Melon Farmers

 Melon Farmers

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

 Censorship Forum

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

Note that this page does not refresh

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

phantom    [30300.   Posted 28-Aug-2014 Thu 06:13]
  Melon Farmers (Dave) [30297]

What is clear is that there is a great deal of difficulty within the media (or among politicians) to somehow address the fact that these gangs were almost entirely made up of Asian, Muslim men and that there seemed to be an attitude among these men that their behaviour was alright as it was directed at western, white girls.
It`s an uncomfortable truth, so it is simply not mentioned.

In a bizarre twist the fear of being accused of racism is stopping anyone from pointing out the blatant racism which seemed to be part of these crimes.
Asian people - so goes the conventional thought - can only be victims of racism. So political correctness in this case simply denies the existence of racism, as to acknowledge it could be seen as racist.

That strange twisting of logic is so weird, it makes your eyes water.
But then that is where political correctness takes us.
So yes, I`m definitely with you there.

But I do still think the key issue here is the breathtaking exaggeration of the figures.
From what I understand, 66 cases were looked into, of which 64 were found to be of merit. From this finding of 64 confirmed cases, the report`s authors extrapolated the figure of `at least 1400` in the last 16 years.

Meanwhile the figure of 1400 is now simply being read as fact by all parties.

Now it is of course true that there is a significant problem with child abuse in this country. Frankly, I think it is `the British disease`.
But the scale identified in this report is so inflated, it would simply have been impossible to achieve.
No matter how organised and numerous gangs might have been, it`s just not feasible to propose that they could find 90 new girls every year - in a place the size of Rochdale.

To suggest they could, exaggerates the problem and feeds the national paranoia on this subject. Parents are already afraid enough for their kids, without the need to stoke such fears with insane figures.

The fact that the authors of the report would publish such figures, based on a sample of 66 cases, does suggest very strongly that they have an agenda; one wishes to scare the living daylights out of the population in order to achieve something; the politics of fear.

The media meanwhile are either too complacent or too keen on sensational headlines to question anything.

Therefore another fantasy is entering the line-up of sham facts to be banded about. For don`t think this figure will be forgotten. In five years time some Harriet Harman type is still going to be using this as an argument to support her demands for some desired punitive measure.

The truth has a value.
Filling our politics with pseudo-facts which have simply been created to further one agenda or another is not only futile, it is dangerous.

It is already plain that what happened in some places in Britain (and most likely in plenty of others, too) was truly ghastly. Why exaggerate it further?

Therumbler    [30299.   Posted 27-Aug-2014 Wed 14:38]
  I`m not sure what legal measures could be introduced to tackle the issue the Enquiry uncovered. It appears to me that the law is sufficient, but those who should enforce the law appear cowardly when confronted by something that doesn`t fit with their indoctrination.

braintree    [30298.   Posted 27-Aug-2014 Wed 13:22]
  Re The Rotherham Enquiry - it sounds very much like the perpetrators must have taken instructions from Jimmy Savile , the much mentioned paedophile who was able to have more than 500 victims yet was able to keep them all silent for 50 years.
But seriously , this enquiry sounds as accurate as a weather forecast for Christmas . But in the current climate where child sex abuse can never be denied those reporting this type of thing can easily pluck a nice sounding figure from the air and instantly have it taken as gospel- after all - nobody is going to standup and tell them they are lying even though any real evidence likely to indicate abuse on such a scale will be non existent . I`m sure those paid to investigate this enquiry and put together this report are more than happy to come up with numbers to justify the payment they received for it.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30297.   Posted 27-Aug-2014 Wed 09:06]
  Interesting phantom.

Sometimes you can listen to the news and hear people spout on for a fair while without daring to mention the key points to what is being talked about. Your two items are both examples with a total ban on anything critical of muslims and on any acknowledgement that vast numbers of people enjoy sexy entertainment.

And in the Rotherham case you get the corollary that once a report is accepted by the powers that be then it becomes itself beyond reproach.

It`s a strange old world that we have created for ourselves.

Oh and I just noticed that Wrecking Ball has now been viewed 699,008,259 times on YouTube.

phantom    [30296.   Posted 26-Aug-2014 Tue 14:16]
  Oh, and remember the fuss about Miley Cyrus` video `Wrecking Ball`?
It was one of the most oft quoted examples of the `sexualisation of society and childhood` here in Britain and thus ranks high on the list of reasons for David Cameron`s bringing the BBFC into video age rating by law.
Well, it just won best video at the MTV awards.

Odd, how it`s celebrated by the world, but seen as a source of evil in this country. Says quite a bit about the current health of the nation, I guess.

phantom    [30295.   Posted 26-Aug-2014 Tue 14:11]
  According to a report in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 1400 children were sexually abused.

Is it just me or does that all sound a little steep?
Rotherham has a population of a quarter a million.

1400 over sixteen years represents 87.5 new children each year.
And let`s face it, we`re talking girls, eliminating 50% of the child population from the start.
It all seems a little far fetched to me.

Why am I bringing this up? It`s hardly a censorship issue.
No, it isn`t but it is representative of studies and reports backing up an agenda. Not least, the child protection agenda.

One acts out of the best of intentions, but then totally overshoots the goal one set out to achieve. Meanwhile no third party dares to step in, due to the nature of the subject. tTus all nod sagely and agree it`s a `big problem`.

But who could forget what happened in Middlesbrough when the authorities started spotting child abuse everywhere?
Who could ignore the citing of `child protection` when it comes to the censorship of the internet?

This is just the sort of case which illustrates the thinking behind such activities perfectly.

Can anyone really believe that the numbers forwarded here could be true?
How would these Asian gangs succeed in finding nearly ninety new girls per year? In a place the size of Rotherham?

There is no doubt that a problem exists, that truly atrocious things were committed. But the alleged scale is ridiculous.
How many children would one expect to live in a place like Rotherham? Divide that by two, because the gangs were after girls.
Now try finding ninety new girls every year.
What sort of percentage of the annual growth in female child population does that represent?
The scale just seems off the chart.

But - and this is where it gets interesting - any measures that will be taken, will be taken in proportion to the scale of the problem.
Thus, report the problem to be of a ridiculously high level and you create cart blanche in regards potential steps to be taken in reply.
Overestimating the problem justifies virtually any means in counteracting it.

It is why tens of thousands of women are trafficked into sex slavery in this country. It is why every child is exposed to the worst excesses of online hardcore porn. It is why one in every four women suffers sexual violence in the UK.
None of these figure are credible, but they are nonetheless common currency.

Now take the near ninety kids per year in Rotherham and extrapolate it to Britain. (87.5 / 25`0000 * 60`0000`000)
The figure is 21`000 new girls per year (additional to those already being exploited).
Armed with such national figures, what extreme measures can one justify to tackle this problem?
We`ve all heard the line, `if it saves only one child`...
Well, what about 21`000 children per year?

Already now nobody can be in contact with children in a professional capacity without undergoing police checks.
How much more can officialdom demand `to reduce risks`?

I suspect some MP will be draping him or herself in the mantle of child protection and demanding something be done in the next few days, on the back of this report. One dreads to think what measures he or she will propose. And I`m sure nobody is going to have the guts to say that the reported scale is tosh.

Fingers crossed that it won`t spark yet another round of prohibitions and proscriptions. But if it does, will anyone be surprised?

phantom    [30294.   Posted 22-Aug-2014 Fri 10:28]
  DarkAngel5 [30293]

Well, the term `progressive` cannot be taken literally when viewed through the prism of politics.
These days the Labour Party calls itself `progressive`. this is because it these days avoids the tags `socialist` or `left-wing`.
So in political terms `progressive` doesn`t match the dictionary definition.
In the same vein `progressive` can be stretched to mean `liberal`.
I think this is where the contradiction resides which you point out.
Championing women`s rights is deemed `liberal` (or `progressive`) when viewed as standing in opposition to social conservatism. However, standing up for freedom of expression is also deemed `liberal`.
We thus have two schools of thought which both shelter under the same political umbrella term.
Both the feminists demanding things be banned and the libertarians opposing these bans are `liberals` or `progressives`.
But this is really just the case when taking the political meanings of the terminology. The term `liberal` in that regard has become utterly corrupted.
It`s actual dictionary meaning would, I suspect, be entirely on the side of those who are more freedom minded.
Calling yourself liberal and demanding others be silenced or locked up for expressing an idea of which you disapprove is a fairly new idea.
I don`t think it`s a concept the population at large has bought in to.

DarkAngel5    [30293.   Posted 21-Aug-2014 Thu 14:47]
  OK, don`t really like talking about this bunch as I dislike giving them an air of legitimacy, when they`re little more than a rabble of feminist malcontents, but anyways...

Have any of you heard about a group calling themselves "No More Page 3" (might have mentioned them before)? Basically, they`re trying to get the Sun, and similar papers, to remove the topless girls from their papers?

Well, I really don`t know what planet these people are on. They seem to be of the opinion that if they think something is sexist, misogynistic, or they just don`t like it, then people should do what they say.

They say the campaign is simply asking the editor of The Sun very nicely, if he wouldn`t mind removing the P3 girl. Which in itself is fine (he can always say no).

But what is far more insidious is the fact they`re actively targeting shops and supermarkets that stock the paper to either stop stocking it, or move it to the top shelf, which is a way of frustrating sales and therefore a way of trying to force the papers to comply with your demands. Which in my view is basically a form of censorship via the back door.

The other thing is they get very uppity when people don`t agree with them or concede to their "wishes". They got very stroppy the other day and were bombarding the social media pages of the co-op after they refused to move the Sun and Star onto the top shelf with the lads mags.

Whilst the campaigns leader, Lucy Anne Holmes is it?, seems relatively moderate (she says she`s not against porn per-se) from what I`ve seen, the majority of her supporters do seem to be of the rabid, man hating, femi-nazi variety.

From the discussions I had with them (before getting booted off their FB page for being too argumentative), they seem to view themselves as "progressive". Yet their arguments against having P3 girls in the papers used the exact same rhetoric we`ve heard trotted out time and time again against TV, videos, computers games, etc etc, about "protecting children" and "corrupting influences" .

Anyway, they`re trying to get a million sigs on their petition page, its taken them about 2 years to get just under 200,000 (at this rate that`ll take them 10 years), most of which have been solicited by other feminist groups and anti-porn campaign groups. However, I seem to recall the Save BBC3 campaign and the anti-badger cull campaigns got more than that in just a few weeks. says it all really.

So what does anyone else reckon to them. Progressive, or illiberal? I say the latter personally, but that`s just my view.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30292.   Posted 20-Aug-2014 Wed 22:43]
  Hi DarkAngel

Ofcom always used to comment that they get hardly any complaints from PayTV. But now complaints have been encouraged massively as if it was some sort of replacement for the democracy lost in the real world. I`d be surprised if this episode would survive if complained about now. Hopefully there are still less people who complain about TV they have paid for.

DarkAngel5    [30291.   Posted 20-Aug-2014 Wed 14:58]
  Hi Guys, long time since I visited here last.

Just read an article on MF from a couple of weeks back about swearing in the simpsons.

Well, I seem to recall there`s an old episode (I forget the title) where they go to meet Homer`s half brother Herb (voiced by Danny DeVito IIRC) and Bart refers to him as a "bastard". When Homer goes to tell him off for swearing, he then explains "well he was born out of wedlock, therefore he is a bastard", to which Homer is forced to agree.

Then Bart starts singing the word "bastard" over and over.

Seem to recall first seeing that episode on Sky1 in the late 90s and they`ve repeated it many times since, usually around the 6pm slot and no one has complained yet.

Guess Ofcom are stricter with the free-to-air terrestrial channel, than the subscription based satellite ones?

phantom    [30290.   Posted 18-Aug-2014 Mon 15:24]
  Ah more news from our great Etonian, I see.
`Family friendly` policy. Yes, of course.
It is a long established fact in Eton that locking up parents in the best way of ensuring their urchins grow up healthily.
And clamping down on stuff, does lock up more people. That`s just a fact of life.
So, posh David`s policy is that destroying families is family friendly.
They do teach them well in Eton, don`t they? The true intellectual cream.
O tempora, o mores, David my old boy...

Therumbler    [30289.   Posted 18-Aug-2014 Mon 05:08]

Online music videos to carry age rating from October, says David Cameron

cor    [30288.   Posted 17-Aug-2014 Sun 17:35]
  RE: phantom[30287]

prime minister suggested, anyone "walking around with Isil flags (or..)" should be arrested.

That`s bloody terrifying, they will be sending people to prison for disagreeing with the government. That`s what he means there, the *least* that will get you locked up is airing political opinions the government don`t like.

