|
Menu
Register
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
Dynamic Pages
Return
|
sergio [27175. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 13:56]
`While all the above scenes are shocking and uncomfortable to watch, this film IS very good.`
`...that being said, I`ll be surprised if they were phased by the necrophilia / rigor mortis sex moments,...`
Sorry? Isn`t that now illegal?
`While I`m no fan of censorship (I wouldn`t be on here if I was), I do believe that a metaphorical line should be drawn in the sand, especially when dealing with children and sex in films.`
I was just watching this with Heather Brooke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdszORp_-fk
Interesting what she says at the end ... `...some sort of provable harm that can happen...` pbr [27174. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 12:41]
Following on from Sergio`s comment...
"as it does suggest you can easily drug and anally rape a child"
...this may come as a surprise........... sergio [27173. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 06:54]
`While you don`t actually see anything as such, the repeat viewings could be seen as being titillating and arousing for certain viewers`
Is it me or does that sound moronic? pbr [27172. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 23:51]
@Cappy - can`t say I`m entirely sure what you`re trying to express there... if you`re trying to suggest that the previous ruling clique had a healthy respect for the ideals of liberty (and I hold no dillusions that the Tory belief in it goes any further than crass NIMBYism, but frankly, that`s a step up from where we were...) then... well... let me just say we`ll be in disagreement on that :)
Oh yea... as Tony has come out of his crypt... you may all enjoy this particular little documentary:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-britain-went-to-war/4od
I recommend you watch the whole thing, it`s about the Miners Strike, but if you`ve not got the time, skip straight to 47:00 to get the background, and then at 48:41 someone will appear and he will speak words, words which will bring you the most sardonic smile you`ve ever had... Cappy [27171. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:26]
@pbr liberal views ??? Are you having a laugh when the liberals have just got into bed with the tories hmmmmm !!! and i dont know what the crack is with william coz there was a jeremy and norman for the liberals. Now you have a condem f lies all over the place Cappy [27170. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:23]
@pornomania Yep the do gooders are having a right laugh saying we can watch and regulate whatever we want coz we know its better that way you arseholes Pornmania [27169. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 12:58]
Did any of you watch Logun`s Run on Film 4 yesterday at 4.45pm in the afternoon? It was the uncut version with full nudity. Nudity in itself according to censorshiop law as I understand and as long as it is not sexual should not really be censored even in daytime if there was warning before hand, however there was a scene at the beginning when Jenny Agutter wearing very little with glimps of buttocks came to see Michael York for sex. Another scene at an orgy had full frontal nudities. pbr [27168. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 05:39]
I see your Daily Hate and I raise you MichaelG!
While looking for any news on the Freedom/Repeal Bill I found this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291007/Nick-Clegg-launches-Freedom-Bill-cut-red-tape-reduce-nanny-state.html
And the comments are... delightful... my pick is this one:
I know, people fought for freedom of expression so that they could talk about things in an open discussion without fear and all we have left is the DM
- John Alex, London, 03/7/2010 01:49
...I can only hope that the poster`s comment has the meaning I think it does and that the Hate`s moderators aren`t as sharp as they think they are... MichaelG [27167. Posted 28-Aug-2010 Sat 23:50]
Anyone fancy a laugh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1306470/The-Girl-Who-Played-With-Fire-review-No-spark-Swedens-gloomy-Noomi.html
Tookey gets it wrong again! After giving `The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo`, one of the most critically acclaimed movies this year, a feeble 2 stars, he now gets the knives out for the sequel.
"Once again, the origins of this piece in Scandinavian TV are evident."
Once again, Tookey`s world-class stupidity is evident. They`re based on a trilogy of books, you fucking halfwit.
"The murky lighting, dull camerawork and slack editing (especially obvious during the action scenes) aren`t of the quality you`d expect in a Hollywood film."
Er... perhaps because it`s a Swedish film, not a Hollywood film, with none of the excessive budgets or colossal salaries from the latter. Any real film critic would, you`d think, be glad of the chance to review something a little bit different to the norm. Not this juvenile minded cretin - he`s probably just upset because there weren`t any fluffy talking animals or toys that come to life in there.
And no review of `A Serbian Film`, Chris? What`s all that about then? pbr [27166. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 10:32]
@ Hartfordshire conviction....
"Sergeant Dey said: We are the first officers in the county to make use of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – possession of extreme pornographic images – and it was only possible by the fantastic support from FACT and BPI."
...FACT and the BPI are protecting their beastiality catalogue? O_o
"The investigation into him took nearly a year."
...your taxes at work... goatboy [27165. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 04:16]
I`ve not seen it, but A Serbian Film is reportedly VERY over the top, I don`t think it`d have got through unscathed at any point, though if the tories are wanting bloody Medal of Honor banned, I can see why the bbfc wouldn`t want to pass the baby rape movie uncut at the moment, I`d guess they`d think it`s not worth it in terms of the level of heat they`d get, although it`s interesting the bbfc say in the press release "the Board does not regard these images as likely to contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978", which does raise the question of what the justification is for cutting it.
And of course the irony of this is the film, uncut, is on the pirate bay website, so the bbfc doing this may well increase interest in seeing the uncut version, which anyone with a computer and broadband can do anyway. MichaelG [27164. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 21:11]
Re: goatboy [27163]:
Didn`t know about this, thanks for the info. Very interesting point you make about the activities of the BBFC in relation to which political party are in power. Don`t know if we`re just seeing a number of particularly troublesome releases which they would have felt compelled to hack chunks out of regardless, or if they feel obliged to be a little more ruthless with the scissors now the Tories are back in power. Perhaps they`re still a little wary of the party who gave us the original VRA.
It`s also very interesting to consider that under CommuNuLabour, despite their overarching implementation of draconian, fist-clunking, stifling policies, one thing that did improve was the relaxation of censorship of entertainment, at least in some ways.
And no, that doesn`t mean I want the fuckers back in power... goatboy [27163. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 17:36]
Surprised it`s not mentioned here yet, the bbfc have ordered 3 minutes 48 seconds of cuts to A Serbian Film, 79 cuts, and a screening in London this weekend for frightfest is off as Westminister council won`t allow them to show anything but the bbfc approved version.
Though to be honest I think it was optimistic of frightfest to think the film, which has a scene where a newborn baby is raped, would get through the bbfc, especially given the tories are back in power. MichaelG [27162. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 12:08]
I`d just like to say a big `THANK YOU` to the BBFC for the heads-up about cutting the piss out of the `I Spit On Your Grave` remake - I really appreciate their transparency - and also for doing their bit to ensure that the distributor of this movie loses sales because no-one wants to watch something that`s been rendered incoherent by their excessive meddling and pruning. Dissuading movie fans from going to see the cinema release and from buying the DVD - the recession rolls on thanks to self-important, hand-wringing cunts like this.
I mean, what is the fucking point when I can order it totally uncut from the US Amazon site months before it gets released here anyway? The BBFC should just wind up right now and pack all their employees off to the nearest job centre...
Oh, and after his comments about `Medal of Honour`, Liam Fox can fuck right off too - the first member of the Coalition to royally get my back up. Every government has at least one, don`t they? DoodleBug [27161. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 22:55]
phantom [27159]
Loved that last comment phantom :-)
As far as I`m concerned the BBFC were doomed once DVD`s became popular at the end of the 90`s. DVD importation kicked in in a big way and there are so many UK based importers around you can have the latest uncut epic through your letterbox within 2 days of ordering it.
bleach [27160. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 15:21]
The new Medal of Honour game has also been rated 18 for violence. The first game of the series to get above a 15. phantom [27159. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 12:32]
DoodleBug [27158]
Well, the gents at the BBFC must continue to justify their existence.
They do so most of all by finding `potentially harmful material`.
(the beauty in this lies of course in the adverb)
Some might argue that this creates an inherent conflict of interest. After all, what happens would the BBFC - heaven forfend - not find anything to ban in a calendar year?
Would not significant numbers of staff then be deemed superfluous?
Well, yes. Thus they will happily continue to find material from which we need to be protected.
It follows therefore that, as long as there are censors, there will be censored material. Which in turn will be used as an argument for the continued need for censors. Ah well...
There is however something which will throw a spanner into these works.
I can imagine that functionaries in Whitehall already will be fearfully toward the internet and the evermore practical proposition of global film distribution via the net.
We already know that this is happening to a large scale in video piracy, but it is bound to take off legally in some form sooner or later.
It will then very quickly become an irrelevance where you live, or where the seller is based, when downloading your legally purchased movie.
Essentially we all know this is going to happen. It is a matter of time.
At such a point the BBFC, finally, will be rendered powerless.
Sure, they will still be able to oversee cinema releases. But anything regarding video will very quickly - and irreversibly - slip from their grasp.
And hey, we will all be there - to spit on their grave. ;) DoodleBug [27158. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 09:39]
After hearing about the problems the makers of the remake of I Spit On Your Grave had in the U.S. trying to get a rating I made a prediction that it wouldn`t pass uncut in the UK and it looks like I was right :
This work was cut. The cut(s) were Compulsory. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 21s were required. Details of cuts below may contain spoilers of plot details.
Company was required to make a total of seventeen cuts during three separate scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material (in this case, shots of nudity that tend to eroticise sexual violence and shots of humiliation that tend to endorse sexual violence by encouraging viewer complicity in sexual humiliation and rape). Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. phantom [27157. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 07:02]
emark [27154]
re: A Sadistic Prosecution...
Yep, it seems an interesting step change here.
First off, this is not bestiality which seems to have been the mainstay of DPA prosecutions thus far.
Also, it`s not something tagged on to some other charge. Or at least that`s how it reads in this article.
What is unclear however is why the police raided his properties.
Was this really a raid to find 3 movies and 26 photos of BDSM?
Or was it - as I would deem more likely - a raid for something else which proved fruitless? Thus, the DPA once more would be the fall back charge in order for police to justify their actions and not be seen to be wasting their time.
The mention of BDSM in this is extremely worrying.
Also the vagary of the lingo used seems very suggestive of much lesser material than this law was ever (claimed to be) set up for.
But then I do approach this with an element of `I told you so`.
To me the most contentious paragraph in this law has always been `likely to result in serious injury`.
From the start I asked, how likely is a likeliness?
What is the difference between, say, a possibility and a likeliness?
And that`s before we ever get into the notion of `serious injury` in this context.
I have always suspected that it is the `likely to` which possibly opened this up to all matters BDSM.
Now true, we do not know the details of this. And we have no way of ever finding out. Perversely, this means that we - some of the best informed people on this matter in the country - therefore still remain clueless as to what actually is culpable under this law.
But then that is why this is bad law.
One can not know.
The prosecution is thus at liberty to try it on - no matter what.
Authoritarian nirvana.
Truly one of Blair`s legacy laws it seems.
For I would definitely call that a legacy. pbr [27156. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 10:37]
@Cartoon Banners...
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tuna Empire work isn`t being displayed for its porn quality... Tuna Empire satirised Bin Laden... and this is Denmark... pbr [27155. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 00:21]
*amused aside*
...Dentist in sadomasochistic shocker...
*rollseyes* emark [27154. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 15:45]
Another "extreme porn" case that seems to involve only humans, with no other charges: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/
This may also be the first case where the defendant admits having an interest in BDSM (as opposed to looking at "shock" images for curiosity, etc). Shaun [27153. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 05:47]
Fourty five years ago when I was but seven, we used to play "Allies and Germans" in the school playground. I once even took the part of hitler.
These morons who whinge, moan and demand censorship and try to do "good" haven`t got a clue. Nor do they realise just how much HARM they are doing.
There may be less censorship in some spheres, but that`s only due to modern technology and the fact the politicians cannot control it.
In many ways we have lost LOADS of freedoms since I was a kid.
So much for that freedom site of the government`s. It is clear they don`t have any intention of even considering the MOST popular ideas.
Politicians in this country are not fit for purpose and should be treated with complete disdain like the charlatans they are. They prostitute their position, and abandon their former stated principles completely for a bit of extra time in power. It makes me sick. pbr [27151. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 14:48]
When I first saw the headline play as the taliban I though "damn that`s brave"... but what it actually means is that in multiplayer, someone has to be on the other team...
=/ Do they really need a gamer to explain that when you`ve got competative play and only 2 teams... someone has to be on the other team?
I mean... come on now... shall we ban all WW2 games in case someone plays as an axis power? What about going back further... is that Napoleon: Total War on my shelf an insult to those that died at Waterloo?
I mean good grief... MichaelG [27150. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 11:59]
taken them a while, but here we go:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305164/Medal-Honour-Liam-Fox-outraged-video-game-play-Taliban.html
This is the first bit of controversial entertainment that anyone from the Coalition has called for to be banned!
"I am disgusted and angry. It`s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game"
It ain`t that hard mate. I bet it`s going to go down a storm in places like Luton and Bolton with young members of certain minority groups who idolise the likes of Abu Hamza and who jet off for summer holidays to remote parts of Pakistan to... er, `learn new skills`.
`I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.`
Yeah, they`re going to do themselves out of thousands of pounds of sales just because you said so....
If I were him, I`d be rather more concerned about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305076/Iran-goes-nuclear-Fears-regime-plans-bomb-gather-pace-Russian-atomic-reactor-started.html pbr [27149. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 04:25]
Yet another surreal story out of Kent... there`s something awry with that force... emark [27148. Posted 20-Aug-2010 Fri 18:47]
Nice to see the Guardian turning into the Daily Mail. Janus17 [27147. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 23:30]
Re: Just 3 Victims of Paying for Sex Law...
Just love the Guardian`s approach to this. They don`t seem to be able to accept the facts. There aren`t prosecutions because there just aren`t the ludicrous numbers of trafficked or coerced women suggested by the likes of CommuNuLabour idiot Denis McShane a couple of years back. There aren`t prosecutions because it`s so damn difficult to prove, which should have been taken into consideration by the halfwits who created the law in the first place.
`Men who use brothels are escaping a new law intended to crack down on the coercion of women into prostitution, the Guardian has learned.`
Yes, they`re likely `escaping` because the women they visit haven`t been coerced or forced(!). Fuck me.
Now APCO claim that at least 2,600 prostitutes working in brothels in England and Wales had been trafficked from abroad. `Trafficked` - meaning they have been led, coerced or forced into coming here by a third party who will gain from the situation, or are they girls who have come here of their own volition? Irrespective of being assisted in arriving or travelling - if this is the criteria for establishing `trafficking` cases, you may as well go after the airline company by which they arrived too - I`d just love to know how the term is being defined.
As for the figure, how can they possibly know this? One week it`s 2,500, the next it`s 80,000, depending upon who you`re listening to at the time. But with only three cautions (and no prosecutions) since April 2009, don`t all these massive figures seem, well, just a little... unlikely? sergio [27146. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 04:01]
Irony:
Next to story of `Prudish council` and `Artist John Vesty `
was
` * Kelly Brook is a goddess in gold as she FINALLY puts some clothes on for Piranha 3D premiere But slashed dress was still rather revealing
`
I am not sure why he is `astonished` - has he never displayed nude paintings before? Of course the opinion of a few council officials is flimsy.
`But former actor Mr Vesty, 57, and his supporters insisted that none of his paintings were erotic or pornographic.`
Again, that is his and the supporters opinion. If it is not erotic then it must be bad art.
(`No nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even if it be only the faintest shadow — and if it does not do so it is bad art and false morals.` - Ch. 1: The Naked and the Nude by Kenneth Clark)
I am not sure if this is censorship. They put them up and then take them down and then put them somewhere else - a gallery.
I wonder if some of the people were so turned on by the pictures that they couldn`t take the acres of flesh.
Council officials, public/staff and opinions of offence.
Interesting game, how many opinions of offence does it take to take a picture down? cor [27145. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 15:38]
RE: "in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?"
granted none, but in no other spheres do we need to, how can we maintain the right to remain silent until your day in court when you had to talk the last time you were in court. Or ensure a fair second trial when the first is on public record, likely sensationalized by the media potentially biasing the second jury? Or a speedy trial the fourth, or fifth time around?
now i feel like i have to explain the value of the right to remain silent, how it protects the innocent and condemns the guilty by the very nature of evidence itself.. but I`ll assume you understand this principal and move on.
The courts are only half the problem, being under investigation can be a life destroying process where none of your belongings are your own and every move you make is twisted out of context to make a case against you.. this process has to have an end, a conclusion, otherwise its just an exorcise in terrorism.
RE"If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result..."
...there will always be new evidence, doubts, inconsistencies, but we`re not setting up a method of scientific study here, this isn`t a proof or a theory that can be re-tested every time someone spots a vulnerability, its someones life, someone who, when accused of a crime, should be aloud to clear there name once and for all, and then move on without continual harassment or fear of being retested if someone sees a circumstantial weakness in them.
I think we need to look at what exactly we want from justice, if its simply to find the absolute truth, then a scary, intrusive system will be the answer, my hope is that its `to convict the guilty where possible, taking every precaution to protect the rights of the innocent and wrongly accused` - considering an innocent man in prison *means* a guilty man on the street i can`t see how anyone can disagree with me, the process itself should accept that some errors will happen that we can`t fix - or it would make the whole system worse.
pbr [27144. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 14:20]
I`m very much aware of the value of the double jeopardy rule, consider though... in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?
If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result... there should be a mechanism to retry the offence... the question is how you determine what`s compelling and how many bites or rather, in what circumstances can the cherry be bitten again... cor [27143. Posted 16-Aug-2010 Mon 03:05]
RE: Double jeopardy..
I`m not an expert in law, but to me double jeopardy is more than just another addendum to law that can be easily scrapped or re-written. I believe its the foundation of out system, by that i mean the concept of `clearing your name`.
Without it i think there will be 3 fundamental differences in how our justice system will operate;
first, accepting the minimalist attitudes of public sector workers, cases will be brought with little to no evidence, and little to no prep, in the knowledge that if a conviction fails the more `new` evidence they can put forward the greater the chance of getting another trial.
second, where charges will be brought against the innocent more readily (as a side effect of the first point) people who have `cleared their name` will still be under investigation after the trial, their every move scrutinized and taken out of context for an indeterminate amount of time, there will literally be no way for them to re-join normality.
and third, there will be even more pressure on the innocent to plead guilty, to get a lesser sentence and put an end to their torment -knowing it likely wouldn`t end even if they won their case now.
RE pbr [27142]
unbending rules are our only protection from the public servants that do everything but serve the public, rules like `innocent unless proven guilty` or the right to remain silent, or the concept of clearing your name in court (supported by double jeopardy). Without them we rely on the judgment of people i wouldn`t trust with the remote to my TV. pbr [27142. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 12:05]
Double jeopardy is a double edged sword... it`s pro preventing the state from trying you over and over and over and over ad infinitum has to be balanced against the shitstorm that is... say... being acquitted then writing a book about how you did it... if you did it... *rolls eyes*
I think it`s something which needs considerable care... but... an unbending rule regardless of the facts... that`s dangerous too... on balance... double jeopardy is something which can be sacrificed - if there are the proper gatekeepers and penalties for abusing its absence...
There haven`t been that many egregious cases of abuse since we lost it this side of the border... though... 2 `wobbly` shall we say... ones come to mind... Teddy [27141. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 06:38]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10977281
I find this absolutely incredible! 800 years of jurisprudence...not a bit of it; our wonderful politicians know what`s best. I thought that Nu Labour were bad, but the SNP are of an even worse ilk, if anything. pbr [27140. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 10:13]
RE: Consent to prosecute
I was looking for some statistics... didn`t find what I was looking for, did drop by and get some details on consent to prosecute though:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/consent_to_prosecute/#a06
"Where the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings is required, this may be given by a Crown Prosecutor by virtue of section 1(7) Prosecution of Offences Act (the 1985 Act)."
So... everyone above caseworker and associate prosecutor is able to consent :) and I`m making the assumption that AP`s can`t I don`t know for sure... my understanding is that AP`s are non-qualified (as in they`re not solicitors/barristers) staff... that`s what I`m basing the assumption on... and a sliver of hope... Spiderschwein [27139. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 04:39]
RE: Bel Mooney and music that`s poisoning kids minds.
The 80s were innocent?!
This was the era of glam and big hair and "Girls, Girls, Girls," and groupies and cocaine-fuelled excess.
I am with her on the unnecessary flesh-baring though. I do think that a lot of it is just put in because the object is to shift some units and cover up for mediocre actual product. Then again I don`t buy it, so... pbr [27138. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 03:13]
@ Harvey
I`m sure the most -noticeable and reported- trouble will be with the prisons, but it`s always easier to bellow rhetoric on cutting "admin" rather than "the front line"... Harvey [27137. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:23]
@ pbr,
I tend to think the biggest trouble will be with prisons, rather than the courts. pbr [27136. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:17]
@ Harvey
lol, I chuckled when I saw the met chief (granted, different budget) saying he "rather likes sending villians to jail"... I see ground work for a scuffle between the hang-em and flog-em wing of the Clarke & the Treasury coming... and I can guess which side the foaming at the mouth sections of the media are going to bay for...
But in all seriousness... Courts have this awful habit of getting terribly backlogged... if you take 15,000 people out of the MoJ and the only bodies it runs I can think of with real numbers are HMPS, HMCS and HMTS... and yea... legal aid has become something of a target of choice...
...could be all kinds of trouble...
In other news... I was most amused by The Sun`s new campaign to shop benefit frauds... talk about biting the hand that feeds you... Harvey [27135. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:09]
@ pbr
Well legal aid was being squeezed even before the government`s finances got so out of shape. But I take your point that when the budget gets slashed, there will be less justice to go around.
Although... the slashing of budgets at the MoJ could work to prevent the CPS spending money on such nonsenses as the tiger porn man`s case. So it`s swings and roundabouts. pbr [27134. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:46]
@ Cappy
Marriage is 16 with parental consent...
Legally 16-18 is a weird place... even weirder following the age of neo-labour, naturally...
@ Harvey
I wasn`t really commenting on the case, more thinking outloud on the legal aid and fair hearings... looking forward to how the butchery at the MoJ will bear out on Art 6... not just legal aid... but the actual ability of the Court office just to push the paper necessary! Harvey [27133. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:46]
pbr, IanG
re: McLibel.
I think the facts of the McLibel case also bear on the ruling. It was McD who sued Steel & Morris. They were not seeking legal aid to bring a case of their own, but to defend themselves in an action brought against them. AND it was a very unequal struggle between a wealthy multi-national and two individuals of limited income. So while the ECHR upheld the claim of the McLibel 2, that in their case they had been denied a fair trial, that`s far from being a ruling that the discretionary awarding of legal aid is in conflict with article 6.
But in the recent comparable and notorious libel action against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association I don`t think he got any legal aid to defend himself. Though the BCA eventually dropped the case, he was left with a legal bill well into six figures. Singh wasn`t denied a fair trial. He just had to pay for it. But then the BCA probably paid a similar amount, if not more to exercise their right. Cappy [27132. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 16:06]
Bigoted self centred twats who sanction what we can see on our TV and what we cannot MUST be deluded morons who thrive on backslapping tuxedo wearing middle class bigots who think they are high and mighty.
Marriage - 16 years
Alcohol - 18 Years
Smoking - 18 Years
Watching porn on Internet - Any age
With pin technology would a 5 year old be able to see pornographic images on TV? - the answer is no why? a 5 year old just about has learned to do baisc of basic tasks to learn how to live .
But Hey the same 5 year old can use a computer and if he has learned any playground words and remebered to put them in a google , bless google it corrects any spelling mistakes and give some answers , all it takes is a five year old to click a few times and hey presto
Now the older kids will be more averse to surfing and closeted away in their own rooms god only knows what they get up to on their computers
You have heard the stories of children "chatting" to strangers and so on
Children develop as mirrors of ourselves in quite a lot of ways , A drinking smoking mum or dad will have a smoking drinking developing child
It is high time the "do gooders" allowed some freedom to "Adults" to enjoy their "products" without being treated as children pbr [27131. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 11:37]
RE: McLibel etc...
