need for authoritarian intervention.

"Are clothes, no matter how skimpy, really a miniature burkha?"
Forced to cover up is forced to cover up, which bits you pick or some Muslim picks.. And deem `bad` is subjective. Either we should be forcing people to cover up or we shouldn`t, and if we should we need a better reason than offense or social engineering.

"a slippery slope toward antisemitism is stretching things a little"
I just meant that they are both prejudices, being prejudice about how someone dresses (or doesn`t) is every bit as bad as prejudice about religion. Its easy to see, if an old Muslim fellow is in the park why should he have to `tolerate` the young girl next to him with her face uncovered, but an old christian lady with a walking stick should never feel offense... again we are into offense and why it should not be an issue.

"Why stop there? Why not public copulation?"
Again this is a self-correcting problem, there is this hysteria (especially around sex) that if we don`t have the police watching our every move we`ll devolve into animals and start mounting each other.. Trust me we don`t need laws against public nudity or public sex, society will correct its own problems. The law should be focused on protecting life and liberty.

"I really don`t think it is a matter offence. "
I can see no other reason why you would give the grandmother example, other than offense, what was she at risk of?

I saw the video before, (love Vsauce lol) and i largely agree - though This changes nothing in regard to legislating nudity.

phantom    [30152.   Posted 9-Jun-2014 Mon 14:04]
  cor {30151}

I do understand perfectly where you`re coming from, Cor.
But I just don`t agree.

I have great sympathy for your argument of some problems being self-correcting. Though I`m not sure it would help in many incidents of public nudity.

As for saying that in other countries they have burkhas. Sure they do. But why is this relevant in a country which doesn`t enforce them, but simply asks people go about town in clothes?
Are clothes, no matter how skimpy, really a miniature burkha?

As for saying that my example of the old grandmother in the park feeling ill at ease sitting next to a nude guy on a park bench is somehow a slippery slope toward antisemitism is stretching things a little, no?
I don`t think the holocaust was related to the nazis wearing clothes...

I don`t think it`s a question of `you`re-not-allowed-to-do-this-as-it-offends-me`.
I also think that ramming a hardline libertarian attitude down people`s throats would be a form of oppressive dogma in itself.
Especially when it comes to some of the most basic norms. And want it or not, moving about dressed in public is very basic social norm.
We`ve done it for the past few millennia.

To my mind any talk of public nudity (Why stop there? Why not public copulation?) for the sake of absolute intellectual libertarianism is a little like the feminists of the 70s proclaiming all sex is rape, due to the nature of penetration.
We enter the world of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I really don`t think it is a matter offence. I think it touches a different nerve. Nor do I think it has anything to do with religious prescription.
It seems to serve a much more basic social function.

Who knows, perhaps this is of interest.

cor    [30151.   Posted 9-Jun-2014 Mon 03:47]

"I think there is in fact a public morality"
I think the point is there should be no legal enforcement of this, in so far as its a problem its self-correcting, like being impolite, its not a crime to be impolite in public (strictly speaking) but there is not a great proliferation of rudeness... society deals with it without the need for legal interference.

"well established benchmark", "perfectly familiar and at ease with"
As is the Burqa, in some other countries, just because people have gotten used to the norm does not in any way make the norm right.

"is it some civic right to walk down Oxford Street with your mammaries on display?"
Why not? Because it might offend someone? Do you think for a minute it would cause more offense than pooch suffered at the use of the word nigger? Maybe we should stop being so concerned with offense and start asking the real questions; Is there any threat to someones life or liberty from these mammaries..?

"Folks are not being told what to wear. No one is told to don a burkha."
Just pointing out that this is true everywhere, no one is forced to wear a Burqa anywhere, its just that is one of the only garments that covers all the parts that are offensive to some Islamic people... but even if they made a thousand different types of Burqa it wouldn`t change a thing. -The right to wear what we want has to come with the right wear nothing or its meaningless (you can have any color you want, as long as its black).

"needs to tolerate having to sit next to a naked guy with his junk on display"
Slippery slope here, what should she need to tolerate? gays? Jews? hoodies? Again we are bogged down with trying not to cause offense when there is clearly no threat of harm in a situation that would likely resolve itself without any need for legislation.

phantom    [30150.   Posted 8-Jun-2014 Sun 14:28]
  re: Denying adults their human right of access to lawful content...

ATVOD not subject to the freedom of information act?
Now that is rather telling....

phantom    [30149.   Posted 8-Jun-2014 Sun 14:26]
  braintree {30146}
"If the only thing wrong with something is that it`s socially unacceptable or even in poor taste then the law has no business interfering."

In general I agree. But does it really hold entirely true?
For people`s behaviour in private I feel there really ought to be no limitations placed upon them by public morality at all.
What they may wish to read or view falls into the same category for me.

However, I think there is in fact a public morality. I don`t think it`s as stringent as many would make it out to be. But I think societies do function along certain loose codes.
Walking around with clothes on is a fairly well established benchmark in all developed societies.

Do I know how to deal with anyone who might not conform? No, I don`t. I do not believe that the `naked rambler` was treated fairly at all.

But is it some civic right to walk down Oxford Street with your mammaries on display? I`m not sure it is.

So it might be that the freedom of movement in that regard is somewhat conditional.
We know that men can go topless, whereas women cannot.
Again, that could be argued as being unfair.
But I`m not really sure it is that overly prescriptive. Folks are not being told what to wear. No one is told to don a burkha.

In a way everyone is simply asked to comply with a code all are perfectly familiar and at ease with. Nobody is really being asked to adhere to rules that are in any way alien to them.
Anyone who chooses to go naked consciously steps out of rules with which they are actually well familiar and at ease.

On the other hand, I`m not sure whether an old lady with a walking stick setting on a park bench needs to tolerate having to sit next to a naked guy with his junk on display.

In that regard the liberal mantra of `anything that doesn`t harm` is perhaps not something that applies here.
There needs to be a bit of give and take. In public at least I feel people need not be force-fed libertarian anything-goes principles.

Once the front door closes however, we`re in perfect agreement and the politicians, lawyers and police can take a hike.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30148.   Posted 8-Jun-2014 Sun 14:08]
  Re Graham Bright

What`s the betting the guy is applying to Google as we speak for the right for this to be forgotten.

phantom    [30147.   Posted 8-Jun-2014 Sun 13:51]
  re: A Legislative Dog`s Dinner...

Thanks for that, Dave.
I needed a good laugh. I really did.
That`s just wonderful.
I`m still chuckling now. Dogs! lol

braintree    [30146.   Posted 8-Jun-2014 Sun 12:58]
  If the only thing wrong with something is that it`s socially unacceptable or even in poor taste then the law has no business interfering. Although I do agree that it`s been proven we need a certain level of CCTV the policing of social networks and the population recorded by six million surveillance cameras really should make us a laughing stock if any politician tries to claim we are a truly free country . The UK population is under scrutiny far more than any Communist countries ever were

phantom    [30144.   Posted 6-Jun-2014 Fri 17:26]
  re: Scout Willis: is the nipple political?

My answer to that question is: yes and no.

Do I think nudity is political when it comes to femen `activists` who simply court the cameras? No.
Do I think there is a feminist case for baring their nipples with pride? No.
I find it very hard to take seriously anyone who is trying to make a political point with their secondary sexual characteristics.

Generally I do think that civilisation most likely has clothed us for a reason other than just to preserve body heat.
So I`m not sure I`m a fan of everyone getting their bits out in public.
(Do I think we ought to be less dogmatic about the naked rambler? Very much so. He`s been inside now for longer than many a violent offender.)

Where I do think the nipple is political however is in the pursuit of political prudery.
Who could forget US Attorney General John Ashcroft having the statues of Justice hidden behind drapes at the justice department?
That was without doubt a political act.

When it comes to the war over Page 3 in the UK it is hard to see it as anything else than a political question. Two very differing world views contest this issue.

So there can be a very serious side to this.

But if it`s some showbiz daughter of movie stars.... Hmm... It`s hard to see any great political philosophy emerging...

phantom    [30143.   Posted 6-Jun-2014 Fri 17:10]
  braintree [30142]

Well, the policing of social media is the extension of the `what is socially acceptable` principle to the net.
Britain has simply no respect for the principle of free expression per se.
So instead we merely have the right to say what is deemed acceptable.
It`s another one of those tricks of how to run a country being censorious, but claiming you`re liberal.

That said there are problems with absolute free speech on the web. Bullying, proliferation of weapons technology, etc... perhaps even trolling...

But the notion of simply prosecuting anyone who has happened to make a callous comment about whomsoever the tabloids have sainted recently just seems ridiculous.

As for judges and CPS lawyers being held accountable before the law, I`d be very much for that. Especially with the CPS I`d much like there to be an element of personal risk involved when it comes to frivolous prosecutions which are little more than phishing expeditions.

braintree    [30142.   Posted 6-Jun-2014 Fri 14:24]
Nothing to do with him not agreeing with me . More to do with him droning on with the same old shite time and time again ages after the discussion was over.
I was just pleased to hear that somebody was able to shut him up.

Changing the subject - I`m not sure how anyone can claim we have free speech anyway now that the police waste their efforts on tracking offensive remarks on social media .
As abhorrent as his comments were - jailing the guy who made remarks about the stabbed teacher borders on lunacy.
It`s a real shame the police think their priorities are right when it comes to keeping people safe from "offence".
The Judge and the CPS should be sued for wasting public money.

sergio    [30141.   Posted 5-Jun-2014 Thu 13:12]
  re: NEKromantik - WTF?

sergio    [30140.   Posted 5-Jun-2014 Thu 02:27]
  I can`t believe it`s not child porn (sarcasm). Let`s revisit a story from 1983
Careful now, includes references to `the daily mail`.

phantom    [30139.   Posted 4-Jun-2014 Wed 18:52]
  braintree {30135}
Can`t say I share your sentiment there, Braintree.
To take pleasure in those you don`t agree with being assaulted is not really cricket.

phantom    [30138.   Posted 4-Jun-2014 Wed 18:47]
  sergio {30136}
Shouldn`t the question rather be, how many more crap studies into porn are they going to publish?

Don`t shoot the messenger, Sergio.
All Dave is doing is telling us how daft they continue to be.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30137.   Posted 4-Jun-2014 Wed 03:26]

Re "Just howmanymorecrap studies into porn are you going to highlight?"

I guess as long as they keep amusing me by writing them. This latest one seemed the most puerile for a long time with the researchers not seeming to not know anything about what they were researching. They may as well of measured people big toes instead, and even then who`s to say that big is best anyway.

sergio    [30136.   Posted 4-Jun-2014 Wed 01:36]
  Just howmanymorecrap studies into porn are you going to highlight? WTF `a broad range of pornography consumption` ? ` that more research should be done ` Amazing, that coming from a `scientist`. `Learning` causes brain changes (or is that `damage`)? For rigorous scientists they don`t seem to define what `excessive` is. 64 is the magic number. Where`s the control group? The people who`ve never ever seen anything erotic ever?

braintree    [30135.   Posted 3-Jun-2014 Tue 13:55]
  Pooch :
As others have pointed out more succinctly than I would that you really don`t have a clue how stupid you look I`m not wasting anymore time on you . To repeat and conclude: either you believe in free speech or you don`t . We all know you believe in free speech but only when it suits you but that`s not a genuine option. Free speech is not negotiable . As I`ve said before , if the word offends you then tough shit . End of story.
Now I`m sure we`d all be much happier if you`d just STFU and get back to whinging about Arrow and other studios . It makes for a far more enjoyable day .
Just to let you know I read less than half your last post before sighing and stopping.
I read your opinions early on but soon came to realise they were based on nonsense so to me they`re worthless - waste your time on your blog as , for me at least , the argument here is done.

To be honest , you get on my nerves so much the fact you`ve been physically assaulted by "racist bigoted fuckwits" pleases me no end .
No doubt in your eyes they are all typical UKIP voters - but in my eyes I imagine it was their reaction to listening to you spout the same sort of drivel you do on here.

phantom    [30134.   Posted 3-Jun-2014 Tue 01:32]
  Paul B {30132}
UKIP are libertarian-minded?
Well, that`s one way of putting it.
You see, many Tories will call themselves libertarians because they like an economy run with as little regulation as possible. Therefore they`re right and proper liberals, right?

The problem is the Conservatives are also the self-appointed `law and order` party and that of `taste and decency`. And didn`t we have Mr Cameron rambling on about Britain being a Christian country recently?

The question is, where in relation to the Tories do UKIP stand?
I think a fair estimation is to put them to the right of the Tories.
They`d see themselves as tougher on law and order and even more Christian, etc...

So I am afraid the line of UKIP being libertarians and liberals doesn`t really wash. Much as I understand your desire to appear appealing in recruiting party members, here I think you`re stretching things.

Truth be told there is no libertarian party in Britain today.
The most liberal country in Europe bizarrely has no liberal voice within its politics.
The reasons for this political anomaly are complicated. But I cannot see Nigel Farage being the man to undo this.

So I do think you`re being a bit mischievous here. UKIP to go easy on loutishness, foulmouthedness, filth and depravity? I really don`t think so.

But a good try...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30133.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 23:52]
  There`s been some great debate on free speech vs offence, would any of the contributors mind if I used some quotes for an essay on the main MelonFarmers site? I think the debate should be preserved

Thanks for the link Phantom, a interesting piece. It ties in with the need for free speech to ridicule and insult people who would typically try and prevent this by claiming offence.

Paul B    [30132.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 23:33]
  Should go without saying, but for anyone that can and is able to, please join UKIP and get involved with the local branch (or perhaps even found it yourself if there isn`t one).

Most of us are libertarian-minded freedom lovers that despise censorship. We do have some socially conservative types but we quietly ignore them.

phantom    [30131.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 21:42]

phantom    [30130.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 07:17]
  re: A Duty to Blame Games

I don`t get it. Call of Duty is called into question by a coroner for suicide? Now, forgive me, I`ve never played this game. But how could it possibly encourage suicide? It`s an interactive wargame. How could there possibly be a link? The coroner points to the 18 certificate. But again, I cannot see the link. At all.
To argue that kids playing a violent war game are killing themselves surely requires more of an explanation than the game`s age rating. Especially from a coroner.
One can`t help but feel that an individual`s personal prejudice is heavily colouring these findings.

phantom    [30129.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 07:03]
  Pooch [30128]
Wow. So a proper Braintree batter fest.

I`m sorry but there are logical gaps here.

"So, you espouse one view (the right to be able to say whatever you want), yet condemn me when I challenge you on that right (and then simultaneously say my choice of whether I`m offended or not is irrelevant to you, and I need to - for want of a better word - just suck it up. Again, staggering hypocrisy, from someone who wants to say whatever he likes, yet not have to deal with the consequences."

In what way is it hypocritical to disagree with someone who challenges one`s view? Even if one`s position is absolute freedom of expression?
It means one believes everyone ought to be free to express what they want. However, surely it does not mean one has to agree with it.

You are stating that Braintree does not agree with you and state that this is hypocritical as he believes in freedom of expression.
Braintree simply feels you have the right to say what you want. That doesn`t mean he needs to agree with you.

And as for freedom of expression; You drink very deeply from that well.

"You come across as a stereotypical neanderthal bloke; a jack-the-lad; a white-van-man; a Daily Mail/Sun reading nitwit, who has an opinion on everything, but the only opinion that counts is their own."

You are clearly no stranger to the use of invective. You use it quite freely towards people of whom you do not approve.
Ironically, Braintree agrees with your right to do so. Which represents a certain asymmetry in this exchange, no?
The irony is really only extended by the fact that you think yourself justified in any response, due to your offence.

You also seem rather hung up on Braintree`s voting UKIP.
But then if you revealed your voting habits I`m sure people could pile on you too. So it just comes across as a little blatant.

In essence you are accusing Braintree of being racist for not caring about the offensiveness of a certain word. Racism is essentially intolerance, no? the intolerance towards those who are different.
But Braintree`s position is really that everyone ought to be tolerant - even indifferent - toward whatever it is people say, even if they are expressing their intolerance.
So in a strange way, his very tolerance is what is being deemed intolerant.

Whatever you may think of UKIP or white-van-men, Pooch, ask yourself which one of you two is currently holding the more intolerant position.
Who is actually condemning the other for what he is, as opposed to for what he is saying?

Braintree is arguing for a libertarian principle. At no point has he ever stated that the use of the word `nigger` is right or commendable.
He has forcefully expressed his utter indifference toward your offence. Chiefly because he does not believe offence in itself is a valid argument.

Meanwhile of course, you still continue to sell the lie that your point of view has no downside.

Pooch    [30128.   Posted 2-Jun-2014 Mon 05:28]
  @Braintree [30122]: I`m glad you read the whole blog article, but if nothing I wrote changes anything, then that`s fine. Doesn`t make me right and it doesn`t make you right either.

To then say: "I was very pleased not to discuss this matter in recent weeks. I can`t say I`m pleased you`ve returned to go over it yet again.", proves you just don`t give a damn about anyone or anything, except yourself. It seems like you want the right to bring this issue up again, here on the Forum, but if I respond, then I`m in the wrong. Again, your hypocrisy continues to reach even giddier heights.

You then say: "For what it`s worth I also wonder how Arrow screw up so many titles although to be fair Studio Canal have screwed up a similar number I think." I`ve commented on Studio Canal screwing things up too. So, any alleged "vendetta" I may have, isn`t solely against Arrow, as others have tried to claim. It`s against any company that releases shoddy products, and then tries to deny a problem exists with said product. But that`s a separate issue, for another day.

Continuing on, you say: "Freedom of expression includes the freedom to offend people but as I`ve said before you are from the school of thought that dislikes censorship but only when it suits you." And you are from the school of thought, that wants the right to be offensive, and then refuse to deal with the consequences, because - to you - "nigger" is just a mere word, that means and says nothing to you. So, you espouse one view (the right to be able to say whatever you want), yet condemn me when I challenge you on that right (and then simultaneously say my choice of whether I`m offended or not is irrelevant to you, and I need to - for want of a better word - just suck it up. Again, staggering hypocrisy, from someone who wants to say whatever he likes, yet not have to deal with the consequences.

Lastly, you say: "We know the word NIGGER offends you . The bottom line is that nobody cares whether it does. So it offends you. You`re not dead are you. Offence is a term bandied around by PC police."

No, the only person who doesn`t care that it offends me, is you. To then say "You`re not dead are you" is both juvenile and incredibly patronising. No, I`m not dead yet, but I have been physically abused and assaulted by racist, bigotted fuckwits who think that they have the right to label me and disrespect my entire existance, and have used that word repeatedly against me as a weapon. Again, this comes down to your narrow view of word usage. It`s all one-way with you, and the fact that you are unwilling to even remotely consider the opposing view, demonstrates more about who you are as a person, than anything else.

This whole, bullshit line about "offence" being a term "bandied about by PC police" shows that you really don`t have a clue about the real world. And you well and truly don`t! The fact you openly admitted to voting for UKIP demonstrates to me just how narrow-minded you are. You have a strange mentality that is so one-sided, it defies credibility! For someone who seems to want to be seen as an open-minded, intelligent and sensible adult, you have an extremely blinkered view of things. You come across as a stereotypical neanderthal bloke; a jack-the-lad; a white-van-man; a Daily Mail/Sun reading nitwit, who has an opinion on everything, but the only opinion that counts is their own.

But hey, it wasn`t me that brought this issue up again. It was you, when you posted about my blog article in this Forum, a few days ago, and then proceeded to comment upon it. If you don`t want me to keep replying to you, then stop bringing-up the subject! That should be something simple that even you can understand!

phantom    [30127.   Posted 31-May-2014 Sat 13:36]
  re: Bra Busters of Britain Busted...

It really is worth mulling over everything that is being said here.

"The payments industry has now made clear that to put such a process into place there would need to be clarity that foreign websites which allow children to view hardcore porn are acting in breach of UK law."

So first you establish a licensing scheme. It kills all the UK sites. This goes through without much fuss. Except for a few websites closing down, the UK population is not going to notice any significant change online.

But then you have a basis from which to render all foreign (i.e. unlicensed) websites illegal. With the censorship technology having been steadily built up, you are now in a position to pounce.

First, `illegal content` will need to be blocked - if need be by making payment via the `payment industry` impossible. And the licenses of those paying license holders will need to be protected (as with adult DVD sales and sex shops). Thus you are then entitled to close down all non-licensed porn on the net from being accessible.

This, however, the UK population is going to notice.
But it will be too late. And with no political alternative (all parties being in agreement) the public will be damned.

And what chance them trying to expand on the principle of illegal possession of adult porn, established under the DPA?
Could possession of `unlicensed pornography` be the next crime to be created? I would not be surprised.


As for the notion of threatening to vote UKIP, Dave. I don`t think this would make a blind bit of difference. This is a conspiracy against the popular will by the entire political establishment. Nothing is going to deflect them from this. Threatening to vote instead for their pals they play golf with every weekend is at best going to raise a smile.

phantom    [30126.   Posted 30-May-2014 Fri 17:48]
  re: Bra Busters of Britain Busted...

"The payments industry has therefore proposed a licensing scheme..."

Now how many times have we heard the word `licensing` in the last week or so? Isn`t it odd, how everybody seems to be having the same idea simultaneously?

Anyone here who now thinks this is not going to happen please raise their hand...

So the payments industry, the government, the opposition and the official regulator? All simultaneously `investigating` the same idea?
(I know I always ask this. Where are the Libdems, who are supposed to be in government? Absent without leave again? lol)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30125.   Posted 30-May-2014 Fri 02:33]

Indeed the powers that be are quietly getting on with some typically far reaching censorship ideas.

No doubt with the enormously powerful `child protection` flavour of political correctness then there will be hardly a word said in opposition.

I am wondering if the Euro elections have raised the possibility of more effective petitioning. Instead of easily ignored signatures, how about petitioners pledging to vote UKIP.

phantom    [30124.   Posted 29-May-2014 Thu 06:08]
  re: Internet censors look forward to more jobs...

"The Board NOTED that DCMS had confirmed the intention to legislate in relation to UK services through secondary legislation."

What, pray, is secondary legislation? Well, it`s that the minister - yes, oily Mr Vazey - can make his own law without parliament.
I think we all know by now that oily Mr Vazey is not a friend of freedom of expression. Nobody that oily ever is.

"The decisions reached at a further meeting on 25 March were reported; the preferred mechanism for the payments industry would be a licensing regime for providers of websites, similar to that to be used for the gambling industry."

A licensing regime? Haven`t we heard of that idea recently via a Labour backbencher? And here it is, floated as the preferred option by the `experts`. It sounds inevitable.

Do sex shop licences spring to mind? No doubt one intends to force any UK based adult website to apply for licence (at a cost, no doubt) at which point one can decide what sites one will not accept. In short, it will be a BBFC style gateway.

The content allowed will not be able to compete with foreign sites. Let`s face it, nothing of a BBFC standard could possibly compete on the net. And the costs will render all sites, except for the handful of big corporate numbers, uncompetitive immediately.

I must hand it to them. Devious as they are, they seem to have found a way of shutting down all but a few UK adult sites.
So prepare for a new ice age. Jack Straw is getting his way.
Who`d have thought oily Mr Vazey would do Jack Straw`s bidding? The Etonian doing the work of the once hard left communist. You couldn`t make it up.
But that`s what you get with a pincer movement by the political left and the right. No doubt they`ll call this stitch up a `consensus`. :)

"The Board considered the confidential report, together with a recent letter to DCMS, and welcomed the considerable preparatory work undertaken by Ian McBride, Ruth Evans and Nigel Walmsley. The process for publication and anticipated coverage post-publication were discussed."

