Melon Farmers

 Melon Farmers

Adult DVDs
Internet Video
LicensedShops
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  
Sex+Shopping  

Note that this page does not refresh

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

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30968.   Posted 24-Jun-2016 Fri 01:25]
  Thanks goatboy, I added the note about episode 16.

goatboy    [30967.   Posted 22-Jun-2016 Wed 18:51]
  The alternative version of Walking Dead just has added swearing I believe. (AMC shows are weird in that 18 cert violence is fine, but there`s only limited PG level swearing allowed) The producers said they filmed bluray scenes so a character could retain his dialogue from the comic book.

sergio    [30966.   Posted 11-Jun-2016 Sat 13:03]
  http://www.xbiz.com/news/legal/208749

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30965.   Posted 5-Jun-2016 Sun 09:00]
  Sorry for the lack of updates. I have spent the weekend traveling. Back to normal on Monday.

sergio    [30964.   Posted 28-May-2016 Sat 03:46]
  http://unblocksites.co/

I found this while looking at https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/37534/Metropolitan/

phantom    [30963.   Posted 27-May-2016 Fri 13:32]
  Sym,
I`m not sure that voices of the left are necessary for what I am alluding to.
In essence I believe it`s about getting serious opposition to political correctness into politics.
Effectively the world needs a force in politics to take on political correctness. Some force. Any force. So far there has never really been such a force.
If the self-proclaimed `cultural libertarians` can hoist their ideas and principles into the bowels of the Republican party then at least there would be some serious political organisation prepared to fight politically correct culture.
Having at least one major party wedded to the idea of killing off political correctness would give the US at least a fifty percent chance of eventually getting a government which would do something about it.
It would also mean that Democratic congressmen and senators whose seats are contested would need to take opposition to political correctness on board in order to regain their seats.

In short: political correctness needs to be fought in the public arena.
As you say, nobody feels free to actually stand up to it. Folks could get themselves fired or otherwise ostracised.
But if at last a major political party takes it on, things could happen.
That is where I see this phenomenon leading.

As for Trump, I don`t think `the Donald` holds out any significant hope against political correctness.
When folks like Milo Yiannopulos are backing him, I hear the agent provocateur speaking.
I don`t think Trump is the answer to anything.
When I speak of `cultural libertarianism` having a great chance of taking a hold of the Republicans, it is completely unconnected to Donald Trump.
That said, I am getting the sense that he is more than likely going to win.

However, if America advances a mainstream political voice opposed to political correctness (the Republican party, not Trump) then I wonder how long it will be that someone in mainstream UK politics highlights the fact that Britain is being treated as one great `safe space` in which no-one is permitted to say the wrong thing or look at the wrong picture for fear of someone being `triggered`...

sym    [30962.   Posted 27-May-2016 Fri 09:09]
  You make a very convincing argument Phantom, and I certainly believe that the grassroots you describe to the right of US politics will ultimately contribute to a groundswell movement at some indeterminate time. However, I can’t see it being fully realised until some more rational, popular voices on the left come forward, allowing for a more bipartisan discussion beyond the usual mudslinging. Whilst I personally don’t subscribe to the left / right dichotomy it would be foolish to deny the power of its mobilisation. For this reason, I fear that without a “bridge” the same old dividing lines will simply be perpetuated and become even more entrenched.

I don’t think it is too far off the mark to say that -outside of the political and social media bubble - the force of public opinion, if pressed privately on matters of pc culture, would come out against its current extensions and intrusions into everyday life. Yet so powerful and recriminatory are its harbingers that a climate of fear effectively silences dissent. Unlike the no-platforming agenda that allows ‘left thinkers’ - like Greer, Burchill, and I assume the aforementioned Summers - to revel in their banned status with a sense of incredulous pride, the left-leaning public - largely oblivious to such matters - have no such avenue to vent even if they wanted too. Which begs the question, would it be counter productive to hope - against ones better judgement - that Trump takes the presidency just to sock it to the social justice contingency?

phantom    [30961.   Posted 26-May-2016 Thu 12:49]
  Sym,
Yes, I perfectly understand what you mean. Within the social media bubble it is easy to get delusional about things.
But the reason I mentioned this is because I`ve been observing it for a while and it does seem more than just a storm in a tea cup. It seems to be gathering momentum – on the American right.

The very fact that some of the heroes of this movement are turning up on websites and TV shows means that they are making an impact on right of centre audiences in the US. It means they are building bridgeheads within the Republican party and could therefore become a force on the political right.