I`ve got nothing to do with any kind of legal aid work... but... if I recall rightly back on the LPC the way that the state might get out of their Art 6 obligation is to set up a system which says thou shal never have legal aid for X, Y, Z but, there is a "discretion" to allow it... but I wouldn`t bank on that discretion being exercised all that often... DarkAngel5 [27130. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 11:31]
Regarding that Daily Mail article, I`ve just posted this comment, we`ll see if it gets published...
"Mike Stock is a complete hypocrite, what about those early "Kylie" videos which he co-wrote the songs to? I seem to recall her prancing around in some fairly evocative clothing, he didn`t seem to object to sexy dance videos when the royalties from them were lining his pockets!" dano [27129. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 09:15]
Re: Bel Mooney...
Present personal opinion as fact and subjective surveys as evidence of actual harm and you can say Eamon Homes is poisoning children`s minds.
Take things totally out of context to apparently show how music and music videos is sending out horrible messages to young people...
Like Rihanna and Eminem`s song which she reckons is glamoursing domestic violence. According to Bel Rihanna is justifying the victimisation of women!
No don`t bother to actually try and understand what the song is about (it`s about an abusive relationship, there are plenty of them about already and they started long before singers and rappers started talking about it) just take it by your own prejudiced agenda and decide that it`s gonna make kids hit each other!
Take personal offence towards what`s out there as evidence of actual harm. It`s always done and never proves anything! Shaun [27128. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39]
I wish someone would censor the Daily Mail. Better still close it down forever.
IanG [27127. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39]
Harvey, I`m sure you`re right but I do know I heard (in the TV documentary about the subject) that the ECHR or ECJ ordered the UK to change its legal aid policies when McD brought its entire corporate might against two UK citizens who were simply publicising the TRUTH about McD`s products.
------
While I`m here, I thought you good folks might like to read this (as succinct as I can make it) argument against OFCOM`s illegal activities.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=594135#pid594135
MichaelG [27126. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 23:26]
Comedy hour in the Mail again, courtesy of Bel-fucking-Mooney:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302594/Lady-Gaga-IS-poisoning-childrens-minds.html
Dear God... it`s about as interesting as reading the safety instructions on a bottle of Domestos. But a whole lot less useful or worthwhile... Harvey [27125. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 16:32]
IanG, AFAIK there is no general entitlement to legal aid for civil cases. Though the ECHR does say that to ensure the right to a fair trial there should be legal aid for criminal proceedings AND to determine civil rights.
Other claims are assessed on merit, and even then any legal aid is means tested. Even with a strong case, you have to be virtually destitute to qualify for anything. Taking a simple case to the High Court to get a judicial review could cost you anything up to £10k in fees and lawyers charges. IanG [27124. Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 08:00]
Harvey, I thought following the McD libel case that the ECHR had ruled the UK MUST provide Legal Aid in civil cases? Harvey [27123. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 19:17]
Civil cases involve individuals or parties who each fund their own cases as far as court and if applicable the losing party may have to pay some or all of the costs of the other. The state acts as judge and in some cases there is a jury. It is almost impossible for an individual to get state funding to bring a civil action.
In criminal cases it`s an individual up against the state itself. If the state prosecutes you, it will provide legal aid to cover the basic costs of hiring lawyers to defend yourself. If you lose, you will be sentenced to jail or a fine or other punishment, but you won`t be handed the bill for the costs of the prosecution.
So in prosecuting criminal cases there is a sense in which the state, with its vast resources, can always "have a go". It knows it will cost the same to fight you and lose as to win so the only decision is whether to fight the case against you rather than any other case. The only sanction would be that you could sue the police for malicious prosecution. You would need to show malice or a malign motive and as it`s a civil action, you`d only need to show that malice was more likely than not rather than beyond reasonable doubt. But... you`d need to raise the money to bring the case in the first place - it being almost impossible for an individual to get state funding to bring a civil action. If you win you`d be awarded damages. I know of at least one Ore case where a the police are being sued for malicious prosecution. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4769650.Photographer_to_get_retrial_over_child_pornography_damages_claim/ It`s still winding it`s way through the legal morass.
Beyond that, if the police actualy falsify evidence or lie or withhold material they know would help you defend yourself, they could be open to criminal charges themselves of perverting the course of justice, perjury, misfeasance in a public office or contempt of court.
Spiderschwein [27122. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 11:21]
RE: Dodgy Prosecutions to "have a go."
Well, in civil cases, if you bring a truly hopeless case that`s designed just to vex, you may end up with a wasted costs order against you if you`ve behaved "improperly, unreasonably, or negligently" and caused the opponent to incur unnecessary costs.
Isn`t there any equivalent provision in criminal cases? IanG [27121. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 06:19]
phantom, "That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best."
Now, now, phantom, I`m sure you know far better than to question the justice system in this manner. After all, these 12 good citizens are symbolic of the 12 Apostles chosen by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are believed to be duly guided by the Lord God Almighty to reach the correct verdict according to `His` will via their conscience.
The authority to hand out justice in the Royal Courts of Justice is derived from God through `His` representative on Earth, the Crown of England, Defender of the Faith, HRH Queen Elizabeth II.
Of course, this entire system of divine justice pays little respect to Article 9 of the HRA 1998, as beliefs alone are not supposed to be allowed to impede, restrict or otherwise affect the rights and freedoms of other human beings. This inherant injustice is only compounded by legislation that creates supposed `offences` out of unproven and deranged beliefs that assume possession of so-called `extreme images` can provoke extreme or dangerous behaviour.
However, whatever the shortcomings of the justice system, 12 independant members of the general public are probably far better placed to assess and represent matters of `public decency` than the 7 biased, bigoted and misguided twats, namely:
Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam(Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor
that are the OFCOM Content Board, lord and masters of all that we are allowed to see and hear in the broadcast media.
As for matters of logic or, indeed, interpretation of legislation, the OFCOM Content Board appear to have abandoned all logical conclusions made by reasonable people as confirmed in legal precedents and elevated themselves far above the law we must all obey. They see fit to restate legislation intended to guide them in creating their Standards Code (section 319(2)&(4) of the Comms Act 2003), in their pathetic excuse for that supposed Standards Code. They even dare to publish so-called `guidance` that displays their inherant prejudice that should, and indeed must, fall foul of every principle of due impartiality (see section 1.18 of their stakeholder guidance) and fitness to stand in judgement.
sergio [27120. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 01:28]
"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as `pornographic`"
Interesting, how many `experts` does it take to measure a piece of string?
DarkAngel5 [27119. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 11:11]
Re "Sweeney Todd with Balls".
I`ve seen an advanced screener copy of "Meat Grinder", and whilst it is indeed quite bloody in places, and features a few yucky "ouch" moments, its nothing that hasn`t been seen before.
Hostel and some of the Saw films are notably gorier! Harvey [27118. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 10:14]
emark [27115]
In the OPA case I think you`re referring to (Girls Scream Aloud), yet again the prosecution offered no evidence. So we can only guess what may have happened in the trial.
The press were reporting that the issue was concerning who may have been likely to read the story and the court may have allowed an expert to unravel the workings of the internet and the story site where the article was posted for the benefit of the judge and jury. phantom [27117. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:50]
Harvey {27113. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 18:39}
"Would he have been allowed to call experts to testify that the image was not pornographic? I would expect the court to say it was a matter for the jury to decide and that they could be expected to do so purely by looking at the image itself. "
Yes, the expert cannot enter into the sphere in which the `average citizen` is supposed to have all the expertise required.
It`s almost comical what lengths are needed in order to keep a structure upright which, left to its own, would collapse.
The semantics of bad law.
That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best.
I wonder what credibility would be ascribed to a political poll of 12 people by MORI regarding the current popularity of the political parties. Anyone?
I think we all know it would be deemed not broad enough by far to represent the nation`s sentiment, - that is before even considering the regional and local variations in juries which are all said reflect a `national` standard.
Now I do find it funny how we are happy to have experts interpret oil paintings for us on TV to tell us why something is a masterpiece or art per se – something on which apparently there is such a thing as expertise, - but we are all suddenly elevated to the level of experts when it comes to judging the relative offensiveness of porn.
So for artistic nudity we require an expert. For offensive nudity the lack of an expert will do.
Now sure, the supposed `expertise` simply rests in the hands of the jury to prevent stalemate of experts. (i.e. the defence brings half a dozen testifying it`s ok, the prosecution brings half a dozen to testify it is not).
But in essence this boils down to keeping the law practicable. (not practical, mind)
In the end it is just semantics.
The entire idea of obscene publication or dangerous pictures is flawed.
There is no way of measuring obscenity, be it by experts, or by laymen.
A law on obscenity is a law on the length of a piece of string.
Were this law a house, it would have no roof.
But the courts nonetheless would maintain the strict rules regarding the choice of the house`s wallpaper.
Else the illusion fails. The illusion that this is real. That there is logic in this.
In truth we are dealing not with logic, but – to borrow a phrase – with pseudo logic.
We develop rules and conventions, note precedents. All to maintain the illusion that we can precisely quantify that which we have emotively proscribed in law
Namely whether any random piece of string is of the permitted, albeit undefined length, or whether it is intuitively too long or too short.
Now repeat after me:
`The Emperor is wearing clothes. The Emperor is wearing...` phantom [27116. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:45]
Harvey {27106. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 17:23}
“Lastly... Backlash - please publish the names of the individual police and prosectors who staged this outrage.”
I definitely second that motion.
I have oft argued that there should be some comeback on prosecutors.
Fines, docked pay – something.
It seems to me that they frequently abuse their position, simply `having a go` to see whether a conviction can be achieved, irrespective of guilt.
I trust the early Romans had a reason to brand those lawyers who made unfounded accusations in court with the Greek for `false accuser`.
It meant that the accusing lawyer had a risk of his own and consequences to bear. No doubt he would thus see to it that he was certain of his facts before he brought a case.
Whereas today our dear prosecutors garner large wages irrespective of success or failure and reap no penalty if they are found to have brought frivolous charges.
Thus, with no consequences to themselves, it soon becomes a game to them.
A game of have-a-go prosecutors who no doubt think it a laugh if they get an accused to fold under the pressure before it ever comes to a trial in which they never could have produced actual evidence.
A game completely divorced of morality or justice.
A very dirty little game indeed. emark [27115. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 04:29]
Didn`t a similar thing happen with the OPA case last year - the case collapsed because of expert witnesses who would argue that the image wouldn`t be likely to deprave and corrupt? I don`t know if that`s something that is seen to require an expert witness. dano [27114. Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 04:17]
Re McDonalds, Fantastic Four and Campaign For A Commercial Free Childhood:
Groups like the Campaign For Commerical Free Childhood are right-wing organsiations seeking to censor media under the guise of a faux left/liberal agenda.
Perhaps even more irratating and insulting than overtlty right-wing Christian pro-censorship groups like the Parents Television Council such so calld "liberal" campaign organisations take the view that the majority of ordinary people and their children are illeducated and easily manipulated morons who can be "brainwashed" into buying any old shit by "manipulative" retailers.
They arrogantly take up the mantra of "protecting" children and also some adults (usually from the lower/working classes who the anti-corperate left-wing believe are thick, stupid, illeducated and easily led by clever marketing and adverts) from "evil" corperations who apparently commit the mortal sin of trying to sell stuff to people. (SHOCK HORROR BIG COMPANIES TRY TO SELL STUFF FOR A PROFIT...WHO KNEW???)
They have aligned themselves with so called anti-corperate activists and anti-capitalist anarchists who believe that their paid for middle class educations makes them so much more able and intelectual capable of resisting advertising and consumerism than everyone else!
Like the pro-censorship right-wing the left-wing pro censorship anti-corperate lobby believe people are stupid and need to be stopped from seeing things for "their own good".
Harvey [27113. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 18:39]
Would he have been allowed to call experts to testify that the image was not pornographic? I would expect the court to say it was a matter for the jury to decide and that they could be expected to do so purely by looking at the image itself. There was similar argument as to the admissibility of expert testimony in relation to the apparent age of a person featured in an image. The Appeal Court ruled that it was a matter for the jury alone to decide if it was a child.
"In R v Land (1997), the Court of Appeal held that a jury is as well placed as an expert (e.g. a paediatrician) to assess any argument addressed to the question whether the prosecution had established that the person depicted in a photograph was a child, and in any event expert evidence would be inadmissible: expert evidence is admitted only to assist the court with information which was outside the normal experience and knowledge of the judge or jury." [http://www.inquisition21.com/pca_1978/#_int_age_unk]
The whole point being that if the courts accept that it takes an expert to decide, how could any ordinary person, reasonably know whether any image they possess is of a child (or indecent or pornographic or extreme)? Though I admit that the way the DPA is worded expects the jury to decide on the motivation of the person who made the image, I`m sure the courts won`t torpedo the whole offence by admitting it takes an expert to decide.
So, I still believe they planned to run a specific defence (most likely that the image had been sent without him having requested it) and that`s the reason why the prosecution folded. But because it was never actually tried, it is possible for both the prosecutors and the defence to make all kinds of claims about what would have happened if it had been and we are left wondering exactly why the CPS bottled out. emark [27112. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 15:03]
According to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/ , it says:
"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as "pornographic", arguing instead that the content was intended to be a form of extremely bad taste joke and not sexual in nature." Harvey [27111. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 09:43]
pbr [27107]
Yes, the decision will be made on behalf of the DPP by someone lower down the food chain. But that doesn`t mean the buck stops anywhere else, but with Kier Starmer. He takes home the pay-packet, so he carries the can for the blatant nonsense of giving his consent to charging someone when there was no evidence to bring to court.
It`s an angle Backlash could use in their campaign. Perhaps by asking those in Parliament who had opposed the DPA during the passing of the legislation to start asking awkward questions at the DoJ about the consent given in the Holland case or by making the general issue of the CPS coming to court with "no evidence" something which one or other of the Select Committees would like to investigate. Harvey [27110. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 09:25]
emark [27108]
Although strictly speaking the question of whether an image is "pornographic" and "extreme" (according to the wording of the DPA) is only able to be decided by a jury, the return you get for pleading not guilty is a stiffer sentence should the jury decide otherwise as there would be no consideration given for you having entered a guilty plea. That could mean going to jail rather than getting a fine or community payback. So faced with the decision to plead guilty or not, an accused person would have to think there was a more than reasonable chance of a jury deciding in their favour before they`d take that gamble.
But you are quite right that if the nature of the image really was in dispute, it should have gone to a jury trial in both cases.
The reason why I think there was no such dispute in Holland`s case is that the news reports refer to him "having a defence". Now, there are specific defences available to someone charged with possession under the DPA. One of those defences is that the image was sent to the accused without him requesting it and that he had not seen or did not know it was an "extreme" image. Again, I`m guessing that this was Holland`s defence. Because, if the issue had been about whether the image was in fact "pornographic" and/or "extreme" the newspaper reports would not have referred to him "having a defence".
In Holland`s case, he was probably advised first by someone who was not familiar enough with the DPA and was possibly confused having previously dealt with indecent image cases, where downloading is usually charged as "making", for which there is no similar defence. In Nelson`s case it sounds like he`d made enough admissions (probably in interview *before* consulting a solicitor) that he couldn`t resort to that defence. He could have entered a not guilty plea and put his future in the hands of a jury to decide whether a video clip of "genital mutilation" is a) "pornographic" and b) "extreme", but if they decided it was both, he could now be cooling his heels in prison rather than scrubbing graffiti. He may well have got quite sensible advice that given his admissions, damage limitation was better than being a martyr to the cause of individual freedom in the face of bogus claims of harm and of grieving mothers wanting to believe that their daughter didn`t die pointlessly. bleach [27109. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 05:19]
@Ian G
Ofcom / Adult PPV
On pay-per-view as everyone here knows it is probably no more explicit than something you`d get on a free FHM DVD except on the off-chance you might see a woman playing with herself. As for encryption cards I think PPV has a lockout system anyway. What a load of nonsense. You could have potentially seen more explicit material on Eurotrash or late night Channel 5 back in the day. To be honest if a consumer pays £9.99 a month to view a UK adult channel they are being ripped off. Also, wouldn`t having hardcore PPV in the UK also create jobs? The typical viewer also isn`t the dirty mac brigade they`re normal with health sex lives or husbands of politicians. emark [27108. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 04:35]
"he hung himself once he admitted that he could have deleted the video from his phone, but didn`t. (Which is why he was asked that question, of course) Then the advice would almost certainly have been that he`d pissed on his one possible defence"
I agree that he was given crap advice, though one can still reasonably plead not guilty, questioning whether such an image counts as illegal - on that note, I`m not sure what the planned defence for Holland case was, was it that he hadn`t seen the image, or that it was hoped not to count as "extreme porn"? But yes, I agree with your comments. pbr [27107. Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 00:40]
Indeed Harvey, you know though...
Although the statutes say `not without the DPP`s consent` they don`t *actually* require the DPP personally to consent to it, there`s a mechanism within the CPS to consent on the DPP`s behalf, I`m afraid I`ve not actually gone looking for how far down the deligated authority goes... persumably it should be fairly easy to find...
But yes... your points about the these non-cases making it past quality control, they`re as pertinant as ever. Harvey [27106. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 17:23]
pbr, emark
Not just good news, but fantastic news regarding Andrew Holland. A lot of credit should go to Backlash.
And again - YET AGAIN, we have the spectacle of the prosecution deciding to charge someone and when they plead not guilty, turning up in court and offering no evidence. Parliament needs to take a serious look into this as it`s becoming a ritual. Charging practice demands that the prosecution believe there is a reasonable liklihood of obtaining a conviction. How can that be possible when they are not prepared to put any case before the court when someone stands up to the browbeating and doesn`t roll over and plead guilty?
The details of Holland`s ordeal are no surprise to any of those who`ve been hit by the truck of an indecent image allegation as hundreds were during Op Ore. I`m sure there were people here who thought it was an exaggeration to claim that just an allegation could lead to loss of employment, and separation of familes for up to a year. Let this example prove that it`s no exaggeration at all. If things wee running to form he`d have been told the only way he`d see his child again was if he admitted his guilt, because that`s what happened to plenty of people I know when they were hit by Ore. And although he walks from court an innocent man, there`ll be no compensation offered to Holland, and no help in trying to put his life back together, though I hope Backlash will continue to keep in touch with him and offer advice, now that the legal process is concluded.
We all spent ages both here and at seenoevil.org arguing the infinitessimal detail of the proposed law - the definitions, the exceptions and the assumptions. But look at what happens even when there is no evidence.
And don`t forget that the DPP has to authorise each and every prosecution under the DPA. All honest citizens should be writing to ask him how on earth he can do that - twice in the case of Mr Holland - when there`s NO EVIDENCE.
Lastly... Backlash - please publish the names of the individual police and prosectors who staged this outrage.
emark [27101]
Re: the Sunderland case, if the remarks attributed to Nelson are correct, he hung himself once he admitted that he could have deleted the video from his phone, but didn`t. (Which is why he was asked that question, of course) Then the advice would almost certainly have been that he`d pissed on his one possible defence - that the image had been sent to his phone without his knowledge and he didn`t know or suspect it to be an indecent/extreme/prohibited image. In the one statement he`s admitted possession and knowledge - so it went to Mags Court and the solicitor is left making a statement in mitigation. The golden rule is, when arrested and interviewed, say NOTHING. If they have evidence, they`ll be charging you anyway. The only reasons for them to interview under caution is either that they don`t have sufficient evidence they can take to court and want you to give it to them, or that you might admit to more offences than the one they`re already investigating. Remember- you are not obliged to say anything. The time to defend yourself against an allegation is in court, if it gets that far, not in the police interview room, where all you can possibly do is make a bad situation much worse.
Sad for the young guy involved, but he is not the first and won`t be the last. Ask yourself how many other copies of this "sick porn" video are being sent around the mobile phone network. Hundreds, maybe thousands, and the comments of the District Judge suggest that if Nelson had admitted sending the video to anyone else, he`d be looking at a spell in jail instead of community payback. pbr [27105. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 14:23]
When [enough] people are willing to stand up and defend unpopular or embarassing issues in the face of tutting opposition. IanG [27104. Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 10:59]
Typical brainwashed British nutters.
"That this House deplores the easy access children have to pornography by means of satellite and cable television; and calls on Ofcom, the appropriate regulator, to amend its broadcasting code in order to ensure that access to pornographic material is only available via a secure authentication system."
Upon WHAT EVIDENCE, other than their own discriminatory, backward, puritanical religious claptrap, do these `representatives` of the masses base their deplorable feelings?
Clearly, these wankstains haven`t bothered trying to watch `pornography` on UK TV because, if they had, they`d have discovered OFCOM have done a pretty good job of denying ADULTS access proper porn on TV let alone, allow "easy access" to children.
WHEN WILL THE FUCKING TOSSERS SUPPOSEDLY RUNNING THIS CUNTRY GROW UP?
emark [27103. Posted 7-Aug-2010 Sat 06:04]
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/b24s3-introd.pdf
Note that the law amends the previous law on obscenity in Scotland - it starts:
"In section 51 of the 1982 Act (obscene material)—"
So I would hope that "obscene" is as defined in that Act. Whilst this law is far more broad and worrying than England (due to covering any images of sex appearing to be "non-consensual" even if they are consensual), they did at least tie it to their legal concept of obscenity. Although, I`ve no idea how the Scotland obscenity law compares to the OPA? bleach [27102. Posted 7-Aug-2010 Sat 05:39]
Re: Dangerous Pictures in Scotland
If the image is considered "obscene" is undefinable. Some consider cannibal holocaust to be obscene. Another impractical law. emark [27101. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 17:39]
Good news on the "extreme porn" case - though at the same time, it looks like we also have the first conviction only involving humans, with no other charges:
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Porn-found-on-phone-.6433888.jp
Here he plead guilty, and was presumably given crap advice (much like the tiger porn guy, before Backlash were able to help). I guess the rule here seems to be that if you challenge them with a competent defence, the CPS will back down, but they`ll still gladly arrest and charge people for any old image they don`t like, in the hopes of scaring you into pleading guilty. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27100. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:49]
IanG, re-STD checking nutters.
I think these condom campaigners have no real interest in being logical or even in porn performers using condoms. They are just your usual anti-porn campaigners who are attacking the porn industry via a new angle. sergio [27099. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:39]
It`s bloody obvious, anyone who fucks or is interested in fucking a tiger must be sick in the head and a danger to children.
Just like when porn actors get divorced, the fucking for a living must ring bells that you are an incompetent and dangerous parent.
It`s bloody obvious.
(level 5 cynicism engaged) pbr [27098. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:11]
Re: Extreme porn
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/
Positive story there...
With this rather worrying element... "We spoke to Holland after the case yesterday and he declared himself very relieved. Due to the sexual nature of the case, he has been barred from contact with his daughter since the case began and he is now determined to re-establish contact. He told us: "Now I can start to put my life back together."
...now... unless his daughter looks very much like a tiger I`m not quite sure what the connect between the charge and preventing access is...
IanG [27097. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 04:57]
Protection from Nutters...
What`s all this supposed invasion of privacy bull for `adult` actors/workers? If you`re tested colour blind then you`re not allowed to fly commercial aircraft. If you fail a medical check-up then you`re often banned from driving buses, HGVs, trains, planes and automobiles, you`re often barred from operating machinery and/or excluded from pension schemes, health insurance schemes and so forth.
So what`s the supposed difference when it comes to folks working in the `adult` industry? If you test HIV +ve and your bodily fluids are dangerous to those you work with then, I think, your boss and your collegues deserve to know the truth. And if that means you`re not fit for that type of work then so be it. It is after all the safest course of action for all those involved.
In work and business, health and safety issues trump privacy every time - and AFAIK they always have.
IanG [27096. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 06:17]
ASA re ClubOops poster: "We concluded that the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and concluded it was unsuitable for public display."
This `conclusion` is based on one complaint from one complainant after a year on display...