Why is a report on underage access on the net confidential? What `process` is required for publication? Careful editing, maybe? And why is one preparing the ground for post-publication?
Surely facts are facts. Just publish them. Why withhold them at first anyhow? For fear they are not favourable to your cause?
Is it just me, or does anyone smell fish?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30123.   Posted 28-May-2014 Wed 13:09]

Thanks for that. I will post a link to a piece I have found

braintree    [30122.   Posted 28-May-2014 Wed 13:05]
Yes I did read the whole blog and I do understand why you mentioned the 2 incidents.
Changes nothing though.
I was very pleased not to discuss this matter in recent weeks . I can`t say I`m pleased you`ve returned to go over it yet again.
I don`t know if you have a vendetta against Arrow as I`ve not seen any of your posts on HTF . I mentioned it because it seemed relevant ( assuming you were the same Pooch) that your posts seem to annoy more than a few people on more than one forum .
For what it`s worth I also wonder how Arrow screw up so many titles although to be fair Studio Canal have screwed up a similar number I think.
Freedom of expression is not a negotiable term . Either you believe in it or you don`t . FOE includes the freedom to offend people but as I`ve said before you are from the school of thought that dislikes censorship but only when it suits you.
We know the word NIGGER offends you . The bottom line is that nobody cares whether it does - if you believe in FOE then it should work both ways .
So it offends you . You`re not dead are you . Offence is a term bandied around by PC police .
As this BBC storm over the word GIRL shows . God forbid that someone should actually display a belief that men and women or girls and boys really are not the same . In this case use of the word girl was completely appropriate. Regardless of what the PC police will tell you , on average , males are physically stronger than women which is why their sporting events are usually separate . Sport is one area where the PC police haven`t got their way yet .

phantom    [30121.   Posted 27-May-2014 Tue 16:35]
  re: Mark of the Devil...

A film with Herbert Lom an 18 certificate in 2014? Wow.
He of Pink Panther and The Ladykillers? He playing the baddie in El Cid opposite Charlton Heston?
What does he do in the film? Shag a goat?

SuperK    [30120.   Posted 27-May-2014 Tue 15:14]
  Moralist Islington council - interesting extract from another forum.
As many of you may know, Islington is trying to close all of the sex cinemas and many other clubs too (including gay saunas, strip bars, and swingers clubs). The first hearing is against Oscar`s, but Mr Bs and Abcat are also on their target list.
A council hearing took place a little while ago, which bordered on homophobic and set us cinema goers out as social outcasts.
There is a hearing in the magistrate`s court on 2 June. Myself and another - very upstanding member of the community (no pun intended) - are going to attend. He has sworn an affidavit to the effect that sex cinemas perform an important social function and, in any case, do no harm. His statement also makes clear that the council is behaving in an inappropriate way and behaving homophobically. Councils, the argument goes, have no place enforcing moral codes.
I am going to go to the court with him and stand up and be counted (in a suit). We are asking if anyone else would be prepared to wear a suit and attend. You would not have to identify yourself or make any statement so would be totally anonymous. We are hoping that a few people dressed smartly will put the lie to Islington`s picture that we are all rough house losers.
In addition, we have mentioned that the reason Islington licensed such premises was because of a fire in a sex cinema that killed 11 people. That cinema was unlicensed, so council officials were unable to enforce fire and safety rules (you cannot enforce against something that officially doesn`t exist).
Sex cinemas will be driven underground if Paul Convery - the councillor most opposed - has his way. How long until people die? I`m not being alarmist - it has already happened.
If you would be prepared to don a suit and join us, I would love to hear from you. If you feel you cannot do this, then we completely understand.

phantom    [30119.   Posted 27-May-2014 Tue 06:41]
  “On the third issue. If intent is what makes a word offensive, then as I have mentioned, the word "nigger" would not need to exist, nor continue to remain in use, as its sole raison d`etre is to belittle, debase and denigrate one part of the world`s population. That is it`s only purpose. It`s a descriptor, but a frivolous one, because it serves no purpose other than to offend and demean. Most swear-words have more purposes and meaning than that. In fact, most words have more purpose than that. I can think of no other word in the English Language, that comes anywhere near that of the "values" of the word "nigger". (By "values", I mean the creation and need/desire to retain that word.) As its only purpose is to offend, is there ever a defence to retain the word in our language, and to keep it in usage? Other than as a historical and archaic relic, I can think of no genuine purpose to do so. “

Again, here is what I posted.

“Oddly, I can think of many words which apparently others can`t...
Is there an application of the word `idiot` other than to insult, ridicule or denigrate?
Surely in that regard any insult is just that, an insult.
There is no one word which can only be negative, whereas all others have a lighter side to them.
Surely, it is that certain areas have been deemed taboo, usually around the areas of sex, religion and race.
It appears to me, one is just determined to argue that `nigger` is THE word, no matter what. `Wog` of course isn`t half as bad.... “

I stand by that. There are no kindly meanings or `values` to the word `idiot`. It is what it is.
Just as a sword can not be a weapon of hunting, but only ever is intended as a man-killer, so the insult is just that. An insult. Is there a polite use of the word `cunt`? Or is it solely intended to insult?
Moreover, the word `wog` would be seen by many to be as venomous as the word `nigger`. But not by you. Why is that?

In one wonderful twist you imply that your interpretation of nigger must stand or else no other word in the English language has meaning and that language itself would break down.
You don`t think that might be a step too far?
Sure, `nigger` has a meaning. All words have meanings. But they are words, not bricks.

I am perfectly familiar with the power of words. Being fluent in German I know first hand of the dark power of Hitler`s speeches. (Yet, never would I argue for Hitler`s speeches to be banned. Would you?)

But if words are to be what they are, both parties need to bear a burden of responsibility. Both the speaker and the audience (and be that an intended or unintended audience).

Today on melonfarmers we have a story of the BBC cutting the word `girl` from a broadcast article, lest it offend someone. Can you really not see the connection?

As I have said, we started at the point rendering the word `nigger` taboo somewhen back in the 50s or 60s. By now we`re cutting the word `girl` from broadcasts. Is this really utterly unconnected?
Everything was done with the best of intentions. And I think `nigger` is still a ghastly word. But is this a price worth paying?
The trajectory here is clear. Ever more bans, ever more avoidance of perceived offence. Ever more prohibition and punishment for those falling foul of it.
Want it or not, it is a freedom of expression question.
A world in which the word `girl` is rendered suspect is not a healthy one. Thus, where did this trend begin? If not where I stipulate, then where else? Did political correctness really just hatch itself out of thin air?

And reverting to the child porn argument is a fairly cheap shot. Banning child porn is acceptable, thus censorship is acceptable.
Is banning child porn acceptable though because it is `good censorship`?
Or is banning child porn acceptable because its creation harms children by forcing them into sexual exploitation and rape? So child porn is not banned due to the expression it represents, but because of what is involved in its creation. Surely?
To state thus, that – because we ban this expression – we can on principle ban other expression, is flawed. Because it is not the expression of child porn per se society is seeking to cull, but what is involved in the creation.
(True the politicians have lost track of that, but they are by definition morons.)
(And no, my reference to `creation` is a crime that is created continually in the making of new material, not the creation of a word 400 years ago in relation to plantation slavery. It is not a parallel.)

To be honest, I think you know the above, but you just couldn`t resist the child porn analogy.

In the end we need to ask ourselves what world we wish to live in.
You invariably wish to live in a world in which the word `nigger` is outlawed.
I wish to live in a world in which nobody would even think twice about whether to use the word `girl`, or not.

Here`s the thing. I readily admit that for political correctness to die and folks to speak freely again, ghastly insults will need to be permissible. I do not like it myself. But I see no other alternative. Establishing an exception for a select group of words is what has got us here. Now `girl` is part of the exception. Tomorrow what? `Paper clip`?

The culture of offence is ballooning out of control. It appears to me the problem is not with the words.
After all, `girl` is not offensive. The problem lies with the audience and its feeling of entitlement; an entitlement not to be offended. This is combined with ceaseless, obsessive examination of everything uttered toward them for any possible intended or unintended offence.
And yes, I would argue that some of that tendency already began with the American civil rights movement of the 50s.

But yes, I admit my view has a downside. It requires people to tolerate what they have come to find intolerable. I do not say this is easy.

However, your position is that your view has no downside. There is no problem. Freedom of speech isn`t being curtailed and people like me are making a mountain out of a molehill. Not saying `nigger` is simply a matter of civilisation and freedom of speech and expression gets curbed anyhow.

It is that which really sticks in my craw. I have all along been perfectly willing to accept that what I propose has a downside. Meanwhile your position has always been that my downside is the end of civilisation as we know it and that your world view has now downside at all. It is the view of the politician, whereby one can have one`s cake and eat it.

The truth is, I prefer a world in which people can draw cartoons. A world in which those who burn down embassies are deemed those in the wrong.
But I am willing to accept that this would mean that I would be asking people to show tolerance toward something they feel they cannot bear.

It is a choice.

Pooch    [30118.   Posted 27-May-2014 Tue 04:11]
  @Braintree [30111]

The reason MY blog (and please note that word "my" there) didn`t post any of the stuff I posted on here, was because - and you`d have known this if you`d bothered to read my blog article in full - I wasn`t giving any of the MelonFarmers Forum members a right-to-reply, and thus it would have been unfair to all of your folks in this Forum, to just repost stuff out of context.

Secondly, and more importantly, when I posted on here, I didn`t want the Jeremy Clarkson incident to cloud the debate I was wanting to have with you, Braintree - namely, that you wanted the right to freely use the offending word, whilst simultaneously telling me I shouldn`t be offended by that word because, in your eyes, it was only a word.

Again, if you`d read my blog article in full, and I don`t believe you have done so, you would realise that in my view, it`s not just a word. It`s a word with cultural and historical baggage accompanying it.

The reason for me including the Clarkson incident, and that of David Howe, the Radio Devon DJ too, was to put my argument into a longer, bigger and more detailed context about the use of the offending word. I would have hoped you would have understood that. Obviously, I was wrong! (More fool me!)

All of you can see how wordy my posts are. Considering the response I got - justified or not - I wasn`t going to waste time, posting all of the material I included in my blog article, and post it on here, for the sole reason that - as you have just demonstrated - you are still under the misapprehension that "nigger" is just a word; that it`s tough luck if I find it offensive, because you feel it shouldn`t be banned, and lastly, that you are still (deliberately?) misinterpreting what "freedom of expression" actually means!

Lastly, you say: "Pooch was advocating that the word should not be spoken or even appear in print and he was unable to think of a similar word to insult white people. I`m white but I can think of plenty."

Okay, then, please list them. I`d love you to find any word that denigrates White people, in the same way "nigger" does to Black people, and that is used deliberately and solely to denigrate a White person, based purely and only on their skin colour!

For what it`s worth, my "reputation" on HTF, is irrelevant, as is your assertion that I have a "vendetta" against Arrow. As much as this may shock you, I don`t. I just don`t like companies - any company - fobbing me off with lies, excuses and bullshit, about why they`ve screwed something up, and then have failed to correct in a timely and efficient manner. I`d be just as angry if the company were Criterion, Eureka/Masters Of Cinema, 20th Century Fox, Marks & Spencers, WH Smiths, HMV, or any other such organisation! It`s not the customer`s fault that Arrow have released so many botched films!

braintree    [30117.   Posted 26-May-2014 Mon 13:13]
  Thanks for the tip . I`ll keep an eye on Amazons price too.
Todays story states the makers hope the 97 minute extended cut will be included on the dvd yet at the same time attendees to the screening of the extended cut can buy the 3 disc dvd set at the event . If the 3 disc version is available surely they know whether it contains the extended version or not? The Shadow of the Cat details list the ratio as 16:9 4:3 . They can`t both be right . I`ve been informed by people who have the disc that its 4:3 - not letterboxed and not widescreen so the 16:9 mention seems to be wrong .

DoodleBug    [30116.   Posted 25-May-2014 Sun 15:01]
  [30115] @braintree currently have Video Nasties 2 on preorder for £16.99, more than likely Amazon will drop their price nearer the release date though

braintree    [30115.   Posted 25-May-2014 Sun 14:01]
  Pleased to see Video Nasties 2 is on its way to dvd but I`m not very pleased that it seems to be priced at £10 more than the original release even though its still only 3 discs . I`m hoping this is part of Amazons usual annoying habit of putting OTT prices on newly listed titles then slowly bringing them down as release approaches.

phantom    [30114.   Posted 25-May-2014 Sun 08:45]
  re: Compliant Usage of Non Threatening Speech...

So these are the ways in which Australian courts like to determine what is `offensive`?

"What might pass as inoffensive language if exchanged between footballers in an all male environment in a dressing room after a match might well offend if repeated in mixed company in a church fete."

"Conduct and language engaged in at a football match or on a tennis or squash court may be acceptable, or, at least, unremarkable, but offensive if engaged in during a church service or a formal social event."

Interesting, no? Because the above would not constitute the definition of the term `offensive` in my mind. Rather it would define the term `inappropriate`.

We all know that he who behaves at a wedding or a funeral in the same way he behaves down the boozer or at a football match is behaving inappropriately. He will not be invited again. Simply because he is a boorish oaf who doesn`t understand the most basic social rules.

But these are societal rules. How to behave where.
They are the rules which govern what should be.
Law however is what governs what must be.

The classic example for this is adultery. Societal rules may forbid such behaviour. But the law does not. In short: according to society, people should not commit adultery. But there is no law to say that they must not.
Even in Australia.

Oddly however, in Australia they must not swear in public. One wonders whether this also applies to spouses who have found their partners committing adultery...

One day, maybe, the politicians of the world will grasp the difference between cultural, social mores and law. Maybe history will call it the `Second Enlightenment`! lol
Until then I guess we`ll be on this ludicrous merry-go-round of things one ought not say at a church fete.

Therumbler    [30113.   Posted 24-May-2014 Sat 16:39]

The Mail goes with its usual angle.

phantom    [30112.   Posted 24-May-2014 Sat 16:15]
  braintree [30111]
Cheers, Braintree. I`d missed that link.
Oddly, I can think of many words which apparently others can`t...
Is there an application of the word `idiot` other than to insult, ridicule or denigrate?
Surely in that regard any insult is just that, an insult.
There is no one word which can only be negative, whereas all others have a lighter side to them.
Surely, it is that certain areas have been deemed taboo, usually around the areas of sex, religion and race.
It appears to me, one is just determined to argue that `nigger` is THE word, no matter what. `Wog` of course isn`t half as bad....

braintree    [30111.   Posted 24-May-2014 Sat 15:13]
  I note the link to the Blog of Pooch on the news pages . But his blog just repeats most of what he said on here previously although his blog removes the insults he posted here . His argument still doesn`t stand up . While one can understand why a black person may dislike the use of the word nigger I don`t see that as justification for punishment as requested by many on Clarkson . Strangely , when Pooch was on here he specified his argument had nothing to do with the Clsrkson incident yet his blog mentions little else. Pooch was advocating that the word should not be spoken or even appear in print and he was unable to think of a similar word to insult white people. I`m white but I can think of plenty. Just because Pooch and other people dislike the word is not a reason to ban it from our language. Politeness means the word would rarely be spoken to a black person unless you had the deliberate intention of insulting them in which case it works.
Freedom of expression should mean the freedom to insult or offend people if you want to . As I always say - nobody dies by being offended.
On a separate note I see Pooch is famous on the Home Theater Forum too ( assuming this is the same Pooch) where he has a reputation for being someone who has a vendetta against Arrow Video.

phantom    [30110.   Posted 23-May-2014 Fri 19:04]
  I must admit I just don`t get it.

So Vivienne Pattison argues `This kind of graphic violence dehumanises us. Studies have shown watching it can stunt your emotional growth.`

But just how exactly is this supposed to occur?

When does an idea, or a concept become corrupting?
One may describe in words a policewoman being attacked. But you can`t depict her being attacked. Or can you? Can you do it in a still?
Where between the verbal description and the moving image depiction is the line crossed which renders something a `moral ill`?

Let us consider this picture youtube clip

It`s a discussion of high renaissance Christian art.

So surely this must be corrupting, right? I mean, it`s even a film, not just an image. After all, `graphic violence dehumanises us`.
The poor saint is riddled with arrows in a sadistic murder. An arrow right through the head? Surely?
But I dare suspect this is not something Vivianne Pattison would like to see banned.

What is the principle upon which the thought is based that watching something violent `can stunt your emotional growth`? For how long can you view this picture before it begins to harm you? Ought there be a health warning?

And saying that Mantegna`s St Sebastian is art, simply will not suffice. After all, drama is art too. Whether it`s bloody murders in a Shakespeare play or a policewoman being attacked on telly, we`re dealing with artistic expression.

I know the above is another futile foray of mine. The naysayers never base their proscriptive desires on any sort of principle.

But it`s worth keeping Saint Sebastian in mind, whenever confronted by the likes of Vivianne Pattison.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30109.   Posted 23-May-2014 Fri 16:14]

I once did keep a list of shameful politicians, but maybe was too pedantic and included too many little known names. I will have a ponder about a return but perhaps limited to more high profile censors.

phantom    [30108.   Posted 22-May-2014 Thu 18:41]
  re: Authoritarian bullshit
From Alan

"How does this idiot hope to enforce this nasty piece of authoritarian bullshit? I bet the pornmakers of California are wetting themselves with fear that they are committing a criminal offence in England. The only potential victims are British people who run a porn site but have the good sense to host it in a sane and rational country."

Actually, people living in England and Wales but hosting in `sane and rational countries` have been subject to English law for years. Anything available on the net is `published` in England. So if you live in England and `publish` in England (albeit that you`re hosting your site on a foreign server), then you`re subject to English law anyhow.
They`ve been punishing at will for years on this. They don`t need Goodman`s nonsense for that.

I think far rather the point of this proposal is to create a Chinese style firewall. Anything that isn`t either exempt or licenced can`t get through.

But seeing the names on House of Commons amendment I think it`s noteworthy that not only Helen Goodman`s name is on it.
So too there are Dan Jarvis, Diana Johnson, Mr Andy Slaughter as sponsors of this amendment.

In fact, here`s an idea Melonfarmers might wish to follow up on:
A list of censorial pariahs.
Anyone who proposes or sponsors such nonsense; stick `em on the list - together with the reason for their entry on the list.
It would soon become a handy reference tool for authoritarian, censorious enemies of freedom and democracy.
Just an idea.

My first suggestion for any such list would be Andy Burnham. As culture secretary he wanted the entire internet vetted, if I remember correctly...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30107.   Posted 20-May-2014 Tue 01:01]
  Braintree, many thanks for the Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell update. I will update the info accordingly. And yes, surely a good place to post stuff about cuts.

phantom    [30106.   Posted 19-May-2014 Mon 13:35]
  Coming to think of it, there are shadows of the feminist ranting about the term `mankind` in Perry`s protest about the word `rape`.
There too feminists declare a greater cause, claiming `mankind` and the derived use of the word `man` to be sexist.
But anyone who knows the related etymology, knows there is nothing at all discriminatory about the terms. It is simply that the likes of Dworkin, and Co wanted to see it as such.

phantom    [30105.   Posted 19-May-2014 Mon 13:29]
  re: The AstraZeneca rape furore is absurd...

Fantastic. I just had a really good laugh over this.

Another pseudo-feminist getting her knickers in a twist over the belittlement of rape. The word rape is now only to be used `seriously`, is it? :)
Ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Anyone ever heard of the Rape of the Sabine Women?
There`s even a mannerist statue by Bologna, I believe.
The term `to rape` in that case means `to rob/steal/take`.
In fact - and in the context of the `outrage`, it is wonderfully ironic, - that is where the adjective `rapacious` comes from. And if you look that up in the dictionary I think you will find it has nothing to do with sexual violation and everything with the very way in which Austin Mitchell actually used the term rape.

In short: Claire Perry is a moron. When complaining about the misuse of language it would help if one actually had a grasp of it.

The key word here is etymology:

Oh, and for you art lovers, I was right, it was Bologna.

braintree    [30104.   Posted 19-May-2014 Mon 13:29]
  I don`t really know if this forum is the place to discuss the stories on the main site - but anyway.
The cut R rated version of Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell wasn`t used for all UK video releases until now . In the 90`s Warner released a VHS version which included some but not all of the bits missing from the R version . The original DD Video dvd was supposed to be the same as the German dvd which was uncut bar about half a second . The booklet accompanying the dvd even discussed the cuts - but due to an error the first pressing was the same old cut version . DD then repressed the film and restored some - but not all - of the cuts . I think it was the same as the German dvd bar a bit of blood at the end . So in fact , I don`t think the R version has ever been released intentionally in the UK . The scene of Cushing with the artery between his teeth was included on the VHS version . So Warners tape of FATMFH was actually quite a good one unlike their tape of Taste the Blood of Dracula which was reissued several times in the cut US version with more than 4 minutes of nudity and other bits missing even years after the uncut version had been shown by the BBC.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30103.   Posted 18-May-2014 Sun 23:07]
  Re the -ist words

Fascinating comments. Isn`t it bizarre that the PC derogatory insults of `racist` and `sexist` etc are just as sweeping and broad brush as the original political correctness they are used against.

I always remember a black friend telling me that she hates Germans because they are prejudiced against blacks.

phantom    [30102.   Posted 18-May-2014 Sun 16:15]
  cor {30101}

But that`s precisely what i`m getting at, Cor.
People ought to be employable, as long as they do not act on their beliefs and prejudices. But they should still be free to hold them.

However, the Scudamore scandal merely centres on his holding allegedly sexist views. Nobody is saying he in any way discriminated against women in his position at the Football Association.

Thus the position seems to be that one cannot hold sexist views privately and be in a senior position at the FA.

This is what I mean with, you must believe, or else.

There is a creep towards it no longer being sufficient to compartmentalise, as you put it. People are now coming under pressure to subscribe to the prevailing dogma. Liberty be damned.

Incidentally, the BBC`s reporting on this was staggering. BBC Five Live went over it again and again, yet only referred to `sexists comments`, clearly refusing ever to state what the comments actually were.

This makes another interesting development, related to the overall issue of political correctness. For people are publicly condemned for breaking the rules of offence, but their breach is never explicitly quoted (for fear of `further offence`).

Thus individuals can be attacked publicly, but the public is never given the opportunity to reach a conclusion of its own, thanks to the censorship of `further offence`.

cor    [30101.   Posted 18-May-2014 Sun 15:34]
Sexism - Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person`s sex or gender.
So not just acknowledging differences, but allowing or insisting on differing levels of civil rights based on gender... Although i agree it has too much duality and prefer to use the word chauvinism as it requires more explanation of the prejudice.

It is like firing someone for being Muslim, before checking if they are actually Jihadists. -Someone can be sexist or even religious in their private lives and still reasonable employees. Without bringing their baggage to work, its called compartmentalization.

braintree    [30100.   Posted 18-May-2014 Sun 14:38]
  A sexist is someone who acknowledges that men and women are different .As they actually are sexism is an ism that should be deleted from the language. It really is time for someone to have the guts to tell people looking for offence to shut the hell up and move on .
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks all these scandals like Clarkson and now this are being manufactured by interested parties simply to discredit the BBC or any given political party and the public really aren`t that stupid to take notice of such nonsense. Unfortunately - it does seem likely that a lot of the public are stupid sheep.
I`m still laughing about the lawyers contacting Obama about Top Gear. Do these morons really have no PR people to point them in the right direction away from looking like arseholes?

phantom    [30099.   Posted 18-May-2014 Sun 07:34]
  Interesting that the saga surrounding Richard Scudamore has thus far not made an appearance on this board.

Again a tale of `think the right thing` or else.

His private emails are used against him to prove to the world that he is a `sexist`. Thereafter his resignation is demanded by just about anyone who can get to a microphone in time.

Now, what if he is in fact a sexist? So what? There has been no sign that it has affected him in the execution of his job. So what does it matter?
But it does, we are assured. He is a figure in public life, we are assured. (Is he, really?)

What is worrying, I find, is that the concept of political correctness here is being stretched not merely to what people say, but to what they think.
In short: Richard Scudamore has said all the right things in public, he`s even significantly upped the funding for women`s football (despite nobody watching it), - but, - they insist, he doesn`t actually believe in gender equality (being `a sexist`), so he must go.

Political correctness is thus taking a next step. No longer is it sufficient to say what you ought to say. Now you must believe it. Or else.

Am I the only one struck by how this sounds a little like an inquisition?