I really don`t think it`s merely wishful thinking on my part. For one, I don`t share many of their Republican views. However, the sheer force of these folks seems to set them apart from regular voices of the American right.

Again, I agree, Sargon can be obsessive. But what makes him stand out (and what will be at the root of his having over 300,000 subscribers) is that he is well-spoken, reasoned and rational.
We also need to consider that his obsessing may also be due to economic factors. He needs to satisfy audience expectation.

Let`s be clear. Usually clips on youtube which command viewing figures of a quarter to half a million feature a kitten trapped in a basket of wool or Miley Cyrus` crotch.
So to see clips of folks talking about politics hit figures which at times come close to newspaper circulation figures suggests that something is going on.

When you listened to American right wingers over the past twenty years, rationality was not your immediate impression. The religious right and the Tea Party movement were (and still are) hysterical types.

But I challenge anyone to listen to a character like Ben Shapiro and not feel the sheer weight of intellect behind the man. Again, it`s not about agreeing with all of his views (and in his case he could not be called an anti-censorship advocate – but he`s nonetheless part of the movement against political correctness).

I simply get the impression that such a movement – with such a force of argument, eloquence and intelligence behind it – cannot be ignored for long.
They are – ironically – the real `young turks`. A new generation of educated, energised young men champing at the bit to make an impact.
Which is why I suspect it only a matter of time until they have an effect.

It will not be on the mainstream media that they appear first. That is not where they could affect things. But on the political right.

The social justice movement has dramatically overreached itself in the last few years and the Democrats are wholly subscribed to it. So the possible impact of turning the Republicans into the effective counter force to political correctness could be considerable.

The effect could well be global rather than merely domestic.
I know the US is a different case than the UK – not least as they have freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution. But where the US lead, we invariably tend to follow.
If the US is about to begin a political counter revolution against political correctness, then a country with such close cultural relations as the UK will not remain unaffected.

So, I`m not saying that a mainstream revolt against political correctness is imminent. But I think what has been happening over the past two or three years – aside from the sheer soundness of the new movement`s foundations - seems to suggest it will have an impact. A new generation of young Republicans is being enthused by these online voices preaching free expression.
I get a strong sense of where this is headed. Especially, as the Republican party is currently out of any other ideas – thus, in need of one which can be translated in opposition to the Democrats.

Much of the underpinning of the mini revolution has been supplied by Christina Hoff Sommers in a book she wrote over twenty years ago (Who stole Feminism?). At the time of her publishing the book, she got nowhere with it. The time was just not right. But anyone who has followed things can see that she has been gaining traction recently. She too is on youtube and is part of the whole movement I describe.
Her book is often quoted online as the chief debunking tool of fake, exaggerated claims by militant feminism. (the ludicrous 5 in 1 rape claims, wage gap, etc)
What makes her all the more credible is that Hoff Sommers, who once held a professorship in philosophy, is in fact a signed up Democrat and a feminist. So hers is not some right-wing agenda.
I have read her book some time ago. It is an eye opener. At times full of dry statistics, it literally destroys most feminist claims of victimhood.

Now I`m hardly saying that what I predict is guaranteed to happen. I`m no soothsayer. But I`ve seen a good many things come and go. This movement possesses real energy. Young audiences are clearly reacting to it. Most of all, it has a worthwhile goal.
It seems to me that this is going to go somewhere. Fast.

-

Incidentally, Milo Yiannopoulos just had his latest event at DePaul University halted by protesters who took over the stage, snatched the mike and threatened violence. They could not have made his argument for free speech any better for him...

sym    [30960.   Posted 25-May-2016 Wed 09:19]
  Phantom, I too have noticed the phenomenon you speak of, and yes, it is heartening although I wonder how far outside of the echo chamber of social media it extends, with pretty much the orthodox media channels channels fully signed up and subscribed to the ’social justice’ agenda in perhaps a less fanatical but nevertheless unquestioning form. When the ‘1 in 5’ campus rape claim or pay gap statistics are allowed to be disseminated almost unchallenged with the exception of Fox News - which in itself comes with its own baggage - you have to wonder.

Whatever your political beliefs however, it’s good to see such a diverse range of opinion coming together to counter much of the hogwash spouted by so-called ‘liberal’ commentators and activists which is not just confined solely to the Right. There’s the Young Turks defector The Rubin Report, MRA’s, a slew of V.J’s, stand-up comedians, and most promising of all, an increasing number of academics working to highlight issues from within. Professor Janice Fiamengo, under the Studio Brule youtube channel, is particularly compelling, a former 2nd wave radical feminist once involved in the ‘take back the night’ campaign, now openly supporting male representation issues from a biological and cultural standpoint. Gad Sadd is also interesting.