Methinks the ASA is full of shit. Of course, this ASA `conclusion` would perhaps be true if this were a religiously corrupted, sexually repressed and backward shithole...as the ASA obviously seem to believe it is. However, to conclude an ad would cause "widespread offence" and is somehow "unsuitable for public display" after its been on display for a year and attracted only ONE complaint in all that time can in no way lead to, substantiate or support the ASA`s, quite irrational, `conclusion`.
This is biased bullshit coming from the minds of the biased bullshitters. The ASA are clearly not fit to judge. There`s not one shred of rationality in their `thinking`. Not one shred of evidence to support their view.
`Offence` is not grounds to censure ANY material under the terms of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This poster is clearly not a threat to national security; it is not libelous or slanderous; nor is it potentially harmful. A drawing of a partial female figure removing underwear is not physically, psychologically or morally harmful, indeed, I`d bet 99.99% of females remove their undewear in a similar fashion everyday without causing any harm to any on-lookers of any age.
Why I wonder do the ASA believe their Code can be implemented in a way which is compatible with the HRA when the HRA doesn`t allow mere `offence` caused to some cretinous and/or deranged twat to justify censorship? Subjective opinions DO NOT constitute proof of harm. One complaint after a year on display doesn`t tend to suggest there`s any major widespread concern or widespread offence even to these backward, sheltered, inhuman wankstains, that wish to cause widespread retardation of our social progress.
These complainants and the ASA are clearly offended by the mere hint of nudity and/or human sexuality. Why such views exist or, indeed, have any weight or place in 21st century Britain beggars belief. Of course, criminals and religiously deluded fascists alike don`t give a flying fuck what the law says about people`s right and liberties...do they?
emark [27095. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 04:04]
Yes indeed, a label is far preferable to banning, and on commercial advertising only it`s comparable to other such disclaimers. However, I do think there`s a problem in that large numbers of images are manipulated these days - whilst there`s conceivably a difference between say, adjusting the brightness, and making someone look thinner, there`s a lot of grey areas in between, and it`s unclear how the law could draw a clear line. Plus, I think the members of the Girl guides should all make their own choice, rather than being used as support for political lobbying. pbr [27094. Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 00:04]
@emark
I was just pointing it out because I thought it was funny that there`d been no amendment to their policy document and also because of Kent police`s... "reputation" *roll eyes*
The issue of airbrushing is for me, a bit of a storm in a teacup... I don`t see a problem with a kite mark in the corner of a magazine or poster... so long as people are free to create airbrushed images then the fact that they are labelled as such is almost a step in the *right* direction... you tell people what something is, they make their choice... it`s almost like... trusting people to make an informed judgment... scary given what we`ve come out of, I know. emark [27093. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 16:28]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10856055 - now the "Girl guides" - or rather, Liz Burnley - is demanding that airbrushed celebrity photos be compulsory labelled.
Aside from the idea itself, again we have an entire organisation being assumed to agree, based on the views of someone at the top. If we`re going to worry about pressures on children, what about the idea of forcing children into political lobbying, trying to coerce them for your campaign, and claiming they give support to the law? Perhaps we should let children make up their own minds.
It is also misleading to simplify complex and serious issues like eating disorders as simply being due to looking at images. There can be many causes (e.g., depression).
One good thing is that it turns out that Lynne Featherstone (the MP who started talking about this issue) has said she had "no desire to impose regulation or restriction on advertisers or others", and hoped they would make changes to their practices on a voluntary basis.
(Part of me wishes they did bring this law in - since just about every image I believe is manipulated one way or another these days, I`d love to see every single advert end up saying "This image has been manipulated", making the law competely useless, and the whole campaign a laughing stock as it becomes the new "This product may contain nuts"...)
And I laughed at this: "Some 42% of 11 to 16-year-olds admitted watching what they ate." - how terrible, obviously it`s much better that 58% of them don`t give a crap about what food they`re eating... emark [27092. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 14:35]
@pbr: Actually, it might not be quite as bad as that. The policy is titled "indecent images of children", and it specifically states (correctly) of the DDA "It is important to note that this legislation does not mirror the indecent photograph legislation". It also says for 11.2 "Indecent image offences stem from two pieces of legislation", given the two laws, but the DDA comes after that.
So it`s a bit ambiguous, but this may mean they`re just referencing the DDA, but don`t intend the policy to cover it. Or maybe I`m being too optimistic :) pbr [27091. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 12:47]
So... I decided to try some research using just google to find if there`s any reports on charges or convictions under the DDA... So far not found one...
Did chuckle at this wee gem though:
http://www.kent.police.uk/about_us/policies/n/n085.html
"Academic research and experience shows that many people engaged in the use of child abuse images are also engaged in sexual abuse of children."
As it tags the DDA to it... sergio [27090. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 06:10]
BBFC Cuts for Jul 2010
Number of items=69
No. Cuts=15
Cuts ratio=21%
Cuts of interest
ANNA LOVATO - YES MISS
Compulsory cut required to remove sight of potentially harmful sexual activity (in this case, a cane penetrating a vagina). Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Cane cunt can`t emark [27089. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 04:08]
I agree with Harvey about the cartoon porn law. IIRC for the "extreme porn" law, the first arrests came soon after (a matter of weeks) the law cae into force, but it was more like six months before they started being reported, due to the time it takes to come to court.
And yes, I share the worry that keeping track of this information is going to be even harder than the "extreme porn" law (where details are few), with the press just referring to "child porn". sergio [27088. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 01:49]
Interesting prog - in 2 parts? about the drugs in UK. It said Police only have stopped 1% of drugs (or was that cocaine?).
Professor Nutt seemed to be in a quandry over why when the evidence says that banning stuff doesn`t make it better that the thrust of `social and political` action is to `ban stuff`. Anyone got any theories as to why the ban vein seems to be hemorrhaging? I think, if I remember, he mentioned, lower classes doing stuff people don`t understand. Janus17 [27087. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:51]
Re: Raising Awareness of Miserable Nutter Theories...
Well, it would now seem that the feminazis have upped sticks and set up camp in Scotland, being that they now no longer have the ear of the government down here since NuLabour were booted out. Glasgow is now demonstrating attitudes to sex that wouldn`t be out of place in Tehran.
And where did this Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance (TARA) organisation come from? Smells like another `fake charity` to me, doubtless funded by secretly bunged wads of taxpayers cash. `Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance` my arse. The reason nobody`s aware of it is that all the evidence we`ve seen so far points to the fact that, except in a tiny minority of prostitution cases, it just doesn`t fucking exist. If this was such a problem in Britain, how come so few cases have come to light? How come nobody STILL seems to be able to find the large numbers of women these morons keep telling us are trafficked into the country? How come the MET`s Anti-Trafficking Unit was dissolved a couple of years ago?
`Hamilton said: "People tend to think that prostitution is dead sexy, very liberating and that there is nothing harmful about it. It`s portrayed as very attractive women having lots of sex and enjoying it, when in actual fact that`s about 0.005 per cent of women."
Wonder where that statistic came from then... couldn`t have just been made up on the spot perchance, could it?
Once again, we appear to have someone making demands and telling us the `facts` when she likely has zero experience of the industry or knowledge of the people working within it... DoodleBug [27086. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:51]
Re: MichaelG [27082]
Thats the thing I noticed as well. One little comment by the judge and the Mail manage to make a whole article out of the "event"
MichaelG [27085. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:35]
Re: Doodlebug [27082]:
Other than an off-the-cuff remark made by a Judge, is there actually ANYTHING to link this case even remotely with `Blair Witch`?
Nope, but that`s never stopped the Mail, has it? Harvey [27084. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 18:42]
pbr [27076]
The cartoon porn law has only been in effect since April, so it`s still early days in respect of prosecutions getting into the courts. Even if/when prosecutions do get into the courts we`ll only know if reporting is accurate. I can imagine that in many cases it will not be, and reports will just refer to possession of "child porn", whether it be photographs, pseudo photographs or drawings/CGI. The only clue that it was "cartoon porn" might be that a person convicted, but sentenced to less than 2 years jail, would not be required to "sign the Sex Offender`s Register". emark [27083. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 15:31]
I`m confused also - since when did Ofcom regulate bias in the media? And if so, what about the large amounts of one-sided reporting there is in all manner of TV and newspaper articles... DoodleBug [27082. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 14:17]
The Daily Mail were at it again yesterday :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299631/Teenager-carried-violent-Blair-Witch-sex-attack-schoolgirls-jailed-indefinitely.html pbr [27081. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 14:09]
Ofcom regulates Iran`s propaganda organ? rly? dano [27080. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 07:45]
Re: Secret Diary Of A Call Girl....
I have heard this one before from the anti-sex wing of the feminist lobby. Apparently the public are so stupid they can be brainwashed by Bille Piper gyrating about in her undies into believing the prostitution and the entire sex industry is completly without it`s pitfalls!
What causes prostitution....
Poverty, homelessness, inequality.
But fuck that let`s blame TV shows and pop stars!
IanG [27079. Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 04:24]
"But Ofcom ruled that the programme did not contain any alternative views. It said: Presenters or interviewers must ensure they are articulating alternative views in a duly objective manner or putting them to interviewees in a manner that achieves due impartiality.
It said: In summary ... we considered the broadcaster did not provide sufficient evidence of alternative views within the programme. Overall the programme gave a one-sided view on this matter of political controversy. Furthermore and importantly, the broadcaster did not provide any evidence of alternative views on this issue in a series of programmes taken as a whole."
A case of Pot n Kettle.
Where`s Ofcom`s EVIDENCE to support their discriminatory CENSORSHIP of `adult` entertainment?
How come EVERY complaint of supposed `offence` felt by childish fuckwits viewing specialist niche channels gets Ofcom`s unmitigated support whilst the ALTERNATE views of the VAST 75% majority of this country go totally unheeded by lord god twat Ofcom?
According to MY RESEARCH of actual VIEWERS` opinions, Ofcom`s claims that programmes "likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience" are totally UNTRUE, BIASED, BIGOTED LIES.
These are the names of the bigoted, clairvoyant LIARS that make up Ofcom`s Content Board:
Richard Ayre
Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam (Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor
Spiderschwein [27078. Posted 2-Aug-2010 Mon 04:09]
Hey peoples.
Do we have this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10830485
Now let`s not speak of Saudi or the UAE again before I start frothing about gender apartheid, the widespread use of slave labour (inc. to build the Burj Khalifa), and the endemnic racism and religious bigotry in those nations. SasaMisa [27077. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 12:39]
Thanks everyone!
It is a bit too soon to tell if the weight loss is having an effect, although it can`t be a bad thing. With any luck, the blood test I`ve got lined up for this Wednesday will indicate at least a step in the right direction.
As for this damn Cartoon Porn Law: if the Government still contains even a modicum of supporters like that jwills in the thread I just replied to again, I think I`ll soon be writing from a prison cell. Just as the way Ofcom really gets IanG`s goat (sorry for mentioning them), I dismay that people like that can even exist in the so called `era of reason`.
I guess Kahlil Gibran was wrong when he said, "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love." (-_-) pbr [27076. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 09:03]
That would be an "indecent [pseudo-]photograph of a child"...
You`re right though, it is odd that they don`t quote that part of the Act... but the definition is a person, whether fictional or not, who is under 18 or appears to be under 18 despite having some features which would imply they were over 18... of course... they do indeed omit the definition of a child... while they do include the bit about having sex with imaginary animals... queer old world... emark [27075. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 08:13]
At first I assumed that "Prohibited Images of Children" was about the child porn laws. Oh wait, it`s actually "pretend `children`, where the fictional non-existent character might actually be over the age of consent". (What do they label child porn as?)
Also curious that this "guidance" doesn`t even bother defining what the law means by "child". pbr [27074. Posted 1-Aug-2010 Sun 07:52]
Sorry to hear you`ve been unwell Misa, best wishes for recovery (so far as one can with diabeties!)
I`ve been popping along every so often but I haven`t spent all that much time on it, I`ve been voting everytime I find a new one, I`ll have to give a more thorough review a little later and possibly post my own version, I must say I am very pleased to see all the current ones seem to be in the high 4s, I had expected they`d get pumelled by the tub thumpers who`re foaming at the mouth singing the praises of capital punishment, condemning "`uman rights" and making empassioned cries that we should roll back to a time when the gentry could trample urchins with their horses without fear of a "compensation culture"...
As to where I think it`ll go... I`m positively skeptical, it`s possible that we`ll see a it amended to basically be an [unncessary] extension of the OPA, possession is permitted and distribution/publication prohibited... not ideal and pointless given the existence of the OPA but it`s less of a volteface...
There`ve been no prosecutions under it (that I`ve encountered) and it`s received next door to no attention in the media... that`s a partial argument for it being unnecessary! And given how the police and the child protection industry claimed at the consultation and hearing stage that H is a pillar of every good child molestor`s diet... funny we`ve not seen anime fans hanging from the lamp posts...
I also note with some interest that there`ve been rumblings of plans to roll the Church of the Reverand Jim more explicitly into the state`s structure... I`m not certain if that`s a good or a bad sign... but it seems something that`s worth flagging at this point...
On the otherhand... this one will not count any chickens until he`s seen them lay eggs...
Interest in the petitions has been positive, but low-level, the offence is a on about as hot a button topic as you like, if it did make it into the Bill then Lord if any part of the media took exception to it and ran with it... I can already hear the NSPCC, Bernados and the CEOP howling in incandscent rage... well... I question whether the will would be there to repeal it in the face of "interest" let alone "opposition"...
Any event... to use a quote that should send a shiver of rage and sardonic amusement... from here, "things can only get better!" coz when you start at 0 it`s all an improvement or at least not a regression... (I have this terrible fear that one day those words will come back to me and it is not I that shall eat them but they me...)
I hadn`t seen it before but the CPS have put up guidance on the offence:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/index.html
Nothing terribly new in there though...
Random assides...:
@ Bukkake Parties - see what happens when they criminalise H? *rolleyes*
@ Gaza mannequins - is it just me... or are those breasts literally terrifying? MichaelG [27073. Posted 31-Jul-2010 Sat 11:53]
Diary: 4thought.tv...
Don`t you just love freedom of speech sometimes?
Hopefully this poisonous, wretched, nasty, medieval-minded cunt will end up doing himself more harm than good... Cappy [27072. Posted 30-Jul-2010 Fri 10:03]
What i find ridiculous is that in order to "protect the youngsters" R18 material is proscribed even when that material cannot be shown until its 10Pm onwards and in a pin encrypted device. To me that is just a few bigoted individuals who want to enforce their narrow views and how we should our lives on the many. Busybodies do gooders who have nowt better to do IanG [27071. Posted 30-Jul-2010 Fri 04:05]
SasaMisa, sorry to hear you`ve been ill. I hope all is under control now.
I also hope that any repressive legislation not clearly supported by hard evidence; not widely accepted as an absolute necessity in any rational liberal democracy; and blatantly discriminating against people on the grounds of their inherant sexuality and choice of pornographic enjoyment but, who`ve done nothing to threaten or endanger the wellbeing of others; will all be thrown in the bin as the rights abusing and politically devisive trash it truly is.
First they came for the perverts...and we ALL cried FOUL!
The political will appears to be there to put right what Nasty Labour have done to undermine and destroy our rights and liberties.
My major criticism of the Tories at the time of the DPA was that they abstained from voting...so allowing a CERTAIN victory for NL and the religiously corrupted forces of descriminatory evil pervading that party and their self-righteous legislation.
There`s always the invasion of privacy issue to attack this type of legislation too. The OPA was based on people publishing nasty works and pictures - in going public the possessor/author/publisher opened themselves up to public scrutiny. Not so with plod rifling through your computer disk, browsing history, bookshelves, scrapbooks and work trying to find supposed `evidence` of `illegal` pictures.
I`ve said many times that I don`t care about people wanking off to `outrageous` pornographic images like, for instance, drawings of supposed under 18-looking cartoon characters fucking cartoon horses. If there`s the remotest chance looking at such images prevents them raping or murdering a child victim..."if it saves one life"...then it`s clearly something society should be willing to accept and protect lest we create an environment that is more harmful and dangerous via our misguided ignorance. This is New Labour in a nutshell - religiously inspired anti-porn terrorists and human rights abusers - they don`t care if their beliefs are correct, they simply assume they magically `know better` than the rest of the free world and deny the existence of the evidence that proves their beliefs WRONG. emark [27070. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 16:35]
It seems a long shot that they`d include either the cartoon or "extreme porn" law - but it`s still worth making that shot. It`s unclear how much consideration they will give to this site, but at least it`s one way for people to have a say (the problem is that when repealing laws based on civil liberties, issues of censorship and sexual freedom are often ignored).
And whilst the votes can`t be taken as representative of public opinion in general, it is interesting to look at them in comparison to other ideas on the site: at 4.8 for the cartoon law, and 4.7 for the "extreme porn" law, they seem to be in the top rated ideas. SasaMisa [27069. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 14:24]
Hey everybody!
I`ve been around, just not actively posting due to prediabetes. Seriously, it leaves you constantly tired and only losing a massive amount of weight (3 stone so far), plus a radical change to my diet and exercise regime of course, has turned things around. Even so, I still have quite a long way to go.
My health aside, I just wanted to ask pbr if he`s been following the Cartoon Porn Law repeal thread. I`ve put a couple of comments up on there myself tonight, if anyone would like to check them out:-
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-laws-on-drawn-pornography
Given how badly the original campaign against it went, I`m very skeptical that anything will come of this though - what does everyone else think? Indeed, what laws if any really do stand a chance of going in the shredder!? phantom [27068. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 12:41]
IanG [27066]
`On a similar note - did anyone see the suntan lotion that`s being advertised with "7 out of 10 women say they envy friends that tan easily"? Envy is now a blatant ad man`s tool - not that `keeping up appearances` or `being one step ahead` hasn`t always been in their bag of tricks...`
Actually, that does ring a bell.
In fact, is this the ad in which the tanned lady walks past, causing the head of a another woman to turn enviously?
I remember seeing said television ad and thinking to myself how odd a world political correctness has created, whereby the bikini clad beauty can no longer turn the head of an admiring man, but instead must turn the head of an envious woman, lest she offend anyone.
IanG [27067. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 07:22]
Ofcom committing serious fraud: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=17619&pid=582566#pid582566 IanG [27066. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 07:17]
phantom, goods points as ever.
If it is indeed necessary to state when an image has been touched-up then, surely, it should be necessary to stamp `This face is not real` across the forehead of every woman wearing foundation, rouge, eyeshadow, lipstick, mascara, eyebrow pencil and/or those using nip-tuck surgery, botox, collagen injections, silicon implants etc. etc. etc.? Or doesn`t the use of such enhancement techniques and/or concealment of defects create the sort of impressions/images that count toward the `degradation` of, and supposed `harm` to, women?
As far as I know, people have been inventing and reinventing the beauty `ideal` since the Ancient Egyptians first highlighted their eyes and braided their hair if, indeed, the practice hasn`t been on-going since Homo Sapiens evolved over 250,000 years ago...?!
Michalangelo`s David is a good example of how human beings simply don`t conform to the aesthetic `ideal` most moronic fucks `believe` people `should` look like.
We`re designed to survive in a harsh and wild world, not to look pretty on the front of fake beauty magazines. That`s the truth of it. And as ever, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the tip of a virtual airbrush or glossy ad.
We should probably ban ALL cosmetics and supposed anti-aging products - if indeed, the fake face of beauty is so damaging to the physical, psychological and moral wellbeing, and/or social standing, of impressionable females.
Of course, real men and real women don`t give a flying fuck what happens to the shallow and weak-willed. FUCK `EM ALL I say. If they`re not smart enough to know shit from shinenola then the human race, indeed, the entire WORLD probably doesn`t need them, their surgeons, their chemicals and face paint.
On a similar note - did anyone see the suntan lotion that`s being advertised with "7 out of 10 women say they envy friends that tan easily"? Envy is now a blatant ad man`s tool - not that `keeping up appearances` or `being one step ahead` hasn`t always been in their bag of tricks... sergio [27065. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:24]
I could argue that all `images` are altered to one extent or another.
In the digital domain the light that enters the camera and captured by the sensor is not in a pure 1 to 1 relationship.
Even an ordinary old fashioned gelatine print has been `altered`. IanG [27064. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:11]
"We considered that the image and text were likely to be seen to objectify and degrade women by linking their physical attributes to the advertiser`s door and window products, and concluded that the image, in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by a general audience, and which bore no relevance to the advertised products, had the potential to cause serious offence to some consumers."
Whatever happened to NO INTERFERENCE as GUARANTEED BY LAW?
Fuck the easily offended. They stifle progress, freedom and creativity. They are backward, mindless, idiots, who deserve no special treatment save perhaps for the psychiatric kind. phantom [27063. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:05]
emark {270614}
`Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable....`
Sorry, but must vehemently disagree here.
It`s a matter of basic freedom of expression.
There needs to be a reason to curtail or regulate it.
Also, consider that photography is an art form and be it an advert or not.
Are you aware that Michelangelo`s statue of David is actually altered anatomically to be more aesthetically pleasing?
(elongated arms and hands. so a sort of rennaissance photoshop job)
Some folks indeed find the idea of curtailing adverts with airbrushing acceptable, as they believe that the exposure to unrealistically beautiful models can do `harm`, particularly to young women.
But what about posters of Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo, or Marylin?
All retouched.
But the inherent problem is that the whole idea of this is based on the fact that pictures to harm.
After all, if you say it`s not unreasonable to demand a label on an image on which a model has had her cold sore removed, then I must ask, why is it acceptable?
Why is necessary?
For the minister to demand this law implies a necessity.
And in her statements she hasn`t merely implied.
It`s all about `harm to women`.
So to accept the law is to accept the premise that pictures cause harm to people.
You see, having computer manufacturers state that footage is not actual game play footage is to prevent being misleading about the product.
That is understandable.
But having to state that a pic has been photoshopped (and yes, they all are!) would solely be to `prevent harm to women`.
Thus to accept the law means to accept that the sight of pics can do you harm.
I`m sorry. But what harm?
It`s the old feminist notion of not liking beautiful nubiles up on posters.
(They all say it`s due to exploitation. We all know it`s that they`re jealous.)
The fact is that photography is much less forgiving than film. The human eye focuses in on imperfections on a still image, whereas it hasn`t the time in moving pictures.
The most standard retouching on a photograph is under the eyes.
Puffy eye bags and grey lines. i.e. signs of tiredness.
A model can be gorgeous. If she`s tired, she`s tired.
So it`s simply retouched afterwards.
Why oh why is this supposed to be harmful to other women?
The simple fact is it is not harmful at all.
But the minister`s embracing of this idea (grown on Harman`s midden) is an ill omen.
With people still in government firmly wedded to the idea that pictures do harm, Melonfarmers is going to be kept busy for some time to come.
If they`re claiming that porn (extreme or otherwise) is `harmful` without a single scrap of evidence it`s bad enough. But once they say a mere picture of a woman without grey lines under her eyes is dangerous.
Well, that`s worrying. It suggests someone is taking a long run up....
sergio [27062. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 03:52]
`The Commission was satisfied that the public interest argument advanced by the newspaper - to the effect that the ongoing design of websites connected to the sex industry was incompatible with the complainant`s role in a prominent local community website - justified the employment of such mild subterfuge in this case.`
What? Who says "sex industry" website design is `incompatible` with `local community website` design?
What about `sickening` Hull Daily Mail content?
emark [27061. Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 14:34]
Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable (and seems similar to other fair advertising things, like computer game adverts that have to say if the footage isn`t from the game); calling them "health warnings" on the other hand does indeed convey the idea that images are harmful. But it`s not clear to me the wording would actually be warning people about health, or if that`s a term made up by the media?
I think the idea is pointless is nothing else - it won`t censor anyone, but AIUI almost all images are retouched in some way, so it`ll be the new "This may contain nuts"... malcom [27060. Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 12:44]
I said in an earlier post that I could not find the climax3 channel HC movies.....Well tried again and this time I have found them.....It`s been said many times before but it just don`t make sense that subscribers can see hard core on the computer but not on the TV channel itself........