When the hell did we start imprisoning people for political dissent..?

phantom    [30287.   Posted 17-Aug-2014 Sun 15:12]
  here we go...

Cameron the Great following in the footsteps of St Anthony of Blair.

"The prime minister`s message is as much about home as well as abroad. People walking around with an Islamic State flag "will be arrested", he says."

Excuse me, Eton-boy, but by what right can you tell us what flags us commoners, whose daddy didn`t send them to a `proper school`, are permitted to fly? Show me where it says so in law?

There are two possibilities.
One, the Blairite `might cause offence` gambit.
Two, the banned expression of support for terrorism.

The latter in particular is worrying here. And I think that`s what posh David is aiming at.
Check out how many times Cameron uses the term `terrorist`/`terrorism` here. And that`s the crux of it. `Supporting` terrorism is forbidden in this country, ever since Blair. Remember the girl writing terrorist `poetry` going to prison?

But pray, what is a terrorist? What is terrorism?
To us lesser mortals, a terrorist is someone who walks onto a bus with a bomb. Or who hijacks a plane. You know, we all have a general picture.
But now we are talking about those designated terrorists by the British state.

These `Islamic State` lot are a bunch of nutters, no doubt. But are they terrorists? What busses have they bombed? Whose planes have they hijacked? Sure, they have committed atrocities in their war. But so did, for example, the Red Army during the Second World War.
`Islamic State` are a volunteer army made up of irregular fighters. They practice their extreme form of Sharia and show no concern at all for any minority they encounter. Ghastly? Yes. Terrorist? No.
For surely that is not the definition of `terrorism`. It never has been. It never will be.

But it appears that expressing support for these guys will get you prosecuted, - because support for terrorism is forbidden.

The audacity of the land grab here is quite breathtaking.

You simply define your opponent as an "exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement" and then all the rules of censorship apply. (and that`s how you bang up people returning from the Syrian civil war)

This begs the question, who is is in charge of the definition of who constitutes a terrorist. The courts or the state?

The scope for the state to define various forces and powers around the world `terrorists` and thus silencing any positive mention of them in this country is vast.

I can`t help but feel that Cameron is flying a kite here and what he`s out to get is profound and very dangerous.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30286.   Posted 16-Aug-2014 Sat 12:41]
  Sergio, try

sergio    [30285.   Posted 16-Aug-2014 Sat 09:32]
  Anyone got the url for the ofcom adjudication in relation to Ms Itziar Bilbao Urrutia - the obscenity lawyer link seems incorrect.

braintree    [30284.   Posted 14-Aug-2014 Thu 12:34]
  With Cliff Richard in the firing line it seems the witch hunt is not over . It`s outrageous that someone like Cliff can have his name and reputation permanently tarnished , which it will be because some will say there`s no smoke without fire regardless of whether there are any charges by a lone individual who can pop up and make a claim of something they say happened in the 80`s. These ridiculous cases such as Rolf Harris and Savile at least rely on the fact that while there is no evidence whatsoever there is the fact that more than one person makes the claim . With Cliff the news seems to indicate one person . So anybody out there short of cash who might be able to prove they met a celeb decades ago can now say anything they want knowing that the law is on their side and no matter whether they get proved to be a fantasist their identity stays hidden allowing them to go back to their life unlike the celeb who`s life gets ruined.
Of course we can only go on the news in the media so it may turn out there`s more "victims" who`ll now jump on the bandwagon but it will be interesting to find out exactly what the police expected to find in their search of today for a crime committed decades ago .

phantom    [30283.   Posted 13-Aug-2014 Wed 05:12]
  braintree {30282}
"We already have people going to prison for crimes they`ve not actually committed but the CPS claim they intended to . We`re already living in Minority Report territory and the thought police get more powers every day"

Never a truer word spoke, Braintree.

It is getting quite worrying. Most of all, the ad-hoc nature of government measures. No underlying principle can be detected anywhere. Thus nothing is ever deemed to breech principle. Therefore anything is possible.

One particularly worrying recent episode is the imprisonment of guys coming back from Syria. Their crime? Having been party to the civil war.
Fighting in a foreign civil war has, to my knowledge, never been deemed a crime before. And one can point to no law which would outlaw it now.
In fact I believe much is made of Britons who joined the International Brigade to fight the fascists during the Spanish civil war.
So for what are these guys being jailed? Well, terrorism offences, of course.
After all, they`re brown and have beards, right?
Have they actually committed any acts of terror? Or been found plotting any? Well, they went to Syria. So they might be radicalised. They might therefore do something.

That is the perfect `Minority Report` scenario.

Much the same thinking underpins porn and film censorship. With the best will in the world, one can`t really point to any harm done.
But someone `might`, something `might`....

So essentially we are passing laws in the real world to protect against hypotheticals. The crimes only exist as possibilities in the imaginations of those so desperate to see `something done`. It`s a mirage. A castle in the sky. But that doesn`t matter.
Because, above all, nothing depends on principle anymore.

There are no longer things English law will not do as it offends a sacred principle, inviolate for hundreds of years.
So now we model ourselves more on a 1970s central American banana republic, whereby we make whatever law is convenient. Principle be damned.

So unrestrained mass surveillance the populace? Not a problem.
In fact, nothing is a problem anymore.
All that matters is technical feasibility and whether we have enough prison places.

braintree    [30282.   Posted 12-Aug-2014 Tue 13:35]
  The first thing the Pro-Incest guy should have done is fire his lawyer . He may well have got off with it as he`d not really committed any crime but even the dimmest lawyer in the land should have known that the guys forthright views would do him no favours . But nothing surprises these days . We already have people going to prison for crimes they`ve not actually committed but the CPS claim they intended to . We`re already living in Minority Report territory and the thought police get more powers every day

sergio    [30281.   Posted 12-Aug-2014 Tue 07:48]

We have analysed 190,000 profiles of sex workers on an international review site. (Since it is active in America, it was not willing to be identified for this article. A disclaimer on the site says the contents are fictional; we make the assumption that they are informative all the same.) Each profile includes customers’ reviews of the worker’s physical characteristics, the services they offer and the price they charge.`

`we make the assumption that they are informative all the same`

Great stuff.

phantom    [30280.   Posted 12-Aug-2014 Tue 05:55]
  Re: Pro-incest campaigner facing jail over sick cartoon pictures

This seems to be another case of an awkward customer with weird views getting punished for what he is, rather than for anything he has done.

If there is anyone who thinks that joke cartoons of the Simpsons having sex harms anyone, then I think they have serious psychological problems.

Now sure, this case sounds a bit sleazy and weird.
And I`m not sure how much credence I grant the man`s `campaign`.

But – what has he done?
He`s been found in possession of drawings. That`s all. Another one of Labour`s victimless `crimes`.
For this he will go to prison. - The guy is a full time carer!
Locking up carers is a good idea? For owning drawings?

Carers are good guys. For one, they look after people. But aside from that, they save the country fortunes. In fact they represent a pretty selfless part of society.
But what did this guy get for his efforts?
He`s been arrested, publicly humiliated and now will be imprisoned.
That is how society repays him.

I am fully aware that I run the risk of sounding like some of the moralists, when I speak of an ill society. But to me this is a fairly clear indication of something being badly amiss, when a society should imprison a person devoted to the care of another for something as petty as this.
The good this man does as a carer surely outweighs by far whatever ill some zealous morons ascribe to the possession of drawings.

But then who cares for natural justice?
So let`s punish the man because he`s `weird`. Moreover, let`s punish his mother too by depriving her of her carer. Just because we can.

It`s another one of those days to be proud to be British.

phantom    [30279.   Posted 10-Aug-2014 Sun 17:29]

Therumbler    [30278.   Posted 9-Aug-2014 Sat 03:02]

An article about the muting of copyrighted music, sometimes erroneously, on Twitch.

This part is interesting:

"Videos of Crypt of the NecroDancer (which is pretty good) are being silenced while composer Danny Baranowsky insists “nobody but me has the authority to ask for a takedown.” He explained that it “was somehow identified as music in Audible Magic catalog. Even though it isn’t!”

NecroDancer creators Brace Yourself Games are even seeing their own dev streams muted."

Time and time again in matters of censorship and copyright enforcement we see that automation is rubbish.

phantom    [30277.   Posted 6-Aug-2014 Wed 06:46]
  Pooch [30276]
Really, Pooch?
I think if you re-read the exchange you`ll find that reason is on my side here. Not because I`m right by default, but simply because there is an internal logic to what I say.
You meanwhile tend to shift your ground and grow ever more heated as you go on. What a "cod-bullshit extravaganza" is, I will never know.

Saying somebody is possibly a "sad, lonely individual", with all the implied baggage this entails, merely because he happens to draw pictures for dvd covers which you find inappropriate, is never going to make you look particularly good. It`s just not cricket.
That is why I originally posted a short comment.

What followed was a serial cri de coeur of quite breathtaking proportions. P.G. Wodehouse would have been proud of some of it. Touches of Roderick Spode.

But all this anger does not change the fact that the smear is the actual subject at heart, no matter how hard one seeks to get away from it and talk instead about some other irritant.

It is quite clear that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You think it appropriate to adopt certain tactics when disapproving of publications. I do not.

Meanwhile, in contrast to what you say about me on here, Pooch, I can assure you that you, for one, are very special. Very, very special indeed.

Pooch    [30276.   Posted 6-Aug-2014 Wed 06:06]
  @Phantom [30275]: You`ve added nothing to the debate, with your "clever" response, which is kind of what I expected would happen from you. You don`t want to have a debate. You never did. You just want an argument, and to win it. If that`s what you want, then so be it, but don`t include me! Your response is as inconsequential as you yourself are!

phantom    [30275.   Posted 4-Aug-2014 Mon 06:05]
  Pooch [30274]

Wonderful. What else can one say? Comedy is well and truly alive in this country, albeit unwitting.

All the below is of course to be enjoyed with the sole suffix that we`re all equal; except for those, like Mr Melton, who draw `the wrong thing` and are thus a little less equal than the rest of us.

Pooch    [30274.   Posted 4-Aug-2014 Mon 05:41]
  @Phantom [30266]: If you find my comments "pathetic", then that`s fine. You`re hardly flawless yourself! You then say: "We`re getting all sorts of attempts by your good self to deflect this in a different, more convenient direction."

No! "We" aren`t getting anything! You are! Just you, yourself, no one else, so please don`t try and include other people in your little "group of do-gooders! You accuse me of doing the very thing you have done, and which I brought you to task on, and because you don`t like, you`re now doing the same thing to me! How "ironic"!

Yes, I have concluded that Mr Melton is a one-trick-pony, and I raised the question of whether this was because he was a "sad, lonely individual", but it was an accusation that he/you/anyone else is free to refute! Another little bit of information, that you seem keen to ignore.

As for "You`ve never met the man. You know virtually nothing about him, save for what you`ve picked up on the net." well, I doubt you`ve met him either. In fact, what relevance does that have to any of this, other than another opportunity for you to infer something about me - namely, the accusation that because I`ve never met him in person, I must know nothing about him. And for what it`s worth, considering the stuff I DO know about him, comes from HIS work, HIS website, and interviews HE has been involved in, then I think I can safely say that that constitutes satisfactory evidence. It`s not like I`m taking this info from bloody Wikipedia, for crying out loud (though you and many others have used Wikipedia when it suits you)!

Whether Mr Rick Melton`s name is his real name, or a nom-de-plume, is totally irrelevant once again! (Christ, you have a real bug up your butt, don`t you, when it comes to muddying the waters?! You castigate me for doing the very thing you do yourself! It`s genius!) And, no, I`ve NEVER said or implied I am never wrong. That`s your false assumption about me! I know I`m not perfect. In fact, I am more than happy to admit I`m a fuck-up! I`m far from good! But hey, that`s just me!

You then say: "Odd, coming from someone who insists on there being forbidden words. It seems one is willing to dish it out generously. One just can`t take it."

Oh, stop acting like such a child, Phantom! Just for once, say what you bloody well mean, rather than spouting this cod-bullshit extravaganza that you`re churning out right now! If you want to call me something, then do so! Say what you mean, and mean what you say! Act like a man, and stop pussy-footing around all of the time. Just stop trying to hide behind this ilusory facade, that you`re somehow "better" than me! It`s embarrassing and infantile!

The implication that you are better than me, or anyone else in this Forum, or anyone else on this planet, is a farce! You are no better or worse than any of us, okay, no matter what you might think?! I don`t care who you are, what you do, or where you come from, you`re just a grunt like the rest of us! So please don`t try and kid yourself that you`re some kind of high-falluting wonderbrain! You`re no Marie Stopes. You`re no Stephen Hawking. You`ve not cured Cancer. You`ve not unravelled the meaning of life!