Political Correctness was supposed to be protecting people. Later, rather odiously, it was to assure that everyone sung from the same hymn sheet, or otherwise kept shtum (especially those in public life) and that thus nobody said anything `nasty`.

But now it seems to be being extended into what people privately believe.
The fact that you`re not offending anyone by speaking in public is no longer sufficient. You now must subscribe to every single PC notion and truly believe it, or else render yourself unemployable.

Whereas once you could be a racist, a sexist, or any other `-ist`, as long as you kept it to yourself, that was fine.
Now, keeping it to yourself seems no longer enough. If we ever get a whiff of you thinking the wrong thing, then you`re to be expunged from society. Exterminated, as the Daleks would put it.

Political correctness has thereby become a political dogma. One which we now must all subscribe to in all its tenets. Or else.

Just as once people in Eastern Europe were schooled in the glories of socialism and any private expression of doubt could ruin your life, so now are we seeing PC take hold in a similar vain.

We simply must believe. Or else.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30098.   Posted 17-May-2014 Sat 10:08]
  Thanks Phantom, I will add a note

A 12 rated film should be ok post watershed. I bet the TV companies would have issues with even the cut PG versions playing during daytime.

phantom    [30097.   Posted 17-May-2014 Sat 08:43]
  Hey Dave,
Took a bit of searching, but found it. Seems it was on Tue, 13th May, 21:00.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30096.   Posted 17-May-2014 Sat 00:03]
  Phantom, re Robin Hood

What time was the film shown?

phantom    [30095.   Posted 16-May-2014 Fri 13:37]
  Interesting point concerning cuts regarding Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
Was on tv only a few days ago. I don`t think any of those cuts were there.
Maybe the stabbing of Guisborne was cut. I say that simply as I don`t recall seeing it. But from what I recall just about everything else was there...

phantom    [30094.   Posted 14-May-2014 Wed 05:56]
  Why Michael, don`t you know?
We rule the world. The British empire never ceased to be. In fact it expanded until there was not a square inch left on the planet, subject to our rule. This glorious final conquest of the world took place under the inspired leadership of the arch-catholic Tony WMD Blair.

After all, everything which is on the net is now subject to English law. Everything.

Helen Goodman, who once more proves the rule that only complete stunners become feminists, is in a way only extending the already established logic.
After all, if everything published on the internet is published under English law, then why not regulate it?
The people of Outer Mongolia may not know that they are subject to the whims of British Parliament, but ignorance is no defence. (Unless you are an MP and have accidentally on purpose screwed up your expenses. that`s different.)

It has been my opinion right from the start that the lunacy of English law ruling the entire net has only ever been maintained in order one day to try and put the cork back in the bottle of international porn getting into Britain.

One has held on, and is still holding on, in the desperate hope that - one day - technology will be available to tighten the screws down again, just as they were in the `good old` eighties and nineties. (when anything that showed pubes was `hardcore`)

To everyone else they may be horrible, but to these people the revelations of Edward Snowden hold great promise. For they show that with enough computing power, mass surveillance is possible on the net to a hitherto unimaginable extent. all that is needed is sufficient political will.
With every year the computing capacity grows.

The likes of Helen Goodman are seeing the tipping point approaching - and they`re getting very excited about it.

The great threat stems from the fact that there is no respect by the new class of career politicians for principles surrounding freedom.

Defining themselves as `liberals`, they take it for granted that any measure they take is by default not a threat to western liberal values;
the problem being that their `liberalism` stems from that part of the civil rights movement which gave us political correctness and the desire to banish every form of `offence`.
(e.g. It is this side of `liberalism` which did away with the term `black` in official American usage, instead creating the ludicrous term `African American`. All because `black` supposedly has negative connotations.)

Thus what we are seeing - to some extent - is the collision of two strands of liberal politics.
Ironically it is the lesser branch which is being championed by the political class, at the expense of the much more important - and historically paramount - branch of personal freedom and societal laisser-faire.

So it is in fact self-proclaimed `liberals` like Helen Goodman who lead the charge against what we would understand to be liberal values.
Oh, the irony...

Isaiah Berlin`s concepts of positive and negative liberty do stand in opposition to each other. Ask any self-proclaimed `liberal thinker` in Parliament and they`ll swear allegiance to positive liberty and proclaim that negative liberty is a destructive force which must be curbed.
(What wonder that Berlin did not agree to meet Tony Blair, no matter how many requests were made for this by Downing Street.)

My long term outlook remains as it ever has been. The ridiculous desire to censor and control expression will eventually - inevitably - fail.
Not least as it seems diametrically opposed to the human condition itself.

But I do fear that we are heading into a new dark period where authoritarians, who have somehow convinced themselves that they are in fact liberals, using new advances in computing power, are going to start turning the screws on this country.
Their intentions are plain to see and any organised opposition to their plans barely exists.

MichaelG    [30093.   Posted 13-May-2014 Tue 12:50]
  Re: Update: Britannia Rules the Internet Waves...

`Goodman`s amendment proposes that foreign porn submit themselves to a UK licensing scheme complete with criminal sanctions if they don`t`

So, let`s see if I`ve got this right... foreign porn providers, who AREN`T bound by British law, have to apply for a license to provide their service. Such licence will require a fee to be paid to the British licensing authority. And, given the dismal record our authorities have on granting licences for other forms of adult entertainment, you can bet that they won`t be exactly handing them out left, right and centre - even if there is a fee involved.

How the fuck is this ever going to work? `Criminal Sanctions`? What kind of criminal sanctions can be enacted against someone who isn`t resident in this country or governed by its (increasingly stupid) rules and laws?

phantom    [30092.   Posted 12-May-2014 Mon 08:10]
  In a way, that`s a perfect illustration of the offence problem.
Namely that we end up with someone making a choice for us.
So someone on Edinburgh Council decided - on behalf of the public - that Alcoholocaust was wrong, but Trophy Nigga was ok.

The opportunity for people to make up their own minds is thus denied. For it is they who ought to decide what they feel offends them and to what they remain indifferent.

A similar situation is when on the news some article comes up in which something offensive may have been said at a football ground or on social media. We are always assured that it was offensive, but we are not told what was said. It is always `not repeatable`.

In every such case it is someone else who is doing the thinking on our behalf. Rather than confronting us with the true facts and allowing us to make up our minds what we think about the issue.

The public is thus not made think, but is instead spoon fed what to think.

In truth however, if we want to educate the population on matters of offence and racism, it is only ever going to happen, if they are allowed to think for themselves.

Furthermore, I must admit there are few things more irritating to me than news reports on offence given, which can`t be disclosed as it might cause offence.
In my view, if you can`t tell the story, you don`t have a story...

goatboy    [30091.   Posted 11-May-2014 Sun 22:08]
  The ironic thing about the n word debate for me living in Edinburgh is every August hundreds of posters go up everywhere for Reginald D Hunter`s stand up show, usually with the word `nigga` featured heavily.

In 2010 Edinburgh city council refused to allow posters for `Jim Jefferies- Alcoholocaust` to go up in case the made up word `Alcoholocaust` offended people, and the exact same year they were fine with `Reginald D Hunter - Trophy Nigga` posters going up all over the place. I guess context is everything!

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30090.   Posted 10-May-2014 Sat 09:52]
  Spiked is also contributing to the debate about the absolutism of PC censorship

But this pales in comparison to some of the excellent points put by Phantom and the contributors to the debate here.

Clarkson: the c@word that counts is `context`

phantom    [30089.   Posted 10-May-2014 Sat 04:52]
  braintree [30088]
"Assuming the police intelligence is correct , the number of cases of Muslims plotting to attack the UK is increasing and I think it will continue."

Why would assume the numbers provided by the security services are correct?
They have a direct interest in reporting that there are lots and lots of dangerous Muslims out there, ready to blow us all to smithereens. After all, they don`t want their budgets cut and their staff numbers cut back down to pre-9/11 standards now, do they? Thus we will remain in a constant state of limbo in which we are at the cusp of `a major, devastating attack`. There will always be untold thousands plotting.
However, they will never reveal just where they have their information from. After all, national security. All very hush hush.
Turkeys never vote for Christmas, Braintree.

Ever since the `war on terror` began considerably more people have died in this country from traffic accidents than from Muslim terrorism.
Just as I don`t believe that the Ford Motorcar Co. is about to try and take over the country, so do I not see some bearded man with an unexploding shoe bomb succeeding anytime soon. :)

braintree    [30088.   Posted 10-May-2014 Sat 04:08]
  While it`s nice to think that Western culture is something others aspire for we do tend to take a softly softly approach while the Islamic supporters have the back up of people intent on blowing the UK and even themselves up. They may be smaller in number but they certainly make a bigger noise . Assuming the police intelligence is correct , the number of cases of Muslims plotting to attack the UK is increasing and I think it will continue . Those campaigning for the Western way of life usually use leaflets through letterboxes rather than bombs .

phantom    [30087.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 18:27]
  braintree [30086]
"I agree that Islam is the biggest threat to the UK these days ."

Actually Braintree, I don`t think Islam poses any threat to Britain at all.
I tend to apply the Kylie Minogue test. (Albeit that I might have to update it to Miley Cyrus to keep it contemporary. But let`s stick with Kylie for now.)

So one side can offer a Burkha and the offer can offer Kylie Mynogue`s golden hotpants. Which one will win?
If we`re dead honest, which will all guys prefer? Exactly.
And the girls? For all the nonsense being talked about sexualisation, etc none but a very few miliant Muslim women want the Burkha. None.

Now sure, it`s a simplistic argument. But it nonetheless holds true.
Cultures predominate because they have something to offer.
If you think we`re easy prey for Islamists, you underestimate the power of western culture.

The truth is in the global rivalry of cultures we are winning. We are not merely winning, we are trouncing all others.
In China they now all want Prada handbags. and in India everyone wants a Bentley. If you think those are just products and that`s just consumerism, you really misread what is happening.

How many people will be listening to Lady Gaga in China? What cultural output of theirs are we getting in return? None. Chinese opera anyone? I don`t think so. And some kung fu movie once every blue moon doesn`t amount to much.

And with the Muslim world it`s very much the same thing. Western secular culture is overrunning them. Much of the fundamentalisation may in fact be a reaction to that very thing. They feel themselves attacked by us and realise that they ultimately will be on the losing side of history.

In that regard Bin Laden was perhaps more of a Sitting Bull character, fighting his war for the sake of it, whilst knowing full well that his cause is long lost anyhow.

I remember how I laughed when, a few year`s ago, I saw the photo of an Al-Qaeda fighter in Iraq with his shoulder mounted rocket propelled grenade launcher - wearing an Arsenal football shirt. The poor soul was oblivious to the fact that he himself was living proof that he already had lost.

Also I recall that someone said to be an Al Qaeda lynchpin supposedly told his interviewers that it was when watching `Godzilla` that they came up with some ideas about what targets they`d like to attack in New York.
Watching `Godzilla`. So not sitting on a Persian rug with prayer beads in one hand and a water pipe in the other.
So when even Islamist fundamentalist terrorists are watching Hollywood popcorn movies I think it`s fairly clear that in the culture wars there isn`t even a contest going on anymore.

Think of that famous skit in Monty Python`s `Life of Brian`; the scene where the freedom fighters hit on that tricky subject `What have the Romans ever done for us?`. They desire to say, nothing at all. But want it or not, the list just keeps getting longer.
It`s a perfect illustration of `soft power`. Rome had it. The British empire had it. And yes, the West has it today. In spades.

We have The Premier League, Hally Berry, Viagra, Coco Puffs, Brad Pitt, the Bugatti Veyron, the CERN supercollider, 50 Shades of Grey, Internet Porn, CNN, the BBC, Coca Cola, and, and, and...
And they have? Exactly.

So any notion that Islam poses any threat to the West or Britain in particular really is pie in the sky. Britain absorbs. It`s what she does.

Vociferous some of the eternally offended may be, not least on the Islamist side, and yes, we have had governments catering to the offence industry.
But we are kidding ourselves if we think that this nation faces any threat from Islam.
Moreover we need to understand that the influences on such minorities wash both ways. Globalisation means that they are still subject to influence from their ancestral homelands as well as those from the country they live in. Much of the conflict we perceive lies therein.

But the danger, fair and square, lies not with some demented men with hooks for hands brandishing the Koran as though it were the only book ever written.
The danger to our nation is mainly white, shiny, slick and has been to every PR seminar available. It`s the political parties with their crude `positioning` policies seeking to placate whatever voting group they deem important to win Surbiton this week.

The likes of Milliband, Cameron, Harman and Co scare me a great deal more than any Abu Qatadas or Abu Hamzas.

If the media shows you such wild eyed men, foaming at the mouth, you shouldn`t be demanding that something be done about those fellows. Far more, you ought to be asking yourself from what you`re being distracted by being shown these clowns.

braintree    [30086.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 16:31]
  I agree that Islam is the biggest threat to the UK these days . Unfortunately nobody dare say anything because they get branded racist but in this case they are but they have good reason.
It`s strange looking back at films from the 60`s , both British and American and looking at todays changes . It`s a shame people didn`t think of the drip drip effect back then. Multi culturalism is portrayed as one of the good things about the UK and US but I think we know it`s not . The problem is - what can we do about it ? Getting out of the EU is a good first step toward restricting immigration but even after that the UK will continue to be a soft touch for those already here and no Government or politician is going to start deporting people based on their religion .

Thanks to the worst period in British history - that of New Labour , who brought in one new law every day they were in office including countless laws that restricted freedom . I believe that thanks to them if you have an argument in the street the police will move you on but if you use one of the dreaded words they`ll arrest you . The coalition came in to office on the promise to revoke a good many of the restrictive rules introduced by Tony and his cronies but the lying scum have reneged on most of their promises

freeworld    [30085.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 16:15]
  phantom {30084. Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 14:39}
As I said earlier - if this word is so appalling to black people, why is it trumpeted constantly by rappers etc? It is now circulated by them far more than by white people, who by and large either thoroughly disapprove of it, so would never dream of uttering it; or even if they felt they should be free to do so, simply wouldn`t dare to use it. I have no clear idea if it is actually "illegal" to say, I suspect not, but in some contexts could presumably get a person into legal trouble.

I wish I shared your belief that somehow censoring or getting violent over offence is "yesterday`s game". Even the current political class we have are far more restrictionist, intolerant, and judgmental than the one I grew up with in the 60s and 70s. During those years all the old shibboleths were crashing down, censorship was on the run. Mary Whitehouse was widely regarded as a joke, a hangover from the Victorian age. Totalitarianism was discredited. Only on the hard left and right, among the "lunatic fringe", did the politics of restrictions and bans still predominate. Now most political discourse seems to hinge around what can be banned next, what new laws can be implemented, what freedoms taken away from us. We are the most spied upon "free" country in the world. A tap on the breast constitutes "sexual assault". A man goes on trial for "looking at bottoms". A guy reads from a book by Churchill in public and is arrested.

Well, we in the "west", our "state", gave up killing people over religion centuries ago. At one time it happened here, when we had a semi theocracy, with a "religion" which had a very temporal agenda - another of those dogmatic, crammed with rules, "thou shalt" religions with its origins in the ancient middle east. The Enlightenment/secularization gradually freed us from this stuff - though thanks to Mr Straw and co you can still go to prison over religion, we have a new and more wide ranging version of the blasphemy act (back to the future with New Labour; no repeal from alleged anti big state Tories).

But all this will seem mild compared to what`s coming down the pike.
One of the major objections some of us had about bringing another highly secular middle eastern religion into the west again, via huge levels of immigration, was precisely because it would invariably see the rise/return of something which had all but died out here - a powerful totalitarian tending secular religion, one actually with far more severe and pervasive "conservative" elements to it than the Brit version of "Christianity"( which had been challenged, declined and withered over the centuries). But we were called silly bigots and (sigh..the inevitable smear) "racists", by the sanctimonious wishful thinkers, who sometimes seemed to us to believe all the immigration taking place consisted of secular, feminist, homosexual loving, Guardian readers - "Mult cult will be an unquestionably good thing, as we wish it to be, it will be - so there!".

I`m afraid, Phantom, what we hold dear, free speech, tolerance for gays/ general sexual freedom, women`s rights, liberalism etc will not survive in the ways we favour as the population inevitably changes over the next few decades. A peppery old colonel from Budleigh Salterton will seem liberal and permissive compared to what`s coming. The myth on which multi culturalism coasts, that cultural "values" are all equally benign, and lead us merrily to the same place, is just that - a myth.

These people will not compromise. They will kill you. Having God on your side means you can never be wrong. Even now, how many in the public eye dare criticize Islam with the self confident freedom they do Christianity? They may want to. They don`t dare. They desire to keep breathing.

We may wishfully believe that "moderates" will end up in the driving seat - that the changes taking place in ethnicity, religion and culture will somehow not be reflected in very radical change in the governance and social values of society. Nothing is impossible, but I find that scenario highly unlikely.

phantom    [30084.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 14:39]
  Pooch {30079}
I`m a little perplexed by your posts, as you seem to accept that I`m not derisive and you state that I make some points you agree with, some you don`t. However, you don`t really engage in debate.

To me the word `nigger` (and I use the term as I hate the pretencioussness of terms such as the `n-word` in which you`re only technically not saying it) is one of those great dividing lines.
You seem to think I do not understand that this a term which causes you serious pain. You seem to think I make light of it. But I do not.

But here`s the thing. Remember the Mohammed cartoons? Remember Salman Rushdie?
Here again we had something which a group of people saw as an attack at the very heart of them. This was something that was sacred to them. Something that they held above all else. Yet someone was deriding it. It was - in every sense - a disrespectful derision of everything they held dear. Their holiest of holies was being smeared.

Yes, it is an entirely different case. But I think it occupies the very same sort of ground. The Mohammed cartoons to any Muslim were much more than `just cartoons`. Just as to you the word `nigger` is not `just a word`. For in both cases a red line is crossed.
You step into something that is the very core of the people affected. Something they hold above all else. Something they are prepared to defend with their lives.

So I do understand. When I debate the word `nigger` it is not just something I feel free to bandy around a coffee table.

But nonetheless we must ask these things. Especially on a forum such as this. We must confront ourselves over them. If the wrong kind of cartoon, if the wrong term crosses a red line, then who draws the red lines?
Is it alright for any minority to draw up its own lines, barring others from crossing them? How do we establish these lines? Do some existing lines ever become redundant? If so, who decides?

Or, as I would argue, as we all belong to some minority of sorts, if we all start drawing lines, don`t we sooner or later find ourselves surrounded on all sides by lines?

Do not misunderstand, `nigger` is one of the most profound lines. It was one of the very first to be drawn. Most likely the first modern one. (After all, blasphemy is a much, much older line of a similar ilk.)
I`m thus not trying to make out that it is the equivalent of some of the more frivolous don`t-says society has thrown up recently.

However, there is a principle at stake. In my view it is the very existence of any such red lines which creates the climate in which, sooner or later, other lines start thriving.
In my view they either all go, or we have no way of ever ridding ourselves of any of them. (For all were born of good intentions. So how to rid ourselves of only a select few of them?)

In truth I think we face one of the great societal battles ahead. In the coming century we will need to learn to live with offence.
The idea that censoring offence, or worse, threatening violence, is any sort of solution is truly yesterday`s game.

Society will somehow have to learn to live with all the things that drive some of us nuts. Nudity, burkhas, racism, blasphemy, homosexuality, bad language, etc, etc. Because people are not likely to change so fundamentally. The conflicts will remain. Thus we will need to learn to live with the conflicts.
Somehow as a collective we need to come to terms with these things. Not because we want to. Clearly none of us want to accept what angers us. But simply because; what is the long term alternative?

Are we simply to keep on censoring, banning and forbidding for ever and ever? Or is there an endpoint at which - once we`ve banned enough - the world will came to rights? I don`t think there is. We either subscribe to the principle of everyone being permitted to say what they like about Allah, no matter what, or we do not.

And anyhow, what would prevent me from inventing a new word - say `alphipop` - and imbuing it with all the meaning of the word `wog`? I could say it with impunity and people would soon enough know what I meant. But I wouldn`t be saying the bad word, would I?

I really think it`s time that we rise above it. Not that it`s easy. Not that it`s a small step. But sooner or later we`ll have to, so why not start now?

braintree    [30083.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 13:08]
  Eloquently put Freeworld.
I wonder why such common sense is ignored by those in authority who allow it to go unsaid. Clarkson used to be a man who would stick up for himself and say basically what you have said and just tell people to get a grip .Even he knuckles under now. It`s a shame that most politicians are so concerned for their own safety that they won`t speak out for fear that they will feel the wrath of the PC brigade and never recover from the media morons who know what they`re publishing is bollocks but print it anyway because it makes for a good story that day. I`m very glad someone else can see through Pooch too.

freeworld    [30082.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 12:33]
  phantom {30068. Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 07:11}
Remember Godfrey Bloom, a former UKIP MEP? Last year Bloom, talking to a group of women, joked, after some of them had said they "didn`t clean behind the fridge", that the meeting was full of "sluts". To people of Bloom`s generation (near to mine) "slutty" behaviour denotes not just what was once called loose sexual morality, but also being slovenly and untidy - about things like housework. In Bloom`s context, this is what he meant, it was nothing whatever to do with calling all women tarts. But that was the myth that was peddled and the endlessly recycled factoid became "received wisdom" - "Bloom called women sluts" - the context was rarely mentioned.

Bloom was joshing, he might well have said "you lazy buggers",though even that instead of "sluts" would still somehow have been reported to make it appear that he was grossly insulting the entire female sex. For although his words were simply an off the cuff joke, and were taken as such by the group of women he was addressing (the remark elicited a good laugh from the audience), it was twisted and spun by the mainstream media and political class to make it look as if Bloom had generally stereotyped the entire female species as cheap and promiscuous, thus bolstering the cliched and dishonest stereotype the Establishment were creating for all UKIP people - as invariably neanderthal hatemongers who all would rather like to boil gays in oil, send non white people "home", and shackle females to kitchen sink and bedroom - a British golf club version of the Nazis. I see our friend Pooch is doing this, though none of what he writes, apart from leaving the EU, is UKIP policy. He repeats the crude stereotypes and cliche`d insults created by the media and the political establishment... "Little Englander" etc (yawn.. may one assume then he`s a "little European") - which have nothing to do with UKIP, and most of its perfectly decent supporters. This all seems like the very stereotyping and prejudice he so eagerly rales against when he thinks he detects in others. It`s reminiscent of the 70s student union types who "banned" anyone who was a "fascist" from campus. A "fascist" being defined as anyone they didn`t agree with - not simply confined to a follower of the precepts of Benito Mussolini or Adolf Hitler. May I assume that it`s okay to call/assume that Labour is a communist party and everyone who votes Labour is a communist too (well, a lot of the party leaders were communists, after all - John Reid, Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling...) May I correctly characterize the EU as a dangerously communist conspiracy, as it`s fundamentally undemocratic, its President Barosso was actually a political follower of Mao, and many "former" communists make up its political and legislative personnel? Pooch rightly condemns prejudice when it comes to his race, but engages in the same thing when it comes to the millions of people who happen to support UKIP - by himself using the dishonest agenda driven media/political stereotypes. Loathing the political institution now calling itself the EU, and wanting lower levels of immigration, is not the same as racism/hating foreigners - rubbish! A prospective UKIP candidate speaking in a hostile manner of Islam does not mean the party policy is of religious bigotry, and it`s supporters are all bigots - rubbish!

This predictable, but deeply contrived phony "storm" around Bloom`s "sluts" was one of the major reasons Farage felt he had to remove the party whip from him - and he subsequently left UKIP.
This, like Clarkson`s never publicly uttered mumble of the N word, is one example of many when "word crime" has been used - wrongly - as part of a campaign of demonization to destroy a man`s reputation/career, and by proxy condemn anyone who has anything to do with or sticks up in some manner for such individuals or political groups. These events illustrate the dangerous waters "word crime"/"offense at everything and anything" has led us into.