I think Sargon obsesses a little too much on some of the finer points of interpretation, but he seems to be a genuine enquirer as evidenced by his recent interview with Tommy Robinson formerly of the EDF. As you said, Milo is certainly a provocateur and his recent tour of US universities has been both a depressing eyeopener and comedy gold. Of course, much of the conversation in the US centres around private censorship via social media ‘trust councils’ , media bias, and campus regulations, and less on the kind of legal obstacles that curtail free speech in the UK and Canada.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30959.   Posted 21-May-2016 Sat 01:11]
  Interesting phantom,
I will look further into this and get something posted on the main site.

phantom    [30958.   Posted 20-May-2016 Fri 17:18]
  I would like to ask whether anyone here has noticed a new phenomenon: `cultural libertarianism`.

It seems to be enjoying a groundswell right now – on the American political right. It is young, literate and pretty dynamic. I`m beginning to suspect it might be an important factor in the future of American politics of the centre right. Not in its present form. - But ideas travel very quickly nowadays.

Much of it seems to have crystallised around an incident called `Gamergate` in which online gamers clashed virulently with feminists who were deriding all games and gamers as sexist and misogynist.
It was a bitter online war which almost went unnoticed by the rest of the world.
But it seems from there to have broadened and become a distinct movement very quickly.

It seems directed mainly at feminism and other forms of political correctness. Its intellectual weight is drawn from opposition to authoritarianism and prescriptive thinking. We`re talking pure enlightenment thinking here. It seems to be gathering pace very quickly.

Now intuitively you would think you`d find liberals to the left of the political spectrum, due to how politics have functioned so far.

The reason `cultural libertarianism` finds itself on the political right is because the political left is largely the champion of all things politically correct. So not all `cultural libertarians` appear to be gun-toting Texans who love Donald Trump. Far from it in fact.

The term `cultural libertarianism` seems to have been created in opposition to `cultural Marxism` which is the term many on the political right use in the US for political correctness.

What is remarkable is the force of reason among those people. They are calm, deliberate, logical types with more than a mere whiff of university about them. So this is not right wing talk radio.

They are becoming quite a force on Twitter and Youtube.
Contributors like `Sargon of Akkad` (a Brit, btw) regularly has videos with a quarter of a million views on youtube. That does not seem to me a random occurrence. This whole thing truly seems to possess momentum.
Another Brit, Milo Yiannopoulos, seems to be their poster boy right now. (Imagine the gay love child of George Osborne and Boris Johnson.) He often plays agent provocateur, but at times can turn serious and become quite heavyweight. He is no fool and at times makes highly eloquent arguments for freedom of expression.
Aside from this internet persona of his, he is a columnist for the right wing online publication `Breitbart`.

The Republican party in the US is undergoing a catharsis right now. The religious right, which had launched Bush Jr to the presidency, has lost its hold over the party. The radical right-wing Tea Party movement has gone nowhere. It achieved little else than political sabotage. With Trump rampaging as Republican candidate, the party is desperately looking for a new idea, a new identity to pin the GOP badge on.
`Cultural libertarianism` may well be that new thing. Its moment may have come.

The Democrats are in not much greater health than the Republicans. The left in the US – much like in the UK – have long since abandoned the politics of representing the working classes and have instead started championing political correctness.
Thus one can see from where `cultural libertarianism` is coming. It`s diametrically opposed to the core values of the political left: Third wave feminism, social justice dogma, `safe spaces` at universities, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, quotas for women and minorities, token media representation, etc...

It goes without saying that `cultural libertarianism` is very strongly anti-censorship.

If `cultural libertarianism` gets a firm foothold in Republican politics, it may well prove a godsend to a world drowning in thought crimes and hate speech prohibitions.

Interestingly, in the UK it would provide a dilemma for the political right. The Tories are no longer wedded to the Republicans as they were in the 1980s. They have whole-heartedly embraced many of the concepts of political correctness. So if `cultural libertarianism` does eventually prove to be a new political force of the right in the US, it would be tricky for the British political right to emulate them (unless some party like UKIP fills that vacuum).