You`re. Not. Special! At all!

You`re just a mere, ordinary bog-standard human being... exactly like me!

Harvey    [30273.   Posted 3-Aug-2014 Sun 13:23]
  ~The prosecutors ought to be ashamed of themselves.~

They have no shame. It`s simply about the number of successful prosecutions they can rack up. They are aided considerably if a lack of legal representation means defendants just crumple under the pressure and plead guilty.

I don`t really care about the motives of the politicians. What I care about is the damage they create alomg the way.

phantom    [30272.   Posted 3-Aug-2014 Sun 12:59]
  Harvey [30271]

Well, we both know that the prosecution is very adept at bullying people.
Hell, they`ll even leave unsubstantiated charges standing, only to deliver no evidence at the trial and then forfeit. All in the hope that the accused will crack under the pressure in the run up to the court case. So I have very few illusions about the police and the prosecutors and their claims.

I know you care only for the letter of the law, Harvey. But to me it`s important that this law was introduced under false pretences. It is the result of political fraud. I would suggest it is even the product of criminal behaviour. (Lying to parliament is a criminal offence, I believe. Whether it is the government who is doing the lying or not. And the parliamentary committees at least were knowingly deceived.)

Especially at a time when an expansion of the statue is afoot, once again accompanied by claims of very tight definitions and safeguards, it`s important to point out just how this law came into being and just how big to lies were. Few cases illustrate the lies told better than this case.

As for my comment on bestiality, I think you may be being a little too literal there. Yes, `bestiality` needs to meet certain criteria to fall under the umbrella of the DPA. But as such it is the one part of the DPA which is at least theoretically possible to identify. This hardly means I agree with the concept of rendering such material illegal. But at least most people have a grasp of what bestiality is to mean.

But `a man pumping air into his disfigured genitals, a man having sex with an amputee` are listed as though they by default would fall under the DPA.
Especially with the latter one struggles to comprehend how it could ever fall within the definitions. Thus in contrast to the accusation of bestiality - which although unproven in this case, at least could plausibly fit with the DPA, - the two other accusations seem bizarre.

As for pictures being `possessed` which one had thought deleted, we`re very much on the same page there. But again, I remember politicians telling us that common sense would prevail in precisely such hypothetical scenarios.

In that regard I very much question the motives of the prosecution. Sure, it is their job to accuse. But their making accusations ought to have at least some tangential connection to wrong doing. Accusing someone because one hopes to win on a technicality seems to serve no purpose at all.

Prosecution must have something to do with the public good, not merely with destroying people for the sake of it. I cannot for the life of me see any public good being served here.
The prosecutors ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Harvey    [30271.   Posted 3-Aug-2014 Sun 08:22]
  "They were very insistent on this."

So what? Virtually all the politicians who were involved in getting the DPA onto the books are now merely footnotes in history.

Whatever was said - the claims, the assurances, the impact assessments - are all utterly meaningless. The ONLY thing that matters is the law as enacted and the way it`s interpreted by the courts.

On the other had you seem to have forgotten the considerable debate over the EXACT wording of section 63 and the struggle to restrict its application. I can`t think of another reason why you would say; "Now we both understand that bestiality is deemed illegal under the DPA."

Remember that to be an "extreme pornographic image" it must satisfy several subjective tests.

First, it must be "pornographic". i.e. "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

Next, it must be "extreme" in that it is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" AND "portrays, in an explicit and realistic way... a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal"

Of course prosecutors will say that the images in question passed all of these tests, but would a jury agree? Pleading guilty means a jury never has the chance to consider any of these tests OR the specific defence in the DPA where images are sent to a person without prior request. Of course the law says they must not be kept for an unreasonable time, but I think there would be a decent case to make that these defendants hadn`t kept them. "Keeping" something has to be an act of commission rather than (as the prosecution would prefer) an act of ommission. It seems they were stored on their phones completely automatically by the Whatsapp application. Could the prosecution show that the defendants had "kept" these images? Also there is case law in respect of images in that to be possessed, they must be under the control of the defendant. Again was this the case here? The prosecution has to show that it was.

At the very least these defendants should have had access to competent legal advice and they probably should have asked the proecution to actually prove all the relevant facts, by pleading NG.

phantom    [30270.   Posted 3-Aug-2014 Sun 06:22]
  Harvey [30269]
You are of course perfectly right on this one, Harvey.

But I think you can see from where I`m coming.
When this ghastly law was going through parliament we were given no end of rhetoric how this only applied to the most depraved cases. This would only ever catch cases which were so extreme they were in danger of falling off the end of the shelf. The extreme end of extreme, so to speak.
They were very insistent on this.
You remember the impact assessment? Only 12 estimated prosecutions? Thus no significant impact. We`re now running at a thousand cases per year and two guys who thought they`d deleted material they never asked for have just been done.
The lie that was told to parliament has by now become so big, it makes you want to scream.

"They included a man pumping air into his disfigured genitals, a man having sex with an amputee and a woman having sex with a horse."

Now we both understand that bestiality is deemed illegal under the DPA.
But I find the other two listed examples somewhat baffling. Admittedly, the idea of blowing up one`s genitalia like a kids balloon seems a little strange to me. But the guy was doing it to himself, giving him no doubt some control over the procedure and I struggle to envisage `serious injury` resulting from this.
Best by far is the `sex with the amputee`. How that per se is to fall under the definition of extreme porn is beyond me.
Clearly this is just defining what some people call `weird` as `extreme` under law. In essence it`s becoming a way of enforcing sexual conformity.

All the while these two were originally arrested on `an unrelated matter`.
It all appears a travesty of justice.

Harvey    [30269.   Posted 2-Aug-2014 Sat 21:23]
  phantom [30268]


There is a defence to the s.63 offence in a case where a person is sent an image without requesting it.

BUT... for that defence to apply, the person must not keep the image for an unreasonable time.

These poor saps didn`t even realise that it is an offence to possess the images they`d been sent. One said he had deleted them from the phone app which had been used to send them to him, but didn`t realise they`d been stored elsewhere on the same phone.

This is exactly the kind of situation we predicted would happen once the new offence got established. People who have no interest in "extreme porn" being hoovered up when their computers (or in this case, phones) are examined for completely unrelated reasons.

Most worryingly, neither defendant was represented at trial. Had they had any competent legal advice before meekly pleading guilty? They may think that by doing so and recieving a conditional discharge, they have been dealt with leniently, but that conviction will resurface in the future and thzey will be flagged up as sexual deviants, long after the circumstances and the sentence have been forgotten.

Whatever those files were, if they are being circulated to the unsuspecting by apps on smartphones, these will not be the only two people to have recieved them and they won`t be the only files in circulation, either. reports the case also:

CANVEY ISLAND; ROMFORD Two friends who kept `truly disgusting` sex videos involving horses, dogs and pigs on their mobile phones escaped punishment today (FRI). Gary Ticehurst, 28, and Mark Kelly, 25, were caught with the extreme pornography after being stopped by police at Fenchurch Street Station in central London. They included a man pumping air into his disfigured genitals, a man having sex with an amputee and a woman having sex with a horse. Prosecutor Thomas Coke-Smyth told the Old Bailey: `There is no evidence to suggest the defendants were in any way involved in distributing these images."

I suppose despite this being reported in the DM, Liz Longhurst was unavailable for comment.

phantom    [30268.   Posted 2-Aug-2014 Sat 13:10]
  re: Extreme Injustice...

What happened to all those `safeguards`?
Only the most extreme, disgusting cases? 12 cases per year at the most?
Most certainly nobody who hasn`t gone looking for it and has only come across it by accident. I remember the assurances quite clearly.
Where did all that go?

phantom    [30267.   Posted 2-Aug-2014 Sat 13:00]
  re: Whips at the Ready...

Strange how sometimes some of the stories on here can be funny and terrifying simultaneously.

"I believe that a majority of people are not buying into these lies, but they are bullied by the mainstream media into staying silent."

Lies? It`s a book, right? And they`ve made a movie? A work of fiction...
And the majority of people are bullied into silence by the media? On sex? Interesting concept.

"The popular series promotes torture as sexually gratifying and normalizes domestic violence, particularly violence against women."

I don`t think it`s Guantanamo Bay torture... And domestic violence? Now, I`ve never read Fifty Shades of Grey, but I really don`t think that assault and battery are the sort of thing that the author has in mind.
Meanwhile isn`t the readership of that book mainly female? So isn`t there a crack in the logic there somewhere?

And there is that odd verb `to normalise` again.
A bit like `to defenestrate` it appears to have one use.

"This type of material cultivates a rape and sexual violence culture and is now permeating our society."

I`ve heard this before... From the Prime Minister. So it MUST be right. For like Pooch, he`s also never wrong.
But odd, I`ve still to see it permeating our society. Anyone here spotted any dominatrices walking down the streets in thigh high boots, brandishing bull whips recently? I haven`t.

"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, states that sadism and masochism are mental disorders, which should be dealt with on a professional psychiatric level."

Ah, they are actually ill? So, a) one doesn`t like it, ergo b) there must be something wrong with the people involved. (Sound familiar, Pooch?)

But his never-wrongness aside, how do you actually treat sexual sadism or masochism? I mean, if it`s a condition. That would be interesting to know. Do you just give a dominatrix a pill and make it better? Or do you sedate these people into a stupor? Or is it a padded cell job?
Can you cure these people? You know, just in the way you cannot cure homosexuals.

"We must oppose the continued promotion of BDSM in our society. We will go after all public leaders that propagate the lies that torture and violence are normal and healthy sexual templates."

Public leaders?
You know that the west is currently getting its knickers in a twist over Putin`s laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in Russia? (how does one actually promote it?)
Is it just that he`s banning the promotion of the wrong thing? Not puffs, he should be doing whips and chains people instead? Is that it?

Should we be more discerning against whom we discriminate? Is that the message?
We`ve thought better of massacring Indians, lynching blacks and bullying gays. So now it`s time for the bondage folks?

I wish Morality in Media could tell us. After all, I suspect they know. They too will always stand by all their writings (or is it scripture in their case?) and I bet they too are never wrong.

I`d be willing to bet that sarcasm and irony will also not be a strong point of theirs.

phantom    [30266.   Posted 2-Aug-2014 Sat 09:14]
  Pooch [30265]
That`s quite pathetic, Pooch.

We`re getting all sorts of attempts by your good self to deflect this in a different, more convenient direction.
But it remains that you concluded the man had either limited talent or was a `sad, lonely individual`.
It is quite obvious that I`m objecting to the `sad, lonely individual` smear and the implication this invariably carries.

You`ve never met the man. You know virtually nothing about him, save for what you`ve picked up on the net.
The only other thing you know is that you don`t like his art.
Or should one say, you do not like the art he creates under said nom de plume. We have no idea whether he may in fact produce other material under other names.
So, `sad, lonely individual` it is. Because you are never wrong.

Odd, coming from someone who insists on there being forbidden words. It seems one is willing to dish it out generously. One just can`t take it.

And as for the Magna Carta comment.... My fault entirely. I forgot you were irony impaired.

Pooch    [30265.   Posted 2-Aug-2014 Sat 06:52]
  @Phantom [30261]. I`m not sure why you automatically equate bigotry with censorship, but it seems you wish to do so. Totally pointless, but so be it.

As shocking as this may be to you, but I am not being bigoted towards Rick Melton, as none of my comments are disaparaging of him because he is a white, (presumably) heterosexual, man. His race, creed, skin colour, sex, gender have nothing to do with how or why I am criticising him. Sorry to break that little bit of news to you! I`m sure you`ll be greatly disappointed!

I`m labelling him in the way I have, based on nothing more than his artistic output. So my view would be no different, if Mr Melton was actually Miss or Mrs Melton, and she was living in China; or if Mr Metlon was actually a transgendered person from Sweden, or even an Aboriginal gent from Australia! I`m criticising the output from someone who just happens to be a white, heterosexual man! Inferring anything else, is you distorting the actual issue!

Yes, he is entitled to draw what he likes. But to use your footballing analogy, if he were a football player who always played in exactly the same way, in every single match he participated in, I think you`d probably argue for that player to change their tactics, or “up their game”. I`m not telling Rick he cannot, must not, or should not draw naked/unclothed women in his art. I am merely asking him to change things around a bit, and not to feature them in every single piece of art he does, purely because it`s boring seeing the same thing over and over! It`s derivative! If he always featured naked men, or fountains of blood bursting out of every person`s orifices, I`d be labelling him the same "one-trick-pony". The problem is not the nude/topless women, it`s the fact that that is all he includes!