The other day I inadvertently watched/heard some American rapper (god, I HATE rap so much - will it NEVER go away) on Youtube using the N word constantly in his "song". It had about 8 million "hits", so this guy has spread the word and its application to black people far more thoroughly and unambiguously than anything Clarkson may have done by murmuring in a clip never intended to be broadcast anyway, or by Stormfront`s commentariat. If, as a gay man (I`m not, just for example), I found the word "puff" (the "popular" slang word for homosexuals in my youth) "offensive", wished it banished from the face of the earth, the sight of an Elton John shouting it over and over in a pop video, and not in any pejorative context as an "evil" prejudicial word, would certainly perplex me. I`m genuinely curious as to why the N word should be being applied to themselves by many black performers, but is considered a crime only one step up from child molesting if even uttered under the breath by someone not black. I always thought N was a slangy term derived from the one generally accepted and in mainstream use by most, black and otherwise, until well into the 1960s - "negro". If it`s so grossly offensive surely nobody at all should be using it, but it looks like the tint of your skin can give you sanction to fling it around continually - surely that is, er "racist"?

Every part of the human race has its ethnicity/nationality referred to in ways that "reinforce stereotypes" and can be taken in many cases as rather pejorative - Scots = "Jocks" ("miserly"), "Paddies" or "Micks" are from Ireland ("stupid"),the French being "frogs" ("Cheese eating surrender monkeys"), Italian and Spaniards are "dagos" ("unrestrained, loud and lustful"),Germans Krauts ("humourless, militarist, efficient to the point of being boring") Jamaicans are "ganja sodden" , white English "proles" are "chavs" (overweight, ignorant, lazy, "slutty", "Jeremy Kyle show"). Sometimes this stuff has formed an element in "keeping down" certain sorts of people, but such "words" are rarely the reason for the great big ills inflicted by humans on other humans - murderous hatred (eg the Nazis towards the Jews, based in the world Jewish conspiracy theory) or a major institutional wrong such as slavery. These things are an inevitable part of the human need to order everything and to deal with life by resorting to generalizing (or "stereotyping") about the world; and it fills a human need to have something to make jokes about - all very imperfect, but we aren`t perfect, and the 20th century experiment to "turn us into saints" by politics created the bloodiest 100 years in human history. A constant harping on the essentially trivial, accompanied by witch hunts, hysteria, and even the criminalizing of free speech, are "answers" worse than the perceived ills they are supposedly addressing, ones based in a totalitarian concept of society nobody who believes in liberty and is a real liberal, can cheer on.

So I would remind grievance mongers that the status of being racially stereotyped or insulted is not a universally black experience. And an evil like slavery has also by no means been inflicted only on black people, humans of all colours have been enslaved - and blacks have been as guilty as every other race on the planet of historic practices of exploitation and prejudice. Many white Europeans/Americans, though not technically slaves, were often that in all but name at one time, living, in some cases and at some periods, an even worse sort of existence than some black people were in slave states in the 17th to 19th century - a life of harsh toil, starvation wages, thorough exploitation and complete powerlessness.

"Identity politics", much of it made up of excessive and at times dishonestly one sided historical victim status creation/offense taking, is one of the worst trends of the age, going hand in hand with censorship/"pc", the political expression of the tendency.

braintree    [30081.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 08:43]
  Pooch - you really are the biggest fucking moron I`ve ever come across.

If my continued use of the word NIGGER is rude and offensive to you I couldn`t be more pleased although it didn`t start out that way.
I could understand some displeasure if you were on the end of racial slur but to complain that just seeing the word in print or hearing it isolated from any other words also offends you is actually as laughable as the Melon Farmers story that a lawyer was contacting Obama to get Top Gear banned because of the Clarkson incident . Quite funny really but sad too I guess.

You`re the one who`s complaining about the word NIGGER even though nobody has actually called you one yet in the same post you then go on a name calling spree and you are too stupid to see what a hypocrite it makes you look .
I , and other members point out that your post complains about being offended yet then goes on to try and offend other members with name calling. I`ve not once complained that you`ve offended me because you haven`t offended me . In order to do that you would have to rate on a scale of person higher than your current one which is lower than the shit on my shoes.
I don`t care one bit what your opinion is as you`ve proven that you`re not really very bright anyway .
Your credibility of being someone who`s views were worth anything were lost in the first line of your first reply to me.
You were born black so I can understand your being upset about something you have no control over but I`m pretty sure you don`t need to be a hypocritical arrogant prick.
The bottom line is that your view is that the word NIGGER is offensive to black people .
My view is that I don`t care if it offends them . That`s no reason to stop it being said .
We have different views .
Which part of agree to differ , move on and fuck off don`t you understand?

I think Poochs posts show that he`s no longer worth the bother of arguing with and would be best ignored . He really is not bright enough to see the irony that he started all this arguing about being offended by a single word but has then done nothing since then except fill his posts with insults . He really just doesn`t get it .
So have I - but I`m not the one complaining about being offended.

cor    [30080.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 06:02]

"I was NOT remotely implying or suggesting that all black guys are "violent hoodlums""
Well, you said "ANY collective of black people" - which seems to bring the implication that all black people are violent thugs with an appropriate trigger, if that`s not what you mean then maybe you should be more careful what you write, cause believe me you are coming across as quite a bit racist and bigoted.

"I am NOT implying or suggesting that violence is correct"
Then why bring it up, it does nothing for your argument, as detailed in phantom`s previous post.

"cannot help having black skin"
But your not arguing against the word `black` are you? You were clearly comparing the word `nigger` with `idiot` stating: "One of those you can change, the other you can`t." -I don`t know how else we are to interpret this..

But lets move on and assume you didn`t mean what you said there either.. and skipping all the bile, hatred, offensive and odious words you use against me...(see how its done Pooch) moving swiftly on..

"understand that the word "nigger" is deeply, horrifically, offensive"
Please refer to phantom`s previous post as to why this should not be a reason to censer a word.

"many of you seem to think that the word isn`t offensive"
If you believe this then you are not actually reading our posts, they are kept on here for quite a while scroll down to the bottom and read through them again.

"Your argument that just because others use the word, doesn`t mean that you should also use it. And yet you want the God-given right to do just that"
^I know this isn`t aimed at me but are you honestly saying people should NOT have the `god given right` to racial equality.. cause that`s really what that sounds like -since braintree i think was referring to black rappers use of the word...

"Words aren`t just words"
Really? lmao

Pooch    [30079.   Posted 9-May-2014 Fri 05:12]
  @Cor [30072] - I was NOT remotely implying or suggesting that all black guys are "violent hoodlums"! That`s your (false) and possibly deliberate misinterpretation of what I wrote. The point I was making, which you`ve clearly chosen to completely ignore, is that the word "Nigger" is offensive to most/many/the vast majority of Black people, and many Black people would take great offence to anyone of any race, creed, ethnicity or skin colour calling them that word, or using it infront of them!

And no, I am NOT implying or suggesting that violence is correct, right or appropriate. I was actually saying that using that word against the very people it debases, is not going to fly with those same people! Sorry, if my explanations aren`t simplistic enough for you to understand. Maybe if I`d have written that you can`t use offensive terms against the very people those words offend, and think you`ll walk away with no repurcussions of any kind, that would have been clearer to you?

To then say: "You want no one to be offensive to you. While you are offensive left right and center. Not only to people on the forum but to an entire ethnicity that you brand niggers, and implied they will always be that way .. and so no one should draw attention..?!?"

Are you really that stupid and cretinous?! Good grief! I thought you were an intelligent, sensible, rational adult. Obviously not! I was NOT branding all black people "niggers", you utter moron! (Another wonderful misinterpretation of my words!) I was saying that black people, as in people with black skin, cannot help having black skin. You are born with whatever skin colour you are born with. You have no say in choosing to be black, or white, or Jewish, or Israeli, or Scottish, or Irish, or Iranian or any other such classification. It`s something that - as a human being - you have no control over. And, if you don`t have any control over it, it should not be something used against you.

Again, clearly you are someone who needs everything spelling out in the most simplistic manner possible. And no I DON`T want people to be offensive to me, whilst I get to be offensive to them. I want Braintree (and many of the rest of you) to understand that the word "nigger" is deeply, horrifically, offensive to black people, and to stop bandying it around as if it were any other common or garden term, with no cultural and historical baggage attached to it!

Unfortunately, many of you seem to think that the word isn`t offensive, and you want the right to be able to use it without anyone having any alternative view or opinions! You also seem to want to be able to use that word, and then if I find it deeply offensive, then it`s a case of "Tough luck, Pooch"! So, in fact, it`s not me that wants to have the right to offend others, but the rest of you! But your refusal to see this, is incredible!

THAT is what my problem is about!

@Braintree [30073] - Your infantile and absolute failure to refuse to comprehend even the smallest amount of what I write, says more about the kind of moronic, knuckle-dragging neanderthal you probably actually are, then anything else. Your stupidity continues to shock and astound! I really didn`t think I could ever meet someone as staggeringly crass on any Internet Forum, as you. You continue to whine that I`m being offensive and rude to you, but you fail to grasp that your continual use of the word "nigger" is also deeply offensive and rude to me. But, in your narrow-minded, UKIP-tainted little head, you think I`m the one in the wrong, and don`t grasp the utter hypocrisy of everything you write.

Your argument that just because others use the word, doesn`t mean that you should also use it. And yet you want the God-given right to do just that, whilst at the same time telling me, that I am the one with the problem because I am offended by you using that term, but I`m not allowed to offend you, because I`m being mean!

Well, hey, try growing up a bit!

Again, the narrow-minded nature of everything you type, says far more! And now you want to let bygones-be-bygones. Hmmmm....

@Phantom [30074]; Again, you write more eloquently than most on here, but the point is not me equating violence with certain words. The point, which you and others have failed to grasp - deliberately or unintentionally - is that certain words hold certain powers. And that certain people don`t like certain words. Thus, if you use certain words in-front of certain people, then repurcussions of one kind or another, trivial or serious, may follow. For every action, there`s a reaction. It`s that simple. What I`m ultimately trying to say, is that no one gets to use certain words, without there being potential fallout. Braintree (and others) want the right to use the word "Nigger" and expect no one to bat an eyelid, because - in their eyes - it`s only a word. No, no, no! It`s a word with baggage.

Why can none of you grasp this, even if you don`t accept it?!

Words aren`t just words. They are a means of communicating. Some words have certain offensive meanings. And, as I said a couple of days ago, those words should be used with caution. But none of you seem to get that, and that`s what baffles me. You seem so utterly blinded by your own views, that anyone else who tries to question them, is just shot-down in flames, and accused of being wrong.

Not only are you deluding yourselves, but you`re deluding others, and that delusion just doesn`t wash with me!

Still, it`s clear that no matter what I say or write, you`re all adamanat that racist words aren`t racist at all, nor offensive, they`re just words, and no matter how hard I try to get you to understand that that is not actually the case, you just refuse to even consider the possibility that I might be right, and you may actually be wrong.

It`s that kind of staggering bloodymindedness; the absolute refusal to even remotely consider that your views may not actually be correct, that shocks me.

Anyway, continue on with demanding your right to freely use racist terms whenever and wherever you want. Ultimately, at some point in time, you`re only going to end-up meeting someone in the real world, who takes far greater offence to your use of that term, than I have done, and trying to educate you in a far more basic manner than I`ve tried. One day, your use of that word will be something you come to regret.

But hey, what should I care? Racism rules, right guys, and I`m just a "nigger" after all, in your eyes?!

braintree    [30078.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 16:54]
  The Guardian piece actually talks some sense but the reply below is the same old rubbish . Firstly it once again repeats the error that the word was said in footage in a tv programme sold all around the world . And the writers final bit of credibility went out the window by saying that Clarkson should be sacked because Ross and Brand were , usefully forgetting that Brand resigned and Ross was only suspended. It really is Orwellian thinking that this word cannot even be spoken . Even if Clarkson did say it it was not actually aimed at anyone and the footage was never aired . If I was Clarkson I would be trying to find out who leaked the footage .

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30077.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 16:11]
  Here`s a relevant piece from the high priestesses of PC at the Guardian

The N-word: do we have to spell it out?

braintree    [30076.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 14:09]
  Phantom- everything you say is correct . You would expect it to be the norm as its common sense but no - we have to explain it to people . Maybe Pooch is much younger than I am . Maybe he`s one of my aforementioned generations of people educated to look for offence wherever they can . The bottom line is that offence never killed anyone . Maybe NIGGER does hark back to the days of slavery but that was a long time ago . Saying the word now means nothing except to those who let it . As you say , its gone way too far . In days gone by we could make jokes involving Welsh , Scots or Irish people . Not so anymore . But in the 70`s just because comedians painted stereotypes of stupid Irish or tight Scots didn`t make them racist - but it can do these days . Are we supposed to take offence when Americans paint Brits as either cockneys or plum voiced brolly carrying toffs ? I`ve been picked up on a forum before for using the term Jap as an abbreviation for Japanese because apparently it has some connotations with reference to the Japanese during the war . Obviously I ignored it . I`m also from the generation that saw the arrival of the "Paki Shop" . You know the ones that popped up in the 70`s that were the first to open all hours while shops run by Brits closed at 6pm . At that point Paki was simply an abbreviation for Pakistani but because the term was apparently adopted by some organisations like The National Front we`re not supposed to say it anymore . On tv all these commonly used slang terms for various nationalities get edited out these days . In Only Fools and Horses Del Boy no longer goes to the Paki Shop , he never buys a Chinky anymore and any slight hint that he`s ridiculing a national stereotype is cut out . Likewise the recent BBC2 repeat of the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans . For the first time the BBC felt they needed to cut out the Majors racist references to "wogs" etc which completely missed the point that even in 1979 the Majors comments were out of place so we were invited to laugh at him not with him . But just the merest utterance of these words causes such a fuss. We can`t watch Mind Your Language anymore because it laughs at stereotypes (including Brits) and we can`t watch Love Thy Neighbour despite the joke always being on the racist white man - all because various characters use certain words or names that are unacceptable today . If anything , a viewing of several relevant episodes of LTN are an education on how Britain has changed in the last 40 years . In one episode the white character is told by an Estate Agent in all seriousness and without a hint of irony that his property is worth 50% less than he thought it was because he has black neighbours. But the film version is actually quite disturbing as the opening titles run over a 3-4 minute sequence of racially motivated violent offences ( committed by black and white) that we are invited to laugh at. You can laugh at it now but not for any of the reasons the film makers thought of. You view with an open mouthed WTF expression. Regarding LTN - I do agree that when it was shown much of the audience were laughing WITH the racist character instead of the intended laughing AT him , a similar problem that Alf Garnett shared when his BBC series was shown.( censorship related so sort of back on topic I hope)
Edit - which reminds me of an odd instance a while ago . BBC4 aired a documentary on the role that sex played in sitcoms over the years . I think my recording is a repeat from about 2011 . Included were at least one or two instances of the F word and the C word uncensored yet the Alf Garnett clip included a bleep over the word COON. I thought that was perhaps a step too far .

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30075.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 13:59]
  Just calling for a bit of calm on the personal abuse.

Surely it shown that the word has gone way beyond its nominal meaning. It has become a token over which to do battle. On one hand it can be used as the ultimate insult; it can be taken as the ultimate insult; it`s found a use as the ultimate joke because it is the most outrageous thing to say in the English language; and of course it has become a token of free speech because its the ultimate example of what one is not free to say.

I can`t help thinking there is something a bit Monty Pythonesque about the ludicrous levels of aggression over a single word.

phantom    [30074.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 13:23]
  Pooch {30071}

I`m also not really sure what the consequence of violence has to do with the veracity of an argument.
Take this example: how many people would dare stand up in a pub full of Millwall football supporters and announce `Millwall are shit!`?
I think we all know what would follow.
However, this person`s being hospitalised would neither prove that he was wrong, nor whether he had any right to say it. All it would prove is that people of that group would be likely to react violently.
Thus whether Braintree would be beaten up or not is really irrelevant.
We could take another example. How would a group of militant Islamist Al-Qaeda sympathisers react to the statement that `Allah does not exist!`?
Would their subsequent reaction in any way further their argument?
Thus violence per se is not a proof of offence being felt justifiably.
It is merely that; violence.
If anything it tends to disqualify an argument. But that`s a separate matter.

As for the Clarkson question, you claim you are only responding to Braintree`s post [30056]. But as I have pointed out to you Braintree`s post following mine at [30055]. Thus I still say that it was the Clarkson issue which caused this string of posts and it was not Braintree who sparked this off.

You say that Braintree wants the right to say the word, no matter what. You argue that the word is very offensive to you, even more so as it attacks you for being something you cannot change.

But here`s the onion. The very fact that it is terribly offensive, unfair and unacceptable surely places this in the area of expression we must defend BECAUSE these terms are unacceptable to most.
After all, expression of ideas which are widely accepted, supported and popular are under no threat of censorship.
It will always been those expression which are deemed wrong, unacceptable, offensive and intolerable which must be protected. For these are the only forms of expression which anyone is seeking to silence.
Speech against which no one claims a grievance requires no protection.

Thus isn`t it precisely because you find it so utterly offensive that this is the world you must tolerate for freedom of expression ever to work?
After all, freedom of expression requires our tolerating what we despise.

Would I like to shut up holocaust deniers and neo nazis? Of course, I would. There are plenty of people whom I would gladly never have to hear again. But where would it lead us?

Effectively trying to eradicate the term you hate from the English language still doesn`t rid society of the hatred some seek to express with it. it simply places a fig leaf over it. It is in itself a pretence.
A little like the mayor of Sochi who claimed before the Winter Olympics that he had nothing against homosexuals at all. But that there were none of them in Sochi! :)

I still contend that the introduction of a few taboo words a few decades ago has by now mushroomed into the myriad `you-are-not-allowed-to-say-that` rules which nowadays are crippling freedom of expression; precisely because vociferous groups claim offence.
As said, I grew up completely signed up to the taboo. I think most in this country did.
However, none of us envisaged what came of it.
Councils afraid of the term `Christmas` or a Scottish t-shirt shop being told to remove-anyone-but-England shirts from window displays, lest it offend someone.

This epidemic of offence is a major problem. Moreover it is a problem cynical politicians are abusing for their own ends.
I believe that by now the threats to our society from `you-must-be-silenced-because-you-offend-me` campaigns is more than likely much greater than that of allowing offence to take place.

It is thus I question whether the initial taboos were really such a good idea. This doesn`t mean that I intend to change my behaviour in any way.
I have never deliberately racially abused anyone and see no reason ever to do so.
But so too do I not think that the categorical condemnation of everyone who is found to have used a `forbidden term` is any longer justifiable.
Precisely because, as you say, `the world has moved on`. In short, we now know to what this leads. It is not a healthy place.

braintree    [30073.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 12:58]
  Pooch- I`m not going to waste anymore time debating this . You`re clearly just a completely clueless hypocritical cunt who think`s just because he`s black he has some god given right to run and cry that naughty people are calling you names. I`m sure if you display this attitude in public there will be plenty of kindly gentlemen willing to take you down a dark alley to put you right. In the meantime you can continue to make us all laugh with your "I`m against censorship - but only when it suits me" attitude.
You say you don`t want to be offended yet all your posts so far have been nothing but offensive remarks . So obviously you are also too stupid to realise how that makes you look . You`re also stupid enough to write off the political party that has made more ground over the last couple of years than any other political party in history - and they have done that in part thanks to the likes of you - keep it up you dimwitted cretin
As for saying NIGGER in front of a group of black people - I daresay they would be offended , but only because they are as stupid as you and been conditioned to find offence in anything they possibly can . Black singers use it all the time in their lyrics - whats good for one is good for another. As for not posting in the forums - why not forget what I said move on and fuck off . Clearly I`m not the only one who agrees with my original post . You don`t . That`s your choice . You`ve said your piece . You will always encounter people with a different view . Lets agree to differ eh?

cor    [30072.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 10:31]

That`s really quite racist of you, not all black guys are violent hoodlums ready to dish out "large volumes of physical battery". And just because someone is willing to be violent doesn`t make their argument any more valid.

You want no one to be offensive to you. While you are offensive left right and center. Not only to people on the forum but to an entire ethnicity that you brand niggers, and implied they will always be that way .. and so no one should draw attention..?!? What an appalling view you have on black people, I`m sure I`m not the only one starting to doubt your earlier claim to that lineage.

Pooch    [30071.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 09:08]
  @Phantom [30068]. You make some good and valid points. I don`t agree with all of them, but then at least you write eloquently and with intelligence, which is more than can be said for Braintree!

Can I just repeat: my discussion of the use of the word "nigger" is NOT related to Jeremy Clarkson. I only came into this discussion, because of what Braintree wrote, when he wrote: "As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity."

I don`t want to debate Clarkson, because Clarkson is not relevant to any points I am trying to make. My problem is only and purely with what Braintree wrote - nothing else whatsoever. If he/she hadn`t written what they had, I wouldn`t be posting in the Forums at all at the moment.

In answer to your question: "I think it`s fair to ask - given that the notion here is about offence - what gives greater offence? Calling someone `nigger`? Or calling someone idiots, offensive little shits, saying they`re uneducated or talk bilge.", the answer is the former. One of those you can change, the other you can`t.

People can educate themselves. People don`t need to talk bilge. People don`t need to be "offensive little shits". All of those can be changed. Being "black" or dark-skinned, or of a particular ethnic persuasion, is something that cannot be changed, no matter what. Being black has nothing to do with education, money, class, where or when you were born. It`s something that happens. If you are born blind, it`s the same thing. It`s not something you have any control over. And, as I`ve tried to explain (and clearly failed), Braintree seems to be under the total disillusion that the word is not offensive. It`s almost as though Braintree`s trying to be like one of those nutters that people occasionally come across in life, who are determined to convince you that the world isn`t round; or that the sky isn`t blue! It`s a complete collapse of any sense, any rationale, any modicum of intelligence.

It`s one thing to say something stupid, if you don`t know (e.g. a lack of education), or because you`re a child (and so, don`t know any the wiser). It`s another thing to complete deny something that is hard fact. But like I said, Braintree is uneducated, and is an idiot, because he seems to be deluded. No thinking, sensible, rational and semi-intelligent adult human being would say that "nigger" is not an offensive word! Yet, Braintree does. So, I have to conclude - maybe completely incorrectly - that he`s either stupid (through a refusal to believe something), uneducated (because he can`t or doesn`t want to learn), or deluded, because whatever he thinks, he thinks is 100% factual, when it isn`t.

As for the point you made about "it somewhat undermines the argument that offence ought not be given, if one then goes and gives it" was partly me being deliberately rude, and partly me being ironic. The irony being, Braintree thinks it`s okay to use the term "nigger" and not cause offence to others, yet I (and many other black people) find that term deeply offensive, and at the same time, he`s getting his panties in a bunch, because I`ve labelled him ignorant.

Maybe him being "offended" was to give him a taste of what it feels like, when someone labels you as something that you aren`t?! But, like I said, if he`d have grasped that concept, he wouldn`t have written what he did.

And yet he did write what he did, and thus, I`ve taken him to task for it, in the same way I would anyone I met in real-life, or on any other forum - online or off! In my view, and it is only my view, you don`t use that word, except under specific conditions. What you don`t do, is bandy it about, and assume that no one is going to be upset by it, or that you aren`t going to get people`s backs up.

Again, Braintree wants the right to say the word, but not deal with any consequences or fall-out. That`s delusional! That`s pure idiocy! And only someone with little or no education, (through schooling or self-taught), or someone who really doesn`t have a clue about what they`re talking about, would dare come out and say that. Yet, Braintree did just that!

So, I have to ask myself, why would I come onto any Internet Forum, risk complete character assassination by people I have no clue about, and who could tear me apart in a hundred-and-one different ways, stick my (proverbial) head above the parapet, say what I`ve said, and still come back to defend every single thing I`ve written, even when everyone else is against me?! Am I mad? Am I suicidal (metaphorically-speaking, of course)? Am I a troll? No, I`m none of these. I`m just an ordinary adult, relatively intelligent, relatively sensible, relatively decent, who feels strongly on certain issues.