Anyway, sorry for going all heavy here.
But I thought this was an observation I`d share with you folks, because I really think something interesting is afoot. There may be a little spec of light for those who dislike censorship and it`s coming from a very unexpected direction.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30957.   Posted 16-May-2016 Mon 05:19]
  Re I Spit On Your Grave on Horror Channel.

schnittberichte.com is pointing out that a January showing of I Spit on Your Grave wasn`t actually a BBFC approved version. The website concludes that the Horror Channel did its own edit which although cut, was stronger than the BBFC version.

https://translate.google.com/translate?ie=UTF-8&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schnittberichte.com%2Fschnittbericht.php%3FID%3D374569

braintree    [30956.   Posted 14-May-2016 Sat 13:53]
  Certainly on Freeview Ofcom expect 18 material to be after 10pm and then they even whinge if some very strong stuff appears too soon after 10.
I don`t know their schedule but if they played the original I Spit On Your Grave even the BBFC version at 9pm that is asking for trouble. Stagefright is uncut at 18 so again , 9pm too early. But The Horror Channel schedule is weird. I`ve seen tv shows airing during the day that really shouldn`t be unless they are cut. I got the impression THC thought themselves exempt from censor wrangles simply because they are a niche channel. But they do actually show some good stuff although most dedicated fans will have most of it on dvd already. Hats off to them for airing what they do and uncut when they can so best they don`t upset Ofcom

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30955.   Posted 13-May-2016 Fri 21:50]
  Re Ofcom and horror novies>

I would guess that Ofcom`s problems with these horror films is to do with a 9pm showing. I interpret Ofcon;s post watershed rule to maean that 18 rated material or even strong language shouldn`t be shown until 10pm

Therumbler    [30954.   Posted 12-May-2016 Thu 11:25]
  I`m unsure what Stage Fright`s under investigation for. Some gore in it, but no more than a Game of Thrones episode.

DoodleBug    [30953.   Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 14:01]
  @braintree

As Glenn Quagmire noted the first Hunger Games is available uncut on UK Blu-ray in its individual release but cut on DVD. But for some bizarre reason which has been confirmed by a few Amazon customer reviews the Blu-ray boxset versions only contain the censored 12 cert version. All I can think of is that the distributor didn`t want to limit the possible audience of the boxsets by having to increase the overall rating to a 15 when the rest of the movies are a 12 also.

braintree    [30952.   Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 13:32]
  Blurays are more expensive to produce than dvd`s which is why many studios use the exact same disc worldwide with just differences in packaging and labelling. Even on region free discs the region coding of the player can also instruct the disc to play the copyright warnings for the relevant country only making a single disc for the world easy. So that begs the question as to whether The Hunger Games is uncut in other countries.
Of course this is all moot if the movie is one licenced or owned by different studios in each country.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30951.   Posted 10-May-2016 Tue 00:46]
  Glenn,
Perhaps the era of Blu-rays being expensive to encode is over and the distributors can now cheaply use cut versions. Generally the distributors seems happy with uncut 15s over cut 12s, but perhaps the teen target audience makes a difference to this generality.

braintree,
It is not offering much for a exclsuivity window of 1 year. The vast majority of films are `exclusive` to the company issuing the first DVD/Blu-ray release. Not many get another release within a year.

braintree    [30950.   Posted 9-May-2016 Mon 16:07]
  Stupidity probably. The uncut version of Die Hard 4 was released on dvd yet the Bluray boxset still only includes the PG-13 version so the UK remains one of the few still without it on Bluray. The Woman In Black was certified 12 cut and 15 uncut but the 15 version remains unavailable in the UK.
The cynic in me would suggest these longer versions will eventually make an appearance in an attempt to get buyers to shell out all over again.

Glenn Quagmire    [30949.   Posted 9-May-2016 Mon 12:53]
  Does anybody find it strange that the blu ray boxset of "The Hunger Games" is only a 12 meaning that the cut cinema/DVD version is being used despite being originally released uncut on blu ray? This doesn`t make sense to me. Why would they do this?