To imply, I`m calling him a "pervert" is ridiculous, and also irrelevant. He`s not being a pervert, or perverted in my view. (Maybe he is being that, in yours, in which case it doesn’t seem like I’m the one with a problem here, but you do?!) He`s being a one-trick-pony. Nothing more, nothing less. If anyone constantly produces the same piece of art/film/literature repeatedly, then they too would be one-trick-ponies. I have worded my comments carefully to avoid anyone trying to subvert them into meaning something that was never intended. Congratulations! You’ve managed to do just that, and then you want to blame me for your subversion!

You then say: "For all we know `Rick Melton` may be a black, gay, disabled refugee." Except he isn`t as his photo appears on his website, and he’s been featured in various magazine articles too, as a white, married man! But again, you are deliberately trying to distort my words, and trying to take inference from things, where no inference was intended or even implied. I think I`ve made it perfectly clear what my view is, but you want to twist it into the very thing it isn`t, to suit your own ends and means, so you can metaphorically bash me over the head with it. I could argue that the reason you are doing this, is either to take cheap pot-shots at me, or because your own defence of the issue at hand, is piss-poor. I’m just not entirely sure which!

And, yes, I do realise I`m not penning the Magna Carta here! Were you somehow confused into thinking I was?

@Glenn Quagmire [30263]: I don`t have a problem with nudity and naked women, (or naked or unclothed men for that matter), being included on any film cover. I have a problem with them always being included, because it`s boring, and repetitive, when that`s pretty much all that Rick Melton produces! I understand the exploitation angle, but you can exploit something, without being derivative, and pandering to the lowest common denominator all of the time. That`s really all I was saying. And, even though this wasn`t what you were suggesting, for what it`s worth, I don`t feel that INFERNO was an exploitation film. Hence, why I have such a problem with Mr Melton`s artwork. Unfortunately, my comments are being deliberately misinterpreted by Phantom, possibly because it`s me that`s making these comments in the first place.

@Sergio [30262]: The problem isn`t that sniffing feet is a sexual assault, per se. The problem, is that the feet being sniffed (and fondled) belonged to minors (under 18’s) who also happened to be school-pupils, and the person doing the sniffing, was a teacher in charge of those same pupils. Plus, the teacher was sniffing said feet of said pupils, for his own sexual kicks! So, yes, in this instance, and as far as the law is concerned, it is technically a sexual assault, even if no sex-act or penetration took place between the victim(s) and the criminal. At least, that’s my understanding of the situation, and with my limited knowledge of English Criminal Law.

phantom    [30264.   Posted 1-Aug-2014 Fri 12:57]
  Ah, the great liberal voice of America has finally found his stride.

Obama wants a woman on a bank note. Wow? That`s it?
Why is it that liberalism is tokenism these days?

Blair and Cameron draped themselves in the rainbow colours of gay marriage while Obama (Mr Drone Strike and Internet Surveillance) now wants a person not possessed of a penis on currency.
You may recall that over here too some internet martyrs have been campaigning for women on bank notes. This is an important issue? While their imposing ever more proscriptive law and lock people up for diddlysquat?

Are the people really this superficial? Does anyone buy this?
Is there anything more irrelevant than whose face is on a bank note?
But nowadays this is the sort of vacuous piffle our leaders grant us as a great leap in liberal values. It`s pathetic.

As an irrelevant aside:
Whom do the BBC suggest? A woman who plagiarised the flag of the East India Company, a woman who didn`t get up in the bus and a woman who was the umpteenth person to fly across the Atlantic. Titans. :)
I`m not an American citizen. But I`d like to propose someone highly influential to be put on the folding money. Linda Lovelace. Go on, Mr Obama. Make my day.

Glenn Quagmire    [30263.   Posted 1-Aug-2014 Fri 10:54]
  Pooch [30261]

Personally I like the Arrow video covers. Very artistic. What you seem to be forgetting is that these films are exploitation films. Whether they have naked women in them or not is irrelevant. They`re exploitation films, Arrow specialises in exploitation films and the covers are just living up to that. Exploiting it so to speak.

sergio    [30262.   Posted 1-Aug-2014 Fri 10:15]
  Sniffing someone`s feet is sexual assault.

phantom    [30261.   Posted 1-Aug-2014 Fri 06:21]
  Pooch [30260]
"I`m not going to apologise for my view. If that makes me sound judgemental, then so be it. I stand by everything I write, whether it be on my blog, or on a Forum. Anyone who has to consistantly resort to drawing images of naked or semi-naked women (or naked or semi-naked men for that matter) - and to be fair here, the vast majority of Rick Melton`s work is exactly that - then, yes, in my view, you clearly have limited talent. (Go look at his official website at..."

Wow. It appears I was wrong. You evidently are not better than that.

Aside from that post being incredibly pompous, it sounds oddly familiar.... For it is the type of rhetoric censorious people engage in to justify their bigoted output.

This individual, whatever his name is, is perfectly entitled to draw and publish whatever he likes. You may well not like it and you are entirely free to do so. So too may you say anything about him or his art you like.

But the manner and nature in which you do the latter will tell a great deal about you.
In this case you play the man, not the ball. You insinuate. You smear.

So what if he draws artwork you do not like?
Why does this make him a sad, lonely individual?
And pray, what is `a sad, lonely individual` to mean?

You are in effect not far off calling the man a pervert for drawing something you do not like. To all effect you are implying it pretty clearly.

I`ve seen this done again and again by those who like banning things. I despise it.

Before you start foaming at the mouth, claiming I wish to silence you; I do not have the slightest objection to you disliking the artwork and speaking your mind about it. I don`t mind you suggesting it shouldn`t be on the covers. I do object to your implying things about the artist, because you happen to dislike his output.

But I do not think you ought to be prevented from saying it. However, I feel it says a great deal that you should embrace the methods of those who like to slur by implication in order to make their point.

But go ahead, you `stand by everything you write`.
(You do realise you`re not penning the Magna Carta here, do you?)

For all we know `Rick Melton` may be a black, gay, disabled refugee.
So go ahead. Plant a seed. Call him names.
No doubt he deserves it - for drawing the `wrong` sort of material.

Pooch    [30260.   Posted 31-Jul-2014 Thu 08:28]
  @Sergio [30256]: I always liked the original Go Video / UK Video Nasties cover, with the cannibal chomping down on flesh. It wasn`t subtle, but at least it wasn`t trying to sexually titillate. And this one, from the Dutch (I think) DVD release... also eloquent, relevant, and subtle, but without resorting to cheap tits-and-ass imagery.

@Phantom [30257]: I`m not going to apologise for my view. If that makes me sound judgemental, then so be it. I stand by everything I write, whether it be on my blog, or on a Forum. Anyone who has to consistantly resort to drawing images of naked or semi-naked women (or naked or semi-naked men for that matter) - and to be fair here, the vast majority of Rick Melton`s work is exactly that - then, yes, in my view, you clearly have limited talent. (Go look at his official website at...

...and see how many images he has created featuring topless women, and you will see exactly what I mean!)

I`m not saying he has no talent at all. He clearly does have some talent, but the sad fact remains that the vast majority of Mr Melton`s work consists of nothing but tits-and-ass. It`s lazy. It`s crass. It`s childish. And it demonstrates to me, that this person has a limited imagination, because all they are doing is including the same thing, over-and-over-and-over-and-over again, ad infinitum! And yes, that makes Mr Melton the very definition of a one-trick-pony! I would even argue the same point in some other artist`s works, such as those of Boris Vallejo.

Could I do better? Absolutely not. But then, I`m not the one being paid to create artwork for DVD covers, but which most of what I offer are images of women in various states of undress, designed to arouse and titillate the minds of pre-teen boys!

Let`s look at this example:

This is the original, classic INFERNO poster we all know and love.

And this is what Rick Melton produced...

Here`s another example. This time, Lucio Fulci`s THE HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY. Here`s the original art...


And here`s Rick`s "concept"...

In just these two examples, he has deliberately focussed on the images of a naked or nearly-naked woman, and in both films, there`s little or no nudity actually in them. So, he`s effectively miss-selling the films, as some kind of tits-and-ass shockers, when both films aren`t actually that kind of film at all.

Want more? How about these then?





So, it`s not like I`m making this up! Why do this? If he has been given free reign to do as he likes, (which is what I suspect), then he`s chosen the wrong article to focus on, namely female nudity!

What does that say about the artist? Is it that they are lazy, because they can`t see anything beyond naked women in their art, and so have to incorporate such imagery in almost every piece of work they create, or is it that it`s easy to paint such things, and therefore it makes the artist`s life easier, or perhaps, it`s because he thinks it`s what the public wants?! Whatever the reasons, I don`t like it. Not because I`m prudish. Not because I`m offended, which I`m not. Nor because I find female nudity problematic - in art or films. No, I have a problem with it, because that`s all Mr Melton does - aim for the lowest common denominating factor, and pandering to the pre-teen boys who think that naked chicks make everything cool (ala BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD), with lazy art featuring nothing but naked women!

How sad a person must you be, to have to feel the need to include such an image in almost every single piece of work you create?!

This is why I have a problem with the artwork of Rick Melton! It`s cheap, tits-and-ass titillation that insults me, as an adult man with a brain!

@Braintree [30258]: Like you, I dislike most of the Arrow covers, not because they are Arrow films, but because they rarely represent the films in the best way possible. And, whilst it isn`t always Mr Melton who does Arrow`s covers, he does do a lot of them. Generally, though not always, his are the ones featuring naked or topless women on them!

There`s nothing wrong with focussing on sex and violence, but if that`s all you ever focus on, then that makes that person a rather tragic individual. And I would say the same thing, to a film director, if all of their works were nothing but sex and violence. There`s a time and a place for it, and such works can be great, but not all the time.

phantom    [30259.   Posted 31-Jul-2014 Thu 05:08]

braintree    [30258.   Posted 30-Jul-2014 Wed 12:59]
  Pooch - I must admit I`ve never noticed whether Arrows alternative covers are just nudity because they always strike me instantly as being awful so I don`t really register what the content of the artwork is - I just dislike the style and whenever its available I always try to use the original video covers ( if there was one ) or what appears to be original poster artwork.
Is it really the same guy who does every single one of Arrows alternate covers? Arrow should use the funds on a more worthwhile extra . I do like alternate covers but I don`t see the need to commission new artwork for old films where there should be more than enough multiple posters or video covers already out there.

phantom    [30257.   Posted 30-Jul-2014 Wed 11:13]
  Pooch [30255]

"So what`s Mr Melton`s point for including unnecessary sexual imagery? It`s either:
1) Because Mr Melton doesn`t have enough talent to come up with artwork that doesn`t include a naked woman,
2) He`s been told to include such imagery to help sell the film he`s doing the artwork for,
3) He`s a sad, lonely individual, and this is the only thing he can draw."

Pooch, have you any inkling just how judgmental that makes you sound?
So someone does not possess sufficient talent, or more, is a sad, lonely individual, based on artwork which you think inappropriate?
Please, you`re better than that.

sergio    [30256.   Posted 30-Jul-2014 Wed 08:54]
  So, Pooch, what would you put on the cover of Cannibal Holocaust? Some animals being chopped up? A woman vomiting? I find the strange unequal equation of titillating covers and the gross real violence of animal slaughter rather odd.

Pooch    [30255.   Posted 30-Jul-2014 Wed 05:47]
  @Braintree [30247]: Thank You for your kind words, r.e. my CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST Blu-Ray review.

I have never been a member of VPRC, even if it might have seemed like I was. However, I do feel that the "sexist" alternate cover artwork by Rick Melton was unnecessary. Not because it included sexual imagery - I mean the outer-box artwork featuring the photo of the impaled woman is far more controversial and contentious - but that Mr Melton`s artwork is focusing solely on one part of the film, and that focus is always tits-and-ass. Which, as I say in my review, insults me as an adult man, and infers that I need a shot of a naked/topless woman/women to get me to watch or buy a particular film. It`s crass and childish.

It`s as if that`s Mr Melton`s sole raison d`etre. He just can`t do any artwork, without including a naked or partially-clothed woman in it. And that`s why I mention it in my review. It`s also why I reference Arrow`s INFERNO cover. A film in which, I don`t recall there being any nudity at all, from anyone female or male.

So what`s Mr Melton`s point for including unnecessary sexual imagery? It`s either:
1) Because Mr Melton doesn`t have enough talent to come up with artwork that doesn`t include a naked woman,
2) He`s been told to include such imagery to help sell the film he`s doing the artwork for,
3) He`s a sad, lonely individual, and this is the only thing he can draw.