Only difference is the viewing card number is a longer pin number than the TV one..........I wonder what excuse Ofcom would have if the TV PIN number was as many digits as the card number........
PS. I note that Playboy have licence for two more channels..
Adult 3 and Adult 4.........I read somewhere that they are chat phone line channels. Possibly along the lines of SXTV but girls only........ phantom [27059. Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 11:30]
Hello everyone,
Been a while since I`ve been on here.
Anyone read the Sunday Times?
Seems the `Liberal` Democrat Equalities Minister is very much enamoured with Harriet Harman`s project to have health warnings on photoshopped pictures.
No point trying to link to an article as The Times has gone into pay-to-view.
But clearly the new government (especially the left wingers among the LibDems it would seem) are still quite in love with the principal of the `harmfulness` of images.
So it seems there will still be plenty of moves (not least those pet projects left behind by Harman) in order to `protect` us all from coming to harm by seeing things we ought not. malcom [27058. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 12:15]
So the government has no plans to relax regulations on terrestrial broadcasts..........He could have said no plans to relax regulation on tv broadcasts but he did not.......This could mean they have plans to relax none terrestrial regulations or am I reading too much into it in the name of hope.......:) malcom [27057. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 11:02]
re:rainman........Hi....Yep you chose the wrong channels......Just one nights viewing of the playboy 6 could yield the same let down results......However there are some series that are pushing the code to the limit and byond......However they are still very much soft core but with some treats on an occasional basis.....They do advertise sexier and filthier than ever and have to admit they are telling the truth but there is not near enough of it.....So don`t be tempted to buy......
You have watched TVX and red hot which means I assume you are registered......I note on red hot mums channel they have started a live show phone in series girl-n-girl about 4 night a week from midnight till 2am.....
Now...There synopsis claims it is girl n girl explicit and uncensored. Yes I know heard it all before......However in view of explicit material appearing on the set of channel I currentl have it could be that red hot are moving up a notch.....I am not registerd so it would cost me a fiver plus £12 registration fee..Perhaps you may feel like risking a fiver to see if their claim are anywhere near true for that live phone in show........I suspect thay may actually censor via the banner with the phone numbers hiding some explicit action......
I still feel something has changed with regard to the adult channels and there defiance really of the strict code regulations....They must know thay can get away with stronger material that falls short of true hard core but goes much further than ever previously seen on those channels..... IanG [27056. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 07:20]
Pathetic!
"Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Our real concern on this side of the House is about the sexualisation of young people in particular; we take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television. I do not want to pretend that there is an easy answer, because traditional linear viewing, which allowed the watershed, made it possible to be much more definite about what would be seen by children and what would be seen by adults. To answer the hon. Gentleman`s question directly, we have no plans to relax any of the taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts."
What EXACTLY is `the sexualisation of young people`? And what evidence is there that this is something that MUST be prevented or indeed, is caused by the media and thus can be prevented via censorship of the media? Or is this perhaps just more mythological claptrap and spin designed to ensure minority `religious values` can be imposed upon the majority of non-religious citizens in direct violation of human rights?
I don`t think `traditional linear viewing` has existed since the mass take-up of the home VCR, has it Mr Hunt? For more than a decade I`ve been using my VCR to allow me to view late night `adult` TV at a more respectable and reasonable time.
And do I detect a hint that `taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts` don`t, won`t or shouldn`t apply to non-terrestrial broadcasts? I`m sure the Comms Act states the measure should be for `harm and offence` rather than `taste and decency`, although as many have realised, if `harm and offence` is misinterpreted to mean `harm and/or offence` then, `offence` alone serves to censure TV on grounds of puerile, rights-abusing ideas of `taste and decency`.
And if it is really so that you "take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television", why doesn`t Ofcom allow adults to view what adults, like many here, really want to view on TV?
In all I see nowt but the usual double-speak typical of religiously corrupted British governments and the double-standards their quangos, like Ofcom and the BBFC before them, have been allowed to implement without any proper legal oversight and consideration for our legally enshrined rights and freedoms.
IanG [27055. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 05:18]
Harvey/pbr, he didn`t `just` commit rape after viewing this `violent porn`...according to the police and his computer history he also viewed the material again immediately after the rape - i.e. it seems committing actual rape itself wasn`t as good as the `real`, (no doubt poorly) acted and idealised pornographic rape fantasy material.
The bloke is obviously fixated with the idealised rape porn fantasy. We don`t know how long he`s been viewing such material but, it seems he eventually thought trying it for real himself might satiate his obviously inherant need for sexual domination of a victim.
I think we`re all pretty tired of hearing the same old "porn made him do it" bullshit. Porn cannot turn ordinary folks into psychotic loonies. You have to be a psychotic loon to allow (i.e. WANT) any entertainment media to convince yourself "this is what I want to do" before enacting the scenarios on real victims. It`s a pathology - a mental illness - inherant in this man. I`ve watched loads of rape fantasies over the years and never once have I thought `this is real` and `this is something I want to do` or, indeed, ever wanted to do to anyone irrespective of viewing such sexually `violent` porn.
We need only dig up the `violent porn` research from the 1980s and the BBFC`s own `Media Effects` report, to convince EVERYONE that any supposed causal relationship between porn use/users and sexual assault is NON-EXISTENT. Indeed, WE ALL KNOW the opposite effect is the rule and, that this man is the exception that PROVES the rule.
Anyone who is not distressed at the sight of any type of real violence (sexual or not) is clearly not empathising with the victim. An inability to empathise with others is a clear sign (if not the definition) of psychopathy and sociopathic tendancies. Being able to distinguish real violence from fake movie violence is also key to determining if one is sane or not. We can all enjoy the fake violence of Tom and Jerry, we can all thrill at the Swartzenegger slaughter fests, BECAUSE we know no one is really being harmed. ALL the `rape porn` I`ve ever seen is all clearly fake and, quite honestly, it leaves me cold, like fake orgasms in consensual porn (or the bedroom!).
We know the moralising fuckwits are just that - mindless aresholes that need to good kick in the reason department. They`re the ones that allowed the creation of porn in the first instance - indeed, they gave it its name, defined it, created a market for it and have cried and moaned about it ever since. It`s a lesson in evolution and environmental pressures...but that`s another story. No prohibition in the entire history of mankind has EVER resulted in anything BUT the OPPOSITE of what it was believed it would deliver/cure/fix/resolve. Morons rule the world and the rest of us just have to muddle on the best we can.
There are no quick fixes - there are NO FIXES full stop. We`re not born equal, we`re all unique because Nature is still fucking about trying to find the next best thing to exploit the shite we allow ourselves to believe is `right` for `our` society. Of course, the more restrictive we allow our society to become the more extreme the solutions to bypass those restrictions become - that`s life, evolution itself, in action.
SHIT HAPPENS and there`s fuck all we can or should do to stop it - end of.
The PROOF is that people were being violently raped and abused many thousands of years before violent porn existed and, this trend/trait has actually DECLINED or at least CEASED INCREASING as porn has become more widely available. That`s the rule and, this man is clearly one of Nature`s exceptions.
pbr [27054. Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 00:15]
Actually... I`m inclined towards Harvey`s question... it does seem odd that "violent rape porn" wouldn`t be added to the charges.. I mean... surely, it`s open and shut... you have a violent rapist who committed an appalling crime after he watched "violent rape porn"... I mean if you`re `common sense` isn`t tingling, you must be with *them*... so, frankly, you can`t not get a conviction...
I would tend to discount the possibility of there being a neutral reason for there not being an extreme porn charge... I would imagine that the prosecutors weren`t confident that they could get a conviction on it... and that that would undermine, in however small a way, their arguments about the rape -and- the reporting of the story afterwards... if you put it and failed to secure a conviction that`s a shitstorm -but- you also failed, if you choose not to put it because the porn was about rape but wasn`t "extreme" then that`s a problem for the politicos, you were, afterall, only applying the law as written...
Melon Farmers (Dave) [27053. Posted 26-Jul-2010 Mon 10:23]
Harvey,
I think the 11 years + indefinite option is more or less job`s done as far the authorities are concerned. Spicing up the rap with a DPA charge would be a bit superfluous in this case.
So probably only down to the press to whip up a fuss but no real signs of much interest so far, perhaps not out of the ordinary enough for that. So I guess we wont hear much more about this one, as most will agree that the outcome is about right. Harvey [27052. Posted 26-Jul-2010 Mon 08:39]
Rapist struck after viewing violent porn
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/8290111.Rapist_struck_after_viewing_violent_porn/
Wasn`t the DPA supposed to stop people being raped as a result of the rapist watching videos? The law has been in place for over a year yet somehow rapists are still going around attacking people. How is this possible? Doesn`t the rapist know that merely possessing a video could land him in jail?
BTW, no mention of any charges for possession of the video, so was this "violent rape" porn of such a type to be caught by the DPA? Get ready for cries demanding that the police couldn`t prosecute him because of a "loophole" in the law.
Also BTW, he received an indeterminate sentence for the rapes, with a minimum tariff of 11 years, which in my view is absolutely right. IanG [27051. Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 06:59]
I was just responding to a post over at Babeshows forum and it dawned on me that the only place `pornography` is named as a possible risk to minors is in the TVWF Directive. As I`m sure we`re all aware, Ofcom stated on several occasions that they had no evidence or reason to believe they could ban or unnecessairly restrict access to R18-type porn under the terms of the TVWF Directive. However, in a leap of irrationality, immediately after making these `porn is safe` declarations, Ofcom then proceeded to apply the TVWF definitions of `potentially dangerous material` (i.e. porn and gratuitous violence) to the Comms Act requirement to protect the `under eighteens` and other `vulnerable people` and instigated their illegal ban of R18-type material.
(see 1st Aug 2006 entry here : http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm)
Cherry picking censors is what Ofcom are. Liars and cheats is what I`ve always said they were. Untrustworthy, duplicitous, hypocritical lying bastards is what they`ve proven themselves to be over the past five years.
pbr [27050. Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 04:24]
Re: Blame Alert...
Oh dear... how committed will the coalition remain to an agenda of rolling back neo-labour`s carpet of new offences in the face of a couple more stories like that...
You know... on a matter of faniciful claims... I remember the child protection industry reps and the police claiming hentai was found mixed in on some computers with child abuse images... but... with only one exception (I`ve referred to it previously, where the Court wrongly concluded that 3D CGI looked real enough to qualify as pseudo-photographs... I repeat you must live a nightmareish existence if you could mistake cheaply done early 2000 3D CGI as a depiction of reality...) I`ve never seen it reported... I wonder if should, against all odds, the DDA make it into the Great Repeal Act, we might expect an avelanche of revealations on where H turns up...
Post Script:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/25/oz_senate_censors_cartoon/
"Meanwhile, under the heading “you couldn’t make it up”, the Australian Government has now censored some 90 per cent of a document released under Australia’s FOI laws on the controversial topic of what data ISP’s are going to be asked to keep when snooping on their customers. The reason for keeping the answer under wraps? Apparently there were fears that the document could cause "premature unnecessary debate"."
...wow... sergio [27049. Posted 24-Jul-2010 Sat 07:58]
It`s a great `human interest` story, but how many people has Bulger killed?
The greatest killer of children in the UK is ... cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10730095
But that item doesn`t even cover it. I heard about it when one of the reports author`s was interviewed on tv.
Seems like child porn is more sexy than mass murder by FORD. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27048. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 15:42]
Re R18 adverts on TV.
It will be interesting to see how the softcore channels incorporate R18 advertising into their marketing bullshit. All this bollox about being the `strongest available` etc will somehow have to acknowledge that it is not actually the real stuff.
Intuitively marketing along the lines of `you`ve seen the softcore version, now buy the hardcore version` seems to be a quite a good opportunity. But is does rather mean owning up to the fact that the channel itself, is most definitely soft. rainman [27047. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:58]
Hi Malcom, just one night of TVX and Red HOT TV, all terrible rubbish and if taken out of the "adult theme context" would receive a BBFC 15 certificate. I would recommend any member of the public, browsing through Melon Farmers, to stay well clear of these channels as you will be majorly disappointed!
Ian - very true, it is much easier for a kid to access h/c porn on the internet than it would ever be to view on TV, for one glaring obvious reason, the parents have subscribe first! Even if the kid could purchase adult programmes, they`d know full it would appear on their parents credit card bill, why go through all the hassle when you can watch h/c porn on the internet at any convenient time!
One final point, I see that R18 websites can advertise their addresses on encrypted adult channels from the 1st September 2010. Wasn`t this a big a no, no by Ofcom whom is complete denial that UK adults want to view this type of disgusting filth? Ofcom must be seething that the new boys, the ASA have allow R18 adverts. Ofcom will see that it is an attempt to legitimise R18 material as de facto standard, believe it not Ofcom it is, open your eyes and see the ratio of R18 works to Adult works 18 certificates issued by the BBFC each month and it is a no brainer!!
malcom [27046. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:11]
re- IanG said.....
rainman, long time indeed! I think you missed the trick re adult channels...your TV subscription gets you `free` access the real stuff on their respective websites. Oh but of course, Ofcom don`t allow them to tell you that...! What`s that bit about "no interference"...?
Yes..Thats what I was informed. However I cannot find any free HC on the supposed web site.......Just free samples if you download the files which I will not do.......I thought it was streaming HC video that was available.......If so I wish someone could decipher what links to get at it on climax3..... malcom [27045. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 12:04]
re-rainman....
A few weeks ago i took the plunge out of curiosity to subscribe to the playboy set of channels.......No minimum contract. In practice though due to a months notice being required two months is what you have to pay for mimimum......I was intending to cancell by now but am still entertained by some of the harder soft on at present.....So I am still paying for the moment
You say you found the same old rubbish......Me too over the last three evenings and this evening does not look any rosier either....
Having said that there are series on those channels being aired that are quite good. Its down to trial and error and sitting through some gunge however....There is a series with the word "daughter" in the title look out for them.......There was a night on one channel with "spunk" in the title with sevearl different episodes through the night......And that is what was shown...
I don`t recommend anyone take these channels as a serious alternative to HC.....However i am impressed and encouraged by just how far they are pushing the envelope compared to 5 yaes ago......
I don`t know if you joined just for a nights viewing or monthly......You do need several nights or longer to sort out the good from the rubbish....
IanG [27044. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 08:07]
rainman, long time indeed! I think you missed the trick re adult channels...your TV subscription gets you `free` access the real stuff on their respective websites. Oh but of course, Ofcom don`t allow them to tell you that...! What`s that bit about "no interference"...?
Now, of course, unless your PC is totally secure, your kids could be accessing everything Ofcom claim to be protecting them from on TV via the net (like kids aren`t already able to access heaps of truly free porn anyway...).
Ofcom`s `rules` have made the whole situtation far less secure than it ever was. And the whole "PIN isn`t secure" argument is tosh anyway.
Can a child actually access PPV channels without a parent/guardian noticing a porn channel charge appearing on their their bill? Anyone remember Mr Jacqui Smith deciding to ask the taxpayer to pay his TV porn expenses for instance...?
And aren`t parents actually going to be at home and able to supervise their children`s viewing if `adult` material is not broadcast before 10pm? The watershed has functioned correctly for over 40 years. Ofcom seem to be under the impression that no one at all is at home supervising children when `adult` material is being broadcast. And let`s not pull any punches - if R18 is not suitable for kids then the `tellycore` near-R18 stuff on TV isn`t either, yet Ofcom`s `research` claims 50% of kids KNOW the PIN and KNOW how to access this 18+ `adult sex material`.
Ofcom are a very, very bad joke. They`re clearly insane. They`re clearly biased. They`re clearly unfit to regulate anything.
rainman [27043. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 07:30]
Long time since I have last posted. I have read with interest what Malcolm has posted in regards to the Ofcom regulated adult channels over past few weeks, thus decided to take the plunge and have a look at what was being aired. I must have chosen the wrong channel group, as there are two major players TVX channels and Playboy channels, because what was broadcast was bloody awful...they still have a habit of not even showing full nudity. Anyway better luck next time!!!
Does anyone know when Ofcom will review their broadcasting code, as my understanding is R18 is only prohibited due insufficient PIN security?
Surely if a broadcaster can supply a method of a more secure system for parental controls they can ask Ofcom for a review. Incidentally, doesn`t BT Vision have the most secure parent controls at present?
IanG [27042. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 06:38]
malcom, indeed, if porn and sexually explicit material of any kind were dangerous to children then, as many here have stated for many years, the evidence of this harm would/should by now be incontrovertable and overwhelming - SO WHERE IS IT?
HOW could the High Court rule, based on the available evidence from over 30 child wellfare experts around the world, that risk of harm to children from R18-type porn is insignificant if Ofcom`s, the government`s or the chruch`s BASELESS BELIEFS about its supposed effects are even remotely correct?
For more than 40 years the rest of the free world has managed to watch and broadcast porn without any major concern over the safety of kids BECAUSE there`s no evidence of it causing harm to kids.
The pathetic, illegal, unfounded bullshit used to impose rights-abusing censorship in this country is utterly sickening. IT IS TIME IT CEASED. IT IS LONG PAST ITS CREDIBILITY. IT IS NOW HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF THE FIRST ORDER...AND ALL BALTANTLY AND PROVEABLY SO.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
malcom [27041. Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 05:50]
re-simcha......
In the name of education recent past sex type education shows have shown much stronger explicit material than you have recently observed.
The sort of stuff being shown on the soft adult channels now blows Ofcoms code out of the water even though it is not full blown HC......Past couple of nights have been pretty tame however....
Ofcoms excuse for continuing a R18 ban is truly pathetic.....As you say youngsters today by one means or another see more porn than porn enthusiasts do.....About time Ofcom and the Government ministers that pull their strings grew up...... IanG [27040. Posted 22-Jul-2010 Thu 10:33]
simcha, surely you know the difference between sexually explicit material for the puposes of sex education and sexually explicit material for the purposes of sexual arousal? Perhaps not though? I think you`d better ask Ofcom for a full explanation.
You see ACCORDING TO OFCOM (see clause 1.18 of their stakeholder section 1 guidance) showing offensive vaginas on screen for educational purposes is "justified by the context", whereas, showing offensive vaginas on screen that might make blokes horny will NEVER be "justified by the context".
Vaginas are offensive aren`t they? If not then I reckon Ofcom are for the high jump (and may be soon...).
It`s a little thing called DISCRIMINATION on the grounds of SEXUALITY and, ITS ILLEGAL. But Ofcom, the courts, the police and the Government don`t seem to give a flying fuck about it.
HELP! I`m being oppressed, marginalised and discriminated against because I happen to like consensual adult porn and I don`t find vaginas, bums, tits, cocks, fucking, sucking and squirting (or anything else) offensive in ANY context. But then I`m a liberal minded sort of chap not a religiously corrupted freak with a huge chip on my sholder.
FUCK OFF OFCOM, YOUR TIME IS ALMOST UP!
simcha [27039. Posted 22-Jul-2010 Thu 01:38]
Did anyone see the sex education show the other night? The show was on at 10pm I think and was aimed at 15 to 16 year olds. The show was set in a local school and involved nude models being viewed for the purposes of sex education. The part that I found interesting was the close up examination of a models vagina live in front of a hall of young school pupils. This sort of thing really winds me up! It’s fine to show this live to a class of kids but not ok for me to view it on adult TV. I have no problem with this being fine for these kids to view, just a problem with it not being ok for me to view. The other topic they looked into was the amount of porn these kids were looking at on the internet. Got to tell you! These kids were looking at more porn then the rest of us put together. They had opinions on pubic hair, labia size, reconstructive surgery, boob jobs, and at no point did the program even hint that this was not normal. Seems everyone knows that nudity and porn is fine except the regulators. MichaelG [27038. Posted 20-Jul-2010 Tue 13:04]
Ready for the latest `growing social problem`, as highlighted by The Daily Mail?
Oh good...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-How-teenagers-getting-digitally-high-music-download-internet.html
We should thank our lucky stars CommuNuLabour are no longer in office, as there`d no doubt be something being drafted up on the back of a fag packet in one of the House of Commons bars as we speak to deal with this. No doubt involving 3 years in prison for transgressors. bleach [27037. Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 05:27]
Some old cuts:
KITAMI was classified `18` for video in 1996 with the following cuts -
At 5.5 mins - In sex scene between two men, after establishing LS of man tracing scalpel around partner`s face and chest, remove all CUs of scalpel penetrating chest and drawing blood, resuming on MS of man`s head to camera.
At 15.5 mins - In sex scene when man spreads butter on lover`s chest, remove sight of knife playing around and jabbing other`s genitals.
REAL LIVES - REAL SEX LIVES was classified `18` for video in 1995 with the following cuts -
At 15.5 mins -Remove handling of erect penis by woman, which is not justified by context, and reduce previous sight of erection to a brief shot between slow dissolves, starting to mix away as woman kneels down into frame. emark [27036. Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 03:09]
Re: the Daily Mail and Moat - whilst I appreciate it that most of their criticism is against the comments being posted, in articles like http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295141/Siobhan-ODowd-set-Raoul-Moat-Facebook-tribute-site.html they are also arguing that Facebook should take the page down. (And a large newspaper trying to harrass an individual just seems low, whether or not we agree with her - not to mention the typical Daily Mail-isms like making a point of her being a "single mother".)
Good to see that a columnist is talking some sense of the issue.
"There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship."
I don`t believe the tabloids have ever exercised degrees of censorship over some of the offensive stuff they print :) That stuff reaches far more people than a single person commenting on a Facebook page. emark [27035. Posted 19-Jul-2010 Mon 02:46]
"the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child"
I never said they should. I would disagree with such a law. I was just responding to axis45`s point about people who seem unable to argue a clear moral line, and he was the one who gave the example of beating children, not me. I was also talking from an ethical point of view, not a legal one.
"stereotyping "Mail" readers"
I never said anything about the readers...
"Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one."
Yes they care about fictional violence against fictional beings.
I also never used the word "abuse" in the context of the Daily Mail. Those were meant as entirely separate points. The MoJ article was about guidelines of the state using such methods; I was also pointing out a double standard rather than having a go at them solely for that issue. Nothing to do with the issue about what parents do to their own children. I think you have misunderstood me :) freeworld [27033. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 16:28]
dano [27029. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]
If you look at yesterdays "Mail on Sunday", you can read Neil O`Brien`s thoughts. He`s saying (in his reasonable article) that we do not need the sort of internet censorship which New Labour would quite possibly have indulged in as a result of the "Raoul, man you are a legend" stuff. You can just hear them-"These opinions have no place in our society, therefore we will introduce a bill criminalising websites hosting them and people expressing them...2 years in prison and then onto our new hate speech register...blah blah". Who can say with any certainty this would not have happened given their track record?
I have not seen an article in the "Mail" saying people should be "banned" from praising Moat and blasting the police on the internet, or that people do not have a right to express opinions on the internet of this kind. What I have seen are many opinion pieces, in the Mail and elsewhere, expressing a distaste for those pro Moat and anti police opinions (which I tend to share, though I am by no means pro police these days). There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship. I would be interested if someone can point me to an article(s) calling for such expressions of opinion to be illegal and websites "banned" from hosting them.
As the O`Brien article says, in parliament "Dave" criticised-rightly I think-those who worship the Moat idol, but he has not used this as a Blunkett might have in his home office, to "demonise" the internet and use public "outrage" as a means to bring in totalitarian legislation to pander to what is perceived as "public opinion".
Some commenters on melonfarmers take great exception to anyone in the press for expressing opinions about films/tv etc which they don`t share. But we don`t all have to have the same views, nor are the views we happen to hold necessarily the only valid ones which deserve expression. So why get angry if any media organ prints opinions which do not meet our own? So what if people have different ideas about what is good and bad in culture and say so in print? There is nothing at all wrong with criticising things because they don`t concur with your own morals/aesthetics... whatever. Good, down with uniformity, up with diverse opinions and debate. That isn`t censorship, which is what melonfarmers exists to combat.