braintree    [30948.   Posted 8-May-2016 Sun 13:17]
  Not really a censorship issue but this seemed as good a place as any to mention that Arrow have made a serious error with their latest releases which include the Early Works of David Cronenberg, listed very clearly on the Videodrome LE as a Limited Edition Exclusive. Critics of the move have been presented with something from Arrow that will cost them dearly. Arrow now say that something listed as a LE Exclusive only keeps that status for one year.The only good thing is that there is now no need at all to pay top prices for the ever increasing number of Arrow Limited Edition titles when we know that a year later we can buy it all cheap.I`m surprised Arrow are stupid enough to think such a crap reason is enough to justify such a catastrophically bad PR move. How many Arrow LE titles have been cancelled in the last 24 hours I wonder. All mine for starters.
Usually Arrow have been upfront about which elements of any LE release will receive a regular release months later but it appears they`ve invented this convenient 1 year window nonsense as an excuse to release the Early Works. I doubt I`m the only one who`s last bit of goodwill toward Arrow has gone down the pan

phantom    [30947.   Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 14:56]
  Well, it`s a common tactic on many a forum to become very tired of a subject, or for it to have been merely a joke, or one having only played devil`s advocate (the tropes are many), if one encounters determined opposition.
The phenomenon is quite well known.
Generally it`s a sleight of hand played to close down a debate which one has grown uncomfortable with, rather than one which has exhausted itself.
Usually it involves the implication that the other party which is trying to engage in debate is taking this much too seriously. They ought to get a life, etc...
That`s why I made reference to the card trick.
So, there`s no need to suggest I`m confused.

braintree    [30946.   Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 13:52]
  Actually is IS because I`m tired of talking about it. It`s not a card trick at all. It`s a logical thing to do when there`s nothing else to add.

I`m sorry if it`s confusing

phantom    [30945.   Posted 6-May-2016 Fri 06:06]
  Yes, true.
We best stop talking about it.
Not because you`re `tired` of debating it. (That`s one of those debating card tricks.)

But because by talking about it, we`re advertising the issue yet further - according to your logic.
I worry how many paedophiles we`ve sparked off with this exchange alone.
Unless of course words do not hold magic powers...

But as you say, we`ll agree to differ.

braintree    [30944.   Posted 3-May-2016 Tue 13:04]
  This will be my last comment on this as I can`t be arsed to go round in circles.
I didn`t say that people were turned into paedophiles. I suggested that people with the inclination who may not have gone in search of the material may have actively started searching because of the media overload on the subject. There is a difference between someone who simply downloads images and someone who goes out and abuses children in reality. The latter are a lost cause because they cannot control their sexual preferences.
The person who downloads images / videos has the interest but like many other "normal" people has the will and intelligence not to act out their fantasies even though they are already committing an offence with the downloads.
I suggest there are an unknown number of people who search out the material who may not have done had the subject not been constantly in the news for who knows how long.
While all the news stories will paint the subject in a negative way it becomes an advert letting people know the content is out there.
We shall agree to differ

phantom    [30943.   Posted 3-May-2016 Tue 04:46]
  Braintree,
I`m currently reading a very insightful book on censorship.
The Anatomy of Censorship by Prof Harry White
I assure you it`s a very interesting read.
In the book the author repeatedly points to the self-proclaimed use
of so called `common sense` by censors.
Time and again evidence is not needed to support
the idea of censorship. Not even in court.
Instead it is claimed that people intuitively `know`.
We simply `know` material causes harm, even though we can`t prove it.
We simply `know` of effects though we can`t say how or why.
This is where I see the parallel to your position.
You claim it`s something everyone knows. That it`s obvious.
It`s not evidential. It`s just common sense...
Can you see where I`m coming from?

phantom    [30942.   Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 13:43]
  Braintree,
So if it is not an assumption, what is it?
Whence comes this certainty of yours?
There is no data to support it. So it cannot be factual.
Surely it must be an assumption. Else, name it.

Movies affect us. Certainly.
They can make us weep or cheer. That is an effect.
But that does not mean they have any significant lasting effect on our personality – or our sexuality.

As for advertisements. Again, it may help shift hamburgers. That said, again the science isn`t clear.
But what advertisement lays absolutely no claim to is changing the consumer himself.
Advertisers neither seek, nor claim to be able to change the basic personality and drives of their audience.

So, your claim that hearing news about paedophilia having the power to turn people into paedophiles remains a great leap.

The idea that some subset of inferior people can somehow be infected by an idea through some bizarre, unspecified means of osmosis is the great myth of censorship.

Taking a complete unknown like paedophilia and just attaching media exposure as the complete explanation for the subject is one of the classic methodologies of the censorship industry.

It`s very tempting to reach for such explanations.
But replacing unknowns with assumptions is not a true explanation.

Academics on the subject like to state that censors are not actually wary of the content, but the audience. The history of censorship is full of colourful examples of how some group must be prevented from seeing this or not, lest it be corrupted.