I`d like to think Mr Melton isn`t the kind of person mentioned in 1 or 3 above, but the more work I see of his, the less I believe that 1 or 3 don`t actually apply.

If the film he`s doing artwork for, contains lots of sex or naked women, then maybe that may justify him including such scenes in his cover-artwork. And whilst CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST does include a lot of nudity, the vast majority of it is non-sexual. That is, it`s not been included to arouse, titillate, or "get male viewers off". Yes, there`s one sex scene in the film, and a rape sequence too, but female nudity is not generally the thing I first think of, when thinking of what imagery this film conjures up in my head.

It just feels like Mr Melton is a one-trick-pony, and this pony needs putting out to pasture, once-and-for-all. His artwork is cliched, derivative, dull, and irrelevant. In fact, I find most of his work embarrassing - the kind of work I`d expect from a pre-pubescent schoolboy! It`s hardly the kind of things you want your customers to be thinking of, when deciding whether to buy your product or not, is it?!

Anyway, I hope you "enjoy" the Blu-Ray, as it`s a really great release!

sergio    [30254.   Posted 29-Jul-2014 Tue 13:15]
  `Black masculinity in proximity to white women is often framed as a corrupting, defiling influence- due, in part, to age old racist and dehumanising depictions of black men. This is illustrated most graphically in mainstream porn.`

I must be immune to this stuff but I can`t remember any recent porn that has `racist and dehumanising depictions of black men` (note this article was written by a `feminist` so maybe they think all people in porn are `dehumanised`).

I found the BBC 3 doc on Tulisa riveting.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30253.   Posted 29-Jul-2014 Tue 10:54]
  Pooch, It looks like Victim wasn`t submitted for this latest release and used the last video cert which was 12. The cinema certificate is PG though and was passed a year later than the video

Therumbler    [30252.   Posted 29-Jul-2014 Tue 10:28]

10 years since "Ban these evil games".

Pooch    [30251.   Posted 29-Jul-2014 Tue 06:13]
  @MelonFarmers (Dave) - On your "Shopping List: Recent Releases" page, you have VICTIM listed as being passed uncut at 18, though the cover of the Blu-Ray suggests it`s been passed uncut at 12. Are you able to confirm, it is indeed a 12 (or possibly a 15)?

braintree    [30250.   Posted 28-Jul-2014 Mon 14:10]
  And with todays findings about Clarkson and his use of the term "slope" its reached the point where somebody needs to get the investigators investigated. These silly regulatory organisations like the BBFC and Ofcom are supposed to follow public opinion and change things accordingly . Ofcom wastes time and money because 2 people complained about slope . Which means that several million others really couldn`t give a shit so why are Ofcom wasting time and money on these whingers ? There should be a limit of a certain number of complaints . Investigating programmes viewed by several million that result in complaints by one or two people is ridiculous and those in authority should step in and cut Ofcom budgets as they clearly have far too much time on their hands and need curtailing

phantom    [30249.   Posted 28-Jul-2014 Mon 05:22]
  re: Aids: Don`t Die of Prejudice...

I`ll be the first to say that I couldn`t stand Norman Fowler when he was part of the Tory government. When chairman of the Conservatives he seemed one of the chief political sycophants of his day. Some of his utterances were cringe inducing.

But credit where credit is due. On Aids the man has been a paragon. It was he who pushed through the famous national Aids ad campaign to inform the nation of the dangers of the epidemic. For a Tory politician to invest political capital into a campaign on matters sexual in that day and age was a phenomenal leap.

Today still, now Lord Fowler, he seems one of the few men in Westminster to engage his brain when it comes to sex, drugs and Aids.

I doubt I would see eye to eye on much with this arch Tory and his family values but I`ll gladly concede that I feel a huge respect for that man.
He overcame his own prejudices and moral preconceptions for the sake of the public good and since he`s tirelessly been campaigning on keeping up public awareness on this subject. One weeps at what kind of a reception he must get with his fellow Tories for being so outspoken on sexual and drug issues.

But once in a while it`s worth posting a message which doesn`t bemoan the way of the world, highlighting only the negative.

So I`d just like to say that in my book Lord Fowler is one of the good guys. More strength to his elbow.

phantom    [30248.   Posted 28-Jul-2014 Mon 04:56]
  braintree {30247}
For the state of affairs on whinge-ism just check out the story on here regarding the series `Outnumbered`. One complainant regarding one fairly innocuous comment on autism and they get hammered and told not to slip up again.

Has anyone on here noticed how sitcom has died a death in this country?
Sitcom writing is a much more substantial craft than writing jokes for stand-up comics and panel shows. How is it that the nation which produced Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses, Porridge, Dad`s Army and many more is now producing next to nothing in terms of sitcom?
Well, just look what happened to `Outnumbered` and you have your answer.

I`ll bet money our best comedy script writers are in the US penning material for the likes of `The Big Bang Theory`. Thus they are over there earning money for Yank productions on the international television market, when that cultural output and money could be ours.

Handing the power to censure and curb program making with so few complaints leads only to loss of programming and loss of income to the nation.

Let`s face it, would you put serious effort and finance into a big comedy project if Mrs Smith from number eleven can shoot it down with one complaint?

Whinge-ism has a cost. There will be no more quality sitcom from this country as long as we pander to to such pettiness.
Britain will therefore not be known abroad for its self-proclaimed `unique sense of humour` for the foreseeable future. Panel shows don`t travel, sitcoms do. Humour is now - (oh, irony of ironies) - American!

braintree    [30247.   Posted 27-Jul-2014 Sun 13:59]
  I`ve been putting off getting the Grindhouse Blu of Cannibal Holocaust for a while but Pooch`s review convinced me to get one now . Although it did seem odd that Pooch may have been a member of the Video Packaging Review Committee (remember them?) when complaining that covers for this film and similar titles from Arrow might be "sexist". Of all things problematic with Cannibal Holocaust releases a "sexist" cover is surely the least of its worries.
Of all the "isms" that`s the one I take with a pinch of salt . Men and Women really are different but it seems you`re not allowed to mention that these days . God forbid we mention the reality that women are usually physically weaker than men hence the recent comment from a soccer pundit that a player kicked like a girl . That the subsequent uproar of complainers were not told to simply piss off is another bizarre story from the PC police notebook.
It`s high time broadcasters were able to tell complainers to get a life instead of apologising for every imaginary transgression. How about standing up for your staff instead of pandering to whingers?

phantom    [30246.   Posted 27-Jul-2014 Sun 12:15]
  If I recall, Pooch, Messrs Martin Salter and David Lepper made a lot of hay out of `Cannibal Holocaust` by referring to it (though not by name) in their contributions to the debate in the Commons, when pressing for the introduction of `Extreme Pornography`.

I recall one of them, if not both, everlastingly referring to `snuff material made in Guatemala`. Everyone with a brain concluded that they meant Cannibal Holocaust and could not quite comprehend what this had to do with the parliamentary bill in question.

It is significant as Salter and Lepper were two of the driving forces behind that particular legislation.

Thus to what extent Cannibal Holocaust may or may not have contributed to the introduction of what we here dub the `Dangerous Pictures Act` we will never know. But no doubt Messrs Salter and Lepper will have been dwelling on it for a reason.

And when MPs were shown examples of the sort of stuff one wanted banned (which I believe some were), I would not at all be surprised if some of the imagery of Deodato`s material will have been sneaked in for good measure.

Not that `Cannibal Holocaust` ever had anything to do with what is actually `extreme porn`. But it says something about the power of the imagery of that film that MPs should fall back on it as an argument for a porn ban.

braintree    [30245.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 14:21]
  The media and authorities seem too stupid to realise that their obsession with convincing us there is a paedophile on every corner does little except bring the subject to the attention of an awful lot of curious people who really would not have bothered had it not been for the constant media circus. I`m sure over the next few years the small number of these people who then committ other crimes will find themselves in deeper trouble once their computers are seized. Those who make money from paedophiles must be loving the UK who provide them with a level of publicity money could never buy.

Likewise with extreme porn . Has anyone arrested or convicted of possession of extreme porn actually been investigated for that crime initially ? From what I`ve read it`s always other matters but routine checking of computers / phones etc then leads to these other charges.

Why doesn`t someone in authority stand up in court or the House of Commons and ask what makes the British public so uniquely idiotic. Why don`t these MP`s go on one of their paid jollies to countries like Holland or Denmark to see why they have had decades of easy access to this type of material yet their country hasn`t sunk into the violent sexual country wide orgy that the rule makers use as excuses over here . Do other countries have the same type of moronic tabloid press that we have here ? Maybe decades of exposure to crap like The Daily Mail and the News of the World are the reason so many people in this country seem to be gullible fools. A good reason to ban them but it doesn`t suit the current Government agenda

Harvey    [30244.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 13:02]
  freeworld [30239]

I would pretty much agree with where you draw the line as to what should and shouldn`t be restricted speech.

If we can wrap slander/libel inside the general guise of defamation then there`s a justification for restricting such speech. So no real problem with civil actions for damages. The problem with defamation law as it stands is that the sheer cost of defending oneself against an action for defamation can (still) be seen as a covert mechanism for censorship for people who are wealthy enough to use the law. I would actually favour the creation of a criminal offence where defamation is wilful or malicious so that the state takes responsibility of prosecuting cases.

I`m not so sure that a merely possessing a photograph of anything should be prohibited, but I would agree that creating, distributing or publishing pornographic (rather than simply indecent) images of children should be a criminal offence.

The Public Order Act has already been amended to allow the use of insulting, rather than threatening words.

freeworld    [30243.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 11:48]
  phantom {30242. Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 11:28}

In some fields of the law we are getting perilously close to a standard of accusation = guilt. Where fantasies and lies are sagely believed by "the authorities" for ideological reasons, not to further the ends of justice, objective truth replaced by subjective "feeling". The pressure groups - often made up of fanatics - are probably more influential over the law than they have ever been in the modern era. In any alliance with the press/broadcast media, their control over the political class can be well nigh irresistible to them. The fanatics squawk a lot and loudly and soon a new law (or procedure) - often badly thought out rubbish - is rolling down legislation alley. And what the fanatics want is more laws, more controls, special privileges for X, and often more and worse punishment of others to gratify their own sanctimony about their hobby horses. The late Auberon Waugh, often thought of as simply a right winger, had their number when he called this tendency "punishment freaks" years ago. They are the modern equivalent of the medieval person who saw the whole of the world surrounded by malign invisible demons, who, with their human allies, must be fought every day, by burning the latter alive quite often. To the feminist extremist all men are rapists who just haven`t been caught yet, just as it was quite common in earlier generations to assume the fantasy all homosexuals were paedos was true.

phantom    [30242.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 11:28]
  freeworld [30241]

I will grant you that I too feel a certain unease about the Harris case, but again I wasn`t really referring to any particular case when speaking of the hatred shown towards paedophiles.

What worries me is that politicians and media have established them as a sort of short hand for `evil`. They are thus not far removed from the `Untermensch` which the Germans dubbed the Jews and Slavs back in their day.

This to me seems very, very dubious. Paedophilia is indeed a problem. But this level of demonisation is concerning. After all, is it ever healthy for a country`s elite to be fostering public hatred toward any group?

How nasty would one be willing to become in exploiting this hatred, should it become politically convenient?

Thus by default, to my mind any political system which indulges in such matters is highly suspect.

freeworld    [30241.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 11:07]
  phantom {30240. Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 10:42}

Someone who tries saying - "look at the pathetic standard of the "evidence" used to lock away Rolf Harris for years", or expresses some doubts that some of the hundreds of allegation about Savile might not be actually true - will then see the "you must be one too" accusations roll in. One well understands the way anyone who stated principled doubts in the seventeenth century about the claims that so and so is a witch (or that witches even existed) quickly got accused of being in league with Old Nick as well.

Hysteria is never healthy and leads to all kinds of miscarriages of justice.

The justifications for censorship change, or some become more influential than others over time, but the consequences are the same. In Britain it was once "religion" then "public decency. Now it`s mainly "for the children"/"to protect women"/some "minority" from exploitation - the latter having become "victims", unable to look after themselves and their interests and therefore in need of special protections from the all wise, control it all state and its laws - a more dark age, patronizing idea, is hard to think of.