To my mind, what is tending to happen is... let`s say, a critics disapproval of the perceived morality of a movie, is somehow being seen as on par with him/her wishing to "ban" it. These are simply not the same thing at all. The first is completely legitimate, the second is not. So, in another context, "Dave" criticising facebook for hosting what he finds are unpleasant opinions and wishing people didn`t say these things, is not the same as "Dave" making it a criminal offense to print them...banning a site by legislation (and maybe criminalising the expressor). In a free society the first is legitimate, the second would not be. Nor is Simon Heffer being legitimate in the "Telegraph" in hoping the cops are taking the names of those venting anti police opinions on facebook, so they can be charged under "hate" laws if they ever physically attack the police later on (I don`t think the Heffalump is quite correct in his assumptions about the law here, I don`t think there exists a hate crime to cover expressing a hatred of the police?). Unfortunately this is the nasty territory you slide into when politicians foolishly decide to create "thought crimes", punishing what people think, rather than just what they do. Straw(curse him forever!) loved doing that. So, what is really very wrong, where I would become "indignant", is if critics go beyond "criticism" and advocate censoring that which they dislike, so nobody else can see/hear/read it.
And what is far worse, downright evil, is where some go so far as to implement/advocate laws which imprison people for looking at/reading/saying/hearing/possessing that which they dislike-where that totalitarian interference in people`s lives rests on the basis of subjective morals/taste/aesthetics and nothing else. Now, is anyone doing this apart from off the wall religious nutters, Beyer`s old mob and the man hating feminist lunatic fringe? Oh yes, a government, the New Labour one,they did it, boy, did they do it (DPA, dangerous cartoons..), in the most savage attack on people`s rights since (the Liberal-radical) Labouchere`s homo hounding amendment in the 1880s.
We will not see new DPA style/ban mania legislation, unless people are stupid enough to again allow grisly old Stalinists into positions where they can write our criminal laws.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1295614/Raoul-Moat-Facebook-proved-bring-law-order-Wild-West-Web.html
emark {27032. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16}
No emark-the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child. No doubt thousands of us would have had our parents in prison and we ourselves may have been at the tender mercy of the many sexual and physical abusers who got into work within child care homes, if that totalitarian madness had been up and running in our childhood. Bit suprised at you (I usually tend to agree with you and really admire your tireless fight against stuff like the DPA) stereotyping "Mail" readers as wanting children "beaten"- no we don`t. Merely the right to mildly physically chastise a child without being arrested and have our kids taken off us as "abusers". That word, which falsely implies the odd mild slaps are on a par with savage cruelty, is deliberately utilised by the "banners" to justify a quite needless and what would be a dangerous draconian measure, wherby a totalitarian state would impose into private life. It`s really the same sort of tactic the DPA advocates used with their harping on about legendary raped and murdered Guatamalans etc to justify a law criminalising any and all images, however mildly produced. Beware of giving the state even more power to criminalise us where there is no proof of harm and necessity-we should know all about that here. Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one. emark [27032. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16]
@axis45 :
I`ve also noticed this online. On general English-speaking forums, that presumably mostly have US visitors, there`s a largely liberal viewpoint, and also generally what I feel is a clearer moral line. When I`ve been on UK-focused forums, in general (except here), there`s an awful lot more Daily Mail-style thinking, wanting to ban anything they disagree with, whilst supporting "their" right to do things like beat kids. Whilst there are sadly plenty of conservative religious nutters in the US, I think in general they have a greater sense of supporting freedom.
This has also led to oddities, e.g., it seems I`ve seen more support for the "extreme porn" law on UK _BDSM_ sites, whilst general international forums have hardly anyone in support at all.
I don`t know how England compares to other countries though.
"Contrast the french reaction."
Perhaps, but then there are other issues, like the recent Burka ban (or of anything covering people`s faces in public).
On the subject of beating children, see this story about the MoJ: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/guide-punishing-jailed-youths
Yes, the same Ministry that made it so people now get locked up for drawing a picture of a fictional 17 year old being "abused" says it`s okay for the Government to physically abuse actual children. IanG [27030. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 09:02]
"Jackie Hill, who runs the Limelite Costume Shop on the other side of where the sex shop would be, said she intends to start a petition against the application: You don`t need it shoved in your face. You can get everything you want online if you really want it and it`s the clients that are going to be using the shop that really worry me."
Well, Jackie, its people like YOU that REALLY worry me! You judgeMENTAL twat.
What of ALL the other people YOU don`t see who "get everything online"? Do they worry you too dear Jackie?
I suggest you PUT BRAIN IN GEAR, OPEN GOB and SHUT IT AGAIN RAPIDLY. MORON!
dano [27029. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]
Notice the Daily Mail has been jumping all over the Facebook Rauol Moat controversy to start bleating out yet another one of their rants about the "evils" of the internet.
One idiot (the woman behind the Facebook page) has now drawn all those who wish to censor the internet out of the woodwork. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27028. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:27]
pbr, a bit saggier now. As octopus ladies go, she looks a bit past it to me. pbr [27027. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 07:33]
Dave... you sure that long tentacle of the law drawing is kosher? As neither the guy or octopussy (...sorry...) have their imaginary birth certificates and grey hair in the shot... they could be under 18... MichaelG [27026. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 00:41]
Re: DarkAngel5 [27024]:
"How is he still in a job exactly?"
Because every time he manages to get himself bogged down in sleaze and scandal, the greasy little shit pulls the race card and he`s instantly off Scot-free.
I`m still completely baffled how he ever got to stay on as Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee though. All he ever does is whine on about violent video games and abuse his position - hardly qualified, is he?
Moving on, Chris Tookey again proves what a complete helmet he is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1295090/Toy-Story-3-Brilliantly-bravely-tackling-real-human-problems-grown-film-year.html
Tookey has obviously been so excited at the prospect of reviewing a wholesome `family` movie, he`s launched into a `War and Peace` length review on the Mail site. He`s been so busy working up this epic, in fact, that he doesn`t appear to have had time to review any of the other movies out this week, including `Inception`, `Predators` or the new `Twilight` movie, a task which seems to have fallen to colleague James O`Brien, who has been saddled with the task of reviewing every other movie out this week whilst Tookey is utterly consumed by the task of gushing out his weighty praise for `Toy Story 3`. Seems O`Brien was so knackered he didn`t get the cinematic joke that is `Mega Piranha`. Oh well.
Tookey, meanwhile, indulges in the journalistic equivalent of having a wank onto his computer keyboard:
"It dares to examine the grown-up idea that some day our lives will have run their course."
Exactly Chris, take the fucking hint, will you?
"Intelligent adults may notice that the movie is, at heart, about letting go and facing death."
So, Tookey noticed this, so therefore he must be intelligent, right? Gosh, we`re all really impressed down here, I can tell you. Get a life, you cock. It may be brilliantly made, and have certain themes which strike a chord with adults, but it`s not exactly Ingmar Bergman, is it?
Unless, of course, you`re an overly-sentimental, juvenile-minded fuckpuppet who can`t get his head around the plot of `Inception`, subsequently passing that one over to his colleague to cover (who also doesn`t seem to get it, going from the review), then trying to impress the Mail readership by waxing lyrical about the weighty, adult themes to be found in the latest Pixar offering.
"This could yet prove to be the most grown-up film of the year."
What, more than `Lebanon`? Or `The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo`? Grow up, you twat... Melon Farmers (Dave) [27025. Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 23:14]
DarkAngel
Vaz even retained his chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs Committee DarkAngel5 [27024. Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 22:13]
Is Keith Vaz still an MP then?
Thought with all the scandals this guy caused when labour where in office, he`d stepped down.
How is he still in a job exactly? MichaelG [27023. Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 21:29]
Re: Publicity Seeking...
Oh will you please just fuck off, Vaz, you tiresome, irrelevant little cunt... axis45 [27022. Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 17:30]
Re: The Raoul Moat Facebook contoversy:27021.
We in the UK are often accustomed to thinking as ourselves as quite an advanced society,sure enough we almost invented the modern world and more than punch above our weight in our contributions to science,art,literature and technology.
Surprisingly though i think that in terms of our general understanding of democracy and human rights and other related concepts we collectively resemble a bunch of retarded baboons.
At odd times something will happen or be observed that draws attention to this fact.For example i was watching an episode of Question Time on the BBC last year where they were discussing something in the news where a child had been beaten by their parents,i cant remember the exact story but i was struck by the divide between english politicians/celebs on the panel and the others [i remember one guy being from ireland and others being from outside the uk]For the non english panelists there was a clear moral line and none of them hesitated in articulating that it was wrong to beat a child even under difficult and challenging circumstances.This was in mark contrast to the english panelists who each had great difficulty in deciphering where the right and the wrong lay,theres was much mealy mouthed double speak and even those who offered a degree of condemnation,their language was couched in caveats and a kind of duality and confusion.
I digress of course but my point is that when you look at any news story in the uk you have to do it thru the prism of the "english disease" or neurosis that for whatever reason is unable to grasp the concept of basic rights and their consequences.
The Raoul Moat story is interesting for a number of reasons,his [alleged] judicial execution which is now the defacto accepted standard in the UK as in the US for any one deemed to be a dangerous criminal by the authorities and is kicking off.And many,perhaps even a majority support this policy.Yes people want to see these lawbreakers killed,murdered,executed whatever,it has widespread support and the police are [allegedly] willing to do it.
Much of the media collude to paint the picture of those who break the law as deviant,dangerous and using all methods of subliminal programming to portray criminals as sub human even animals.Remember the ad about car thieves portraying hyenas breaking into cars,the inferences are clear,dangerous,wild animals,not human.Very much a direct parallel can be drawn between ads like that and Goebbels infamous nazi propaganda films potraying the jewish race as rats.
Goebbels would have hated the internet too as much as the propagandists of our age,with its uncanny knack of exposing hypocrisy and going decidedly off message.So it was the Facebook campaign that struck a sour note for our tabloids.The howls of derision came thick and fast with not surprisingly a lot of time and resources used to discredit those behind the campaign.
Of course i dont support Moat but as politicians will tell you its not so much what you do more the message you send out that matters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10672400
Contrast the french reaction.They fucking rioted when a copper had the gall to shoot an armed robber.
Vive la France !!
dano [27021. Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 08:54]
Re: The Raoul Moat Facebook contoversy:
I see the person behind this page has decided to close it down. This demonstrates the way that many of us rather than take on opinions we find objectionable seek to get those opinions censored/banned.
Debate and reasoned argument are thrown out and replaced with reactionism and enforced repression of ideas. sergio [27020. Posted 16-Jul-2010 Fri 07:41]
I thought the problem was `ignorant pig` and not `nazi`.
It seems that the law will determine what is `offensive` and not ofcon. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27019. Posted 16-Jul-2010 Fri 07:29]
Good point Ian. Now all we need is an expensive barrister and a high court appointment. It is always tough to get our interests aligned with those that have got the money and/or inclination. All sorts of weird reasons make for contrary results. To follow your lines of logic, I guess the TV companies may prefer for Ofcom to rant at the likes of Gaunt. Keeps them off their own back a bit. IanG [27018. Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 23:47]
Dave, this Gaunt case is clearly fucked-up. Sir Anthony appears to be quoting Ofcom`s Code when offering his pathetic opinion. He`s not applying or reading the law and assessing if Ofcom`s Code does what Ofcom are required to do by law.
As I pointed out a few weeks ago, section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act 2003 requires Ofcom as part of their Standards Obecjives to "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material".
Clearly, the host/presenter/guest is not responsible for what is broadcast by the licensee. The generally accepted standard means of preventing offensive and harmful material leaving a broadcaster`s aerial during live tranmissions is to employ a short delay such that an operator can bleep or silence any offensive material so that it is not included in their transmission and the the public are thus adequately protected from exposure to it...that is as per the requirements of section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act and Ofcom`s Standards Objectives as dictated by THE LAW.
As Ofcom`s Code doesn`t state what generally accepted standards are to be applied to adequately protect the public from inclusion of offensive and harmful material in programmes; and the Code fails to specify what is to be considered offensive and harmful material; and fining people after the fact or giving them a ticking off doesn`t prevent the inclusion of such material then, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM`S FAULT for NOT ENSURING Talksport prevented the inclusion of Gaunt`s comments in their broadcast.
Just to illustrate: If the Comms Act required Ofcom to "ensure adequate protection against people being shot" and then someone got shot, who could and should be held accountable?
Surely, Sir Anthony cannot believe the intent of Parliament was to allow Ofcom to prevent people expressing their thoughts and feelings on air? Such a notion is an absolute violation of Freedom Of Expression. Clearly, no matter how offensive 53 people found Gaunt`s comments, his right to state his opinion in any terms he so chooses is sacrosanct - as is everyone`s right to do the same.
I agree with Gaunt. Mr Stark is a `health Nazi` and an ignorant pig - is he going to sue me now? As a smoker I can assure Sir Anthony and Mr Stark that I feel I am being ostracised, scapegoated, marginalised and excluded from social activities simply because I smoke. My smoking does NOT "seriously harm those around me". More deadly crap comes out of a car exhaust in a minute than my smoking creates in a day. You could once go into a pub where donzens of people were smoking and walk out alive after serveral hours and very probably live the rest of your life totally unaffected by the experience. However, if you placed a car in that pub and left the engine running almost everyone in the place would be dead or dying with a few hours. New Labour were/are a bunch of lying, theiving, two-faced, fascist pigs - are they going to sue me now?
Jon Gaunt needs to appeal on the grounds that Ofcom`s Code doesn`t do what is required by law and request or force a Judicial Review of Ofcom`s pathetic excuse for a Code according to the letter of the law. The High Court is not there to enforce Ofcom`s unenacted Code. They`re there to uphold and enforce the LAW. 319(2)(F) certainly doesn`t say Ofcom are supposed to hang around waiting for someone to complain about feeling offended and then fine the channel - but that`s exactly the line of FRAUD they`ve chosen to adopt. And Ofcom can sue me anytime their miserable little minds choose - I CAN`T FUCKING WAIT FOR MY DAY IN COURT WITH THESE TWISTED CUNTS!
Come on Ofcom SUE ME! I DARE YOU!
Spiderschwein [27017. Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 12:43]
RE: Eastenders.
Not to mention the child abuse lobby who want to keep everyone terrified of the nonce in their midst because that way they can gouge massive public donations.
Incidentally, it`s a total myth that homosexual relationships are "gentler" than hetero ones. The reason why you get fewer gays and lesbians reporting domestic violence are because there`s fewer of them, numerically. But it exists, and it`s every inch as nasty as hetero domestic violence. Melon Farmers (Dave) [27016. Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 10:24]
sorry about lack of Melon Farmers update today. Bad internet day.
emark [27015. Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 15:17]
So now we have David Cameron calling for Facebook to shut down a group because it supports Raoul Moat (Facebook`ve so far told them no) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7891206/Facebook-defies-David-Cameron-and-keeps-Moat-tribute-page.html . And of course we also get the tabloid anti-Facebook hysteria to follow... MichaelG [27014. Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 13:37]
Re: Mind if I Speak Candidly & freeworld [27011]:
WTF is going on in Scotland at the moment?
What an utterly pointless load of fucking drivel. Have you got to get permission now before you slip in (ooo-er!) a bit of innuendo into a conversation with your mates down the pub?
"Er, pardon me lads, but would it be OK if I told the one about the actress, the bishop and the Rabbi?"
It may well also be illegal to chat someone up if the question of "would you like to come back to my place?" was going to be broached at any point. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. And how the hell is this going to be policed, for fuck`s sake?!?!?
At least we all know now what the N in SNP stands for. Fascist cunts... dano [27013. Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 09:18]
Re: Christians winging about Eastenders....
It`s not Christians who Eastenders are portraying badly it`s MEN. For 25 years Eastenders, written mostly by middle class burgeious liberals has portrayed men as the scum of the earth which if it had portrayed any other social group in the same way there would be uproar.
Wife beaters, rapists, liars, criminals, adulterers and child abusers the image of working class men by this God awful soap opera is disgusting!
The writers work alongside man hating feminist domestic violence pressure groups to send the message out that ALL men are wife beaters and chld molestors who cannot be trusted!
The public are conned into thinking Eastenders is doing some good by raising awareness of social issues but all they are doing is filling our airwaves with poisouness misandry which seeks to further the agenda of the man hating wing of the feminist lobby to further push men out of relationships with their wives/girlfriends and their children.
IanG [27012. Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 07:54]
RE: More Spit
"The BBFC commented on their latest cuts:
•Company was required to make cuts to scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material."
What material did the BBFC require to be cut and how, exactly, is it potentially harmful?
I saw this movie in its original uncut form almost 30 years ago. It was powerful, disturbing and exciting but, it did not convince me or any of my pals that gang rape was a good idea or something we`d like to try.
When I watched the first BBFC butchered version on, I think, the Horror channel a few years ago, it left me angry and dissappointed that such a powerful film had been utterly ruined by a bunch of idiotic morons who clearly don`t know their arse from their elbow. The BBFC had, according to their own deranged thoughts, made the rape scene MORE `acceptable`, MORE `palettable`, MORE `repeat-watchable`.
The scene is SUPPOSED to be sickening, violent, unrelenting...in short, HORRIFIC.
Just what type of psychotic sicko the BBFC believe they`re protecting the public from by hacking such scenes from movies is beyond my comprehension. I was thinking just the other day following my previous post and that mention of Grotesque; if I`d gone to the trouble of building a sound-proof dungeon, selected, subdued and transported a victim or victims to my torture chamber undetected and, subjected them to unimaginable abuses for my own sick enjoyment then, there`s really no film or scene on this earth that could inspire such behaviour or cause such a mental disorder. Likewise, there`s no amount of censorship that could prevent or cure someone harbouring such plans and desires from carrying them out whether they watch an uncensored movie, a BBFC butchered cut or, indeed, never see such scenes and movies in their entire life.
Censorship is futile and wholly unnecessary in such circumstances.
WHY do the BBFC believe they can somehow cure the unstable and mentally ill and thus protect society with cuts to the sight of stuff they`d rather not let anyone see? WHY do they believe for instance that any gang rapists would be inspired by I Spit on Your Grave when all that`s really required to inspire such copycat gang rape behaviour is a real news story about a group of young men raping some teenage girls in a local park - this really happened so, how many copycat gang rapes followed as a result?
Are we to believe gang rape never existed before I Spit on Your Grave was made? How many young women were brutalised in Roman times? How many girls were gang-banged, beaten and murdered by Viking raiders? How many were raped and tortured to death by the Church in pursuit of confessions of pacts with Lucifer? How many suffered unimaginable horrors chained to the decks of slave ships and a life of enforced servitude?
Censors are clearly not of this world. They live in cloud cuckoo land and believe they hold the power of life and death in their own miserable and misguided hands.
Prove what you claim BBFC or FUCK RIGHT OFF you mindless Nazis (and please, BBFC, feel free to take me to court for libel and slander...I can`t fucking wait...)!
freeworld [27011. Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 06:51]
Looking at the repressive legislation spewing over Scotland under "Labour in a kilt" (the SNP) with the collaboration of former/ex New Labour, it seems England has had a lucky escape. IanG [27010. Posted 11-Jul-2010 Sun 06:22]
MichaelG, you know mate, I`ve said all along that the moral guardians have extremely sick and twisted minds.
This Twilight saga and Moir`s `insight` into the girl`s options highlight the issue perfectly.
I had a good go at all that bull the BBFC puked up about Grotesque. It`s the same with their `reasons` for hacking 30% of porn movies (that are freely available uncut across most of the rest of Europe) to remove supposed `harmful`, `imitable` and/or `obscene` material - all based purely on the BBFC`s distinctly low opinon of their idea of the stereotypical porn movie viewer (i.e. a member of the British public).
In the censor`s view it`s always these unknown `other people` that will do these bizarre things as a result of simply seeing something in a movie. If the hypersensitive censor or biased critic can imagine people being influenced in the ways they claim then, again, as I`ve always said, they themselves must feel these influences to be able to claim they could occur in the mysterious and easily influenced `other people`. It`s not other people at all...it is the censors/hypo-critics who are insane enough to believe other people might do nasty things or pick-up subliminal messages the censors/hypo-critics alone(?) perceive to be present/possible/plausible. They would probably make good fiction writers...no...actually they make good fiction writers - the problem is they get to censor what the rest of us are allowed to see based on their own fictional nightmare scenarios.
Whenever these folks make their deranged claims and observations, we should quote Lord Herschell (paraphrasing from Derry v Peek): "If someone claimed to know something they could not possibly know and, had made no attempt to find out the truth then, that person would be an untrsutworthy character".
They are liars, pure and simple. They are deranged, sick and twisted liars to boot. They postulate, extrapolate and condemn without any knowledge that what they believe is actually true. Censorship is clearly a matter of Thought, Conscience and Religion, as such, NOTHING the censors/hypo-critics believe CAN EVER be used to restrict the fundamental rights of others - the BBFC and Ofcom and no doubt the ASA are all Human Rights Abusers.
HRA, Article 9(2) "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
Our rights and freedoms are all protected from restrictions arising purely from the beliefs of others. It`s the law. Moreover, its the law that all other laws are supposed to be read in such a way as to make them compatible with this law. None of us have to believe the censor`s beliefs or be subjugated by or be subject to their ravings.
PROOF of HARM is all that cuts it these days irrespective of perceived risks to `health and morals` - if these things can be damaged by stories and images then there must be some proof somewhere? After more than 40 years of watching golden showers and fisting (even bestiality) there should be some indication across Europe that the sight of these activities does `corrupt and deprave` the viewer shouldn`t there? As Shaun says, if any of the material that`s routinely cut from films and banned from TV were as dangerous as is claimed then the evidence of the harm it does should be overwhelming by now - so where is it?
freeworld, following on from the above, there`s no doubt certain drugs can influence people`s behaviour and personality. Whether these effects are permanent with regard to steroids I cannot say. I do know that females who take testosterone (a powerful steroid) cannot reverse the enlargment of the clitoris or voice box. Why some women want to beef themselves up could be (perhaps very likely) due to some predisposition and/or crisis/conflict of sexual identity (I believe that`s one possibility). Why men want to beef themselves up with drugs is also very likely to do with some underlying insecurity or some uncontolable desire to be `more` than they are (again I believe these are plausible possibilties). What drives someone to want to look like Mr Universe? Is it for the adoration of jelly-kneed women? Is it simply the addiction to exercise and the endorphine rush strenuous exercise induces?
I mean, clearly, Mr Moat was off his rocker. However, there are numerous incidents of people committing suicide after the loss of a beloved pet cat, birdie or pooch. What drives people to commit murder and/or self-harm has fuck all to do with what we watch or indeed, what some may use to try and `fix` their own perceived faults or blot out some externally inflicted pain, let down, betrayal etc. The list of things that upset perfectly normal people is almost endless, as I`m sure most of us have at one time or another felt all these things, and perhaps, even contemplated revenge or doing `something silly`...? (I know I have...sort of)
We can all kill or choose to `end it all` if pushed beyond our own individual breaking point. Just which straw will break our camel`s back is anyone`s guess. All I know is you don`t need to blame steroid abuse for the things Moat did. He had plenty of scores to settle and the fact he may have abused steroids simply points to some deeper insecurity that suggests an extreme course of action if `dissed` by those he cared about.
Casual, `recreational` drug use is usually fine. We all enjoy the odd tipple or spliff from time to time I`m sure. When drug use becomes more of a necessity or, indeed, results in physical changes, there`s a pathology at work - its a disease or the symptom of a disease (if perhaps `only` psychological disease - usually the worst type to detect or cure before its too late).
This will probably not come as a shock to most but, I don`t think any human being is 100% sane (i.e. in rational control of ourselves) 100% of the time. We are highly evolved animals and sometimes that animal takes over and we act on pure fear, anger and/or hate. We can also act uncontrollably in positive ways so its not all bad news. It recently occured to me that the cause of bullying is likely actually part and parcel of our inherant ranking/pecking-order instinct, which in itself is a result of the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. We`ve tried to bypass all the mechanisms that gave us this brain and it shows in our inhumanity to unarmed civilians (murderer, terrorist bomber or `misdirected fire` incident, it doesn`t change the fact someone`s loved ones are now lying dead, does it!).