And the use of that word, is one I feel strongly about. Moreso, when what is being said, could only come from the mouth of someone so damn uneducated!

I don`t know Braintree, or Cor, or you, or anyone else on here. I can`t know any of you. Likewise, you don`t know me, nor do most of the other MF Forum members on here.

I don`t post often. In fact, maybe a handful of times per year. So, I`m a proverbial outsider to your close-knit gang. But I don`t - and won`t - tolerate racial intolerance! That`s not about censorship. That`s not because I want to be politically-correct. It`s because it`s offensive to me as a black person; offensive to me as a Brit, and offensive to me as a human being! It denigrates me. It belittles me. It`s a word that tries to define everything about who I am, whilst at the same time having no merit or worth or value, and pushes me into a narrow, ill-defined box, as defined by (some) white people - the same (predominantly) ignorant people who use that word!

Whether Braintree, or you, or anyone else likes it or not, that word IS offensive! It is a word with significant historical baggage, and no amount of people trying to tell me otherwise, is going to change that!

If the word is so irrelavant, or powerless, then Braintree will have no problem using that word in front of any Black person, anywhere in the UK or USA, and will be safe in the knowledge, that he probably won`t get the crap kicked out of him.

But we all know, that is me being deluded! He, you, and I know full-well that if he did say that word infront of any collective of black people, large volumes of physical battery would probably follow.

But if Braintree wants to prove his mettle, and to me and everyone else how benign that word is, he`s welcome to try it out!

Pooch    [30070.   Posted 8-May-2014 Thu 08:30]
  @Braintree [30069]: Such an unrefined response, from someone who clearly has no understanding of something, and fails to want to understand why others may take offence to what he has said.

Clearly, in your narrow-minded view, and let`s be clear here, it is narrow-minded, your view is "I want the right to say whatever I want, and to hell with the consequences"!

Well, that`s not the way the world works. I dare you to go into the street, go up to any black person, call them that word to their face, and see how long you last! Go on, Mr "I`m so fucking smart"!

Secondly, you seem to take the term "freedom of expression" as meaning "you can say whatever you like". Again, no, that`s not what it means. And if you were half as intelligent, as you seem to want to think you are, then you`d know that.

But you don`t, and you aren`t.

And you then refuse to read anything I write; debase it, by labelling it as "shite" or "overreactionary crap", and expect me to take everything you say as fact or gospel.

Clearly irony and hypocrisy are two more words you don`t understand, on a list that seems to be rather exhaustive.

And, finally, you say that nigger is only a word. Well, it isn`t, and the the fact you want to vote UKIP, means you are even more deluded than I first thought! Only a complete half-wit, or should I write fuck-wit, would vote UKIP and think that was a sensible, rational thing to do!

You really don`t have a fucking clue about anything! I`d be surprised if you didn`t tell me you also read the Daily Mail too! Well, clearly, you don`t want to debate this issue. For you, there is no issue, because you don`t feel there is. And because you don`t feel there is an issue to debate, you don`t want to debate at all. It`s just a non-story for you.

I`m wasting my time, trying to educate and elucidate you on something, you have a flat-refusal to even consider. Again, another narrow-minded view from a narrow-minded person. How infantile, and pathetic! Enough said!

There`s no point having a Forum to debate subjects, when nobody is allowed to hold a differing view. Your view is that the word "nigger" isn`t offensive, and is just a word. Well it is offensive, and it`s not just a word. Maybe, one day, once you`ve grown-up, got an education, pulled your head out of your arse, and learnt a few things, you will eventually grasp this issue.

Until then, go waste your vote on UKIP. Go waste your life supporting a party of bigotted little Englanders, who think that the UK`s problems will all magically disappear once we leave Europe, and only pure-British white folk live here, and then we`ll see who has the last laugh!

I can guarantee, it won`t be you!

braintree    [30069.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 12:42]
  Pooch - you posted the drivel I was expecting ( the few lines I could be bothered to read of it anyway). If there`s one thing about the "I hate censorship but only when its convenient for me" brigade its that they are predictable.
Over reactionary crap and a history lesson I didn`t need . I will most certainly be voting UKIP when the opportunity arises and I`m not sure if you realise just how stupid you sound whining on about me not being someone you`d want to meet . Was the rest of your post meant to convince us that you were someone we would want to meet? If my post sounded like I was saying Fuck You to you - maybe you were right.And I have the same attitude toward anybody who talks the same shite that you do . If you come across the same way in the real world I`m surprised you only get verbal racist abuse rather than getting the shit kicked out of you.
As for the word NIGGER having power - only to the cretins who let it .
It is only a word after all .

phantom    [30068.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 07:11]
I think it`s fair to ask - given that the notion here is about offence - what gives greater offence?
Calling someone `nigger`? Or calling someone idiots, offensive little shits, saying they`re uneducated or talk bilge.

My point is, perhaps not lapsing into tourets syndrome when confronting Cor and Braintree would help your case. After all, it somewhat undermines the argument that offence ought not be given, if one then goes and gives it.

Here is where I have a problem with your post:

"However, we as a society have now realised that that word does indeed offend a large number of people, and as such, we no longer describe things in that manner. Again, there`s a difference (to me) between people who grew-up in a generation when such racist terms were the "norm", but that doesn`t excuse younger people from more recent generations using the word! History is history. We should learn from it. We can`t wipe-out the past, but we sure as hell can make sure we don`t repeat the mistakes of old - and one of those mistakes, being the use of this word that is now deemed extremely offensive. Not because it`s Politically Incorrect. Not because it`s a "bad" word, per se. Not because it`s wrong to use that word. But simply because we`re wiser and a (hopefully) more understanding nation of people."

Now first off, I believe this country is a much better place. The last twenty years have seen a vast improvement in people`s behaviour toward racial minorities. this is reflected in all manner of ways.
In fact twenty years ago this country was already way ahead of most other nations in that regard. Having grown up abroad, I know of what I speak there.
In my opinion Britain`s population is indeed the most liberal of all nations. Not last as its history has given it a much more global perspective.

I myself have no intention of calling people `nigger`, `wog`, or otherwise. And for most of my life I was entirely wedded to the idea that such words ought to be taboo. But as the Clarkson case illustrates, in the age of political correctness, these taboos are now increasingly being used to beat people over the head with.

The fact that someone `has said it` nowadays draws immediate, unconditional condemnation, whereby nobody asks about the context anymore.

I remember the case of Roy Atkinson. He was found to have called Marcel Dessailly a `lazy nigger` one in a throwaway comment. He was at once condemned, written off, destroyed.
Nobody was interested in some black players who spoke up in his defence saying he had been one of the first football managers in England ever to give black players a chance. No, he has said `it`, so he must now be treated as a pariah. Forever.

It seems unfair. Moreover, it seems to replace one form of bigotry with another. As always with these things, the intentions are good. But in the end they are just another road to hell.

I know that in my life I have come across many people who said things that were racist, or homophobic, chauvinist, etc. But I know them to be good people. I also happen in my time to have come across some really nasty folks who clearly were racist, but who went out of their way never to say the `wrong words` and thus to keep themselves out of trouble.
Which do I prefer? I know which ones I prefer.
And I think you in fact would prefer the same ones.

It is absolutely true that there are visceral, irrational hatreds out there, which are truly nasty and which are hard for some people to bear.
But it is the hatreds which are the problem, not particular words.

With our increasingly PC rules, all we are doing is setting up more and more trip wires with which to catch people out - so as to condemn them forever, with no appeal. It doesn`t solve anything.

Eventually all that will end this is for the hatreds themselves to end.
Over the past two or three decades this country has worked wonders there. But not by implementing rules, bans and laws. No, it was the people themselves who embraced it. To all avail this trend is continuing and the place is getting ever more relaxed about such issues. i don`t merely hope so. I really believe it will.

But meanwhile the great challenge the nation faces is that of freedom of expression. The last fifteen to twenty years there have been truly ghastly. We must ask ourselves where some of this originated.
The great challenge we face is to allow all forms of freedom f speech to continue. From holocaust denials, risque humour, political critique, religious bigotry, all the way to, yes, racism.

We are in grave danger of losing it all. We may thereby be about to lose these words that cause such offence. But will we thereby ever lose the offence? Moreover, what price will we pay for it?

Personally, I`ve come to the conclusion that we simply cannot afford it. In essence we must defend all of it - else we defend none of it.
Making an exception for racial offence is most likely as dangerous as it has proved to allow a creeping expansion of child porn prohibition into controversial areas. The instinctive reaction of everyone is to think `well, I`m ok with that.` But sooner or later, the so established logic then gets extended to other areas. Before you know it, it is used as a noose on certain forms of expression in society.

cor    [30067.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 07:04]

"Or, better still, why not let`s treat everyone equally politely?"
OK, but the point is when you come across someone who disagrees with what you consider polite, you seem to want them thrown off a forum or charged with something... so what you are saying is your feelings are more important than free speech, which i just flat out disagree with.

"Let`s try not to just bandy around racist or any other equally offensive words and terms, and only use them if or when absolutely necessary"
When YOU think they are absolutely necessary... cause other peoples opinions and rights don`t matter.. Which coincidently I think is an offensive sentiment which you have unnecessarily bandied around..

Problem is this is all subjective, some people are `protected` from being offended, others are not, depending on what`s popular at the time, which is massively hypocritical and bigoted in itself. Bottom line, being offended is not a harmful condition to be in, therefor there is no need to be protected from it, and certainly not to the extent of removing peoples rights to talk and discuss issues of free speech and the like..

Pooch    [30066.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 06:25]
  @Cor [30065] said: "that`s very offensive that first sentence of yours, maybe i should go on a crusade to ban the word idiot to protect people from this offensive and odious term, or maybe i should just get the fuck over it, and maybe you should as well."

Or, better still, why not let`s treat everyone equally politely?

Let`s try not to just bandy around racist or any other equally offensive words and terms, and only use them if or when absolutely necessary, rather than - as you have done - just thrown them out there into the public domain, and say to hell with the consequences?! Another novel idea!

cor    [30065.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 05:40]
that`s very offensive that first sentence of yours, maybe i should go on a crusade to ban the word idiot to protect people from this offensive and odious term, or maybe i should just get the fuck over it, and maybe you should as well.

Nobody here is expressing any racism, no one is proposing curtailing the rights of any individual due to race, and i never once said the word nigger didn`t offend me, it does, a lot, i just don`t think that is a good enough reason to reduce basic freedoms like the right to expression. And I`m not so arrogant that i think i can predict every possible use of a word and so deem it useless and unusable.

Pooch    [30064.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 05:06]
  @Cor [30059] - Firstly, if you give no importance to whether you may or may not be offending someone, then you are a bigger idiot than you (or anyone else who would make that statement) appears to be!

Secondly, the fact that you don`t give a damn whether you offend someone, shows what kind of a person you are. There`s a huge difference between accidentally offending someone, and deliberately doing so. Clearly, you don`t seem to understand which one might be considered the less contentious of the two.

As for your comment, where you said: "if you can not imagine a context where using the word nigger is not racist, then that is just a failure of imagination" is total and utter bilge! I`d like to think you and most of the other Melon-Farmer Forum members are open-minded, sensible and mature people, but maybe, in fact, you aren`t?! There`s a huge difference between using that word in a specific context, to explain something, and bandying it about, as it were any other regular word, with no historical controversy behind it. A word I might add, that has been used for centuries to demeand and belittle an entire section of the human race, but another section of the human race. You seem to be under the deluded illusion that because the word is not offensive to you, that you can go around freely using it, and saying "Tough luck" to anyone who IS offended.


The fact that word doesn`t offend you personally, is not the issue at stake. The fact is, that word IS offensive, IS derrogatory, and IS used to demean and belittle an entire section of the world`s populace. As such, there are appropriate times to use the word, and inappropriate times. Your`s is the latter.

@Phantom [30060]. You quoting the word, in relation to the story, was what I would say IS a justifiable use of the word. So, you don`t need to apologise for using the term in that particular case.

As for your example, about an older relative using the term, I would agree that he/she using the term in the context he/she did was not intentionally racist. However, we as a society have now realised that that word does indeed offend a large number of people, and as such, we no longer describe things in that manner. Again, there`s a difference (to me) between people who grew-up in a generation when such racist terms were the "norm", but that doesn`t excuse younger people from more recent generations using the word! History is history. We should learn from it. We can`t wipe-out the past, but we sure as hell can make sure we don`t repeat the mistakes of old - and one of those mistakes, being the use of this word that is now deemed extremely offensive. Not because it`s Politically Incorrect. Not because it`s a "bad" word, per se. Not because it`s wrong to use that word. But simply because we`re wiser and a (hopefully) more understanding nation of people.

At no point have I mentioned Clarkson`s use of the word. In fact, I deliberately did NOT mention it, because it wasn`t relevant to the point I was making. You (and others) seem to have ignored that issue. My point was not whether Clarkson did or did not use the word. My point was not whether Clarkson`s use of that word was or was not offensive. My point was completely unrelated to Clarkson.

My point, and the only point I wanted to make, was in regards to what Braintree had written - namely, that they wrote, as their final sentence: "As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity." was offensive and disgusting to me, and showed a massive misunderstanding of the power that word still holds, and the contentious nature of that word that is still used to this very day, as a way of demeaning a large demographic of the world`s population. It was a very dismissive stance to take, and one that showed no understanding of why that word might is still so verboeten!

@Braintree [30062]. If you want to act and come-across like a totally intolerant, and uncaring little shit, then congratulations! You`ve done yourself a huge disservice, and done exactly that! Well done!

The fact you don`t give a shit, means that I could easily use certain offensive terms to describe you, or members of your family, and I could use the same defence. Except such a defence is infantile, pathetic and shows that person to be an uneducated, and deeply iontolerant little person!

Maybe that`s what you want people to see you as? Maybe you enjoy going around, talking in the manner you do, and not caring whether or not you offend or upset people? Maybe casual racism is okay with you, because you are someone with an IQ only marginally bigger than their shoe size? Maybe you are a racist? Or maybe, it`s just that you are a complete fucking turd of an individual, who cares about no one other than himself? I wonder which of those you actually are, because right now, from where I stand, you are most certainly not the kind of person I would ever want to know. Maybe you can join UKIP!

You said: "Nobody ever died by being offended so if being offended is something you have time to worry about you should get out more." Yes, you are right. No one ever died being offended. But plenty of black people died at the hands of racist scumbags, via Slavery in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Plenty of black people die after racist scumbags attack, injure and kill those some black people, simply because they are black. Their very existance is offensive to racists. So please don`t belittle what you probably have no experience of - namely that your very existance has been used as a way to demean, harrass and belittle you as a person, based on something you have no control over! When you do, then come back, and maybe you and I can have a proper, intelligent conversation about the issue. Until then, I won`t hold my breath waiting!

Being offended, is not - to my mind - a modern preoccupation. Maybe it is to you. To me, it comes down to this: tolerance, and understanding. By stating, as you did: "Offence never hurt anyone and its whingers and whiners about this that and the other that means this country has more than one generation of people taught to try and find offence where none is intended." shows how little you understand of the issue of true offence. I don`t mean the kind of bullshit offence that appears in tabloid papers. I mean genuine and real offence that has caused real people real harm in the real world in which you, I, and everyone else in this Forum lives in.

The Clarkson story, is a non-story for me too. The orignal rhyme does indeed use racist language, and it was of its time. Nowadays, however, the rhyme has been altered, because we as a race of human beings, have evolved, and accepted that the word "Nigger" does and will cause great an unwarranted offence to many black people, where no offence was originally intended.

You also asked: "Is this country so controlled that a random word that could be construed as offensive in another context is now not to be said by anyone at anytime ( except of course black singers in their music)?" It`s not about controlling people. It`s about politeness, courtesy, respect. The same values you want and hold dear as white people do, black people want too. And no, I don`t think that rap artists and black actors should use the racist term so casually either.

Lastly, you said: "As to you actually feeling it`s ok to complain that I posted the word NIGGER on a forum just as a word and not as an insult - quite pathetic really. Ironic that you should post regularly on a forum about censorship . It would appear that you`re actually part of the problem and agree with the establishment that there should be no censorship except when it suits you."

No. What it shows that you are an uneducated, unintelligent, narrow-minded individual who seems to think that the only person matters is themself. In your eyes, it`s clearly a case of "Fuck you, because you don`t matter"! That`s the problem I have!

And you talk about my "sensitivities"? Ha! Here`s a truly novel idea for your tiny little brain to cogitate on: how about treating everyone else that comes on to the Forum to debate with you on a subject, with the same respect that you yourself would want and expect?! Or maybe you`re just one of those people where, everyone has to agree with what everyone else agrees upon, and woebetide anyone who actually holds an opposing view?

sergio    [30063.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 03:28]
  BBFC R18 cuts

January 2014
Number of items= 38
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=15%

February 2014
Number of items= 49
No. Cuts=7
Cuts ratio=14%

March 2014
Number of items= 45
No. Cuts=10
Cuts ratio=22%

April 2014
Number of items= 51
No. Cuts=8
Cuts ratio=15%

March 2014 cut of interest:
Milo Taylor, Adam Watson Aiden Jason, Ashton Bradley, Kyle Wilkinson, Luke Desmond, Lincoln Gates, Maxi Gerard, Leroy Dale, Steven Prior
Directed by Ben Willis
Distributor chose to reduce the focus on a restrained man exhibiting considerable pain and focus on the man`s damaged skin. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

It seems (how`s about that for indirection?), I think the BBFC comment is not very clear.
Maybe it should read:
`Distributor chose to reduce the focus on a restrained man exhibiting considerable pain and instead focused on the man`s damaged skin. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.`

`The distributor` can change a film? They must have had BBFC guidance.
Let`s picture the film, a man is in pain, his face is contorted, so the camera cuts to just the skin and not the face?
On the back cover of the dvd of DEMOLISHING ASSHOLES ( there seems to be a man pouring wax onto the chest of another. His head is tilted back and his eyes are closed.
I wonder if it was that scene?

It seems like the distributor had some sort of choice (between what and what I am not sure), and they chose one of them. The `guiding hand` of the BBFC seems down played and invisible.
But that`s only my theory.

The site is described as `BOYNAPPED contains images of abused, stripped, naked British twinks engaging in kinky sexual acts`
Twinks are `young` gay men or gay men who look `young` -

braintree    [30062.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 13:38]
  Pooch- I don`t need to justify it because I really couldn`t give a shit if it offends you or not . It IS just a word and if you can`t get over that then it really is your problem - not mine.
Many words have the possibility to offend people but as someone else pointed out its the intent that should be looked at . If you can`t understand that once again , its your problem .
Nobody ever died by being offended so if being offended is something you have time to worry about you should get out more.
And why wouldn`t I compare you to Harriet Harman when you come out with the same sort of utter bollocks she would be quoted as saying ? She`s a politician out for publicity so she has an excuse for talking nonsense - what`s yours ?
You are right about one thing though - I`m all for being allowed to randomly offend people . What is this modern preoccupation with being offended? Offence never hurt anyone and its whingers and whiners about this that and the other that means this country has more than one generation of people taught to try and find offence where none is intended .
The Clarkson non story for one . People are asking for him to be sacked for saying one word . Not saying it to anyone - just randomly saying it in a rhyme . Is this country so controlled that a random word that could be construed as offensive in another context is now not to be said by anyone at anytime ( except of course black singers in their music)
As to you actually feeling it`s ok to complain that I posted the word NIGGER on a forum just as a word and not as an insult - quite pathetic really. Ironic that you should post regularly on a forum about censorship . It would appear that you`re actually part of the problem and agree with the establishment that there should be no censorship except when it suits you.
Shall we all put "The N Word" instead to spare Poochs sensitivities?

And Pooch - the Government didn`t setup the BBFC.It was setup over 100 years ago by the film industry itself in an attempt to pre-empt Government interference .

goatboy    [30061.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 10:13]
  TV ratings are pointless, there is far to much content for any independent auditing, as such you`d be talking about producers giving ratings to their own work and they are always going to be ultra liberal with themselves. You`d think the mediawatch types would know this.

A noted example of this would be this WWE segment which was cut for post watershed showings by Sky but was given a TV PG rating in America by WWE.

phantom    [30060.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 07:55]
  Pooch [30058]
First off, in Braintree`s defence, it was I who first quoted the word `nigger` regarding this story, not he.
Next, I do think there are indeed contexts in which the use of the word `nigger` is not racist.
In my view the word per se is not the bone of contention, but the intent.
So for example an older relative of mine used to refer to things being `nigger brown`.
However, I know for a fact that this person was not a racist. But had simply grown up in an environment and at a time when this was a term in use. Thus, is the fact that this was said, make my relative a racist by default, or does context matter?
I believe it very much matters.
In that respect Clarkson`s use of the word `nigger` in a nursery rhyme is clearly simply that, a nursery rhyme.
The fact hat he even deliberately mumbles it, to the point where it is not discernible, makes the current public outrage entirely pointless.

I myself was of a generation which was definitely brought up to view `nigger` as a taboo word. But in recent years I have come to doubt whether this was a good idea.
Because the taboo which once applied to a handful of terms has now spread into becoming political correctness.
Something that was invented by enlightened liberals is now garrotting liberal values. This was never the idea. The blanket militant policing of expression was not the purpose of this taboo.

Please understand that I am fully aware of the pain racism causes. I do not belittle this problem at all.

cor    [30059.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 05:23]
What you find offensive and odious is your business, and i give it as much importance as what i find offensive and odious, that is to say none at all. It is a human right to make argument and offend, and absolutely NOT a human right never to be offended.

As for the quote in question, if you can not imagine a context where using the word nigger is not racist, then that is just a failure of imagination. Trust me, there are plenty racists that manage to get under the radar by simply being polite.

We are too hung up on the words people use to express themselves, we miss what it is exactly they are trying to express.

Pooch    [30058.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 04:54]
  @Braintree [30056] Your comment, in which you wrote: "As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity" is offensive and odious. And I say this, as a British born, black person who has been (and still does) get called that grotesquely offensive word!

Your comment is both incredibly naive, and clearly from someone who thinks that it`s okay to just randomly offend people. And no, I am NOT talking about Jeremy Clarkson here, but about you personally, using that word on this forum!

Considering one of the rules is "No mindless incitement or hate", you seem to be going out of your way to be deliberately offensive.

And no, please don`t patronise me, by comparing me to Harriet Harman or any other similar individual, and trying to justify you writing what you have done, by telling me to simply get over it, or that it`s just a word! It`s not just a word. It`s a derrogatory insult, that has been used to condemn, belittle, and retard (as in hold back - the true meaning of that word) an entire race of people for centuries!

phantom    [30057.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 04:03]
  There are cuts to Carry on Cleo????????????????

braintree    [30056.   Posted 4-May-2014 Sun 13:18]
  It`s appalling that nobody in positions of authority have the balls to tell these sad whingers to shut up and get a life. But its not surprising that halfwit politicians like Harriet Harman are available for a quote to get their names in the paper. Lets assume for one minute that Clarkson did use the word in one of the 3 takes. As far as I know there is a version of the rhyme that does contain the word yet he replaces it with another word on one occasion , mumbles on another and MIGHT have whispered it on another . I don`t think we`ve reached Orwellian levels of intrusion by the thought police yet. The biggest joke is that a forensic sound expert was required to study the footage to see if Clarkson said it .If it was that inaudible what`s the big deal . Can nobody in power see this is just another tabloid attempt to discredit the BBC and / or Clarkson? Top Gear is one of the BBC`s biggest exports . If they sacked Clarkson the show wouldn`t be the same and the second Clarkson was available C4 or C5 would snap him up to present another motoring series. I`ve always admired Clarkson for his forthright views and his devil may care attitude to saying what he thinks . I`m increasingly disappointed at his continued apologies instead of just telling the whingers to shut the fuck up which is what he would normally do. A real shame the BBC can`t do the same - they`re a bunch of chicken shits . Didn`t defend Ross in Sachsgate and now after the unproveable Savile claims they`re running scared .
As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity.

phantom    [30055.   Posted 4-May-2014 Sun 12:25]
  Has anyone here actually viewed that terribly `controversial` and `offensive` clip of Clarkson supposedly saying `nigger`?
I`m sorry, but he doesn`t actually say it at all.
It`s a bizarre world in which mumbling something can cause this. Clarkson must have thought he had to apologise to save his job. Else I cannot for the life of me understand why he would have done.
But I guess if you shout loud enough then you`re right. So Clarkson is a racist. Oh, please... stop the world... I want to get off.

phantom    [30054.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 20:00]
  Well, I would say that the BBFC are not entirely an independent entity.
In essence they are a `quango`.
A quasi-non-governmental-organisation.