The idea that freedom is just too much, actually spiritually bad for us, that we shouldn`t be have it, needing repression/totalitarianism, with somebody or organization in control of us, is brilliantly covered by Dostoyevsky in the story of the Grand Inquisitor in "The brothers Karamazov".

phantom    [30240.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 10:42]
  Harvey {30236}

"I think part of the problem is using the term "free speech" as if there is a universal, unqualified right to say or publish and that any restriction is a denial of that right.
Unless you belive there should be an unqualifed right to free expression, where do you draw the line between what is a violation and what is legitimate restriction?
It`s fairly obvious that the maintream media in the UK will draw the line broadly where UK law does, so you will see China, etc reported critically when their citizens are denied the right to say or publish something which would be legal in the UK.
So it`s not so much that they exhibit double standards in their reporting as much as that they use the wrong standard (the letter of the UK law) to define what is and isn`t a "violation of the right to free speech"."

I hear what you say.
It usually boils down to the fact that freedoms are greater here than in China or Pakistan, so what is the problem?
But freedoms are also much greater in the Netherlands or the US than they are here.
So this relativism cuts both ways.

What is appalling is that the media`s comparison is only ever made one way.
And whilst Pakistan or China may be censorial in more profound areas, they do at least not hold themselves to be paragons of liberty and democracy as this country does.

Whereas the subtext here is always the same: be grateful that you live in the queen of all nations, Great Britain, and not in that dump without sewers where they lock people up for political dissent...

The simple truth is that liberty has stood still in the last twenty years in this country. Can you point me to any freedom which has substantially improved in law?
And please spare me the mention of homosexuality. Yes, there have been some much trumpeted advances there, but to the exclusion of all else.
Individual liberty in this nation has only been reduced. `Gay rights` have been used as a fig leaf by autocrats bent on squeezing the life out of this nation`s ancient liberties.

Can the same be said about Pakistan and China? Chances are, for all their problems, they are still actually advancing on the trajectory toward greater enfranchisement - not reversing.

It is not as though we had achieved some state of perfection a quarter of a century ago, which has now suffered some reverses. No, it is far more that we are heading backwards across the board, simply because the ruling establishment finds it more convenient.

In the name of fighting paedophiles, terrorists or organised crime, etc we are seeing the state erode away ever more of what had been amounted over a great length of time.

What we all took to be a continuous evolution toward liberty has been first subverted with the tyranny of political correctness and then consciously dismantled by autocratic politicians.

I do not think that people are even aware of it happening. And those who are may well believe that these setbacks can be easily reversed, not realising how hard won they were to start with.

Freedom is now only abused by Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada... or it serves to `let off` suspected paedophiles, rapists and the likes....
Thus to extinguish some of its `excesses` is merely to serve justice.

Meanwhile, the country seems to have been consumed by a cancer of hatred. First of all among the targets rank paedophiles which are now suffering a state of state sponsored persecution which borders on the demonisation of the Jews in 1930s Germany. Hatred is being purposely incited and channelled. When states do that everyone has reason to be worried.

I understand censorship of all kinds merely as an extension of the conscious denial of justice. It is symptomatic of a regime which denies its people liberty. Censorship in this country has by now become endemic. What once was the denial of the principles of freedom around areas of pornography, has long since become a tool to curb some forms of expression, both political and religious, and `catch-all` legislation which almost guarantees the authorities that an arrested suspect will be found guilty eventually of `something`.

This is happening. Here. But the media tell us about outrages in Pakistan or China, or Indonesia, or Uganda.
All the while the terrifying, soul destroying trend happening under our very noses goes virtually unreported.

Mine is thus not some semantic objection about where any line is drawn, but a despair at seeing the line continuously moving - backwards, from where it once came.

Just like the members of the Readers and Listeners Association once bewailed the evils of the 1960s and its great liberalising effect on popular culture, so now to the denizens of power hate the past achievements which granted us greater individual rights and seek to dismantle them.

We live in exceedingly troubling times.

freeworld    [30239.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 09:57]
  Harvey {30236. Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 01:30}
As far as it involves what people can say/write/possess -basically my belief is it should be drawn over -

1.Slander/libel of an individual (not merely insult) ie "X is a paedo/murderer/plagiarist" etc.

2.Advocacy of physical violence against individuals/groups (this would encompass inciting terrorism).

3.Possession/publishing images of real children being really abused/advocating children should be abused.

4.No laws over people generally verbally abusing each other,however nasty, unless it can be classed as amounting to harassment/libel/slander.

A return to the not that distant days before the existence of "hate speech" crimes. No censorship or prosecuting individuals over expressing unfashionable/outrageous opinions eg holocaust "denial" (a historical fact, an idea - whatever, should not, as some seem to think, need to be specially protected by severe criminal laws and censorship - is a truth, a belief etc so delicate it can`t fight for itself)

freeworld    [30238.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 09:31]
  phantom {30234. Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 13:08}

The hypocrisy of our home grown political stalwarts of free expression and liberalism (sarcasm!) over the Russian "Pussy riot" affair was sick making.

Harvey {30231. Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 02:08}

If you look again at what I wrote previously, I didn`t say the dispersal order was under "Labour`s blasphemy law". But Weston was subject to an arrest involving the "new blasphemy law". The details are discussed further on. Whether Weston was actually formally charged subsequent to his arrest is unclear from what I`ve seen (you can be placed under arrest for a period without being actually charged - 24/36 hours max in most cases). Saying charges were dropped, even when only an arrest and no charges had actually been made, may be technically inaccurate, but it`s a fairly common way of describing the process.

The initial arrest -

The police themselves said in a statement -

`(a).. dispersal order was issued following complaints from members of the public about the man`s behaviour."

The BBC news site says -

"..he failed to comply with a section 27 dispersal order."

"He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order."

In an interview Weston himself said he was being arrested for a breach of a "section 27 dispersal notice".

In a letter sent to him the police state that Weston`s initial arrest was over a breach of a section 27.

Like you, I can`t see how on earth such a section 27 "dispersal order" can be applied in a situation like this one.

The BBC news report says -

"He was detained after failing to comply with a request by police to move on under the powers of a dispersal order."

"A Hampshire police spokesman said: “A 50-year-old man from Dorset was arrested outside Winchester Guildhall at approximately 2.30pm on Saturday April 26 after he failed to comply with a section 27 dispersal order."

- Telegraph report

Section 27 of the violent crime reduction act seems to only relate to alcohol related disorder -

So, one important question is, if that`s the case, was Weston actually wrongly initially arrested/detained for "breaching" a dispersal order issued wrongly in the first place by the police? The police statement above says he was first arrested after he failed to comply with the - incorrectly applied - dispersal order, not over the the POA.

As to POA section 4 A - a legal authority to arrest and possibly charge, prosecute and punish someone over just about anything some person might take objection to - it`s an appalling totalitarian tool for repression/censorship by the state`s creatures.

The arrest and "religious hate" issue -

The police themselves state that Mr Weston -

"...was further arrested on suspicion of religious racial harassment"

The police quote/ given reasons for re-arrest appear in a number of places, not just the Mail.

The account on the online BBC site says -

"He was further arrested on suspicion of religious or racial harassment."

In a letter sent to Weston, the Hampshire police stated the arrest was due to -

“ .. an allegation of a breach of a S27 dispersal notice and a Racial/Religious Aggravated Section 4 Public Order Offence."

So, specific mention is made by the police themselves and numerous other sources of that religious reason for re-arrest; we are thus lead to "Labour`s blasphemy law", nailed into the POA as 3A in 2006 ( yours truly, not the Mail, is the one pointing out that that it`s Labour`s law!). It`s useful here to also say that Weston was only talking about a religion, not a race (you do not, of course, have to be a member of a particular racial or national group to be a Muslim). More on that later.

According to the police Weston`s "re-arrest" was, partly at least, over POA 4, the 2006 section 3A addition to it - viz "Religious Aggravated" (see above). Without this they would not have had at least half of the grounds they are themselves quoted as saying they had for Weston`s re-arrest over an alleged "Racial/Religious" public order offense.

The POA and religious hatred -

I`ll now say a little more regarding issues raised in your post about the POA, specifically those religious hatred additions to it.

Nothing in Weston`s speech at issue is stirring up/threatening/abusing on the basis of race - so that`s a non starter - it should never have been used as any part of a justification for arresting him. So, we come to the other (police) given justification for Mr Weston`s POA arrest - religion. They would have thought again about bringing forward charges against Weston based in breaches to legislation`s religious hatred definitions - because what he said was entirely within the law. It might have been very different if the Blair government had had their way, which they nearly did. The present wording of the legislation added to the POA from 2006, is a long way from what came out of the government. It was significantly amended to protect free speech by others - in the house of Lords, before it became a law and a part of the POA. The abusive, insulting stuff, applicable in other areas of the POA, was jettisoned by the Lords for any charges being made on a "religious hate" basis - to be prosecutable, conduct must be defined as "threatening".

" It creates new offences of stirring up religious hatred, which are significantly different from the race hate offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986."

"Threatening is the operative word, not abusive or insulting"

- CPS guidance to the POA amended law covering religious hatred.

Further there has to be an intent to stir up hatred, not just a possibility that this might take place as a result. The Lords also inserted the paragraph I quoted in the earlier post, section 29J - putting in concrete terms what was not to be considered a breach of the law -

"29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytizing or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practicing their religion or belief system".

The Labour government tried its hardest to have those free speech protection amendments overturned. In the attempt to get rid of them in the commons they were defeated (on a knife edge - by one vote). A number of Labour MPs themselves rebelled. The matter is reported here -

Of the Lord`s amendment, Dr.Evan Harris (a notable DPA foe), the then Liberal Democrat human rights spokesman, stated -

"The government just failed to understand that they can`t take liberties with freedom of expression. This has showed tonight that we will stand up for freedom of expression."

Our old friend the late Mr Goggins was involved as home office minister in the failed commons maneuvers to rid the legislation of the Lord`s amendments to protect free speech. So, to adapt what you said about the Tories - that`s Labour law for you. But, I can assure you I hold no brief for the Conservatives -the introducers of default internet censorship filters (lobbied for enthusiastically by Labour before Cameron gave in to it), cheerers on of the (Labour) Digital economy act, zealous champions (along with Labour) of the "snooper`s charter", the government which hasn`t liberalized but extended Labour`s DPA, and in the past, creators of much of the current POA, including the later amendment which stands as section 4A, that notorious arrest anyone for just about anything clause (they`ve recently made what seems a pretty meaningless change to the POA itself by ditching "insulting" from it`s definitions- in this context, what`s the material difference between "insulting" and "abusing"?).

In the teeth of the same government opposition, former Tory home secretary Lord (David)Waddington had amendments to protect free expression successfully added to legislation when Labour was putting "hatred" on the grounds of sexual orientation into the POA (2008 - that Straw justice ministry bill which delivered the DPA).

Free speech protections which apply to religion do not apply to race in the POA 1986. So, if Mr Weston had actually been speaking about race, instead of just religion (where freedom of speech has those exemptions clearly written into the legislation - no thanks to New Labour), it might have been more likely that he would have faced prosecution. Yet the police seem to have thrown arrest grounds of racial hatred at him without there being any material in his religion dominated speech to justify such a claim. Instead of "prosecution" Weston "just" suffered through a short period of unpleasant "persecution" for daring to express certain opinions in public.

I can`t see how the story in the Mail seriously misrepresents what occurred.

What may well be the case is that the police`s given grounds for the initial arrest were a serious misapplication of the dispersal notice law. Further, the re-arrest over "Racial/ Religious" harassment was unjustified, and rightly the matter has been taken no further.

I must keep away from this excellent site - it does get me depressed about the totalitarian nightmare the country is being led into by the professional political class.

Pooch    [30237.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 05:47]
  @Dave [30233] - In regards to my Monty Python post, yes, feel free to post it on the main site if you wish. I don`t have a problem with that at all. :)

THE PENIS SONG lyrics are well-known, but go as follows:
"Here`s a little number I tossed-off recently in the Caribbean
Isn`t it awfully nice to own a penis
Isn`t it frightfully good to have a dong
It`s swell to have a stiffy
It`s divine to own a dick
From the tiniest little tadger, to the world`s biggest prick
So three-cheers for your willy or John Thomas
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake
Your piece-of-pork, your wife`s-best-friend, your percy or your cock
You can wrap it up in ribbons
You can slip-it in your sock
But don`t take it out in public, or they will stick you in the dock
And you won`t a`come a`back!"