I believe that if we could all just sit down and think about all the important basic stuff for a while we might actually figure out how to save ourselves from those that want to order us to war.
Of course, while you`ve got a bunch of alpha male wannabies calling the shots, and broken individuals like Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird roaming the land, the likelihood of anything like sanity prevailing is pretty remote. Still, I guess we can live in hope.
In conclusion, drawing on all the above, it seems to me that the censors/hypo-critics simply do not understand human nature. When the BBFC cut or ban material they are in fact deeming it `obscene` according to their beliefs or some perceived feelings of British society - as we know, such excuses hold no favour in the light of human rights. I simply do not believe the producers of such BBFC/Ofcon banned material had/have any intent whatsoever to `corrupt and deprave` the likely audience. Indeed, writers, directors and producers usually want to convey a message or warning as well as to entertain.
To try and illustrate the situation. No one painted a cinematic picture of what it might be like in a Nazi death camp before the 2nd world war. The Nazis created such horrific scenes all by themselves. If the BBFC had seen such images prior to 1939 they would without doubt have claimed they could inspire radicals to commit such acts of inhumane depravity, torture and murder. However, the fact is we create and watch horrific scenes in order to warn ourselves just how inhuman and evil we can become if we never consider both perspectives - i.e. oppressed vs oppressor, victim vs murderer/torturer/exterminator. The censor worries about desensitisation and, consequently, chooses to conceal the awful truth of what we are capable of doing in order to try and perpetuate the myth that we`re somehow better than rabid animals. However, had we seen or imagined the scenes created by the Nazi in death camps before 1939, there`s a good probability we would (or could) have guarded against such an eventuality. Forewarned is forearmed. No one could (or wanted to) have believed the true horror of Nazi depravity until those images from Belsen and Auschwitz appeared for real in the post VE Day news reels.
This is, yet again, what I`ve always said is the danger of censorship. It is a lie by omission. An obfuscation of the truth or a vision of a potential truth. It is a denial of our inherant prepencity toward inhumanity to our fellow man. Horrific scenes warn us of just how fucking evil and horrible the sufferers of deranged beliefs and/or followers of repressive religions can become. freeworld [27009. Posted 10-Jul-2010 Sat 07:39]
MichaelG {27003. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 13:32}
I suspect Raol Moat`s drug use, especially any "bodybuilding" steroids he was taking, will get some media attention as a factor in helping warp his personality. sergio [27008. Posted 10-Jul-2010 Sat 03:14]
Seriously though, is a man putting his arm up the vagina of a cow - bestiality? MichaelG [27007. Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 13:07]
Re: IanG [27005]:
`First Blood` was the first thing that sprang to my mind too.
Was wondering why the Mail hadn`t gone off on their usual irrelevant arc with this one, but I guess there`s still time. Perhaps they`ve been too busy elsewhere, like sticking the boot into poor old Christine Bleakley (a WAG who doesn`t fit the standard stereotype - that would never do), which didn`t take them long as she`s only been big news for a couple of months.
However, it would seem, going from this latest load of utter bollox from spiteful, poisonous fat bag Jan Moir, that `Twilight` is the new menace to society:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1293291/Twilight-Saga-Eclipse-twaddle--I-teens-love-it.html
Admittedly she ends the article on a positive note, but along the way we have these howlers to contend with:
"Bella must choose between Ed the Undead and Jake the Pecs, a decision that seems to be, if you think about it, a straightforward choice between necrophilia and bestiality."
Typical - you can`t win. You cop off with a werewolf and you`re into bestiality; shag a vampire and you`re a necrophiliac. What kind of tangled mess is going on in Moir`s head than enables her to read perversions like this into a teen movie about vampires?
"So she wants to be dead for ever in Edward’s arms, which could be interpreted as an allegory for suicide."
It gets worse. So `Twilight` not only encourages bestiality and necrophilia, but pushes teens towards suicide too. what a sick piece of vile filth this is, we`d better ban it right away.
Seriously, what can you do with people whose minds operate in this way? There`s clearly something not wired up properly in there... malcom [27006. Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 09:07]
IanG.......Organisations like Ofcom are designed to fuck the law......So called independent when in fact they are Government puppets.......Regulators are a way the governments can flout the law and not seem to get the blame.......
Ultimately its down to the adult broadcasters - Togther they could raise the funds for a legal challenge But.......They don`t seem to have the drive to change anything unless it`s falling into their lap...... IanG [27005. Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 08:22]
MichaelG, sounds like the plot of the Thirty Nine Steps to me...perhaps with hints of First Blood? ;)
malcom/DM, I`m sure you guys can understand my not so infrequent outbursts and outrage at the illegal activities perpetrated by Ofcom. What I cannot fathom is how or why such abuses of law and human rights go unchallenged for so many unbearable years. As I say, all see is anarchy so I guess we can all say "fuck the law...Ofcom do". Why aren`t Liberty on the case? Why isn`t the Judiciary on the case? Why aren`t the police investigating possible human rights abuses and the crime I see as a rip-off scam tantamount to fraud being perpetrated by Ofcom? Why does Justice cost us anything? Haven`t we already paid for our legal protections and protectors` services with our taxes? freeworld [27004. Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 03:37]
This is getting a lot of traffic. Please vote/comment if you haven`t and encourage others to do so. It is possible to register/vote/comment anonymously via a proxy-
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-section-63-of-the-cjia-2008-extreme-porn
The repellent NL harpy Maria Eagle of dangerous drawings fame was whinging yesterday about the government`s decision to grant those accused of rape anonymity up to any charge being made. MichaelG [27003. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 13:32]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293153/Ministers-signal-changes-unions-indefensible-use-members-cash-fund-Labour.html
Hilarious quote of the day has to be Jackboots Straw - "this is totally undemocratic". Priceless. Since when was democracy ever something he lost any sleep over?
Moving on, unless anyone has been living under a rock for the last week, they will doubtless have heard all about how fugitive gunman Raoul Moat has, well... er... disappeared into the wilds of my home county - Northumberland.
What surprises me most here is not how he`s managed to give a veritable army of plod the slip, but how the Daily Mail have not been forthcoming with any lurid tales of how Moat has been `inspired` to commit his alleged crimes by watching violent movies. Has Bullshit Blame Bingo finally been put to rest after all these years? Come on lads, there must be hundreds of cinematic offerings where someone shoots a policeman or his ex-missus and her new partner, or leads the cops on a wild chase through a remote and hostile wilderness... malcom [27002. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 11:16]
IanG said: malcom, haven`t we always argued that the `not quite R18` material on `adult` TV can be no more dangerous to the under eighteens than full-on R18?
---------------------------------
Indeed.......I have always believed bog standard soft core to be more of a risk let alone near HC as it leaves the viewer unsatisfied thus sexually frustrated.......Not a good idea........
What interests me is the broadcasters are now more confident in pushing the envelope at times.....Why are they confident at this moment in time....Where as before they were scared stiff of Ofcom .........
Its been what some five years since I took at look at the soft channels so i am seeing stuff new to me as well as the bog standard awful old stuff......I don`t know for how long the broadcaters have been showing some improved stuff.......Anyone know......I get the feeling they have been at it for quite a while and if Ofcom wanted to stop it they would have done so by now......
PS..Asked before but can anyone say what ever happened to Paul Tavener??????? Is he still around........
dancing monkey [27001. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 08:09]
IanG, you are absolutely right - prior to 2000 (or 1997 if you include the brief dalliance with `medium-core`), the adult channels did broadcast R18-equivalent material. In fact, that was their USP, the fact that they were stronger than regular 18 rated videos. Of course, R18 up til then was pretty much of a dead duck, and was much harder to identify in terms of content - with no real sex in either category, where did 18 stop and R18 begin? IanG [27000. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 07:50]
DM, I landed here at MF following a Customs seizure and the usual threats to do me for importing obscenity and...`intent to distribute`, which was always tagged on by Customs to their unjustified charges against personal imports.
Owning `obscene` materials had NEVER been a criminal offence (until this Nazi bunch of religious New Labour cunts were given a majority in Parliament...). Only publishing/distributing obscene materials falls under the OPA. So, Customs had to invent a charge that could negate our right to freedom of speech and legal private ownership of `obscene` materials. If challenged, Customs would have to prove obscenity first and then try and prove intent to distribute - anyone with the money and balls could have smashed their rights abusing regime decades beforehand.
The solicitor I contacted said much the same as yours...i.e. you`ll have to appeal the magistrate`s decision and go to trial where you`ll likely win so long as there`s nothing truly obscene in the matreial (the stuff I was trying to import featured Racquel Darrian and was completely consensual).
It`s not surprising the BBFC didn`t mount much of a fight. After all, it had been their policy to relax the R18 limits in 1997 to try and beat the blackmarket only for Jack Boots to step-in and attempt a forced and unnecessary U-turn (mindless prig that he is). As we all knew then and know to this day, the liberal-minded public were right about the harmless nature of consensual adult sex material. More than 40 years of legal availability in most of the rest of Europe and the USA hadn`t created any obvious porn-related problems had it? The BBFC were desperately trying to justify their continued existence so, they invented the idea that consensual sex is fine but any `dangerous` or `abusive` elements should still need their beady eyes and butchering.
Just to come back to the circumstantial conspiracy theory, I still find it very hard to believe no one in authority at all checked on the implications of hardcore being allowed at R18 and esp. what that might mean for TV broadcasting - i.e. "no real sex" became "no R18" in the ITC Code despite the FACT R18 WAS the defacto fare on `adult` TV throughout the 1980s and 1990s because it contained no real sex in those days.
As I`ve said all along, what the ITC did was ILLEGAL because up until that point all legally available material WAS indeed being broadcast as per the Groppera AG v Switzerland ECHR statement. It stands to reason ALL legally avaiable material SHOULD be available on TV even if some of it needs restricting to specialist opt-in services to protect narrow-minded arseholes from stumblng into it unawares.
dancing monkey [26999. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 06:52]
Shaun, you are of course right that customs now use R18 as a benchmark - not everything imported needs to be BBFC approved, but if the content goes beyond what is accepted at R18 - even if not strictly illegal - then they will doubtless seize it. I`m not sure what their policy for screeners and master copies being sent to distributors is - I guess they simplky don`t look at them. I have to say that I haven`t had a single package opened since 2000.
In August 2000, I was told that they didn`t give a damn what the BBFC were doing, they would still seize hardcore because they still considered it to be obscene. A few weeks later, they changed their tune. I`m sure the reasons Dave has spelled out are the reason.
Of course, customs always knew they were on dubious grounds. When I had a major run-in with them back in the 90`s, my solicitor told me that I would lose in court - because magistrates will simply rubber-stamp customs decisions - and then most likely win on appeal. But like most people, I couldn`t afford the legal costs, and it all ended in a stalemate.
My dealings with them suggested that the `lower orders` had no personal grudge against this material, but the higher ups were pretty evangelical about it. Go figure.
I was also at the R18 hearings. Fascinating to see the BBFC failing so miserably (though few of their staff seemed too upset at the result). I went to a couple of other VAC hearings, with less satisfactory results. Shaun [26998. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 02:04]
Thanks Dave for the clarification. Ten years is a long time to remember things so accurately.
One thing I`ve always wondered about, is why Customs were so adamant they didn`t want to change things ? They must have known that the game was up.
Did they get some kind of pleasure in this kind of repression I wonder ?
Was it religion or deep seated but unwarranted belief in the harm ?
Or was it that they didn`t want to admit that the time spent on seizing videos was disproportionate, repressive and a complete waste of public money ?
What happens nowadays, ten years on ? I`ve not heard of any seizures for some time. I presume the unjust "extreme porn" law has given their quest new impetus ? I suppose most stuff is downloaded rather than imported and is something they have no interest in, not being tangible.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [26997. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 19:24]
Re Customs
The whole process of legalisation evolved over a couple of years and agencies were obviously taking different views. Customs were embroiled quite early on and had a fair amount of press coverage. Perhaps as you`d expect they were always dragging their feet about it.
But after the court decision, the government organised a series of meetings between those bodies affected, BBFC,police, customs, CPS, home office, trading standards etc. And between the court decision in June 2000 (not checked) and the first proper hardcore R18s in August/September the authorities pulled together and decided to all take the same stance and to all accept that the BBFC R18 guidelines defined that that was no longer obscene. Other issues were sorted such as customs/imports etc.
And as a result all the bodies did seem to pull together thereafter and it seemed to all work smoothly in the end.
The observed changes in customs were surely just down to the where they were asked on ths timeline.
Shaun [26996. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 16:44]
Well dancing monkey - I won`t argue regarding the VRA as we both agree that the EU only needed to be informed in the mid eighties before the VRA game into force.
As regards customs, you were not the only one involved in discussions with them as long term readers of this site might testify.
I was involved in an argument with them back in 2000 after the high court BBFC decision regarding the importation of porn and the effect the decision would have. Well before then, after the seizure of my DVDs in 1998 or so, and my subsequent incessant complaints about it, I got to talk to some quite high ranking officials there. Probably you did as well. But I also had much discussion with them after the R18 decision, and was told because the BBFC had lost their judicial review, and the material was legal for sale, it could not be considered obscene. However they DID tell me that the reason for seizure of similar material in the future would be:
That the material imported was not the same as a BBFC classified version and/or did not have an certificate issued by the BBFC and it would still be subject to seizure. As far as they were concerned the situation had not changed, and they siezed material condemned as obscene by the magistrates court. Except it wasn`t so condemned which was the very reason the BBFC gave up and changed their policy according to someone inside the BBFC who I conversed with often.
In anycase the position was "likely to be obscene" as ultimately only the court could decide, and their decisions could be so challenged. Expensive though.
I was also told that any version with an R18 (or indeed any other) certificate or one identical to it, COULD be imported, but NOT if it was even slightly different or not classified at all.
Then it all changed, and one reason given was the HRA which was now law. Other reasoning was EU single market law and all that. However they said stronger material (which would not be allowed at r18) would continue to be seized as it would still be considered to be obscene. In other words they DID initially intend to seize material which was NOT obscene. IE material without classification but the same content as R18.
I think Dave and some others here might remember this issue. I am sure I would have mentioned it all at the time. It was very much ongoing. The seizure of my Vivid DVDs was also an ongoing issue and I had many discussions with customs about that, including one Mr. Field who was also present at the BBFC joint (two video companies) video appeal as was I. When Mr Field realised I was there at the appeal (as was he) then his attitude changed completely and we were really chatty.
When I went to the BBFC appeal, I was asked by Sue Clark if I was the Melon Farmer! "So you`re the Melon Farmer then!" she said.
Fond memories.
PS see:
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arne00c.htm
where my enquiries are documented.
sergio [26995. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:30]
Can customs stop material that has no BBFC cert? DoodleBug [26994. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:18]
This has to be the most bizarre decision I have seen this week from the BBFC. A kid`s film called "Adventure`s of a Teenage Dragonslayer" is cut to get a PG rating :
This work was cut. Some cuts were compulsory and some were made at the request of the distributor to achieve a particular category. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 23s were required.
Further information on cuts made (* SPOILER ALERT* Information may include plot details)
A compulsory cut was required to remove sight of children playing with fireworks in a work aimed at children. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Additionally, company chose to make a further cut to remove a use of discriminatory language ("moron") in order to achieve a `PG` classification. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. A `12` was available without this cut.
So now the word "moron" isn`t allowed to be heard by younger children, what the hell is going on in the censor`s minds !!
The funny thing is a review on IMDB says it`s "campy, fun , and great for all ages". Obviously the BBFC don`t agree ! dancing monkey [26993. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:11]
Shaun, I was answering a question raised by IanG about whether the EU had been informed of changes when hardcore R18 started to be passed. You obviously misread my statement, or didn`t read his earlier post.
And sorry, but you are wrong about customs. They seized porn - like other material - because they claimed it was obscene material. BBFC approval had nothing to do with it. Customs have been seizing porn since long before the VRA (legally enacted or otherwise). I`ve dealt with customs many, many times - including having solicitors involved - and never once was BBFC classification brought up as a reason for seizure. When the BBFC started to pass hardcore, customs originally stated that their rules would stay the same regardless - they still considered such material obscene (again, I know this from direct contact) and it was only when they realised just how many court cases they would be facing - and would almost certainly lose - that they backed down. Shaun [26992. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 08:29]
dancing monkey
You wrote:
"Therefore, the VRA was unchanged, so why would the EU need to be informed? "
As far as I know no one said it or implied that it would need to be informed. The fact was that the VRA was never legal in the first place because the EU wasn`t informed when it should have been, all those years ago. If you did know it did not appear so from where I sit.
Customs were originally arguing that foreign porn wasn`t legally available in the UK because it had not been classified. But then they would have had to sieze EVERYTHING not just R18, and they`d never have got away with it.
Customs like any other "public authority" should PROPERLY PROVE their action is proportionate and necessary before seizing ANYTHING. The fact is that the never have done. But they cannot just seize something because they don`t like it or think it is immoral even though some of them might think just that.
IanG [26991. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 06:54]
Shaun, I too recall writing to my MP about the double standards and import ban (I seem to think Dave published it too).
malcom, haven`t we always argued that the `not quite R18` material on `adult` TV can be no more dangerous to the under eighteens than full-on R18?
If folks want a flavour of what`s going on behind the PPV screen then take a look here (pls note these are the absolute `best bits` from this channel as you will likely note from the viewer comments, most of the rest of the 5 hour broadcast is typical oft repeated softcore striptease)
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=19180&pid=560458#pid560458
I think I said a few months ago that Ofcon`s PIN research wasn`t properly assessed or reviewed. The BARB viewing figures Ofcon called upon, show that about 23% of u18s stay up to watch late night TV...that is until the midnight hour when "that figure reduces dramatically" according to BARB sources. There are virtually no under eighteens watching TV after midnight. Moreover, the BARB figures (if you can find them) show only a tiny, insignificant fraction of viewers actually watch `adult` TV full stop (typically 0.1% of the audience). I might add BARB pricing of their data is monstrous - about £500-£5000 for a decent data set to non-acedemics (there`s a 90% discount for academics though...!).
I`m hoping the AVMS amendments (section 368(E) in particular) will finally bring about the liberalisation that was ALWAYS the intent of TVWF. The AVMS clauses make it absolutely clear that ONLY material which can cause "serious impairment to minors" (under fifteens) is to be made available in such a way as to make it UNLIKELY minors will see or hear it. Unlikely doen`t mean `never` and it doesn`t imply an all out ban is at all the right course of action. Moreover, as the law recognises the risk of harm to minors from exposure to consensual adult sex material is insignificant, this hardly sounds like the sort of stuff that needs any restrictions to guard against serious impairment to the physical, psychological and moral development of minors (i.e. health and morals).
dancing monkey [26990. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 05:30]
Shaun - yes, I know.
Sergio - yes it is. Customs are not (officially) allowed to seize items that are legally available in the UK.
Of course, as they have done with porn, and with horror movies, they can interpret what is and isn`t legal. They will still confiscate horror / violent films that they think are beyond the pale. malcom [26989. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 03:39]
Well. I don`t know what is going on or has gone on regarding Ofcom and the adult broadcasters in relation to the interpritation of the so called new code.......One thing for sure something has chanegd between the original code release and todays interpritation of it by the adult channeles......R18 certainly thus far not allowed.......Bloody close at times in some series to R18 is it appears being allowed and as it is so persistant regular and far removed from what was allowed 5 years ago it must surely be with a nod and a wink or what ever from the regulators............
Change of attitude from a subscription point of also....No 12 month contracts........Permanent £10 reduction for July subscribers only and one advert offering 12 day 6 channels for 1 penny!!!!!!
Is this a sign of desperation for a falling subscriber base or an attempt to cash in for the future better programming.....All speculation.......
Does this mean R18 may be on the cards sooner or later!!!! Wish I knew!!! What is clear from what i have seen over the past few weeks is that the ofcom insistance of no R18 is looking more and more ridiculous because at times they are so close to it.......In terms of lesbian stuff I have seen some that would be classified as HC...It is clear the broadcasters are not in fear of being fined for what they are showing.......5 years ago they most certainly would have been..... sergio [26988. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 01:33]
BBFC cuts for June 2010
Number of items=80
No. Cuts=23
Cuts ratio=28%
Cuts of interest
ASS TO MOUTH VIRGINS
Directed by Phil Barry
One cut was required to remove sight of faecally contaminated lubricant trickling from a woman`s anus. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
---
Mr Barry seemed to disagree with the BBFC observations.
`it was actually liquid coming from the girls pussy whilst vaginal sex was taking place and was clear
outragous but easier to cut than argue ,i suppose they need to keep
themselfs in a job` IanG [26987. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 21:10]
DM, thanks for clearing a few ends up. Any hint of a conspiracy theory is purely circumstantial. The main issue is with Ofcon. If as Shaun says any action by Customs would have been a HRA violation, what allows Ofcon to ban legal material from our TV screens? Ofcon were supposed to be "light touch". They were supposed to be balancing the rights of adults with protection of the under eighteens. What they`ve done is set adult TV back about 15 years and reinvented `taste and decency` in the guise of mere `offence` which is the all encompassing excuse to further restrict the rights of adult viewers.
I recall when Ofcon first published their Code, several contributors here reported minor breaches on the R18-content front. They were told by Ofcon that their complaints weren`t appreciated and that they (Ofcom) thought they were being `vexatious`. (I think there`s something in the Ofwatch archives about it)
Compare that with a few weeks ago when some nutter complained that although the girls on the asian chat line were wearing fleshy-coloured knickers and white thongs on top, they were offended because the girls appeared to be naked. OfCON jumped through hoops to justify the complainant`s feelings.
Call it bias, call it prejudice, whatever it is Ofcon are up to its not balanced, rational or remotely ethical.
Back in Bullshitting 151 this Feb. Ofcom claimed that when they said back in 2008 that BangBabes couldn`t start boob rubbing and nipple licking before 10pm, they didn`t necessarily mean BB could start doing it after 10pm. As I`ve said before elsewhere (and probably here) when I see a notice saying "No parking before 9am" I don`t assume that means "No parking at anytime". Ofcon seem to think such a piece of negligent pedantry isn`t remotely hypocritical or unethical...esp. when it pertains to a gyrating on-screen phone `babe` causing some voyeur`s dick to twitch. (Sorry. I`ve just remembered what one guy called adult channel viewers in his consultation response...`the peepers`)
It seems perfectly clear that the Comms Act actively discriminates against `adult` channels and viewers...that is unless of course disappointed viewers can complain about being treated like irresponsible children, perverts and `peepers` and, that the type of material we`d like to watch is presented as the most uncontrollable and disgusting source of all offensive material on TV...? The `adult` channel viewer`s treatment at the hands of Ofcom has been nothing short of dispicable and totally unnecessary and, as such, I think its illegal.
New Labour seemed to have excelled at passing laws to criminalise supposed sexual deviants, and even the Comms Act seems remarkably biased in favour of Jack Straw`s likely vision of `decent` British TV.
However, it may just be Ofcon`s interpretation of the Comms Act that`s at fault. If the Government had meant to keep `taste and decency` as the acid test then I guess that`s what they`d have said in the Comms Act. As it is they said Ofcom were to provide adequate protection against "offensive and harmful material" not merely fine or repremand channels for broadcasting that which may cause harm amd/or offend against some cretin`s idea of taste and decency.
I`m sure I`m right because the HRA doesn`t permit thoughts and feelings to be used as excuses to restrict the fundamental rights of others. Ofcon don`t seem to have grasped that concept while trying to interpret the Comms Act in a way which makes it fully compatible with the HRA and the principles behind TVWF.
DoodleBug [26986. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 13:28]
One of the latest cuts from the BBFC, this time for the new Stallone movie The Expendables :
This work was cut. The cut(s) were made at the request of the distributor to achieve a particular category. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 2s were required.