The governmental likes the impression of `independence` because it absolves them of state censorship. But it obviously provides them with the censorship they crave.
There is little doubt that the appointment of a new head of the BBFC is an event which has strong political overtones.

I suspect in that regard the BBFC is about as independent as the BBC.
In short, they are independent for as long as they roughly do as the government wishes.

Now sure, they will at times annoy this politician or that, including Home Secretaries wearing Heinrich Himmler spectacles.

But clearly the BBFC are a tool to allow the UK government to declare itself a western, liberal democracy, whilst at the same time allowing it to ban at will.
So I guess you can tell, I don`t buy the BBFC independence quite so readily.

Let`s also not forget that the BBFC plays a part in law. Parliament and BBFC seems to work hand in hand, with the BBFC effectively acting as the arbiter of taste and decency. Act outside their judgment and you`re in trouble with the law.
Again, do we really think their that independent?

So how do you finance something that is a pretend-independent organisation?
Well, extortion of course. Provide them a monopoly and allow them to exploit it shamelessly.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30053.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 14:43]
  Re BBFC and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

I would have thought that the BBFC`s push for `ratings` you trust would have rather encouraged them to have updated the 18 to 15 without the need of an expensive resubmission. They know its 15 and they wrote an Insight essay to explain why.

The topic came up for discussion here because the 18 rating is inconsistent and obviously rubbish. Hardly a plus point for an organisation trying to issue ratings `we trust`

Glenn Quagmire    [30052.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 06:49]


The BBFC are nothing to do with the government. They were set up by the film studios to make there films were in line with the law. The BBFC are self funded and are an independent body. They do not receive a single penny of tax payers money. The government have no legal say in the boards decisions. Only the law of the UK that they have to abide by. That`s why there was such a fuss over Jack Straw interfering (but denying) the decision to pass "The Idiots".

What`s to stop a company inserting hardcore porn in children`s films AFTER they`ve been passed by the board but BEFORE they are actually released? The version on the shelf isn`t necessarily the version the board passed. And, let`s be honest, the chances of that happening are zero. It would seriously damage the company, cost time and money to repress all the discs and cost time and money for somebody to go to those lengths. And all for what?

Sorry, Pooch. I`m with Phantom on this one. The BBFC are extortioners and racketeers. They`ve already passed it at 15 and it shouldn`t need to be resubmitted again unless they want a change in certificate or it`s in a different version.

Pooch    [30051.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 05:46]
  @Phantom [30050] - That`s a very bleak, nigh pessimistic view to take.

Whilst I partly agree with you, there is a reason why the BBFC have to re-check films, and that`s to make sure nothing has been added/removed that would lower/increase the current BBFC rating. Otherwise, what`s to stop a dodgy company inserting hardcore porn frames into an innocuous children`s animation, and then releasing it for purchase to the unwary public?! Do you not see that maybe the BBFC aren`t the completely evil company that you (and many other Melon-Farmer users) seem to think they are?

And you can`t put all the blame on the BBFC. The Government are to blame. It`s they who set-up the BBFC in the first place, and if - as I said before - the company who submitted THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY for classification, couldn`t be bothered to pay the extra fees, then I don`t feel it`s fair to blame the BBFC for that. The BBFC is only doing what it`s supposed to be doing; what it`s been set-up to do, and ultimately, what they`ve been told to do by Westminster.

Apportion blame where it`s appropriate, and in this case, I have to say it`s not totally the BBFC`s fault. Why should the BBFC force a film distributor to pay more money to get a lower certificate, if the distibutor doesn`t want it? That`d be like buying a used car, and the garage telling you that you have to buy all your petrol from Company X, whilst you are now the owner of their used car. That`s not right, and you wouldn`t accept it. So why do you think that this situation is any different.

If you want to blame someone, blame 20th Century Fox UK, for it is they who have refused to pay the extra re-classification fees to gain the lower 15 certificate. And they aren`t exactly short of cash, are they?! I could understand if the film was being re-released by a small, new, and no-name film company, but not by one of the pioneers of cinema itself!

The only possible reason I can think of, that Fox didn`t pay to get it re-classified to a 15, is possibly because the film is going to be released in a box set with other DVD`s or Blu-Ray`s, and all the other films are 18 certificates as well. In which case, I could see why they wouldn`t pay the extra fees, for a set aimed-at or intended solely for adults.

This sometimes happens with anime TV shows. One episode might be classified as a 15, whilst the rest of the series may only be a PG. So cuts are made, for monetary reasons, and to boost sales to a wider audience. Occasionally, there`s even been cases where a series is PG or 12, and one or two episodes have contained 18 rated material. The whole set, was then left uncut, and given an 18, purely because of those one or two contentious episodes.

Regardless, it`s the distributor you need to complain against, in my view. :)

phantom    [30050.   Posted 2-May-2014 Fri 06:50]
  nah, Pooch.
I simply see it as their wanting constant repeat payments for reviewing a film that they have already reviewed.
Not enough that they`ve already done it for cinema, vhs, dvd then blue-ray...
At some point they film is reviewed. Period. Asking for ever more handouts is simply unethical.
The BBFC are literally operating a racket.
Worse, it`s a government sponsored racket.

Pooch    [30049.   Posted 2-May-2014 Fri 04:53]
  @Phantom [30048] and @Dave [30047]

Glad my info was useful. I disagree with Phantom, about the money issue. If the distributor refused to pay to downgrade the film`s certificate to the rating it should rightfully be (a 15 certificate), then by leaving it with an 18 rating, they`re actually going to lose sales. So, in my view, whilst they may have saved themselves money in the short term, by not paying the BBFC fees, to get the film classified properly, they`re going to lose money in the longer term, as only over 18`s can view or purchase the film!

And Dave, Thanks for linking to my latest article about the new proposed VRA charges. I suspect my article is going to ruffle some people`s feathers. LOL

phantom    [30048.   Posted 1-May-2014 Thu 10:46]
  Cheers, Pooch.
I still blame the British Board of Film Censorship.
After all, the reason the distributor has gone for the 18 certificate was to avoid having to pay. Thus this 18 certificate may not be due to nun-chaks, just simple extortion; the BBFC`s extortion. Thus the blame still lies with them.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30047.   Posted 1-May-2014 Thu 08:40]
  Re The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Many thanks Pooch that explains it. Although it does leave the BBFC Insight information looking a bit inconsistent.

Pooch    [30046.   Posted 1-May-2014 Thu 00:43]
  In regards to THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY, could the 18 rating, be to do with the extras on the disc, rather than the film? The BBFC website suggests the film is rated 18, but the BBFC Insight information, suggests the film was classified as a 15. I suspect, that either the 18 certificate is incorrect, and someone`s just added the wrong rating to the film on the site, or there`s something in the extras on the disc itself, that is causing the increase in certificate.

I`ve contacted the BBFC, and await their response. Once I get it, I`ll post it for everyone to read.

EDIT: I`ve now had a response. Here it is in full...

Dear Pooch,

Thank you for your email.

The most recent classification of THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY was a `Distributor Change`. This is a compliance process whereby new versions of previously rated works are compared to the BBFC archive copies. If a work is essentially the same then it can be passed as a Distributor Change without the need for viewing by BBFC examiners. The latest classifications therefore the same as the version passed in 2004 (apart from the removal of a trailer), it`s simply being distributed by a different company.

The option to have the work viewed afresh for a change in category was open to the distributing company in this instance but they opted to retain the 18 classification.

Yours sincerely

BBFC Feedback Team

So, it would seem the BBFC aren`t to blame for this one, but the new distributor who chose to retain the old 18 rating, purely for economic reasons.

phantom    [30045.   Posted 30-Apr-2014 Wed 18:22]
  It`s just plain embarrassing, Dave.
Every once in a while they discover a new set of personal preferences and dislikes according to which the rest of the world ought to organise itself.
It`s laughable.
Nobody ever expects their bans and cuts to last. Sooner or later they all always fall by the wayside.

Thus, as it`s largely clear by now that they were wrong on just about every single ban and cut since their inception, what credibility do they actually still command, - excepting for the offices of Ed Miliband and David Cameron?

And I mean it. They were wrong on everything. From Spiderman way back to Battleship Potemkin.

These are the folks who cut Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus.

They prefer to claim that they adapt with the times. But oddly, the times only ever conclude that their cuts and bans are no longer necessary. Which is somewhat telling.

I mean, is there a single film from the 10s,20s,30s,40s,50s that they still insist on cutting? That`s half a century of being wrong. Professionally.

Sergio Leone an 18 certificate in 2014?
These people are a national embarrassment.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30044.   Posted 30-Apr-2014 Wed 14:54]

From one knotty problem to another.

The BBFC are due to explain their latest rating in detail soon so maybe this will reveal some unheralded new rules.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30043.   Posted 30-Apr-2014 Wed 14:49]
  Thanks DoodleBug

There is a not in IMDb that a German version was similarly heavily cut. perhaps the UK distributors went with that.

Not a highly rated film but interesting that this wasn`t noticed.

phantom    [30042.   Posted 30-Apr-2014 Wed 06:57]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) {30039}
So in essence on The Good, the Bad and the Ugly` we ARE back to a nun-chak problem. In this case the nun-chak is simply a noose.

DoodleBug    [30041.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 22:50]
  RE : The Hospital UK DVD

It looks like the version of this movie that Tesco got all wound up about is a heavily pre-cut version :

I`ve got the U.S DVD but not had chance to view it yet so hadn`t noticed the big difference in runtimes (17 mins) compared to the one shown on the BBFC page. I think because they listed it as no cuts made it seems to have gone un-noticed as I haven`t seen any other references to the edits.

Therumbler    [30040.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 14:47]
  Be on the look out for videogames cause violence reports, given the recent school stabbing. One such article has a small headline in tomorrow`s Telegraph.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30039.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 14:22]
  Re The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The 18 rated release has consumer advice contains `moderate violence` so nothing challenging on that front.

The BBFCInsight for the 15 rated cinema release also mentions hanging, which is surely something over which the politically correct go into overdrive:

"As for Imitable techniques, the film features some hanging scenes that often involve a man being saved from death by his colleague shooting the rope that hangs around his neck. These scenes appear to be harm free and are not allowable at `12A`, although they do no dwell on imitable detail so they are permissible at `15`."

I guess that the BBFC have received advice from `suicide experts` who have recommended that this should now be 18

phantom    [30038.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 13:35]
  But what is it actually that causes the offence, i.e. the 18 certificate?
I mean, it`s a western. Folks shoot each other.
From what I recall there is no nudity.
So yes, one guy gets beaten up at pow camp. Is that it?
Really, compared to other movies I do now see what one would ever rate this an 18. I can only imagine that someone at the BBFC has a personal bee in their bonnet. (hence the reference to nun-chaks) ;)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30037.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 09:30]
  Re The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Yes strange that the latest release has reverted to 18. If it makes any difference the 15 was for a cinema release rather than home video.

I was just reading the BBFCInsight for that 15 rated release, and the BBFC worded it as if it was a choice between a 12A and a 15. It will be interesting to compare this write up with that issued for the 18 when it is released

Glenn Quagmire    [30036.   Posted 29-Apr-2014 Tue 05:36]

Well, nunchakus aren`t a problem anymore. But I don`t think that it is any more violent than any of the other "Dollar" films. I just don`t understand how they can lower and then higher a certificate. If they believe that it`s not suitable for people under 18 then what about the people under that age who have seen it because the board have decreed that it`s suitable. If it`s "damaging" (which is the usual platitude that they like to spout) then surely the damage has been done and it`s the board`s fault. But seeing as in there has been no evidence or reports of anyone under the age of 18 being harmed by viewing it then surely it is okay to keep it contained at 15? What I believe has happened is that a previous examiner has watched and recommended 15 and the board accepted. A different examiner has now watched it and thinks that it should be 18 and the board accepted. It shows how each examiners interpretation of the guidelines varies and, therefore, produces mixed and unreliable results.

phantom    [30034.   Posted 28-Apr-2014 Mon 11:36]
  An 18 certificate for `The Good, the Bad and the Ugly`?
Why? Is there a scene with nun-chaks in it of which I wasn`t aware?
Just what makes that movie so dangerous to younger generations?

Glenn Quagmire    [30033.   Posted 28-Apr-2014 Mon 09:38]
  So the BBFC have just passed "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly" with an 18 despite previously lowering it to a 15 FROM an 18? Doesn`t this just show how inconsistent and untrustworthy the BBFC are? And, more importantly, pointless and a drain on the film industry? How can a board that continuously lower and higher certificates of the same film and in the space of a couple of years be "age ratings you can trust"?

phantom    [30032.   Posted 23-Apr-2014 Wed 17:14]
  IanG {30031}

Well, I guess we both know by now, Ian, that they have a way of arguing their way around various rights or freedoms. Thus the legality or illegality of it is not really my concern.

Far more, I do not actually understand what they intend.

What I mean is this:

Most adult sites are actual paysites. (Yes, I know there are sites which provide free content. I don`t need telling.)

But what is actually the plan?

As in, are they intending to enforce that all UK based adult sites must henceforth function like paysites - by making people pass some sort of threshold to view membership content?

Or are they intending that to even get onto the front page of an adult site (thus not the membership area), you will henceforth need to provide some sort of credit card pass?

The courts thus far took the attitude that publishers were ok to have sites online, as long as they kept their explicit content locked away behind a gateway.

I think it was the Perrin case which defined this issue, punishing Perrin for his publicly available content, not that behind the gateway. I`m sure, if I`m wrong, Harvey will put me straight. ;)

Now of course that gateway thus far never drew a differentiation a credit and a debit card. But the gateway per se was accepted as sufficient.

But now we have this talk of some sort of `open sesame` that people will need to pass through to access adult sites.

What does that mean in practice?

If it simply means that all adult sites will in future need to have a paysite type of gateway for people to reach the explicit content, then it will not make that massive a difference, I think.

But if - just to reach the welcome page - people will need to jump through some sort of identification hoop, then it surely will be an impossibility.

Surely nobody will be prepared to pass through any gateway to view a site of which they hitherto have not even been able to view the front door.

That is was I meant with my question.

What do our clueless politicians actually envisage this thing to look like?
Do they know themselves?

Of course it sounds draconian and one doesn`t expect anything less from our current generation of internet illiterate retards. (let`s face it, they only use the internet to visit the `conservative voice` website)

I`m trying to fathom whether anyone currently knows what the actual proposals are?

Would I want the entire idea to go away? Sure, I would.
But right now, I`d just like to know what the actual idea is supposed to be.

Does anyone know?

IanG    [30031.   Posted 23-Apr-2014 Wed 08:50]
  phantom, I think the obvious answer is "To legitimise the currently illegal actions of ATVOD".

Of course it doesn`t stop there. As someone commented re the announcement, HOW do you define a British website? It may be that anyone operating a domain will qualify - in that case one can envisage various criminal gangs from the Netherlands, Nigeria and Russia setting up porn sites to phish for Credit Card details which they can then exploit for their own profits.

I`m sure many folks, myself included, have been stung by websites that offer a `free trial` only to discover that to cancel their `free trial membership` costs a month`s subscription plus another month`s subscription in lieu of notice. Needless to say, since being scammed like this I have never handed over any payment card details to porn sites again.

By law we are granted the fundamental right to share information and ideas WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. Demanding we firstly possess a Credit Card and then forcing people to use it to access `adult material` is clearly unnecessary interference. When one considers that such material has been freely available to men, women and so-called `children under 18` for 20 years without ANY discernible harm (let alone SERIOUS HARM) occurring to anyone of any age, this becomes a totally unnecessary interference. Every adult has a fundamental right to access `adult material`. However, not every adult qualifies, wants or possesses a Credit Card, thus many people that have a legitimate right to access such material will be denied that right for no other reason than a bunch of paranoid, religiously-inspired moralists BELIEVE this is `right`.

Of course using one`s beliefs to expunge, impinge or otherwise interfere with the fundamental rights of others is in itself illegal. To interfere with people`s rights as the Government are proposing requires real evidence of harm. As far as `adult material` goes, that necessary evidence of harm has not been found. Indeed, R18-rated explicit sexual material would not be available for people to purchase in the high street and take into their homes `where children under 18 might see it` if such evidence existed. The BBFC were unable to convince the High Court that R18-type material caused "any harm" let alone "serious harm" to under 18s. The reason there is no real evidence of harm is quite simple. There is no evolutionary advantage in creating a creature that can be harmed by an intimate knowledge of its own means of reproduction. Indeed, we TEACH our 12-year-olds all the `facts of life` to EDUCATE AND PROTECT them from their own inherent and emergent sexuality.

What is at fault is actually the sexual education of our children. They not only need to know about the biology of sex but also need to be educated and understand what pornography is and why it exists. Because porn, in all its various guises, has ALWAYS been a part of human culture for the simple reason that SEX is a fundamental part of our ENJOYMENT OF LIFE (yet another fundamental RIGHT these paranoid moralists wish to stamp out).

And needless to say, the paranoid moralists exist because they were raised to believe that porn is dirty, nasty and evil and should not to be seen by `nice` people nor, indeed, by `vulnerable children` that are, after all, only `vulnerable` because they`ve been kept ignorant of the facts and been brainwashed by the paranoid moralist`s doctrine. This then is the vicious cycle of CHILD ABUSE evident in this country as enshrined by the paranoid moralists in its so-called laws...

phantom    [30030.   Posted 22-Apr-2014 Tue 08:19]
  re: Brits given 8 months notice to download enough porn to last a year...

Does anyone understand what the government intentions are here?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30029.   Posted 22-Apr-2014 Tue 08:04]
  Re Tourist trap

Thanks DoodleBug, I am updating the entry now

DoodleBug    [30028.   Posted 21-Apr-2014 Mon 14:06]
  RE : Tourist Trap Blu-ray release by 88 Films

Just a quick note to mention that this release is not uncut, although in this case it has nothing to do with the BBFC. There seems to be 4-5 mins of footage missing or mis-placed and frame rate issues. According to 88 Films Facebook page it seems to have been an issue with the HD master they were given.

Therumbler    [30027.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 15:27]

More evidence that Oxford is run by idiots.

freeworld    [30026.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 10:50]
  Harvey {30016. Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 09:35}
Things like the DPA and its extension can`t really "address" that anyway. Such laws do not reduce the availability of material, or make it harder for "the children" at issue to view it by the existence of such legislation. Thus, if those are principal stated objectives justifying such laws, those laws have their basis in a fundamental irrationality - "magical thinking" - the proffered solutions can`t logically meet the objectives given. Actually the "porn etc" filters may be a slightly more rational way of addressing this perceived problem,- though it seems probable they are easy enough for most minors to circumvent.

In the end, in a reasonably free society, the more thoroughgoing control of the kind they, to a greater extent, could once exercise in the pre internet and pre satellite age, is not possible. The days when a British film censor`s cuts, movie certificates, and confiscating DeSade and DH Lawrence at customs, would be adequate to keep the land safe from contagion, are over. And so are the days when passing a national criminal law was the answer to any and all perceived social and cultural ills (they were always only at times effective "solutions" in any case - a law like the Labouchere amendment criminalizing private homosexual goings on didn`t end the practice, just made a lot of new criminals, stuffed the prisons with men who mainly didn`t belong there in a non totalitarian state - as they were mostly no active threat to anyone, and could not be "reformed" by punishment - a very DPA type law ).

If governments don`t accept that the genie is out of the bottle and the internet is a development on par with printing 500 years ago; that it can`t be countered/censored by any non totalitarian government, then they will have only one answer - to become totalitarian governments. And as such, mete out savage levels of punishment to all those who look at what they don`t want people to look at - terrify the population into obedience and conformity. This requiring hugely increasing levels of surveillance on the general population.

As they discover their DPAs and filters don`t really work as they want them to, and the perceived problems remain significant in their eyes, my guess is that, knowing the political class we now have, their approach will be to lash out more and more savagely at the general population. After all, that is the only thing that the DPA can actually do - it can`t reduce availability, limit substantially ease of access, it can`t actually realistically "censor" anything.

In the short term at least, I can`t see the clods in office thinking "out of the box". Will they accept a society where some nasty stuff, what many may regard as "objectionable" ideas etc, circulate fairly freely? See it as an unfortunate but inevitable part of not living in a China style police state? Or instead dangerously conclude that it`s infinitely preferable not to have a free society at all if it means such stuff can be about, pretty much out of their control? Thus view it as far better to have an Orwellian totalitarian construct, one which dedicates much of its energy and resources to spying on and punishing its citizens? Maybe, as part of this they could attempt to cut us off from the modern world and its horrors by "banning" the internet itself?

A major object of government often now seems to be to turn as many people as possible into potential criminals - "Laboucherism", as the end objective is simply to punish over largely imaginary "problems" which are not based in evidence of harm, but in personal subjective opinions. Words like "normalize" and "gateway" are coined and marshalled to back up those opinions, though they are actually no more than subjective opinions put into highfaluting verbiage - language as deception. Their "answer", I`m afraid to say, will probably be to try to catch more people, to jail more people, to put them away for longer, for a growing list of thought/opinion/speech/belief/interest/sexuality crimes.

I`m afraid the precedents for ramping up the totalitarian repression are already there in our good old " liberal democracy" - the building blocks for worse to come - thought, speech, and "look" crimes (things which many "liberals" regarded as actually a good idea, being too short sighted in a lot of cases about where crossing that dangerous Rubicon will invariably lead to), filters with an ever expanding remit.....the words of the late Mr Goggins "No place in our society", like "normalize" and "gateway" can be used to speciously "justify" action (usually action irrelevant to the stated objectives) against almost anything the puritan/ prohibitionist doesn`t care for, without the tiresome requirement for evidence to be shown of real harm - firmly grounded necessity. The "treat e-cigarette`s the same as tobacco" issue is a perfect example of this at the moment - evidence being bypassed/trumped by opinion, as opinion is coming from the influential (NOT the correct).

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30025.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 06:12]
  Pooch, Harvey

The Cutting Edge videos usually invoke a copyright challenge from the film producers. Being US based, Gavin claims fair use and this is accepted as valid. Presumably the level of fair use is ok in the US bit not for the UK, for at least the British film Woman in Black.

Pooch    [30024.   Posted 17-Apr-2014 Thu 05:50]
  @Dave [30022] - Thanks for the Vimeo link.

@Harvey [30023] - It`s probably not censorship at all, but an annoying copyright issue. A shame, because all of Gav`s other Cutting Edge vids are accessible in the UK.

Harvey    [30023.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 18:26]
  Pooch [30020]

"A bizarre occurrence of censorship"

Are you sure it`s a censorship issue? It could be a question of copyright.

Whatever it is, I can confirm that the YouTube version which is not available in the UK, is available in Germany though. Could be different interpretations of `fair use` apply? Would be interesting to know what Salkeld says.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30022.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 09:01]
  Pooch re Woman in Black

Here is the Cutting Edge Episode on Vimeo

Gavin runs this Facebook Page for the series, so this is the best bet for contacts etc

Pooch    [30021.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 06:07]
  Addendum: My local Library, here in Norfolk (England) has now banned the Daily Mail website from its internet service on the grounds of "Gore, News, Web Content, Clothing & Accessories, Music, Real estate and Property"! Ha, ha, ha, ha! Genius!