But the two additional verses (which premiered at the O2 Live shows) are as follows:
"It`s fun to own your own vagina
It`s great to have your friendly thatch
Your minge, your twat, your kitty cat
Your nest, your nasty or your snatch
It`s great to have a monkey furrow
Your finger pie, your lunchbox, or your catch
Your camel toe, your bearded clam
Your bottom at the front
Your monkey minge, your muffin or your old Sir Berkely Hunt
Your honeypot, your hairy friend
But never call it c**t
Or we won`t be coming back"

The third verse, goes:
"Isn`t it awfully nice to own a bottom
Isn`t it frightfully good to have an ass
It`s swell to own a tuschy
It`s diving to own a scut
From the skinniest little buttocks
To the world`s largest butt
Three cheers for your posterior or anus
Hooray for your lovely sit-upon
Your fundament, your fanny, your cheeky little dear
Your rump, your haunch, your hams, your stern, your fanny or your rear
But be careful how you handle it, or you`ll be caught, I fear
And you won`t come back"

As you can see, no channel could have got away with all of the above, at 7:30pm on a Sunday evening, either being sung by a chorus line, and with the words on-screen in clear-view to everyone in the audience! (Thanks to "Biancholy" who posted the screen-caps as evidence at:

Finally, Gavin Salkeld`s CUTTING EDGE - EPISODE 7 that deals with TERMINATOR 2 has been banned from YouTube with the note "This video contains content from Studio Canal and Lionsgate, one or more of whom have blocked it on copyright grounds." appended to it! See...

... for the notes. It seems even using clips under "fair use" limitations as per S107 in the US Copyright Act is no longer acceptable to Studio Canal/Lionsgate!

Harvey    [30236.   Posted 26-Jul-2014 Sat 01:30]
  phantom, MF Dave,

I think part of the problem is using the term "free speech" as if there is a universal, unqualified right to say or publish and that any restriction is a denial of that right.

Unless you belive there should be an unqualifed right to free expression, where do you draw the line between what is a violation and what is legitimate restriction?

It`s fairly obvious that the maintream media in the UK will draw the line broadly where UK law does, so you will see China, etc reported critically when their citizens are denied the right to say or publish something which would be legal in the UK.

So it`s not so much that they exhibit double standards in their reporting as much as that they use the wrong standard (the letter of the UK law) to define what is and isn`t a "violation of the right to free speech".

Then of course we have the Daily Mail...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30235.   Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 16:33]

Along the vague theme I haven`t yet spotted a story from the Daily Mail mentioning the low take up up options for ISP internet blocking.

Also I bet more people have been jailed for internet free speech violations in the UK than China if the size of the population is factored in.

phantom    [30234.   Posted 25-Jul-2014 Fri 13:08]
  Harvey {30231}
freeworld [30230]

My objection is not to any specific case, but the British media approach in general, whereby they point the finger at things which are rightfully appalling in other countries, but somehow always omit to ever include any pieces in their programming which would point to such failings in this, their own country.

It helps to create a national sense of superiority and encourages complacency.

It`s message being, `Sleep easy, Britannia. Everything`s alright.`

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The charges were later dropped"

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

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

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

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

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

A better summary of the facts of this incident are:

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

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

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

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

29JProtection of freedom of expression

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate on the clauses -

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

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

On clause 28 he says -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Groucho Marx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Football`s a funny old world! ;)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not sure I quite follow. Could you elaborate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A very strange and disappointing scenario all-round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I kid you not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It`s pretty blatant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is just a bizarre statement to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Religion is more of an exponential bomb" true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, over to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows, perhaps this is of interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My answer to that question is: yes and no.

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

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

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

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

So there can be a very serious side to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a good try...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I`m sorry but there are logical gaps here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, here is what I posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a choice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mail goes with its usual angle.

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

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

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

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

But just how exactly is this supposed to occur?

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

Let us consider this picture youtube clip

It`s a discussion of high renaissance Christian art.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key word here is etymology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We simply must believe. Or else.

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

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

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

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

What time was the film shown?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Words aren`t just words"
Really? lmao

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT is what my problem is about!

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

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

Well, hey, try growing up a bit!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can guarantee, it won`t be you!

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

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

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

Here is where I have a problem with your post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cor    [30067.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 07:04]

"Or, better still, why not let`s treat everyone equally politely?"
OK, but the point is when you come across someone who disagrees with what you consider polite, you seem to want them thrown off a forum or charged with something... so what you are saying is your feelings are more important than free speech, which i just flat out disagree with.

"Let`s try not to just bandy around racist or any other equally offensive words and terms, and only use them if or when absolutely necessary"
When YOU think they are absolutely necessary... cause other peoples opinions and rights don`t matter.. Which coincidently I think is an offensive sentiment which you have unnecessarily bandied around..

Problem is this is all subjective, some people are `protected` from being offended, others are not, depending on what`s popular at the time, which is massively hypocritical and bigoted in itself. Bottom line, being offended is not a harmful condition to be in, therefor there is no need to be protected from it, and certainly not to the extent of removing peoples rights to talk and discuss issues of free speech and the like..

Pooch    [30066.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 06:25]
  @Cor [30065] said: "that`s very offensive that first sentence of yours, maybe i should go on a crusade to ban the word idiot to protect people from this offensive and odious term, or maybe i should just get the fuck over it, and maybe you should as well."

Or, better still, why not let`s treat everyone equally politely?

Let`s try not to just bandy around racist or any other equally offensive words and terms, and only use them if or when absolutely necessary, rather than - as you have done - just thrown them out there into the public domain, and say to hell with the consequences?! Another novel idea!

cor    [30065.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 05:40]
that`s very offensive that first sentence of yours, maybe i should go on a crusade to ban the word idiot to protect people from this offensive and odious term, or maybe i should just get the fuck over it, and maybe you should as well.

Nobody here is expressing any racism, no one is proposing curtailing the rights of any individual due to race, and i never once said the word nigger didn`t offend me, it does, a lot, i just don`t think that is a good enough reason to reduce basic freedoms like the right to expression. And I`m not so arrogant that i think i can predict every possible use of a word and so deem it useless and unusable.

Pooch    [30064.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 05:06]
  @Cor [30059] - Firstly, if you give no importance to whether you may or may not be offending someone, then you are a bigger idiot than you (or anyone else who would make that statement) appears to be!

Secondly, the fact that you don`t give a damn whether you offend someone, shows what kind of a person you are. There`s a huge difference between accidentally offending someone, and deliberately doing so. Clearly, you don`t seem to understand which one might be considered the less contentious of the two.

As for your comment, where you said: "if you can not imagine a context where using the word nigger is not racist, then that is just a failure of imagination" is total and utter bilge! I`d like to think you and most of the other Melon-Farmer Forum members are open-minded, sensible and mature people, but maybe, in fact, you aren`t?! There`s a huge difference between using that word in a specific context, to explain something, and bandying it about, as it were any other regular word, with no historical controversy behind it. A word I might add, that has been used for centuries to demeand and belittle an entire section of the human race, but another section of the human race. You seem to be under the deluded illusion that because the word is not offensive to you, that you can go around freely using it, and saying "Tough luck" to anyone who IS offended.


The fact that word doesn`t offend you personally, is not the issue at stake. The fact is, that word IS offensive, IS derrogatory, and IS used to demean and belittle an entire section of the world`s populace. As such, there are appropriate times to use the word, and inappropriate times. Your`s is the latter.

@Phantom [30060]. You quoting the word, in relation to the story, was what I would say IS a justifiable use of the word. So, you don`t need to apologise for using the term in that particular case.

As for your example, about an older relative using the term, I would agree that he/she using the term in the context he/she did was not intentionally racist. However, we as a society have now realised that that word does indeed offend a large number of people, and as such, we no longer describe things in that manner. Again, there`s a difference (to me) between people who grew-up in a generation when such racist terms were the "norm", but that doesn`t excuse younger people from more recent generations using the word! History is history. We should learn from it. We can`t wipe-out the past, but we sure as hell can make sure we don`t repeat the mistakes of old - and one of those mistakes, being the use of this word that is now deemed extremely offensive. Not because it`s Politically Incorrect. Not because it`s a "bad" word, per se. Not because it`s wrong to use that word. But simply because we`re wiser and a (hopefully) more understanding nation of people.

At no point have I mentioned Clarkson`s use of the word. In fact, I deliberately did NOT mention it, because it wasn`t relevant to the point I was making. You (and others) seem to have ignored that issue. My point was not whether Clarkson did or did not use the word. My point was not whether Clarkson`s use of that word was or was not offensive. My point was completely unrelated to Clarkson.

My point, and the only point I wanted to make, was in regards to what Braintree had written - namely, that they wrote, as their final sentence: "As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity." was offensive and disgusting to me, and showed a massive misunderstanding of the power that word still holds, and the contentious nature of that word that is still used to this very day, as a way of demeaning a large demographic of the world`s population. It was a very dismissive stance to take, and one that showed no understanding of why that word might is still so verboeten!

@Braintree [30062]. If you want to act and come-across like a totally intolerant, and uncaring little shit, then congratulations! You`ve done yourself a huge disservice, and done exactly that! Well done!

The fact you don`t give a shit, means that I could easily use certain offensive terms to describe you, or members of your family, and I could use the same defence. Except such a defence is infantile, pathetic and shows that person to be an uneducated, and deeply iontolerant little person!

Maybe that`s what you want people to see you as? Maybe you enjoy going around, talking in the manner you do, and not caring whether or not you offend or upset people? Maybe casual racism is okay with you, because you are someone with an IQ only marginally bigger than their shoe size? Maybe you are a racist? Or maybe, it`s just that you are a complete fucking turd of an individual, who cares about no one other than himself? I wonder which of those you actually are, because right now, from where I stand, you are most certainly not the kind of person I would ever want to know. Maybe you can join UKIP!

You said: "Nobody ever died by being offended so if being offended is something you have time to worry about you should get out more." Yes, you are right. No one ever died being offended. But plenty of black people died at the hands of racist scumbags, via Slavery in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Plenty of black people die after racist scumbags attack, injure and kill those some black people, simply because they are black. Their very existance is offensive to racists. So please don`t belittle what you probably have no experience of - namely that your very existance has been used as a way to demean, harrass and belittle you as a person, based on something you have no control over! When you do, then come back, and maybe you and I can have a proper, intelligent conversation about the issue. Until then, I won`t hold my breath waiting!

Being offended, is not - to my mind - a modern preoccupation. Maybe it is to you. To me, it comes down to this: tolerance, and understanding. By stating, as you did: "Offence never hurt anyone and its whingers and whiners about this that and the other that means this country has more than one generation of people taught to try and find offence where none is intended." shows how little you understand of the issue of true offence. I don`t mean the kind of bullshit offence that appears in tabloid papers. I mean genuine and real offence that has caused real people real harm in the real world in which you, I, and everyone else in this Forum lives in.

The Clarkson story, is a non-story for me too. The orignal rhyme does indeed use racist language, and it was of its time. Nowadays, however, the rhyme has been altered, because we as a race of human beings, have evolved, and accepted that the word "Nigger" does and will cause great an unwarranted offence to many black people, where no offence was originally intended.

You also asked: "Is this country so controlled that a random word that could be construed as offensive in another context is now not to be said by anyone at anytime ( except of course black singers in their music)?" It`s not about controlling people. It`s about politeness, courtesy, respect. The same values you want and hold dear as white people do, black people want too. And no, I don`t think that rap artists and black actors should use the racist term so casually either.

Lastly, you said: "As to you actually feeling it`s ok to complain that I posted the word NIGGER on a forum just as a word and not as an insult - quite pathetic really. Ironic that you should post regularly on a forum about censorship . It would appear that you`re actually part of the problem and agree with the establishment that there should be no censorship except when it suits you."

No. What it shows that you are an uneducated, unintelligent, narrow-minded individual who seems to think that the only person matters is themself. In your eyes, it`s clearly a case of "Fuck you, because you don`t matter"! That`s the problem I have!

And you talk about my "sensitivities"? Ha! Here`s a truly novel idea for your tiny little brain to cogitate on: how about treating everyone else that comes on to the Forum to debate with you on a subject, with the same respect that you yourself would want and expect?! Or maybe you`re just one of those people where, everyone has to agree with what everyone else agrees upon, and woebetide anyone who actually holds an opposing view?

sergio    [30063.   Posted 7-May-2014 Wed 03:28]
  BBFC R18 cuts

January 2014
Number of items= 38
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=15%

February 2014
Number of items= 49
No. Cuts=7
Cuts ratio=14%

March 2014
Number of items= 45
No. Cuts=10
Cuts ratio=22%

April 2014
Number of items= 51
No. Cuts=8
Cuts ratio=15%

March 2014 cut of interest:
Milo Taylor, Adam Watson Aiden Jason, Ashton Bradley, Kyle Wilkinson, Luke Desmond, Lincoln Gates, Maxi Gerard, Leroy Dale, Steven Prior
Directed by Ben Willis
Distributor chose to reduce the focus on a restrained man exhibiting considerable pain and focus on the man`s damaged skin. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

It seems (how`s about that for indirection?), I think the BBFC comment is not very clear.
Maybe it should read:
`Distributor chose to reduce the focus on a restrained man exhibiting considerable pain and instead focused on the man`s damaged skin. Cuts made in line with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.`

`The distributor` can change a film? They must have had BBFC guidance.
Let`s picture the film, a man is in pain, his face is contorted, so the camera cuts to just the skin and not the face?
On the back cover of the dvd of DEMOLISHING ASSHOLES ( there seems to be a man pouring wax onto the chest of another. His head is tilted back and his eyes are closed.
I wonder if it was that scene?