Further information on cuts made (* SPOILER ALERT* Information may include plot details)
The company chose to remove one shot, showing a hero sadistically twisting a knife into a guard`s neck, in order to obtain a `15` classification. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. An uncut `18` classification was available.
Shaun [26985. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 12:39]
dancing monkey - It was back in 1984-5 when the EU should have been informed, NOT when thr judicial review happened in 2000
Probably Jack-boots Straw would have changed the law IF he could. My guess is that he wouldn`t have been able to, without breaking the HRA.
They were complete TWATS and I am very glad they have gone.
PS: Customs law changed mainly because of the HRA but there were other trade issues. I complained to my MP at the time, about their refusal to allow import. I told him it was completely wrong and a HRA violation. Customs at first tried to say it was because they`d not been classified so I pointed out if that was the case, they`d have to ban import of ALL unclassified works not just adult movies.
Then things suddenly changed... sergio [26984. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 12:25]
`The consumer is not breaking the law because it is only the sale by mail order, not the purchase, that is illegal. `
Does this happen to be the case for any other product? dancing monkey [26983. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 05:36]
IanG, I happen to know quite a bit about the R18 situation, and you are reading more into it than was there.
The BBFC set the rules, not the government - indeed, Jack Straw looked at changing the law, so outraged was he by the relaxation. The Judicial Review that finally allowed hardcore was not a government thing, but a legal challenge to interpretation of the law. Therefore, the VRA was unchanged, so why would the EU need to be informed? They wouldn`t. Just as they didn`t need to be informed when former Video Nasties were passed uncut. The law hadn`t changed then either. `Hardcore` was not illegal by that time anyway - magazines etc had been openly available for some time.
The customs situation is simple. When the R18 rules changed, customs initially said they would carry on as usual. However, their lawyers pointed out that they were heading for trouble - they could no longer claim material was obscene when identical material was being legally sold - with BBFC approval - within Britain. They would probably be subject to court battles left, right and centre, from UK distributors if not individuals. Eventually, they saw sense in September 2000 (I know the date because I was abroad at the time the rules changed).
Overseas mail order is the same. The supplier is not breaking the law because they are not subject to UK law. The consumer is not breaking the law because it is only the sale by mail order, not the purchase, that is illegal. And as the material is no longer considered legally obscene, customs and the post office are no longer concerned with it.
I have no idea what is happening with OFCOM, but as far as R18, UK customs and mail order goes, there is no grand conspiracy. IanG [26982. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 04:34]
pbr, I note Ofcom are yet again quoting their Code which to me bears little relation to Ofcom Standards Objectives as specified in the Comms Act.
Section 2 of the Code on Harm and Offence is here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/harmoffence/
Under the heading Principle and Rule 2.1 of the Code it states:
"To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content
of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for
members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful
and/or offensive material."
The Comms Act has very similar wording, and requires Ofcom to draw up a Code to ensure:-
319(2)(f) "that generally accepted standards are applied to the content
of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for
members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material"
Now this may be pendantic nit picking BUT, Rule 2.3 of Ofcom`s Code states:
"In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence."
Ofcom generally abbreviate Rule 2.3 to just "material which may cause offence is justified by the context". You can see this in virtually all Ofcom`s Bullshittings (e.g. see ARY decision).
Question: How does the context justify the inclusion of offensive and harmful material as per Ofcom`s Code Rule 2.3, when the Comms Act 319(2)(f) requires Ofcom to enusre "adequate protection...from the inclusion of such material"?
There is little doubt Rule 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 all pertain to harm and offence - Section 2 of the Code even bears that title. There is little doubt clause 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act pertains to offensive and harmful material.
How can any reasonable person read the Comms Act and arrive at the conclusion that offensive and harmful material can actually be included in the content of radio and TV programmes if justified by context when, in fact, Ofcom are supposed to ensure adequate protection from the inclusion of such material FULL STOP?
Clearly, what the gov. intended and what Ofcom have chosen to implement are completely different. Ofcom`s fortnightly Bullshittings just highlight their utter failure in providing adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in their licensees programmes.
IanG [26981. Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 18:54]
pbr, I understand the legal framework is complicated. You do however highlight the issue that`s been bugging me for some time - i.e. the free passage of legal goods.
As we know, in 2000, HMC&E had been threatening to prosecute folks for importing porn for over 100 years. Suppliers all over the world were aware of the UK`s import restrictions and often recommended taking-out insurance against HMCE stealing your goods on their trip to the incinerator. After the HC ruling that all changed. I think you`d have to be pretty naive not to think the gov. had to inform the EC about such a change to the content of R18 and the legal status of `hardcore` porn and its passage into the UK. Wouldn`t you?
Surely too, any questions over the `health and morals` issue was answered by the High Court when they agreed with the VAC that a reasonable person faced with the evidence presented by the BBFC in support of banning hardcore at R18 turned out to support the exact opposite. The BBFC are charged with "preventing any harm which may be caused" - that`s about as broad a scope as you can get - yet the risk of harm to children from exposure to hardcore material was deemed to be insignificant by both the VAC and the High Court.
I simply do not see how you can read Comms Act in such a way as to make it compatible with the HRA and the Case Law of the ECHR (as ALL public bodies are required to do by law) and end up with the fucked-up situation we have in this country.
It stinks. It makes no sense legally or logically.
Perhaps you can offer an opinion on the TVWF in respect of it conferring the right to broadcast any legally available material not specifically banned by the State TV regulating body on exactly those grounds of minor or serious impairment to the physical, psychological or moral development of minors? They pertain to health and morals do they not?
How is it Ofcom can (or is it MUST?) allow unrated European hardcore to be beamed into UK homes whilst at the same time ban R18-rated, UK-legal porn being broadcast into UK homes? If the TVWF applies to all brodcasters in Europe how come the UK viewers and broadcasters get fucked-over by a pisspot, unelected, unwanted shit-for-brains outfit like Ofcom?
Does the Comms Act actually allow Ofcom to write broadcasting `law` as they see fit? Can the gov. hand such powers to unelected cunts? Why is there no legal oversight or indeed any automatic mechanism that sees Ofcom and the BBFC are properly supervised and their `interpretation` of the law set straight BEFORE any human rights abuses CAN take place? The BBFC had been denying the right to watch what every other modern European country had allowed since the late 1960s - at least 40 years of unlawful restriction of freedom of expression in film and, at least 16 years of unnecessary video censorship under the VRA. But that`s not the half of it. As soon as we catch-up with Europe on the film and video front, the TV twats decide they`ll ignore the legal status of porn and ban it from TV because they alone think the VAC and the High Court got it wrong. I think that`s Contempt of Court esp. as OFCON have produced no new evidence to contradict the High Court ruling.
I can think of some really good `generally accepted standards` that OUGHT to be applied to these censorial muthas. WHY DOESN`T THE GOV. or THE LAW ensure some AUTOMATIC Judicial oversight? What the fuck is the law for if it doesn`t step-in to protect those its supposed to fucking well protect - i.e. the people that PAY FOR IT to PROTECT THEM AND THEIRS?
How dare `they` talk about "substantive injustice" - have they looked at their so called law and order recently?
All I see is ANARCHY and it STINKS.
pbr [26980. Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 11:19]
@IanG
Hi there, short answer is I don`t know :)
Longer answer is it`s a little more complicated lol
First off my understanding is that the problem with the VRA is that the Thatcher government didn`t properly notify the Commission (a European Union body, or I suppose, at the time a European Economic Community body) of a law which could interfere with the free passage of goods/services.
*wandering off into wild speculation and guesswork*
The law also created some criminal offences which are only relevant within the UK... they are perfectly proper offences regardless of whether the Act was properly announced to the Commission... if you wanted to make those offences unlawful in the European Convention on Human Rights sense, then you`d need something more that a failure to comply with a notifying requirement for a wholly different body.
The European Union and its forerunners and its court the European Court of Justice are completely seperate to the Council of Europe and its court the European Court of Human Rights... yes... I know it`s confusing, it`s even more confusing that the EU stole the flag of the CoE (no, not that one) :)
There is some overlap between the two courts... and oddly enough, this is an area where it`s possible to see that overlap, but from two very different angles lol that of freedom of expression and the free movement of goods... however, in both cases, there are restrictions which allow... I think the charming wording is "for the protection of health or morals" which appears in both the Treaty of Rome (EU - re movement of goods/services) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR - re freedom of expression).
I hope that in some way helps... lol
I think your other question is about a conflict between obscenity and the VRA, which, I would have to look into to give a more informed answer :) IanG [26979. Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 07:28]
Dave, so what was the point of maintaining the advertising and mail order ban in the UK if it is deemed absolutely unnecessary to enforce it across all suppliers in the EU? Was this unecessary restriction deliberately imposed to disadvantage UK sex shop owners? Was it maintained to force some of the biggest companies in the UK adult industry to relocate outside the UK? What happened to their tax revenues? Was it maintained to mitigate what Ofcom (who were now a real twinkle in NL`s eyes) were going to do, indeed, be FORCED to do by some shadowy figure with top secret info?
I think people forget that the Gov. are supposed to be creating an environment that brings money INTO our economy not, as in this instance, forcing money and business out of our economy (and all on top of what the UK already donates to the EC).
There should be no doubt in anyone`s mind that before that censored meeting, the Ofcom Code was going to allow R18 on encrypted services. In Ofcom`s consultation report there`s a very strange bit of english usage - i.e. "Whereas R18 was banned under the ITC Code it will remain banned under the new Code". Like Paul T. said, "Shouldn`t that `was` be an `is`?". Even if the `was` were replaced by `is` the sentence still makes little grammatical sense because `whereas` is used to highlight a change in status - FULL STOP!
Further to my previous post, why did the ITC completely rewrite their Code, virtually overnight, following Straw`s `R18 Review` meeting? I watched the Code change almost right before my eyes. I can`t quite remember why I was looking for the clause numbers in the ITC Code but, I know one day it read something like "53. No real sex can be broadcast at any time", which changed within a few days to read "<some new number>. No R18 can be broadcast at any time" (the whole document had been redone from start to end with completely new layout and numbering).
That `R18` wording change WAS and still IS (in the Ofcom Code) ILLEGAL according to the ECHR Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990 statement - i.e. "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material" - as quoted by a law professor in his submission to the Comms Bill consultation. I stumbled on these Comms Bill consultation responses while searching for the UK`s trips to the ECHR... The law prof. also noted that he thought `the decision to allow harcore porn on TV has already been made` (or words to that effect).
I suppose the question is, how many other legal precedents, human rights violations and ECHR Case law decisions do various bodies in the UK choose to ignore in favour of their own religiously corrupted view of what Britain `needs`?
This all STINKS of anarchy and unlawful activity - FULL STOP!
Melon Farmers (Dave) [26978. Posted 4-Jul-2010 Sun 20:43]
IanG
I did get wind of some of the discussions when R18s were made legal. There were some inter organisation meetings of the usual suspects. I think it was decided that foreign sellers were technically in breach of UK law on mail order but this would be unenforecable. And as the personal importer is not in breach of the law then I think it was just a pragmatic decision to allow mail order imports. IanG [26977. Posted 4-Jul-2010 Sun 05:53]
Re section 44 : "The Home Office now has no remaining grounds for appeal. But, despite the crushing Strasbourg defeat, officials say they will not stop the police from using the power for months or even a year or more."
I thought the minister responsible had just 3 months to remedy the incompatibility? That`s how I read the relevant section in the HRA 1998.
Of course I could be wrong as I don`t speak legalese and, furthermore, it now seems no punishment without law only applies to "substantive injustice" (see VRA 1984 ruling). To my mind I think enforcing punishments without law (or acting on the basis of illegitimate `law`) is THE `substantive injustice` irrespective of the degree of the punishment suffered by the INNOCENT `criminal`/`suspect`.
It`s plain in my mind - no law means no order, no order means anarchy. Enforcing unenforcable legislation is ANARCHY and all the guarantees made by The Crown since Magna Carta probably mean nowt. Which is a shame really because The Crown is where the law obtains its judicial power. Anarchy rules UK.
pbr, Re VRA : Do you know (or know where we find) if the gov. are/were reqd. to inform the EC about the change to R18 content in 2000? If not, fair enough. If so, then what I said the other week is quite likely true.
We KNOW something major happened after the HC ruling in 2000. HMC&E were ordered to wave R18-type material through customs despite there APPARENTLY being a mail order ban on R18. Of course it now transpires that the R18 advertising and mail order ban were in themselves UNENFORCEABLE at the time. (And my guess is they`re unnecessary restrictions as far as supplying harmless material goes!!!)
Also, the ITC/Ofcom stopped (i.e. were/are likely prohibited) from proscribing channels supplying R18-type material via satellite. Only ONE channel which showed material deemed harmful (i.e. obscene) has been proscribed in the past 10 years. All the other hardcore channels (dozens of them) are operating in the single market of which the UK is certainly part.
One thing that really makes no sense since 2000 is the requirement to have a license to sell anything deemed harmless. One can understand chemists, tobacanists and publicans needing a license to sell potentially dangerous substances but why does anyone need a license to sell material that poses no significant risk to anyone?
Something STINKS - the UK courts for one and everything to do with Ofcom, the VRA, Jack Straw et fucking alia.
IanG [26976. Posted 3-Jul-2010 Sat 08:49]
"More problematic was Showgirls, an expose of the seamy side of Las Vegas, with a prurient emphasis on exploitative nudity, which was not only the subject of the film but its main selling point. In such a context, the sadistic gang rape of the only wholly sympathetic character in the film seemed unnecessarily extended and sensationalised. The rape was trimmed for cinema, and trimmed further for video, since the price of the rape could be adequately conveyed by the sight of the battered and bleeding victim."
Ah yes, I can see the BBFC claiming we don`t need to see Michelangelo`s David`s willie - the rest of the statue tells us all we need to know.
Kindly fuck right off, BBFC, you mindless twats. Go and apply your narrow minded standards to those with narrow minds. The rest of us however would like OUR Human Rights respected to the full. As I don`t expect to see black marker drawn all over a Piccasso because some tosser thinks the publc "SHOULDN`T BE ALLOWED" to look at a ladies` boob, I don`t see why anyone thinks you`ve any right to make up shit to justify your dictatorial existence.
Pray tell BBFC, which cuts didn`t you make that `forced` Peter Suttcliffe or Derrick Bird to go on their murderous sprees? As I`ve maintained all along, censorship CANNOT protect ANYONE from the actions of NUTTERS. And as ONLY NUTTERS would DO what the BBFC claim `might happen` then ALL their arguments for censorship are but puerile bullshit.
emark [26975. Posted 3-Jul-2010 Sat 06:24]
Have been listening to some of the BBC Glastonbury recordings on IPlayer. Last year, their swear word lyric "solution" was to apply some weird kind of filter, presumably in an attempt to remove the swear word without you noticing, but in practice it resulted in some horrid distortion, that left you thinking it was a flaw in the performance or production, and only after a while did I realise it was intentionally added by the BBC due to swear words.
This year they`ve gone for the classic of turning the sound down altogether. It`s as if John Beyer himself is controlling your volume knob for you, so you don`t hear anything he doesn`t want you to hear.
Bring back the bleep I say - at least it`s honest. Everyone knows it`s being bleeped because someone else might be offended.
(The BBC FAQ claims they`re not allowed to show such material - in some cases they end up not showing performances at all if there are too many swear words - which is clearly false as there are plenty of post-watershed programmes on IPlayer that doesn`t have this annoying sound cutting. They even have the technology to have a parental lock, but for some reason they only use this on some of their programmes.) simcha [26974. Posted 3-Jul-2010 Sat 00:56]
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/ofcom-and-tv-censorship emark [26973. Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 19:17]
Also see http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-most-of-the-video-recordings-act . malcom [26972. Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 14:13]
Ah.Think I have it......Yellow stars don`t appear until mouse is moved over them......
Another problem now. Don`t know how to find my own submission......CENSORSHIP malcom [26971. Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 14:05]
Shaun:
Have registered. Have logged in. Still cannot vote. No yellow stars apppear. Just greyed out stars and a comments box...........
PS> By the way my little efort is under the heading of CENSORSHIP...... Shaun [26970. Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 12:33]
malcom,
One has to register and log in. Then some yellow stars appear near the top left above the comments list, and you can click the number of stars you want to apply to a suggestion (1 to 5) after you have logged in.
After you click and the page refreshes you can undo the vote if you wish.
malcom [26969. Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 05:26]
I have been to the Freedom site and entered a suggestion about Censorship and Ofcom but cannot work out how to actually vote for or against other suggestions......I go to the details but where do you vote where are the voting links....???????? emark [26968. Posted 1-Jul-2010 Thu 13:39]
See http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-section-63-of-the-cjia-2008-extreme-porn and http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/section-63-of-the-criminal-justice-and-immigration-act-2008 .
You can vote, and leave comments.
ETA: Also see http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-laws-on-drawn-pornography for the cartoon porn law. freeworld [26967. Posted 1-Jul-2010 Thu 04:11]
Very important!
Your freedom
A new official government website is up today for the public to use re the freedom or great repeal bill.
"The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we`re asking you to participate".
Nick Clegg introduces with a video discussing the concept of the public telling the government what they need to address as regards bad/needless laws etc.
People can make suggestions, discuss and comment on those made and rate the suggestions-seems like a pretty good opportunity. One would hope that the more ratings in favour and the more the topic appears, the more likely the legislation would be to be considered seriously for repeal/amendment. Spread the word!
So far I have only looked at the site briefly, but the Dangerous pictures act is already there twice. The site was discussed this morning on radio 5.
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/
. bleach [26966. Posted 1-Jul-2010 Thu 03:40]
RE: Diesel adverts.
I can`t see what the fuss is about I actually found the adverts quite funny. It will also be good press for Diesel who may have lost out a market share to brands like G Star Raw and even high street ones (Topman etc). I doubt anyone male or female would copy the advert but everyone`s seen drunken women flash a camera the second it`s put in front of them on a TV documentary. ste [26965. Posted 1-Jul-2010 Thu 02:34]
So the Scottish Parliament has passed its extreme porn laws. No surprise there.
But on the other hand, the Parliament actually did a decent job of rejecting a bunch of other stupid laws. Sandra White`s lap dancing regime got rejected (only the SNP supported it), and attempts to ban all prostitution, and also to introduce the English strict liability offence for using `controlled` prostitutes were both rejected (only Labour supported them). So some bad, but some good also.
Interestingly, the Police (particularly in the form of ACPOS) were fairly pivotal in providing cover for rejecting the prostitution laws. They basically said they didn`t want or need them, and that they might well make things worse, which made it a lot easier for the parties to reject them. sergio [26964. Posted 30-Jun-2010 Wed 09:28]
`The ASA said the poster with the woman flashing at the camera was also likely to encourage copycat behaviour.`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290749/Diesel-posters-showing-women-flashing-banned-promoting-anti-social-behaviour.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
So the Dailymail is now showing posters which some `experts` think will encourage copycat behaviour.
bleach [26963. Posted 30-Jun-2010 Wed 08:25]
Emigration
Just read the Theresa May article apart from it being a breach of human rights. What could be affecting is it could have a negative effect on international relations. There is already racism in the UK (always has been) directed towards people from EE and Central Asia seem to be the butt of most of it. Anyway with the UK arguably being hated by some of the East due to their involvement in the war on terror if nothing else - I can see it fraying these relations further. MichaelG [26962. Posted 29-Jun-2010 Tue 22:50]
Here we go yet again:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290573/Gunman-centre-hour-bank-siege-drunk-imitation-weapon.html
`In a scene reminiscent of the Clive Owen movie Inside Man, he allegedly put a gun to the head of one of his prisoners, threatening to shoot if they did not don boiler suits to confuse police.`
Is every crime in this country directly attributable to the influence of a movie? Seems the Mail think so. I`m actually beginning to think they have a none-too-bright movie geek on their payroll whose job it is to delve into his knowledge every time there`s a violent crime and link it with a similar scene in a movie. Come to think of it, it`s probably Chris Tookey... IanG [26961. Posted 29-Jun-2010 Tue 04:55]
"According to writer Natalie Wilson: Kids who grow up watching sexist shows are more likely to grow up internalising stereotypical ideas of what men and women are supposed to be like."
Oh yes, 1.5hrs a day watching a movie will completely override the other 22.5hrs the child spends watching how mom and dad and all their friends and siblings function in society.
IanG [26960. Posted 28-Jun-2010 Mon 06:03]
"The remake stars Jackie Chan as an updated version of the original`s Mr Miyagi character, but opponents said the movie should not be seen by youngsters because it featured an adult instructor urging children to be violent to other children."
Really? I find that hard to believe. Karate is a self-defence technique. It has NO opening attacks and EVERY instructor I studied under said the best defense is not to fight if at all possible. Kara Te means the way of the empty hand and is all about defense and counter to disable an assailent as quickly and efficiently as possible. It does not teach anyone to be violent at all but, simply how to look after oneself if attacked.
goatboy [26959. Posted 27-Jun-2010 Sun 17:37]
Good job James Ferman isn`t head of the bbfc these days, the pre credits sequence of Toy Story 3 would have had to go due to nunchakus use- By Mrs Potato Head no less. Ferman would have had a fuckin` aneurysm if he had seen it! IanG [26958. Posted 27-Jun-2010 Sun 06:01]
"As many as 4million volunteers have been forced to undergo Criminal Records Bureau checks over the past decade, according to a new report, but many are giving up on their roles because of the red tape involved and the feeling that they are under suspicion."
Isn`t that an understatement? They are under suspicion. Guilty until proven innocent. Of course that all seems justified as they`ll be working with children and other vulnerable people. However, all vetting really does is keep those who are known to be guilty from applying for such work (we hope) but still allows those who are a danger but have no record access to children etc. under a false sense of security. In short, this can only tell you what peolpe did and were caught doing not what they might do in future or got away with in the past.
It is typical false sense of security spin, like censorship, it protects no one and simply pisses a lot of people off.
Janus17 [26957. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 13:29]
Re: Suing Sandra White
While we`re on the subject of having NO EVIDENCE, I thought I should mention this debacle.
`White said she believed dancers did use the clubs for more than lap dancing, but admitted most of her evidence was based on other people`s comments and reports from women`s support groups. The MSP, who has visited lap dancing clubs, said: There`s not enough punters sitting in just to see the lap dancing. Other people have said, and there is research regarding the fact that some of the people that are in these clubs do revert to prostitution to earn extra money. I think a lot of guys expect it as well.`
`Believe` and `think` are NOT sufficient grounds for legislation. It`s about time some of these idiots were made to realise that the law of the land is not their own personal train set to play with whenever they like.
I`m glad someone is finally standing up to the Victorian-minded nutjobs on GCC and I hope the fuckers end up in court... IanG [26956. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 07:10]
pbr, what would Lord Herschel make of the BBFC`s claim? (Derry? v Peek)?
"Anyone who claimed to know something they could not possibly know and hadn`t even bothered to find out, that person would be an untrustworthy character" (or words to) aka LIAR, FANTASIST, NUTTER
All my accusations were based on EVIDENCE no body with any legal experience seems to have read or applied or followed to it inevitable conclusion.
You know how I work folks. WHEN I`M RANTING It`s because I CAN`T BELIEVE what I`m discovering is the fact of the matter!
Sure I speculate - how else do we find the correct answer to a question we don`t yet know to ask?
This is what I think is the truth : MWUK (or similar religiously corrupted nutters) runs the Ofcom Content Board. No other LOGICAL explanation for the ravings of nutters coming out of the Bullshittings. Is there? No. NONE. Nutters through and through. Sectionable: Call the Cops (I can`t) - they need locking up WHOEVER they are? Do you know who the Content Board `are` or maybe `is`? Viv P.? Bakri? I don`t know, do YOU?
I`ve figured our religious nuts out: They care more about their beliefs, texts, prophets, saviours, paradises and gods than they do for their `fellow` man esp. if they think he`s a "wierdo" (eh, Salter?). Simple really. Obvious actually.