Pooch    [30020.   Posted 16-Apr-2014 Wed 05:34]
  FAO Dave - Can someone kindly let Gav Salkeld know that his YouTube video "Cutting Edge: Episode 2 - The Woman In Black" is not viewable in the United Kingdom, please? A bizarre occurrence of censorship, or just YouTube screwing things up as usual? ;-) I can`t seem to find any other way of getting in touch with him, hence this posting. Thanks folks!

phantom    [30019.   Posted 15-Apr-2014 Tue 04:06]
  Harvey [30018]
I`m not sure it`s entirely irrelevant, Harvey.
Whether call-me-Dave is still at the top or not, the UK government still will be, irrespective of its immediate leader or the ruling party.
Otherwise, strictly speaking, it would have been irrelevant whether we won WWII, because in all likeliness Churchill would not have been in charge by the end. In that regard wars are policy too. (as proved with the glorious triumphs that were Iraq and Afghanistan)

But the fact that thirty years after `Yes, Minister` there are still no failure standards in sight, is rather telling, isn`t it? Especially in areas of law, like these.

I remember plenty of people proposing a sunset clause for the DPA. It was effectively the suggestion of a failure standard. Naturally, that was never implemented. Otherwise one would have had to reassess the law once its promised use of about 12 `extreme` cases per year had escalated to a thousand per annum.

As for `Yes, Minister`. That sadly would never get made today. For one, Rory Bremner was on Newsnight recently (20th anniversary of the end of Spitting Image) and told that the BBC and other broadcasters won`t touch real political satire with a barge pole these days, as they`re simply too afraid. Meanwhile, some of the funniest episodes or lines in `Yes, Minister` would never get past the Beeb`s censors these days.
Remember Freddy Laker`s `Mumbo Jumbo`? Or the booze-up at the soiree in Arabia? None of that would ever make it to air if it were shot today, for fear of causing `offence`.

Harvey    [30018.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 16:32]
  phantom [30017]

"How will we know whether it ever worked or not?"

Not relevant. By the time a judgement can be made (on whatever theoretical basis) Cameron will not have a hand on the tiller.

"Or are you merely intending to hail it a success, no matter what?"

The `success` is getting the law change he wants and the Daily Mail leader column he needs. That is what he will be able to crow about.

You see, I watched `Yes, Prime Minister` too. So I do know how this works.

Defining a target or outcome by which the success or failure of their policy can be judged! Ye gods, man, you`ll be expecting them to keep their election promises next. What kind of crazy world do you live in?

phantom    [30017.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 14:06]
  Harvey [30016]
Forgive me, Harvey. You know it was hardly too serious a post of mine.

We know they will always move the goal posts.
But I had only just seen that episode of `Yes, Minister` and its `failure standards` and it tickled me.

After all, `failure standards` are strictly parameters which ought to be applied to any public project. But they never are. Because politicians always want `wiggle room`, in case things don`t turn out as they thought.

We all know of their claims of normalisation of sexual violence and all that nonsense, whenever they`re put on the spot. But it doesn`t change the fact that they have actually linked their shiny new law with real rape.

So I think it`s only write to evoke the spirit of Dr Cartwright in `Yes, Minister` and say Actually Mr Cameron, what will be the measure of this policy? How will we know whether it ever worked or not? Or are you merely intending to hail it a success, no matter what? Surely it must be possible to define the success or failure of a policy. So, if the law is to prevent the enticement to rape, then it follows that rape numbers must fall.

Go on, call-me-Dave. Make our day.... :)

Harvey    [30016.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 09:35]
  MF Dave [30015]

The same argument has been made for some time now; that if there was a causal link between the availability of porn and the rate of sexual and/or violent crime, the data would show it by now.

There still remains the argument that by being available to children, porn has the capacity to change their sexual attitudes in ways that needn`t result in crimes being committed, but are nevertheless detrimental to children`s development. Broadly along the same line of argument which says that u18s should not be allowed to purchase alcohol or tobacco.

So while, I have no hesitation in saying that the claim that porn causes rape is baseless, I remain to be convinced that the availability of porn to children is not a problem requiring a solution.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30015.   Posted 14-Apr-2014 Mon 07:35]
  Phantom, a piece on porn and rape

As the above article suggests, we have had 15 years of general access to free porn, whether it be vanilla, extreme or even accessed by kids. Surely we can work out things out from this dramatic upsurge in uptake and hence be able to work backwards to estimate the effect of taking away things.

However I guess that such an analysis would predict an increase in rapes, hardly what the lawmakers would want to hear (or be willing to listen to).

Rex Borsky    [30014.   Posted 13-Apr-2014 Sun 12:23]
  More reportage that mixes child porn with extreme porn and then throws in anime and the old "snuff movie" chestnut for good measure.

Apparently the Judge in this case thinks that an on-screen murder took place, but he clearly can`t be bothered to check the facts on what one would assume to be a vital point of evidence.

The new extreme porn amendments are only going to further confuse these matters, as out-of-touch judges sit in judgement on fetish sites and underground horror genres, and lump the whole lot together with kiddie porn for maximum aberrant effect! What a sorry mess........

phantom    [30013.   Posted 13-Apr-2014 Sun 07:47]
  Here`s a thought.
The extension to the DPA is currently being brought through parliament because MPs believe this type of pornography encourages rape, right?
(well, that`s the official line)

Is anyone around here familiar with the series `Yes, Minister`?
There`s the episode in which the minister hears of the concept of `failure standards`. In short: parameters must be set to a public project in advance according to which the project has failed if it overruns its budget by a set amount or fails to achieve certain performance targets. They must thus set out right from the start what would mean a success or a failure. Before the project beings. Like that success or failure become measurable.

So here`s the nub. If this type of porn is to be banned in order to reduce rape, then by how much must the rape statistics fall to justify the policy as a success? After all, the policy will have a measurable cost. Thus, should there be a measurable benefit? and if there is no measurable benefit when compaired to a definite cost, wouldn`t that mean the policy has failed?

If I`m not mistaken then the trend for sex crimes is already down anyway (the police explain a recent jump as the Jimmy Savil effect on reporting of old cases).
Thus we can envisage the trend to continue and sex crime and reported rape to drop - even without this change in the law.

By how much more than expected must therefore the rape rate drop for this policy to be deemed a success?
Are there any figures? And if not, why not?
In the impact assessment were there any projections as to by how much rape is to be reduced by this policy?

And yes, we all know I don`t think there is any sensible answers to these questions from our parliamentary lords and masters. But I just felt like asking. :)

braintree    [30012.   Posted 11-Apr-2014 Fri 14:50]
  I suspect the Bluray of Bridget Jones is an "error" . I expect Universals general non use of region locking Blurays is to allow them to use the same discs worldwide with only labelling and packaging differences . Unfortunately there are various instances of some companies simply not bothering to release titles in the UK where they can`t just use the same disc as the rest of Europe. Soldier Blue is one of quite a few titles that`s been released in Europe but ignored here where it would require cuts to horsefalls even though the violence may no longer be an issue.

phantom    [30011.   Posted 11-Apr-2014 Fri 07:39]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) {30010}
"How about `complainers are always right, whatever the cost to liberty and livelihood` as the adage of our age"

Actually, I think that particular phenomenon, which is most certainly one of the cancers of our time, is best dubbed `the right not to be offended`.

It has - following the reign of St Blair - become more important than the right for freedom of expression.
In short: we now live in a country in which you are perfectly free to express anything - as long as it does not offend anyone.

The political class hereby are trying to turn Britain from a outspoken, liberal and somewhat raucous country to a conformist nation which dares not object, lest it cause someone to get upset.

`I am offended` has become the bully`s rallying cry. No better way is there to silence anyone than to feign offence. Tellingly , it is often some of the most contrary, aggressive and opinionated people who claim to have been offended.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30010.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 23:27]
  Re normalise as the verb of the age.

How about `complainers are always right, whatever the cost to liberty and livelihood` as the adage of our age

Here`s a good story summing up the patheticness of modern life. Trivia about a background image of Hitler on German mugs

Re Bridget Jones`s Diary

Interesting that the commentary track censor cut has been undone for Blu-ray. Surely one of those complete waste of money censorship issues of modern Britain. The cut would surely no longer be required, yet the distributors have to either mess around reworking Blu-rays (which isn`t cheap) or resubmit the Blu-ray and commentary to the BBFC for a couple of grand to get the official confirmation. Or perhaps there was a 3rd way, forget the edit and hope nobody notices, or at least nobody that complains to the authorities

braintree    [30009.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 14:21]
  Contrary to the item on the site today , the C word is all present and correct on the commentary track of the UK Blu of Bridget Jones although it remains dubbed over by the word COW on the film soundtrack

phantom    [30008.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 12:30]
  freeworld {30007}
Yes, `normalise` is definitely the verb of our age.
Anything could be said to normalise something.
So it is the ideal `argument` for those seeking to ban - well - anything.

What I miss greatly in all this desire to ban, forbid and censor is reluctance. Yes, reluctance.
In my world, that is the measure of a government`s sincerity.

Prohibition is there for things that must be done. Our governments surely ought to wish to see us live as free and unhindered lives as possible.
Thus any limitations they lay upon us surely should be introduced reluctantly. Because they simply must do so.

But - and this is very telling - the politicians are far from reluctant. They are in fact eager to ban things. They go out of their way to tell us about how disgusting things are and how unacceptable, etc.
In short; far from being reluctant, they in fact desire to ban things.

Thus, the laws we receive are not those reluctantly handed down to us from parliament for the common good, but instead are created because people in parliament desire to see them passed.

Every fable, every legend or fairy tale which describes us the `good king` gives us a man who is wise and reluctant to accept and exercise his power.
This is for good reason. Power is best used in the hands of those who wish not to impose on their fellow citizens.
The ideal leader does not in fact desire to impose and enforce things.
He does so, because he must - reluctantly.

Pray, where is the reluctance with the current generation of politicians?
What is most frightening about them is that they want to see things done away with, banned, exorcised, prohibited and proscribed.
Not because they must. Simply because they wish it.

Churchill wrote a famous memo to his cabinet when he let many of the German internees go in 1942. In it he explained that at the height of the crisis the nation may have been forgiven for interning people who had by all accounts done nothing wrong, except for being refugees from Germany. But once this crisis no longer existed he could not in all conscience deny them their freedom.

The greatness in Churchill`s explanation lies not merely in the principle of freedom which he defended so avidly, but in his evident reluctance in having to deny freedom in the first place. Reluctance.

Just as the sense of honour in politicians has long gone, whereby if they were found out, they actually resigned, the reluctance of politicians to impose on their fellow countrymen has vanished.

They actually want to make us less free. Eagerly.
They want to `improve` us and the country by banning and punishing.
It is this lack of reluctance which makes them almost inhuman - and most certainly inhumane.

They are the polar opposite of the `good king`.
They are the literal Anti-Cincinnatus.

freeworld    [30007.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 08:31]
  phantom {30006. Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 05:20}
And the Labour led supercouncil that exists in Wales will include ecigs in the public places smoking ban because they supposedly "normalize" smoking - for the children. You know, all those "children" who go into bars and clubs in the evening. Of course, since the banstibatorsrs got their indoor ban "the children" see more people smoking than ever - as they can only do it outside in "public places".

Look out for the word "normalize" - the banstibators will be making a lot of use of that one all over. There is little to no actual evidence the under age, or anyone else, are taking up e-cigs (as opposed to regular smokers) or finding them a "gateway" to tobacco use. But "gateway", like "normalize" is an evidence free weasel word used to condemn and ban - merely an opinion being given a jargon name to make it sound like more than mere subjective opinion ( even opinion, as here, contradicted by the evidence). In fact words like these have been adopted specifically because they negate the need for concrete evidence. Especially useful when you can`t even produce dodgy evidence which can be twisted (passive smoking is a major health hazard, porn creates sex offenders etc) In fact on e-cigs the evidence is overwhelmingly that they are a "gateway" out of tobacco use, not into it, and "children" aren`t interested in e-cigs. Even if they were, they`re much better with them than real fags.

This issue is one of those times where the banstibators are not just annoying, or threatening to the liberty of HM`s subjects, but are actually very very dangerous indeed. Their puritanical righteous obsessions manipulated into public policy can stop the replacement of tobacco on a massive scale by harmless nicotine use via vaping - these meddling, sanctimonious prigs are set on a course to kill people - lots of them; many will also get diseases they would not have got if the banstibators had left e-cigs alone. The same for "criminalizing" buying sex - it will cause a rise in sex crime and make sex workers far more unsafe.

Ban water drinking - it looks like vodka and encourages the children to become alcoholics.

I`ve just seen a sawn off shot gun on a tv series - I have the irresistible urge to turn into Raoul Moat...

Ban the banstibators -damn the lot of them to the lowest depth of Hell - which is still better than they merit

phantom    [30006.   Posted 10-Apr-2014 Thu 05:20]
  IanG [30005]
I just see it as a continuation of the lie, Ian.
They are determined to ram home the message that a visual stimulus can render us zombies.

If we see the wrong thing on telly we will turn into monsters, if we see the wrong thing in a music video will turn into sex maniacs - and if we see a cigarette packet in shiny colours we will not be able to resist the urge to buy it.

They simply ascribe to us no competency whatsoever and thus deem our consent meaningless (where have I heard that one before?).
I am thus deemed not suitably competent to decide whether I want to smoke or not, because - if I were exposed to the packets - I would not be able to resist them.

An entire doctrine is being established, which is spanning many different areas of government, and simply holds that we are slaves to visual stimuli and must thus be protected from them.

The truth is, however, that I am not a mindless drone. More so I resent some idiots in government passing laws on the basis of my being one.

IanG    [30005.   Posted 9-Apr-2014 Wed 07:07]
  phantom, I suppose this `generification` of cigarette packaging will only affect those who are seduced by brand-name marketing. However, without mass media marketing of cigarette brands, which was of course banned many years ago, such people are already well protected from the advertising gurus` mind tricks.

Indeed, the only people who will actually benefit from this bullshit are the cigarette counterfeiters, who will no longer have to print expensive branded look-a-like packaging - a ubiquitous and cheap plain white box will cunningly disguise their killer brand of fake fags.

As a smoker of many years, I am perhaps better placed to explain why I smoke the brands I do. It`s a simple equation really of cost vs. flavour. I choose my brand based on taste and cost, NOT on the design on the packet, NOT on the name on the front. I`m sure the same principles apply to people who buy breakfast cereals or baked beans - you either like the cheaper supermarket brand or you fork out for the big brand name. The name and picture on the box just confirms you picked up the brand you prefer at a price you`re willing to pay.

phantom    [30004.   Posted 3-Apr-2014 Thu 14:29]
  You are what you see, Part 40317

Interesting how the establishment view of people as mindless drones who cannot but help act on uncontrollable urges if they see something `bad` seems at home in so many different spheres.

Today the government has just announced future rules for `plain` cigarette packaging. Because of course we are what we see.

Am I with the tobacco lobby? No. Furthermore, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. Odd, given that during my childhood McLarren formula one cars were Marlboro packets with wheels, whereas Lotus represented John Player Special, and so on.

But according to current government thinking we cannot resist the temptation of cigarette packaging. It`s just too bright and shiny. So it must be changed. For our own good.

Frighteningly, we have the usual consensus on such matters. Everyone agrees. Labour merely disagrees, because the government `hasn`t acted soon enough`.
So once again it looks very much like a political stitch up. Democracy is not functioning, because no variety of opinion is represented.
Everyone agrees that is must be. Thus, it will.

Some pseudo-scientific nonsense is then trotted out, trying to claim that plain packaging will `prevent` a given number of children (will no one think of the children!) from taking up smoking.
I ask you does anyone believe this sort of `science` anymore?

Sure, I believe smoking is harmful. I`m hardly here to make a plea for the tobacco industry. But the branded packaging turns us into mindless drones?

Just as the wrong kind of porn turns all men into rapists, and the wrong kind of violence in films turns us all into serial killers. (thank God for the BBFC!!!)

All women are rendered miserable for life by photos in lads mags or pretty singers in music videos and all teenage boys are programmed to be terrorist super killers by playing computer games.
It`s just fact. Because they say so.

Therefore follows: see a cigarette packet and you`re hooked.

This is phoney. And I don`t care whether Dave Cameron and Harriet Harman both declare me the mouthpiece of the evil tobacco lobby.

Banning cigarette packaging is the proliferation of a deceit. They are spreading this pernicious lie into ever more aspects of our lives.
We are to believe that we are helpless to visual stimuli. We must be protected from them. They will do so. Responsibly. For our own good.

Harvey    [30003.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 16:55]
  phantom [30002]

I wasn`t pulling you up. Just expanding on your point about the circular argument - The only way we can protect our rights is by throwing them away when necessary or when they apply to people who are not one of "us".

I know Raab is actually a very clever lawyer - which is why I`m not prepared to forgive him his amendment. He knows very well that the HRA doesn`t prevent the UK from deporting people on the grounds of article 8.

He`s very welcome to join the human race at any time. Doesn`t mean he has to agree with my views, just that he should be honest when promoting his own.

phantom    [30002.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 14:31]
  Harvey {30001}

It`s not often we agree on the fine print of a principle. But here we do. So I`m not too sure what I`m actually being pulled up for. ;)

Anyhow, regards Dominic Raab. There are two sides to dear Dominic. How can I put this? One part of him is the right wing politico who `doesn`t like Europe`. A sort of Nigel Farage `light`.
But the other half of him does seem to be drifting into that wishy-washy liberal tendency of a common human being, asking what on earth the state is up to right now and why it is acquiring ever more powers against the individual citizen.

So, who knows. Several Tory grandees have eventually had their road to Damascus moment. David Davis, even Michael Portillo realised at one point he could join the species. And Jonathan Aitken benefited from a `short sharp shock. (there`s irony for you)

So it`s possible that Dominic Raab is undergoing a transformation in stages. Yes, he may be braying like a good pukka anti-European. But underneath it all, he is asking some good questions of the UK government.

Maybe, just maybe the caterpillar may turn into a butterfly one day.

Harvey    [30001.   Posted 31-Mar-2014 Mon 03:42]
  freeworld [29998]

OK, I`ll bite.

You ask; "How many criminals have gone on to offend again after they served their time for one offense?" and of course the answer is that a significant number of criminals re-offend after serving their sentence. And though they are overwhelmingly not murderers or rapists, they are also overwhelmingly not foreign nationals, either. The truth is, there are plenty of home grown criminals which our CJ system fails to protect "us" from. Of course it`s a nice distraction to point to "foreigners" as though if they were all removed, everything in the CJ world would be sweetness and light and further to point to the HRA and Article 8 in particular as the reason for the dangerous foreigners being able to "live among us".

So... Cite the cases where; A) the authorities tried and failed to deport someone because of the application of Article 8 and B) that person went on to commit a violent, sexual or other serious offence.

If it has happened - many times - it shouldn`t be difficult to produce a list.

phantom [29999]

"Largely this deportation malarky seems to be a circular argument, wailing at the moon about `what if they rape again???`
But really the issue just seem to circulate around the two individuals, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and not this or that unknown foreign national."

Circular or not, it`s a dishonest argument.

Abu Hamza did take his case (one of extradition to the USA, not deportation) to the ECtHR and the extradition was delayed until the court was satisfied he would not be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment (Article 3, not Article 8) But he was extradited. If the UK stood by its stated opposition to torture and inhumane treatment it would have sought assurances from the USA itself, rather than having to be forced to by the ECtHR.

Abu Qatada`s case was about deportation, as that was the legal process, though he was wanted to stand trial in Jordan. Again he took his case to the ECtHR and again his deportation was delayed until the UK government got the assurances from Jordan that he wouldn`t be tried using evidence obtained by torture (Article 6). He was deported once the UK had done what it should have done originally rather than simply ship someone off to an unknown fate while paying lip service to the "highest standards/beacon of fairness/defender of freedom" precipice it so tenuously clings to.

Even if there was a good argument, supported by actual cases, that adhering to Article 8 has resulted in dangerous foreign criminals being able to "live among us", we should still be ultra wary of the calls for tampering with Article 8, because we are all very familiar with the process - Create a precedent, then discover the "loopholes`.

So, first the UK would write it`s own law, amending the HRA and requiring the UK courts not to consider Article 8 in respect of deportation cases. I wager it would not be long after freeworld had finished dancing in the street before the first loophole would be recognised, a conflict with the ECHR cited and the UK would derrogate further, extend the non-application of the HRA beyond deportation to all kinds of other legal processes and eventually leave the ECHR entirely.

Yes, it`s annoying for Home Secretaries not to be able to deport just whoever they want, whenever they want and for whatever reason they want, by having to comply with the ECHR. Sometimes the individuals they want to deport are those which most people would agree shouldn`t be allowed to remain in the UK. But the fact is, in those cases where there is a good reason to deport someone, the ECHR is no bar to doing so.

Dominic Raab MP has been vocal on the evils of Article 8 and it was his amendment which sought to remove any Article 8 considerations from deportation cases.

He argues as though the UK is continually being thwarted in the deportation of dangerous foreigners because of Article 8, but the only case he ever cites is that of Akinshipe, a Nigerian convicted of the rape of a 13 year old.

So some facts about the Akinshipe case.

Firstly, Akinshipe`s deportation wasn`t blocked as a result of article 8 being considered in the UK. He lost his appeals to the UK tribunals and took his case to Strasbourg, where he won. So it isn`t even an example of the UK courts being hamstrung by the HRA that Raab suggests. Raab should at least be honest and say that because he thinks the ECtHR shouldn`t be able to block deportations, the UK should leave the ECHR.

Secondly, though it was the case that Akinshipe was convicted of raping a 13yr old, he was 15yrs old himself and therefore a juvenile at the time (and a child himself, in the eyes of the law). By all accounts (and the case he put to the court in Strasbourg wasn`t challenged in this regard) he has rehabilitated, has the support of his mother and sisters who live in the UK, he has gone to college, obtained A-levels, studied for a degree with the intention of getting a good job and has committed no other crime since he was released. Yet he is painted as a predatory paedo, rapist and a danger to the public.

You only have to Google to find numerous cases where despite appealing on the grounds of Article 8, foreign nationals have been deported, so it`s nothing resembling the block to deportation that Raab claims. The right to a family life is certainly not an unqualified one, but the government has to show that to deprive someone of that right is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances. Strasbourg ruled that in Akinshipe`s case, all the facts suggested that deporting him was neither necessary, given his rehabilitation, nor proportionate, given his family ties to the UK where he has been since the age of 13 and lack of any such close ties to Nigeria.

Having looked at the facts, I tend to agree with the Strasbourg court. Surely if a young offender can be rehabilitated, it`s something to be pleased about and to be encouraged, rather than rewarded with a deportation order and removal to another country? Raab would disagree. He would say that in order to satisfy the xenophobic tendency, the only facts that matter are that Akinshipe is foreign and has committed a offence, that no regard should be given to anything else. It`s having to actually make the case that deportation is necessary and proportionate which Raab finds so disgusting and unacceptable.

sergio    [30000.   Posted 30-Mar-2014 Sun 07:54]
  So, the government wants to `follow the money`? Bitcoin, virtual currency should disinfect this particular harm?

phantom    [29999.   Posted 28-Mar-2014 Fri 17:07]
  freeworld {29998}

"But one group can, at least, be removed to somewhere else, so they can`t represent any future threat to the British public. They are not "ours" in the first place. When they go, they become the problem of the country they came from, the country of which they are a citizen. We must address the problem caused by "our own" criminals - why on earth should we put up with those individuals who aren`t even ours? I really see nothing particularly objectionable about removing British nationality from a former foreign national who has then gone on on to break the criminal law of the country which gave him/her that privilege."

Well, if he`s a British national who`s previously been a foreign national, then - by being British - he is `our criminal`, whether he once was foreign or not.

Secondly, even some of those foreign nationals are in fact `our criminals`.
Take some of the `yardies` we sent back to Jamaica. that state complained vehemently about what we were doing. And rightly so. Our society was allowing that yardie culture to turn those folks into seriously dangerous gangsters. and then, once we were done - we sent them `back` to Jamaica, where the forces of law and order were simply not equipped to deal with this sort of criminal violence. Eventually it seriously de-stabilised the place. We did that. By what we did. By hypocritically labeling them `their problem` and deporting them.