It seems like the distributor had some sort of choice (between what and what I am not sure), and they chose one of them. The `guiding hand` of the BBFC seems down played and invisible.
But that`s only my theory.

The site is described as `BOYNAPPED contains images of abused, stripped, naked British twinks engaging in kinky sexual acts`
Twinks are `young` gay men or gay men who look `young` -

braintree    [30062.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 13:38]
  Pooch- I don`t need to justify it because I really couldn`t give a shit if it offends you or not . It IS just a word and if you can`t get over that then it really is your problem - not mine.
Many words have the possibility to offend people but as someone else pointed out its the intent that should be looked at . If you can`t understand that once again , its your problem .
Nobody ever died by being offended so if being offended is something you have time to worry about you should get out more.
And why wouldn`t I compare you to Harriet Harman when you come out with the same sort of utter bollocks she would be quoted as saying ? She`s a politician out for publicity so she has an excuse for talking nonsense - what`s yours ?
You are right about one thing though - I`m all for being allowed to randomly offend people . What is this modern preoccupation with being offended? Offence never hurt anyone and its whingers and whiners about this that and the other that means this country has more than one generation of people taught to try and find offence where none is intended .
The Clarkson non story for one . People are asking for him to be sacked for saying one word . Not saying it to anyone - just randomly saying it in a rhyme . Is this country so controlled that a random word that could be construed as offensive in another context is now not to be said by anyone at anytime ( except of course black singers in their music)
As to you actually feeling it`s ok to complain that I posted the word NIGGER on a forum just as a word and not as an insult - quite pathetic really. Ironic that you should post regularly on a forum about censorship . It would appear that you`re actually part of the problem and agree with the establishment that there should be no censorship except when it suits you.
Shall we all put "The N Word" instead to spare Poochs sensitivities?

And Pooch - the Government didn`t setup the BBFC.It was setup over 100 years ago by the film industry itself in an attempt to pre-empt Government interference .

goatboy    [30061.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 10:13]
  TV ratings are pointless, there is far to much content for any independent auditing, as such you`d be talking about producers giving ratings to their own work and they are always going to be ultra liberal with themselves. You`d think the mediawatch types would know this.

A noted example of this would be this WWE segment which was cut for post watershed showings by Sky but was given a TV PG rating in America by WWE.

phantom    [30060.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 07:55]
  Pooch [30058]
First off, in Braintree`s defence, it was I who first quoted the word `nigger` regarding this story, not he.
Next, I do think there are indeed contexts in which the use of the word `nigger` is not racist.
In my view the word per se is not the bone of contention, but the intent.
So for example an older relative of mine used to refer to things being `nigger brown`.
However, I know for a fact that this person was not a racist. But had simply grown up in an environment and at a time when this was a term in use. Thus, is the fact that this was said, make my relative a racist by default, or does context matter?
I believe it very much matters.
In that respect Clarkson`s use of the word `nigger` in a nursery rhyme is clearly simply that, a nursery rhyme.
The fact hat he even deliberately mumbles it, to the point where it is not discernible, makes the current public outrage entirely pointless.

I myself was of a generation which was definitely brought up to view `nigger` as a taboo word. But in recent years I have come to doubt whether this was a good idea.
Because the taboo which once applied to a handful of terms has now spread into becoming political correctness.
Something that was invented by enlightened liberals is now garrotting liberal values. This was never the idea. The blanket militant policing of expression was not the purpose of this taboo.

Please understand that I am fully aware of the pain racism causes. I do not belittle this problem at all.

cor    [30059.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 05:23]
What you find offensive and odious is your business, and i give it as much importance as what i find offensive and odious, that is to say none at all. It is a human right to make argument and offend, and absolutely NOT a human right never to be offended.

As for the quote in question, if you can not imagine a context where using the word nigger is not racist, then that is just a failure of imagination. Trust me, there are plenty racists that manage to get under the radar by simply being polite.

We are too hung up on the words people use to express themselves, we miss what it is exactly they are trying to express.

Pooch    [30058.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 04:54]
  @Braintree [30056] Your comment, in which you wrote: "As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity" is offensive and odious. And I say this, as a British born, black person who has been (and still does) get called that grotesquely offensive word!

Your comment is both incredibly naive, and clearly from someone who thinks that it`s okay to just randomly offend people. And no, I am NOT talking about Jeremy Clarkson here, but about you personally, using that word on this forum!

Considering one of the rules is "No mindless incitement or hate", you seem to be going out of your way to be deliberately offensive.

And no, please don`t patronise me, by comparing me to Harriet Harman or any other similar individual, and trying to justify you writing what you have done, by telling me to simply get over it, or that it`s just a word! It`s not just a word. It`s a derrogatory insult, that has been used to condemn, belittle, and retard (as in hold back - the true meaning of that word) an entire race of people for centuries!

phantom    [30057.   Posted 6-May-2014 Tue 04:03]
  There are cuts to Carry on Cleo????????????????

braintree    [30056.   Posted 4-May-2014 Sun 13:18]
  It`s appalling that nobody in positions of authority have the balls to tell these sad whingers to shut up and get a life. But its not surprising that halfwit politicians like Harriet Harman are available for a quote to get their names in the paper. Lets assume for one minute that Clarkson did use the word in one of the 3 takes. As far as I know there is a version of the rhyme that does contain the word yet he replaces it with another word on one occasion , mumbles on another and MIGHT have whispered it on another . I don`t think we`ve reached Orwellian levels of intrusion by the thought police yet. The biggest joke is that a forensic sound expert was required to study the footage to see if Clarkson said it .If it was that inaudible what`s the big deal . Can nobody in power see this is just another tabloid attempt to discredit the BBC and / or Clarkson? Top Gear is one of the BBC`s biggest exports . If they sacked Clarkson the show wouldn`t be the same and the second Clarkson was available C4 or C5 would snap him up to present another motoring series. I`ve always admired Clarkson for his forthright views and his devil may care attitude to saying what he thinks . I`m increasingly disappointed at his continued apologies instead of just telling the whingers to shut the fuck up which is what he would normally do. A real shame the BBC can`t do the same - they`re a bunch of chicken shits . Didn`t defend Ross in Sachsgate and now after the unproveable Savile claims they`re running scared .
As for the notion that anyone who says the word NIGGER is a racist...sheer stupidity.

phantom    [30055.   Posted 4-May-2014 Sun 12:25]
  Has anyone here actually viewed that terribly `controversial` and `offensive` clip of Clarkson supposedly saying `nigger`?
I`m sorry, but he doesn`t actually say it at all.
It`s a bizarre world in which mumbling something can cause this. Clarkson must have thought he had to apologise to save his job. Else I cannot for the life of me understand why he would have done.
But I guess if you shout loud enough then you`re right. So Clarkson is a racist. Oh, please... stop the world... I want to get off.

phantom    [30054.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 20:00]
  Well, I would say that the BBFC are not entirely an independent entity.
In essence they are a `quango`.
A quasi-non-governmental-organisation.

The governmental likes the impression of `independence` because it absolves them of state censorship. But it obviously provides them with the censorship they crave.
There is little doubt that the appointment of a new head of the BBFC is an event which has strong political overtones.

I suspect in that regard the BBFC is about as independent as the BBC.
In short, they are independent for as long as they roughly do as the government wishes.

Now sure, they will at times annoy this politician or that, including Home Secretaries wearing Heinrich Himmler spectacles.

But clearly the BBFC are a tool to allow the UK government to declare itself a western, liberal democracy, whilst at the same time allowing it to ban at will.
So I guess you can tell, I don`t buy the BBFC independence quite so readily.

Let`s also not forget that the BBFC plays a part in law. Parliament and BBFC seems to work hand in hand, with the BBFC effectively acting as the arbiter of taste and decency. Act outside their judgment and you`re in trouble with the law.
Again, do we really think their that independent?

So how do you finance something that is a pretend-independent organisation?
Well, extortion of course. Provide them a monopoly and allow them to exploit it shamelessly.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30053.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 14:43]
  Re BBFC and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

I would have thought that the BBFC`s push for `ratings` you trust would have rather encouraged them to have updated the 18 to 15 without the need of an expensive resubmission. They know its 15 and they wrote an Insight essay to explain why.

The topic came up for discussion here because the 18 rating is inconsistent and obviously rubbish. Hardly a plus point for an organisation trying to issue ratings `we trust`

Glenn Quagmire    [30052.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 06:49]


The BBFC are nothing to do with the government. They were set up by the film studios to make there films were in line with the law. The BBFC are self funded and are an independent body. They do not receive a single penny of tax payers money. The government have no legal say in the boards decisions. Only the law of the UK that they have to abide by. That`s why there was such a fuss over Jack Straw interfering (but denying) the decision to pass "The Idiots".

What`s to stop a company inserting hardcore porn in children`s films AFTER they`ve been passed by the board but BEFORE they are actually released? The version on the shelf isn`t necessarily the version the board passed. And, let`s be honest, the chances of that happening are zero. It would seriously damage the company, cost time and money to repress all the discs and cost time and money for somebody to go to those lengths. And all for what?

Sorry, Pooch. I`m with Phantom on this one. The BBFC are extortioners and racketeers. They`ve already passed it at 15 and it shouldn`t need to be resubmitted again unless they want a change in certificate or it`s in a different version.

Pooch    [30051.   Posted 3-May-2014 Sat 05:46]
  @Phantom [30050] - That`s a very bleak, nigh pessimistic view to take.

Whilst I partly agree with you, there is a reason why the BBFC have to re-check films, and that`s to make sure nothing has been added/removed that would lower/increase the current BBFC rating. Otherwise, what`s to stop a dodgy company inserting hardcore porn frames into an innocuous children`s animation, and then releasing it for purchase to the unwary public?! Do you not see that maybe the BBFC aren`t the completely evil company that you (and many other Melon-Farmer users) seem to think they are?

And you can`t put all the blame on the BBFC. The Government are to blame. It`s they who set-up the BBFC in the first place, and if - as I said before - the company who submitted THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY for classification, couldn`t be bothered to pay the extra fees, then I don`t feel it`s fair to blame the BBFC for that. The BBFC is only doing what it`s supposed to be doing; what it`s been set-up to do, and ultimately, what they`ve been told to do by Westminster.

Apportion blame where it`s appropriate, and in this case, I have to say it`s not totally the BBFC`s fault. Why should the BBFC force a film distributor to pay more money to get a lower certificate, if the distibutor doesn`t want it? That`d be like buying a used car, and the garage telling you that you have to buy all your petrol from Company X, whilst you are now the owner of their used car. That`s not right, and you wouldn`t accept it. So why do you think that this situation is any different.

If you want to blame someone, blame 20th Century Fox UK, for it is they who have refused to pay the extra re-classification fees to gain the lower 15 certificate. And they aren`t exactly short of cash, are they?! I could understand if the film was being re-released by a small, new, and no-name film company, but not by one of the pioneers of cinema itself!

The only possible reason I can think of, that Fox didn`t pay to get it re-classified to a 15, is possibly because the film is going to be released in a box set with other DVD`s or Blu-Ray`s, and all the other films are 18 certificates as well. In which case, I could see why they wouldn`t pay the extra fees, for a set aimed-at or intended solely for adults.

This sometimes happens with anime TV shows. One episode might be classified as a 15, whilst the rest of the series may only be a PG. So cuts are made, for monetary reasons, and to boost sales to a wider audience. Occasionally, there`s even been cases where a series is PG or 12, and one or two episodes have contained 18 rated material. The whole set, was then left uncut, and given an 18, purely because of those one or two contentious episodes.

Regardless, it`s the distributor you need to complain against, in my view. :)

phantom    [30050.   Posted 2-May-2014 Fri 06:50]
  nah, Pooch.
I simply see it as their wanting constant repeat payments for reviewing a film that they have already reviewed.
Not enough that they`ve already done it for cinema, vhs, dvd then blue-ray...
At some point they film is reviewed. Period. Asking for ever more handouts is simply unethical.
The BBFC are literally operating a racket.
Worse, it`s a government sponsored racket.


Forum Software.  contact or visit