Tell me folks, do you think Mr Salter would actually call members of the BDSM and LBGT communities `wierdos` and not be hauled before the HRC?
I doubt Martin even agrees with it.
Be good if he`d come on here and tell us what he really thinks.
sergio [26955. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 06:43]
I ain`t seen it so I can`t tell.
But I can see both sides.
we just have to take the bbfc on trust that that is what they saw ...
a piece of shit
`One cut was required to remove sight of faecally contaminated lubricant trickling from a woman`s anus. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.`
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=2&i=164349&t=164349
`
it was actually liquid coming from the girls pussy whilst vaginal sex was taking place and was clear
outragous but easier to cut than argue`
That`s right - it`s easier to cut than argue. £1000 vs delay and review and shit. pbr [26954. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 00:34]
Indeed Harvey...
It`s one of my concerns over the Tory plan to "free" the police to lay their own charges again, they say on the most minor crimes only (..*for now*..)... but... I can`t help feeling that if the qualified lawyers of the CPS keep laying charges and dragging cases which fail to meet their own prosecution tests all the way to Hearing then... then... aren`t the police just going to stuff the system with -even worse- clunkers? =/
The reasoning on this one left me a bit puzzled... can`t help but feel this was a fluke... possession being a continuing act and there not being a grandfathering provision... Harvey [26953. Posted 23-Jun-2010 Wed 16:59]
pbr [26949]
Yet again we find a person charged and hauled into court only to find the prosecution offer no evidence. NO EVIDENCE.
I wish judges would be more condemning of prosecutors for bringing charges before looking to check that the evidence stacks up as it seems to be happening more frequently. And the CPS fuckwits who do decide to prosecute should be named so we can see who they are and whether they are just dumb or are serial offenders. No surprise that this was, yet again, Kent police and prosecutors, who have form when it comes to "enhancing" the evidence, prosecuting first and asking questions later.
IanG [26952. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 13:12]
malcom, well..who cares. They`ve been insulting us indirectly for long enough - just repaying the compliment ;) malcom [26951. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 11:50]
The DOGS are back......Only been viewing soft channels a short time less than a month but until last night there were no channel logo`s (DOGS) on any of the 6 channels I have been viewing....Until now.....
When did they go how long have they been off and I wonder why the sudden return......Just another piece of curiosity on my behalf....:)
malcom [26950. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 11:46]
IanG....Hi......I wasn`t refering to your open letter as such.....If i read correctly you invited Ofcom to come on the site and read comments which of course would be insults about them on a personal basis.....That`s what i meant.....regards.... pbr [26949. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 10:45]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/22/extreme_smut_verdict/
^ Interesting extreme porn story there... IanG [26948. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 04:38]
Dave,
Let me tell you a story...
For a long time now I`ve had the uneasy feeling that the Ofcom Content Board have been screaming for help. I do not believe they are deranged prudes who cannot understand plain English. I do not believe they could pull such an unethical stunt and claim "you can`t do that before 10pm" means "you can`t do that at all ever". The Content Board (or whoever makes these calls) have, as I intimated previously, gone all `HAL9000` or `Colonel Kurtz`. They are in confict within and are acting without due restraint. They`ve been crying for help since day one and stunts such as these are attempted suicide.
The `why` of all this nonsense and insanity was a conundrum until it was revealed last year that the VRA 1984 hadn`t been fully enacted - on a mere technicality. Now imagine what would happen if, after 16 years of enforcement and many convictions under the Act according to the very real and intended purpose of the Act, that these all had to be overturned because of a silly mishap. No one in Britain wants to pardon those selling obscene and unclassified videos. The Law had been enforced to the letter according to the will of the People and Parliament. It had indeed punished wrong doers who, probably, speaking even as an anti-censorship campaigner, were a risk to society. What if this undoing of justice was also coupled with R18 finally going hardcore? And having to be allowed on `adult` TV channels? The morality police would have had a heart attack - they nearly did. So, an executive decision was made, one we can perhaps see was justified if unjust according to our long held beliefs and rights promised by The Crown. I can forgive the ones who did this, I understand their reasons but its not right, technically.
So, now there`s a dark secret to conceal based on a white lie. Webs do become tangled very quickly and this one almost fell apart in 2003/4. So, another plot and another cover-up was hatched, all of course in the hope it acted in the interests of the people. And in the middle of this maelstrom is poor old Ofcom. Trapped by guilt and duty, falling at every hurdle, it would drive anyone insane.
What we need I think is a ruling from the ECHR. One that clears the air and sets the record straight. Perhaps then sanity can return to the land of TV regulation, so that freedom and justice, rhyme and reason can return to these shores...?
We are only human and we all make mistakes and that road to you know where is always paved with good intentions.
So I`ll make a plea for those who need to to fess-up, pretty please, I beseach you do the right thing. We all forgive you I`m sure, I do, I understand. Now what say you all?
The truth will set us all free!
And they all lived happily ever after. Melon Farmers (Dave) [26947. Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 03:50]
IanG
Take a look at the latest Ofcom nonsense whinge about House of Fun Babe Channel.
Is it me or have the upped the amount of blather trying to justify their absolute censorship. They seem to have found lots of ways to say we understand human rights...BUT...
Surely something is rattling their cage. I guess something to do with the Euro interpretation of the audio visual directive rather knocking holes in their previous stock of blather IanG [26946. Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 21:55]
malcom, I don`t know what insults you see in that open letter? It`s as cordial as I can make it. The site refs are just that - no links to anything. What`s the issue? Believe me mate, I don`t have to treat these incompetent oafs with any respect. I`m just looking for gaping holes (aren`t we all).
Maybe ask Dave to see Q2,3,4...then you might get the picture if you haven`t figured it out yet - not that its anything but conjecture of course.
I doubt they can answer any of the questions satisfactorily anyway.
And raving loonies are harmless eh?
NPWL!
Dave, sorry I left that other junk in the email - just venting - the question are self explanitory I hope? Don`t know if its any form of reality though - just exploring ideas. Don`t worry. I`m OK ;)
malcom [26945. Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 13:30]
Ref IanG. Personally I wouldnt direct Ofcom to view insults as they will simply disregard your letter completely.....Be patient bite your tounge and challenge them in a none confrontational way.......As an ex civil servant the more people like Ofcom are insulted the more they dig there heels in....Best of luck with your corespondence with them........
PS.Thank`s to you and Dave for the welcome back postings the other day...... malcom [26944. Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 13:30]
Re: Dave said....Does anybody know if Ofcom defines rules on PIN implementation or is the current nonsense just down to to the way Sky have decided to do it, with a `better safe than sorry, got to keep the nutters happy` design approach.
I believe its all down to Ofcom not sky.......It doesn`t make sense that ordinary 18 rated films cannot be viewed via sky during the day from their movie channels yet adult stuff recorded on the hard drive in the evening rated 18 which includes some shall I say hard soft images can be viewed via the pin during the day. Also youngsters that look old enough can enter a cinema during the day and view 18 rated films......
The Ofcom regulation are about as dumb as they can get......
IanG [26943. Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 07:29]
Dave, I`m about to blow the lid off the whole stinking cover-up - I cannot live with this unless things change DRASTICALLY.
It`s YOUR HOME Dave. ONLY YOU can set YOUR conrols the way YOU NEED them. If you read my evidence you`d have seen I blew Ofcom`s whole idiocy out of the water.
To answer your ratings question - I propose U M A X
U - GREEN symbol - Universal to young teen (U - 12UK,10Fr(iirc) etc.). TV - Gradual move from lower to higher end from am to early pm.
M - AMBER symbol - young teen to mature teen (12A - 15UK/13Fr(iirc) as approp. to other states). TV - Gradual move from lower end to higher end from early pm to usual watershed.
A - RED symbol - Normal adult (15UK/13Fr(iirc) - 18UK/16Fr(iirc) etc. as per other states). TV - Gradual move from lower end to upper from watershed to +1hr (e.g. 9pm start 15UK/13Fr rating - after 10pm start 18UK/16Fr rating).
X - BLUE symbol - `X` rated legal adult material. Blocked until age-verified (FTA or subscription) - PIN controlled by USER - On 24/7 or Off 24/7 - need to look at creating user-specified time range (once the kids are in bed there`s no problem, ma and pa are there).
I don`t see how a 10yo in France is any `harder` than a 12yo in UK. Getting these ages the same everywhere should be easy BUT this doesn`t matter because you slot them into the appropriate positions. UMAX generalises the whole thing so you know what to expect under each symbol no matter where you are in EU.
Each programme title has UMAX symbol in () at end of name.
Each dedicated channel has approproate UMAX symbol in () at end of name. Now the USER can block anything they NEVER want to watch and, as the software can `see` what the UMAX rating is it can check what time YOU set for mandatory PIN to be On or Off for that type.
Comments? Suggestions?
We need people with BRAINS and PERSPECTIVE in the right places - don`t we!
If anyone thinks this is great I`d like some financial reward - a couple of hundred thousand for my retirement would be nice.
ps. anyone want to see Questions 2,3 and 4 contact Dave. Melon Farmers (Dave) [26942. Posted 20-Jun-2010 Sun 18:58]
Re IanG`s letter
Probably necessary to keep the language restrained.
On a point you mentioned before, I think it is worth picking up on the PIN issue. The mandatory and repeated requirement to enter the PIN causes real hassle. The overstrict requirement to enter it during mild 12/15 rated daytime films gave the game away in my family household, and what may have been a useful facility to stop the kids watching 18 rated films was lost. How is one meant to be able to let mid teen kids watch 15 rated films yet not watch 18 rated films. The current implementation just does not work and is just a sham.
Does anybody know if Ofcom defines rules on PIN implementation or is the current nonsense just down to to the way Sky have decided to do it, with a `better safe than sorry, got to keep the nutters happy` design approach. IanG [26941. Posted 19-Jun-2010 Sat 22:50]
Guys, I suspect many of you believe I may have taken leave of my senses after making some very serious accusations against Ofcom. In mitigation, can I explain that my ravings were made after 48hrs without sleep as I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to temper my language and set out a reasoned and justified argument while in a fuming rage and sufferring the debilitating effects of sleep depravation. I am much calmer now and well rested so there is no need for concern over my mental state.
I am about to send this open letter to Ofcom and I wondered if there were any further issues any of you guys would like to raise with the Office of Communications while I`m at it?
<snip>
Dear Ofcom,
As you may or may not be aware, I have made some rather serious accusations against you on the melonfarmers anti-censorship web forum (www.melonfarmers.co.uk) and the babeshows fan forum (www.babeshows.co.uk). In your Bulletin no. 151, <insert date> you make several statements and claims about seeing various acts and female body parts complained about by a viewer of "Bangbabes", which you state are "so strongly sexual that they likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience". As the audience are red-blooded males (to coin a phrase) I find this hard to believe. Indeed, I find it hard to believe any regular member of this audience would have any cause to complain at all.
I have seen some rather poor quality clips from what I believe are the shows in question, posted on a thread by one of the regular and much appreciated `caps n vids` contributors to the babeshows forum. I believe, although I cannot be certain as the clips are not time-stamped, that I have found the acts as you describe that occurred at the times compained about. I cannot however distinguish the anal and labial detail you say is visible nor do I feel the action on screen is so strongly sexual it would exceed any reasonable person`s expectations of what might appear on a sex chat channel in the so-called "adult section of the EPG" at around 02:00 in the wee hours of the morning.
I would like, therefore, for you to provide to myself (via the webmaster at www.melonfarmers.co.uk), and to anyone else who may be interested, evidence to prove:
a) the acts complained about are so strongly sexual that they are likely to exceed the expectations of the vast majority of the audience;
b) clear footage of the anal and labial detail that exceeds that specified in your published Code for a programme of this particular description at this time of the day; and
c) the clause(s) in your published Code that specify what can and cannot be broadcast in a programme of this particular description at this time of day.
Kind regards and thanks in advance
IanG pureform [26940. Posted 19-Jun-2010 Sat 07:16]
Re the babe channels
I dont understand the ofcom rules regarding nudity at all
When i was a lad any nudity turned me on so surly they OFCOM should protect the childre from all nudity if they reckon it will make them raving sex mad
Well if this is the case why can you see full frontal on repeats of euro trash and see full frontal on the naked office all un pin proctected but u carnt see it on the babe channels
more to the point why is it all right to see pre watershed programs on the computer any time of the day which any one can watch including any age children LETS FACE IT THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT GAVE THE DOLE DOSSERS FREE LAP TOPS SO THEY CAN SEE WHAT THEY WANT I am trying to say either it it ok to see it or it isent and ofcom are really only stoppping adults acessing legal over the counter movies from been seen by law abiding adults and not really stopping any one at all seeing what they deam inapropreate and they have no evidance to back up any of thir claims SO WITH THIS IN MIND THEY SHOULD BE ABOLISHED AS A WASTE OF MONY
I relise there are some things that shouldent be shown and some things offend people but there is so much choice surly television could censored and the same programs made uncensored so you could watch witch ever virsion u wanted to if u are offended easily no one makes any one watch what they dont want to except OFFCOM
dano [26939. Posted 19-Jun-2010 Sat 06:07]
Viv Pattison should complain about the sight of 11 useless footballers struggling to beat a pub side being shown on TV. simcha [26938. Posted 19-Jun-2010 Sat 03:43]
All future TV England matches have been moved to the Gay Adult channel. Apparently, the sight of 11 arseholes frequently getting hammered for 90mins was far too explicit for normal TV say ofcom. IanG [26937. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 14:37]
"The Edinburgh-based Zero Tolerance Trust backed the call, arguing lapdance clubs are harmful to women individually, women collectively, and communities."
Based on what evidence?
More FRAUD? More unsubstantiated claims? More believing rather than knowing with absolute certainty?
I don`t believe in fairytales - I don`t have to. The burden of proof is ALWAYS with the ACCUSER.
That`s why I presented REAL EVIDENCE of Ofcom`s REAL ABUSES. IanG [26936. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 12:49]
OFCOM OFF
If anyone is in any doubt about Ofcom`s ILLEGAL ACTIVTIES this is the FRAUD in a nutshell.
IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY CHANNEL THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM`S. BUT OFCOM FINE THE CHANNEL!
Under section 319(2) of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom are to create a Code to ENSURE
(a) the under eighteens are protected;
(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to viewers from offensive and harmful material;
It is ENTIRELY OFCOM`S FAULT that their Code is shit - THEY WROTE IT.
EVERY COMPLAINT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR FAULT, THEIR BREACH OF THIS LAW.
PUBLIC ENQUIRY NOW PLEASE DAVE, NICK and any bloody body left out there that`s NOT part of this CONSPIRACY.
IF I MEET WITH AN ACCIDENT...YOU`LL KNOW WHY LADS.
FUCK KNOWS WHERE THIS STOPS...?
Don`t tell me NONE of the `adult` channels legal reps couldn`t see this? I`m not a fucking lawyer BUT I FOUND IT! You lot aren`t worth a shit. YOU ARE SHITS.
DISGUSTING. PUTRID. OBSCENE!
And THEY DARE lecture US?!
I am so, so fucking angry. AREN`T ANY OF YOU? IanG [26934. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 11:42]
Oh no, no, no, no, no, Shaun. NEVER!
As this lot think you can make up the rules any way you choose then so can we all according to lord Ofcom.
Let`s go shoot them (only kidding, its against The Law and I don`t really like breaking the law - its really there to protect everyone from monsters, traitors, liars, cheats, thieves, fraudulent hyporcites and ALL ENIMIES OF THE STATE, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE).
BUT YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF OFCOM.
Are these CRIMINALS at The Office of Communications still AT LARGE?
Has Carter been rounded up yet?
Who are we supposed to trust and trust in?
Shaun [26933. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 04:56]
To be honest, I reckon that what remains of Ofcom will be the TV censors, Glover and all :-(
Shaun [26932. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 04:41]
OK, I got drawn into it:
Those self righteous folk at Ofcom,
Much beloved by the prudish mom,
complain their "accepted" standard,
(of Mediawatch to whom they`ve pandered)
was clearly broken by channels explicit.
Their films they state, are quite illicit!
Ofcom threatens them a heavy fine,
and loss of licence if they whine!
How can this be really right ?
Why don`t the broadcasters fight ?
They don`t ban stuff from overseas,
just our porn, the religious to please.
But when it`s proved, there is no harm,
they dismiss that, as a load of barm!
We can`t have that, this is BRITAIN,
Broadcast standards, are clearly written!
"Generally accepted" ? by General who ?
I really don`t think they have a clue!
Surely it isn`t you and it isn`t me ?
Standards set by royal decree!
Ofcom say it`s about child protection,
(And politicians seeking re-election!)
Who are these folk, our rights they take ?
Their evidence of harm, it`s clearly fake!
They bleat on and on about regulation,
restricting TV sex and masturbation!
But now they have new government bosses,
Who worry less, about prudes with crosses!
They say they`ll reduce Ofcom`s powers.
Uncensored telly in the smaller hours ?
IanG [26931. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 03:58]
A little EVIDENCE to support the accusation:
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=548075#pid548075 IanG [26930. Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 01:08]
Dear People of the WORLD,
It has come to MY attention as a member of the British public, Sovereign Power of the Land and most humble Loyal Subjects of our Most Gracious Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II THAT,
When your BOSS, Ofcom, TELLS YOU IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO DO AS YOU ARE TOLD ACCORDING TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS, Then, John `kiss my ass` Glover et alia, Ofcom, ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS IS THE ONE WE OF THIS LAND HOLD SACRED AND THAT IS THE LAW!
YOU, Ofcom, ARE FIRED! You are the lowest scum known to man. YOU ARE CRMINALS, CHEATS AND LIARS! I ACCUSE YOU, OFCOM, OF DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM VIA THE QUEENS ROYAL COURTS AND THE RULE OF LAW.
YOU ARE TRAITORS TO YOUR PEOPLE.
I AM NOT A LAWYER SO I CANNOT SAY IF THIS IS TREASON BUT IT DAMN WELL FEELS LIKE IT TO ME, OFCOM!
HEEL! OFCOM.
As I was saying, before I went off to find out what it was we could do Ofcom, under the Communications Act 2003, to get you to do as you ARE ORDERED. You are ORDERD BY LAW under 319(2)(f) of YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION, Ofcom, to ensure:
319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;
As you don`t seem to be able to READ IT, Ofcom, it says that you are to make sure no offensive and harmful material according to YOUR CODE (apparently), emanates from any of your Licensees else you`ve failed on this Standards Objective. You are the broadcasting police OFCOM, NOT the uk tv government and courts of justice - GOT IT!
As you chose to interpret "offensive and harmful material" as ordered by law as, "that which may cause harm or offence" then, smarty pants John Glover, Mr `lord` Carter et alia, YOU FAILLED on the most simple task the FIRST TIME someone complained about RECIEVING IT FROM ONE OF YOUR LICENSEES. ARE WE CLEAR MR GLOVER, MR FOX (DCMS), AND MR, OH YES, MR CARTER...YOU FAILED. YOU ARE FIRED! AND YOU ARE IN VERY SERIOUS TROUBLE WITH SOME VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE.
AREN`T THEY MY LOYAL COUNTRYMEN!
NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE PATIENCE, DILLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE OF THOSE WHO RULE OVER YOU, OFCOM - YES, RULE OVER YOU AS THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THIS NATION YOU FOOLS!
CHEEKY BASTARDS.
YOU ARE FOR THE HIGH JUMP. GOT THAT MR GLOVER!
DIE OFCOM! Spiderschwein [26929. Posted 17-Jun-2010 Thu 13:02]
How about this for an OFCOM song?
Land of prudes and censors
Buggering TV
Getting suitably butt hurt
Over trivialities!
Can`t be having fannies
Dicks, tits or balls
Children might be watching
That prospect appalls!
Disallowing repeats
Because someone says, "fuck"
And if you want to beat you meat
You`re plump out of luck!
Your turn now! pbr [26928. Posted 17-Jun-2010 Thu 09:59]
Did I hear my name? O_o
I`m still waiting on some -real- details of this Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill...
http://www.number10.gov.uk/queens-speech/2010/05/queens-speech-freedom-great-repeal-bill-50647
...and in particular:
"The repeal of unnecessary criminal offences." Melon Farmers (Dave) [26927. Posted 17-Jun-2010 Thu 09:24]
Malcom
There is a partial list on
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358876/episodes
Noted as starting in 2001 and ending in 2005 malcom [26926. Posted 17-Jun-2010 Thu 08:37]
Been watching repeats of new look SXTV live series.......Does anyone know how old that series is and if they still do new real live editions of SXTV live from time to time.....
A couple of the repeats are very old pre new broadcasting code and infuratingly they cencored a dildo penetration scene that originally they had let through even after the new code........ IanG [26925. Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 16:52]
malc, sim, great to see you guys again.
Good points malcom. A broad range of tastes is what Ofcom WERE supposed to cater to by Law. They`ve failed on that point, abysmally...like so many, many others. (mental note: thats another one for the PYRE!)
I hear on the grapevine (might just be smoke...) that things are about to change...maybe for the better. Reading between the lines, the AVMS has shaken things up a bit and double standards aren`t going to last long. Yeah, I know, this is Britain and it never quite delivers what you expect, does it!
I`m working on something...actually its all ready to fly but I want a couple of people just to give me the OK before I/we mount the assualt - it could get nasty (not for us of course - no liars, hypocrits or incompetent nutters laying down the `law` here are there chaps! ;).
Anyone seen pbr? Any other legally astute types around?
Dave, I`ll be sending something re Ofcom and mandatory PIN plus a SHIT LOAD MORE - I`d like pbr (or anyone you might know?), as our legally aware type, to give it the once (better thrice...) over (make sure I/we can`t be got at - we have legal ways but I don`t know they work publishing online). It`s brutal, full-frontal - but nothing they don`t justly deserve. Oh and of course, its all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (AFAIK) so the law might be interested...if you get my drift.
Anyway, a little ditty while we twiddle our thumbs...
Altogether now:
You put your PIN code in
To keep the children out
In out in out
And mess it all about
You pull a little fast one
And your PIN is out
That`s what Ofcom`s all about!
Sucking thru the undies
Licking over panties
Parents can`t be trusted
Two pairs of knicks on
And don`t flash the gash
Have you got the time luv?
This is not a `Clock` luv!
Turn that bloody mic off
People might be watching
And we can`t have that!
Feel free to add more verses lads, Shaun?... ;)
simcha [26924. Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 15:44]
Yep..
You are all right!
A lot of the time not being able to see whats going on is a turn on! So SC works. The mind makes up what the eye cant see. Film makers have been doing that for years.
My problem is not with SC or how hard HC is, only that ofcom have the way they look at censorship all wrong. I have no problem with them setting a rule and standing by it. I just cant stand by and let them tell me i cant look at a film on tv because it turns me on. But it`s ok to look if it`s art or educational. Thats just tosh, who do they think they are? Spiderschwein [26923. Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 14:05]
The problem I have with a lot of h/c is that it someone, somewhere, decided that this huge wobbling mass of flesh with overdone noises was the way forwards.
That, and the preponderance of plastic tits and bottle blondeness. Sorry. Redheads all down the line for me (because I am one, natch). malcom [26922. Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 11:08]
re dancing monkey:...
Exactly. I like HC but I also like soft if it is creativly made and erotic with reasonable picture quality......HC can get very very boring simply because of its crudity and lack of erotism in most cases.
At the mo I am watching some UK SC out of curiosity to see what changes in strength and quality has been made since the new code......It has certainly changed for the better SC wise and I suppose thats why they are making enough money to consider 3D even.....Also having no annual contract in force and yet be able to pay monthly is a sensible move.......If its not to tast then not much is lost financially
Also it is a wrong assumption that everyone wants to turn to the internet for porn.....I certainly don`t like using a computer as a TV.......Also having been bitten virus contamination wise its also a concern for me when looking for free stuff......Porn and the internet is a definite no no for me........
|