Largely this deportation malarky seems to be a circular argument, wailing at the moon about `what if they rape again???`
But really the issue just seem to circulate around the two individuals, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and not this or that unknown foreign national.

The hyperbole employed by the government in those cases. So we`re really just looking at politicians wanting to make law to fit a particular case or two. - In order to look `strong` in the media.
I struggle to muster too much sympathy for Cruella deVil and her plight.

freeworld    [29998.   Posted 28-Mar-2014 Fri 06:13]
  Harvey {29995. Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 07:56}
It`s "represented that way" because it has happened that way - many times; it`s not just some factoid existing only in the minds of those who automatically side with authority and are especially down on Johnny Foreigner. I`m one of "those opponents" and I certainly don`t want people to have "no human rights considerations at all". That statement is surely an unfair stereotyping of anyone who doesn`t care much for the act we now have. Many dislike it as they view it as essentially bogus, providing no sound guarantee at all, in practice, of the liberties of the population. I`m an opponent of the HRA principally because its provisions mean little when the state wishes to deprive us of basic human rights by legislation. The wide and subjective discretionary clauses mean a determined executive, set on a certain course of action, can, it would appear, still do whatever they want - and hang that specious "guarantor" of our freedoms, the HRA; a law graciously granted to us by the very bunch who then went on to give us the DPA and much more. However, we also see there are numerous cases where the same legislation seems to cease to work in a like manner in the courts. A fair and just law would only have "conditional" provisions opertating when there has been proven harm - such as when an individual does material harm, enough to get a custodial prison sentence. Right now, the law`s provisions encompass generalizations and the purely subjective - eg "public morals". But some judges and the politicians might be dealing with quite different legislation in their respective fields.

At present, we can`t "deport" a British national, get rid of them, for the obvious reason - but there is somewhere to deport a foreign one to. And good riddance to them. Both UK and foreign people released from prison may still represent a real danger in future. It`s not a matter of someone who comes out of jail being presented with a metaphorical certificate as "safe to live among us", it`s simply that they have served out the period of punishment for whatever crime they committed. How many criminals have gone on to offend again after they served their time for one offense? How many have even murdered again? That situation must remain as it is until the death penalty is restored for murder (then a murderer certainly doesn`t show any recidivist tendencies - but personally, I don`t support the DP myself), or the state, as a matter of course, locks up sane people on the basis of "what they might do" (I guess we have gone that way in some instances already, given justifications central to totalitarian legislation like the DPA and "hate" speech laws) rather than what they have done. But one group can, at least, be removed to somewhere else, so they can`t represent any future threat to the British public. They are not "ours" in the first place. When they go, they become the problem of the country they came from, the country of which they are a citizen. We must address the problem caused by "our own" criminals - why on earth should we put up with those individuals who aren`t even ours? I really see nothing particularly objectionable about removing British nationality from a former foreign national who has then gone on on to break the criminal law of the country which gave him/her that privilege.

phantom    [29997.   Posted 27-Mar-2014 Thu 13:10]
  re: Government supports amendment to increase the penalties for internet insults

Seriously? Harsher sentences? For saying something?

Now wasn`t the chief priority of this government to reduce the deficit?
Err... Pray, how much does it cost to lock up a prisoner? Isn`t that rather expensive? Should not any government keen on saving money try to lock up fewer people, rather than more? Especially for trivial matters?
But apparently, no.
Huzzah! The deficit is solved! We can start spending money again. On locking up people for the political luxury of feeling better about it...

phantom    [29996.   Posted 26-Mar-2014 Wed 09:04]
Harvey {29995}

"[* Not for much longer - Schemes to give the Secretary of State the power to rescind the UK citizenship of those born outside the UK are just around the corner. Human rights or no human rights.]"

Oh, brilliant. All we need. More power for Cruella deVil.

Harvey    [29995.   Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 07:56]
  freeworld [29987]

"legislation designed to supposedly protect against persecution being invoked successfully to allow very dangerous criminals to live among us"

The effect of Article 8 is constantly represented in this way by its opponents. Those opponents would prefer there were no human rights considerations at all.

The fact is; violent crimes are committed by UK citizens as well as foreign nationals, so you have to ask why those UK citizens are deemed "safe to live among us" once they`ve served their sentence, and it`s only the foreign nationals who are dangerous and need to be deported.*

Another fact is; it`s not just foreign nationals convicted of violent or sexual offences who are liable to be deported. The authorities use deportation or the threat of deportation as an additional non-judicial form of punishment and clearly the interpolation of rights such as Article 8 annoy them intensely when it means they can`t always deport who they like, whenever they like, for whatever reason they like.

The argument against Article 8 is routinely presented as one of public safety. If you took the time to look into individual cases, you`d find it hardly ever is.

[* Not for much longer - Schemes to give the Secretary of State the power to rescind the UK citizenship of those born outside the UK are just around the corner. Human rights or no human rights.]

MichaelG    [29994.   Posted 25-Mar-2014 Tue 00:20]
  Re: Update: An even more ludicrous attempt to conjure up some `outrage`...

Don`t know if it`s more the venue than the attire that got the Mail dribbling down their collective fronts as GAY is well-known for it`s kinky stage shows. The dress is sexy but it doesn`t automatically scream `dominatrix` at me when I look at it.

I`m beginning to think that the warped view on sexuality is beginning to take its toll on the journos at the Mail. It`s like all the copy was written by Robin Askwith. Nobody who is famous, female and good looking can just simply `wear` anything in the minds of the wretches who write this tripe - they have to be `flaunting their famous butt`, `showing off their bikini body`, `displaying their curves for all to see` etc etc.

And all this from the newspaper who want online porn automatically blocked...

phantom    [29993.   Posted 24-Mar-2014 Mon 14:52]
  Government these days speaks in grand terms about what is not tolerable in society today. It suggests this or that material ought not exist.
It then proposes law which expunges said material from existence. A sort legislative exorcism.

But there is a deceit at the heart of this. We are presented with a `choice` of what material we wish to permit or banish. All focus is put on whether something should exist or not.

However, we cannot assume that, by officially banning something, we actually make it go away.
After all, just consider narcotics.
So banning something clearly does not make it disappear.

Thus, making law on the basis of what we wish not to exist is both foolhardy and deceitful on behalf of those who suggest it.

In reality we must look at the making of law as the choice we face for what we wish to see people punished. For that is all state can do. Punish. Fine. Deprive of liberty.
A government cannot make something go away. Its only means is to punish.

So people ought not to be asked to choose what it is they wish to see put out of existence, but instead for what they wish to see other people punished.
For what must people suffer?
For what suffering which you created, do you wish to be held accountable when you reach the pearly gates?

After all, if you support this law or that, you in essence wish to see those people who fall foul of your statue to suffer the punishment of the state.
In effect, you wish to see people imprisoned. If therefore it is a law you support, their imprisonment is your responsibility.
So with what do you feel comfortable knowing that someone will be cuffed, taken and locked away?
So for what suffering on this earth do you wish to answer to the Almighty?

This ought to be the way politicians present these issues to the public.
Their choice instead is all about `what ought not exist`.

It is presentation. PR. Marketing. In short: deceit.

phantom    [29992.   Posted 24-Mar-2014 Mon 14:33]
  re: Kylie Minogue`s Sexercise...

"Vivienne Pattinson, of campaign group Mediawatch-UK, said:
It`s just reinforcing the idea that your worth is defined by your hotness rather than anything else you have to offer, and that can be really damaging for the self-esteem of young girls."

This is a very odd comment in my book.
It seems to take into consideration that - surely - every string in an artists bow adds to their appeal.
Thus, if a musician is `hot` then surely this is an added bonus. Thus it is flaunted. This doesn`t mean that it is the only string to the artist`s bow. It simply stands as an additional way of attracting attention to the work of the artist.

Why does Kylie Mynogue flaunt her body. Well, firstly, because she has something worth flaunting. But in essence her body is the equivalent of, say, Elton John`s outrageous spectacles and costumes.
Is thus Elton John`s worth solely defined by the brightness of his outfits?
No, nobody would say that.

It`s an audiovisual medium. If an artist is good looking then obviously he or she will use it to his or her advantage. Again, not as their sole virtue, but as an additional feather in their cap.

If thus an artist is `hot` surely they will show off. Elvis did. Freddie Mercury did. What is wrong with that?
Absolutely nobody is saying that what is in music videos is the standard by which all of us are measured.
That said, given the obesity epidemic we`re witnessing it might not be a bad thing...

If I have a criticism it`s that it`s a fairly uninspiring rip off of Eric Prydz` `Call on me`. And I dread to think what Vivienne Pattinson makes of that one.

sergio    [29991.   Posted 23-Mar-2014 Sun 04:29]
  `TESCO bosses have removed a horror film featuring extreme sexual violence from sale in all stores nationwide after being alerted to the content by the Citizen`

Who are these `Tesco bosses`?

So, let`s get this straight. A small local newspaper
(according to this
it sold 18,501 a day in the first half of 2012)
`Complains`/`alerts` `Tesco bosses`? How? Do they have a direct line to Tesco bosses?

Pooch: tesco employees also buy from tesco. So, yes, tesco employees can complain.

Pooch    [29990.   Posted 22-Mar-2014 Sat 06:43]
  Thanks Dave! There`s a small update too. On Saturday 22nd March, Tesco e-mailed me with a further response. This is the full contents of that e-mail, minus any personal information. (All errors have been retained!)

Dear ______ ,

Thank you for contacting us. The hospital was approved for general release and rated 18. However, on this occasion we’ve made the judgement to remove it from sale. We are always pleased to listen to feedback and remain focussed on offering the most popular titles to our customers. In regards to your comments on the content of our newspapers, as with all retailers we look to offer our customers a wide range of media titles. Please let me assure you that when selecting our magazine and newspaper range, we always keep at the front of mind that we are a family retailer and that the product choice needs to be appropriate. We do not stock any publication that we deem would be not suitable to our customers, including any adult titles. We’ve passed on your concerns to the relevant departments as customer feedback is very important to us. Thank you for contacting us.

Kind regards

Steven ______ , Tesco Customer Service

Tesco seem to be saying that they`ll only stock items that are "family friendly", but not "adult" titles, yet they are happy to stock most 15 and 18 rated films (and some Parental Advisory, Explicit Lyrics type CD`s too), but clearly if something doesn`t fit-in to their own, very narrow definition of what constitutes "family friendly", then they will happily remove it from sale - presumably after just one single complaint!

Ironically, they continue to sell THE SUN, the DAILY MAIL and the DAILY STAR newspapers, which aren`t "family friendly" (as per Tesco`s understanding of the term), so it seems that their decision is really down to randomness, rather than a concrete decision to protect the morals of children and families.

If they really wanted to be "family friendly", then they wouldn`t stock any films higher than a PG-rating, and the three newspapers I mentioned would also be removed from sale. Likewise, they`d remove most mens and women`s magazines, as well as titles like PRIVATE EYE magazine too, as they aren`t family-friendly either.

It seems hypocrisy and misinformation is very much the order of the day here! I don`t think Tesco knows what it`s actual policies are, and are making this all up as they go along. Hmmmm....

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [29989.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 09:17]
  Good one Pooch

Isn`t it strange that one complaint is enough to cause havoc, yet it has to be the right kind of complaint, underpinned by unthinking outrage or offense, and it is totally irrelevant if this is obviously feigned or not. A well reasoned calm complaint carries absolutely no weight whatsoever.

Pooch    [29988.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 05:47]
  Just seen the story about Tesco removing the horror film HOSPITAL from all of their stores shelves, after just one complaint. You can all put a complaint in to Tesco`s, using their online complaints form at...

I have entered a complaint, and await their response, which I will post here, once I get it. I have also undertaken a Live Chat with a Tesco Customer Services member, and this is the entire transcript (with my personal details removed)...

TESCO: Hello, my name is David. Welcome to Tesco Chat. How can I help?

ME: Hi David. I`d like to know why Tesco has decided to pull the 18-certificate horror film DVD called HOSPITAL, from all of your store`s shelves, after just one complaint from a local journalist, as shown here...

DAVID: I can`t say that this was something we were aware of here, but I`d be happy to try and look into for you.

ME: Well, please look into it, because if it only takes one single complaint to get something removed from your stores, based on one single person`s own skewed viewpoint, then I`d like to ask that the DAILY MAIL is also removed from your store`s shelves, as that is as offensive to me, as the HOSPITAL film was to that journalilst!

DAVID: I`m just querying this with our Support Team now - sorry for any delay.

ME: No problem. I will wait. (A few minutes go past...)

DAVID: Okay, unfortunately, there`s not much more we can say here that wasn`t in the article already - namely, that a judgement was made to remove it from sale. However, having discussed with the colleagues sitting around me, I can tell you that we absolutely did receive multiple complaints about this product, including from members of staff in stores.

ME: So, in other words, your staff are able to dictate what you do and don`t sell in your stores?!

DAVID: No, absolutely not - my point was that both customers and staff were asking for this to be removed. However, I absolutely appreciate your frustration with this, and can make sure your comments here are reported back on our internal system which will, in time, be reviewed by all relevant departments, including our Head Office and Buying Teams. I do know that they will be taken into consideration for the future

ME: Hang on, you`re contradicting yourself. You`ve just said that you had complaints from members of staff in stores (as well as customers) and that was why the item was removed, and in the second sentence, you then say staff have no say in what is sold in your stores. So which is it?!

DAVID: I`m sorry, I didn`t actually say the latter part. I confirmed that we had multiple complaints, from both customers and staff members.

ME: I`m sorry, but you did. You wrote: "I can tell you that we absolutely did receive multiple complaints about this product, including from members of staff in stores." which suggests that staff do have a say in what Tesco stores stock.

DAVID: I`m sorry if you feel that`s what was suggested, but that wasn`t the intended meaning. I was trying to make it clear that concerns were being raised from multiple perspectives.

ME: Well, that`s what you said, so... Anyway, how can you remove an item, that had a legally-approved, 18 certificate from the BBFC? on it. You`re essentially saying that anything Tesco dislikes, can be removed! Does this mean that Tesco is now going to vet all 18 certificate films, and any it personally dislikes or disapproves of, will now be removed from stores and not be on sale?!

DAVID: Ultimately, we will choose to sell what we think is suitable for our customers.

ME: In that case then, you better remove all those sugary, fatty, processed foods you sell, as well as all alcohol, tobacco and sweeties too, as they are all "unsuitable" for Tesco Customers! I apologise if that sounds pedantic, but by withdrawing this one film, you have now effectively said that Tesco`s values, are more important than any other values, uncluding films with legally-approved certificates on them!

DAVID: The feedback we receive from our customers goes a long way to helping make those decisions. As I said earlier, your comments here will also be treated as feedback for future consideration. Having said that, there`s nothing further which we would be able to add to this conversation.

ME: Well, in that case, then please remove from sale all copies of THE DAILY MAIL newspaper, because I find them more offensive than any 18-certifcate horror film!

DAVID: I will record that suggestion. Is there any other matter which I would be able to help with today?

ME: Yes. Please let your team know that for Tesco to override an 18-certificate, legally-approved film, based on your own staff`s views, is not the way to run a business! If the film is legal, you should be selling it, otherwise you are opening yourself up to a minefield of people complaining about what you should and should not stock, based on a few complaints, and that`s wrong!

DAVID: Again, the decision to remove this film from sale was based on multiple complaints, from both customers and members of staff. Moreover, we are under no obligation to sell any product, though we will attempt to take all feedback into consideration, whether that is demand for a product or against. Is there something else I can help with?

ME: Again, as I said before, if Tesco is overriding what is a legal item that can be legally sold, and you are letting staff (and a very minority) of customers dictate what you sell, then that is completely unethical and morally wrong on every level!

DAVID: I`m sorry you feel that way.

ME: Well, it`s a shame that Tesco chooses to operate its stores in this manner, where the vocal few get to dictate what the majority can or cannot purchase!


I think that says everything we needed to hear. Tesco is more than happy to kowtow to whoever complains about something, even if the item is legal to sell, and has been legally-approved!

freeworld    [29987.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 04:05]
  phantom {29982. Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:11}
Sorry - another long `un!
Phantom, yes, too right! At the time the DPA began its sinister slide into law, the then LD party leader, Charles Kennedy, stated that they did not agree with such legislation. It was Lib Dem peers who led opposition to the bill in the Lords (with some sterling support from the conscientious, late lamented Tory hereditary, the Earl of Onslow). I suppose Clegg, facing possible wipe out of his party in the 2015 GE, has one eye on possible "Daily Mail" headlines painting him as the pornographers pal/ an "enemy to women" etc. Just as his block on the Snooper`s charter got such opposition plenty of predictable criticism in some quarters, like from Cruella de May, as being a help to terrorists/paedos etc. Silence on authoritarian legislation like the DPA extension seems to be the LD preferred option right now, probably for reasons of political expediency.

For quite a while this government was resisting default ISP filtering, but caved in under the relentless onslaught of Paul Dacre and his allies (Labour`s Harridan Harman giving the official Labour line in the "Mail", demanding default filters)."Call me Dave", swept up in the moral panic, caved in, as per usual, and just to spice up his credentials with the banstibators, to show how righteous and concerned he was, also announced, at the same time, the extension of the DPA, something which was being screeched for by the usual suspects - mainly the "women`s groups"/"charities"(called "spokesperson`s for.." in the uncritical media, though they actually "speak for" very few).

One interesting factor when considering the DPA is the human rights act. Article 8 seems to continually be being used by lawyers for foreign criminals, to stop their deportation, as they have fathered children, or otherwise made connections, in the UK. That often seems to be enough for a plea to not "abuse" his "right to family life" by deporting him. Yet Article 8 is about conditional, not absolute "rights". In these sorts of cases such a right can be void if it`s "necessary and proportionate" to "protect public safety" and "prevent crime". Yet in many of the cases judges seem to allow enormous leeway for some very dangerous criminals indeed to have their right to "family life" protected, apparently brushing aside questions of the real danger to the public these people represent. Government often express anger and frustration about this, and I feel frequently have good reason to - legislation designed to supposedly protect against persecution being invoked successfully to allow very dangerous criminals to live among us.

Now, we come to the DPA, which to many of us is legislation which cannot conform to the HRA. Article 8 does allow the state to bypass its provisions to "protect public morals", which is probably the basis on which Straw, with his alleged "legal advice" - still unavailable for public scrutiny - stamped the DPA as HRA compatible. But, to my possibly too simple mind, persecution and punishment via DPA is a lot less difficult to show up as unnecessary and disproportionate, abusive to human rights (the whole "public morals" condition seems hard to reconcile with a law impacting on private life; they would also have to show firm links between images and the committing of real crimes endangering the public) than a court concluding some violent foreign rapist should stay in the UK just because he`s fathered a child, or has had a UK girlfriend.

As far as I know, though I might be wrong, when the DPA has been the only count against a defendant in a jury trial, where the cases have not featured bestiality/necro, the CPS has failed to get a conviction. And few are getting to the stage of a jury trial when all the CPS have is such adult EVP - when it appears a jury tends to agree with the defense that there is enough in the evidential requirements written into the legislation to allow them to say they haven`t been met. The famous case of the gay lawyer who was cleared (though his life was still ruined just by the prosecution) cause Starmer, then DPP, to issue further guidelines on grounds for prosecution. It appears they were embarrassed by a high profile humiliating verdict, one which shone a bright light on this ugly legislation, which prefers to skulk in the dark, a law most of the public were still probably unaware of. The case raising, as it did, something of an outcry about the existence of such a law. The question is, if there finally is a conviction, purely over this sort of material, will a barrister - say Myles Jackman - be able to then bring in the HRA, and the DPA will finally have its HRA compatibility properly assessed? I`m not familiar enough with the way the law works to say how/if this would/could happen - but parliament passed the HRA, and subsequent to that it is required government does not implement legislation incompatible with the requirements of that HRA. Many think it did with the DPA, and that those responsible knew they did, otherwise the alleged "legal advice" on which compatibility was supposedly based would not be being kept secret and hidden from public scrutiny. Possibly the use of cautions and cases being dropped before prosecutions, is what is keeping the DPA in business. So its simply the DPAs existence, rather than its use as a tool for prosecution in court, which gives them what they want - a big stick to hold over people`s heads when policing private life, but one which doesn`t seem to be much use if they take the thing to a jury (and may possibly be dangerously exposed there as a measure breaching the human rights act if it is used more regularly in that way).

I think we can say that the DPA will never, in any foreseeable future, be "voluntarily" repealed, possibly not even even modified to make it less absurd and nasty, by the political class we now have. In the light of this, does the DPA therefore need to have a proper test legal case taken all the way, the only realistic means of getting rid of it, or having at least its most objectionable aspects reformed (such as removing the unreal, applying it only to real abuse)?

MichaelG    [29986.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 00:10]
  Re: Kylie Minogue`s `Sexercise`:

The vile rag that is the Daily Mail never ceases to amaze me. Although they seem to be sitting on the fence slightly more than usual, their leering report of Kylie`s raunchy new video has already given way to a more moralistic tone with this second article.

Nice to see they`ve left the sneak peek of the video in though so that we can still see what it is we are supposed to be disgusted by...

MichaelG    [29985.   Posted 21-Mar-2014 Fri 00:03]
  Re: phantom {29982}:

`But where are they? How come a government containing the LibDems starts banning things?`

Nothing really new here, my friend. Remember the extremely non-liberal and undemocratic David Alton, the Lib Dem MP who, in the wake of the James Bulger case, had us burning videos in the street (always a LibDem favourite pastime that one!) and was making noises about having all `18` rated videos banned.

I guess if anything can be gleaned from this it`s the fact that self-serving wankers who land themselves in jobs in politics are there purely to look after Number One, not the people who made it possible for them to be there in the first place and whom they are supposed to be representing/looking after. Consequently, you have a motley mix of religious zealots, feminazis, moralising twerps and folks with deep-rooted personal issues that they wish to force us all to share turning up across the entire political spectrum, in all parties. Admittedly, the likes of CommuNuLabour seem to hold the lions share of these fuckwits, but the overall rule of thumb for the general public seems to be simple... if someone has the acronym `MP` after their name, they are not to be trusted.

But then I think we`ve known that for a very long time...

phantom    [29984.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 19:13]
  Therumbler [29983]

Yep, here`s the key paragraph for me:

"Emma Carr, deputy director of Big Brother Watch, said: "It should not come as a surprise if companies concerned about maintaining their users` trust to hold their information start to move to countries with more rigorous oversight processes, particularly where courts oversee requests for information." Surveillance laws have a direct impact on our economy and Yahoo`s decision should be ring an alarm in Parliament that ignoring the serious questions about surveillance that are being debated around the world will only harm Britain`s digital economy.""

So what were the top priorities of this government again? The economy and the deficit? Hmmm, so it`s a choice between getting all those still from yahoo web chats, or the digital economy? Let me guess which of the two Cruella deVil will want....

Therumbler    [29983.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:53]

Yahoo goes to Ireland because of snooping in UK, Theresa May upset.

phantom    [29982.   Posted 20-Mar-2014 Thu 15:11]
  Err... can I ask. Where are actually the LibDems these days?
Officially, they are part of the government. Officially, they claim to be a brake on the Tory government.
But where are they? How come a government containing the LibDems starts banning things?
Has anyone heard a cogent argument made by the LibDems explaining how it is that they are putting their names to banning stuff?
Surely, this is the Conservatives (`family values`, `Christianity`, `taste and `decency`, yadda, yadda) wanting to ban.
And yes, in parliament they seem to be in an odd coalition with the Labour party on the subject of censorship.

But if I recall correctly the LibDems were essentially opposed to the introduction of the DPA. Now they are in government, they are signing off on its expansion.

We all know that you can`t get everything you want in a coalition government. But I fail to see anything the LibDems have got for their abject surrender on this subject.

Moreover where are they on this? They are utterly silent. How can they be a party of government, thus jointly responsible for the introduction of legislation of proscription, and then remain entirely silent about what it is they are doing?

Essentially, the LIBERAL Democrats are setting about BANNING things.

Is it just me?


Forum Software.  contact or visit