Painting a picture of mindless drones sitting at home, minding their own business, who can be `switched on` and become something dangerous has all the classic hallmarks of a censorial fantasy.

braintree    [30941.   Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 12:46]
  Re The Mary Millington Story.
Seemed odd to show it on London Live before the dvd release when the dvd was £19.99 but just a bit before the release the price dropped to £9.99. Far more reasonable and a price I`m happy to pay to avoid ads and get better quality than Freeview.

braintree    [30940.   Posted 2-May-2016 Mon 12:40]
  Totally credible.

"The fact that there are some vulnerable people with inclinations who can be switched on by hearing or seeing something is – again – an assumption."

I think even the most anti censorship amongst us will agree that it is far from being an assumption. While the exact triggers remain unknown I think it has been a fact for many decades although the BBFC and the authorities will exaggerate any stats to back themselves up.

If what we watch didn`t affect us in some way then porn movies wouldn`t be a billion dollar business and nobody would advertise.

phantom    [30939.   Posted 1-May-2016 Sun 14:26]
  I`ve heard words like words like `inclined` and `vulnerable` a great many times.

The entire art of censoriousness is based on a lack of precision.
Nobody ever provides detail on how corruption is supposed to occur, to whom it is supposed to occur, or what exact harm it is supposed to do.

We`re simply told that by some mystical process some `vulnerable people` can be done `harm` by material which falls within vague parameters.

The fact that there are some vulnerable people with inclinations who can be switched on by hearing or seeing something is – again – an assumption.

Truth is, we don`t know how anyone ends up a paedophile.
But it is by no means `obvious` that they reside in our societies as harmless sleepers until some random event switches them on.
And if we were to buy into this assumption, would it really suffice simply to expose such people to the news on paedophilia alone? That again is an assumption. And a rather thin one.

In fact we do not know at all how people are swung toward any particular leaning.
How does one become a more left or right leaning individual on political matters? An environmentalist? A feminist?
Is it really just a matter of having been exposed to sufficient media coverage or literature? Or is something else going on?

With something as fundamental as sexuality, the questions become labyrinthine. Way back in very early childhood things may or may have not been of influence. Relations with parents or siblings may play a part. Or not. We are grasping in the dark.

But how likely is it that what was on the six o`clock news plays a part in someone becoming a paedophile?

The influence of media is continually overstated.
Everlastingly we are told that all – or possibly just some few – are helpless dupes when exposed to media. It apparently it tells us to overeat as well as to starve ourselves. It makes us apathetic as well as hyper-aggressive...
Meanwhile, every political party claims that the media is pumping out poison which favours their opposition. `The people` would see sense, if only it wasn`t for the media`s lying...

But in the end we always comes back to the same point.
Nobody has ever demonstrated how this mystical influence upon our personal views, psyche and sexuality is supposed to really occur.
It is always assumed.

But the assumption is made in order to explain something which is not understood.

Example:
We do not know how anyone becomes a paedophile.
But we know the media can make paedophiles out of those who have prior inclinations.
We do not know how the media does it. We do not know how the prior inclinations come about.
In fact we do not know anything about this subject except that it is the media which can switch some people on.
Does that really sound credible?

braintree    [30938.   Posted 1-May-2016 Sun 13:34]
  The person would need to be that way inclined to start with obviously. The media has become a huge advert for kiddie porn and those leaning that way will make the effort required to find it.
We even get a breakdown of the different categories of content.

And I agree with the BBFC`s view about people with vulnerable minds. Where me and the BBFC disagree is I don`t think the 99.9% of the population who are "normal" need censorship because of a tiny minority.

I`m not saying we should curtail coverage of kiddie porn I was simply commenting that there are bound to be people out there , however small the number who`s interest is piqued by the media overload. Seems obvious that there are.

phantom    [30937.   Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 15:23]
  Braintree,
Have you ever felt the urge to indulge in viewing child porn because of the extensive coverage of the problem in the media?
I know I have not. I very much doubt you ever have.

Thus, if your theory does not apply to us, then to whom does it apply?

Referring to some hypothetical 0.0001% is little more than a stab in the dark, isn`t it?
Who would these people be who are corrupted by hearing news; so much so they ought to be protected from news coverage on certain subjects?
It has a ring to it of that famous old adage by the BBFC of protecting those adults with `vulnerable minds`.

But if exposure to media coverage on child porn can produce paedophiles, then where does this theory end?
Does following the current anti-semitism brouhaha surrounding Ken Livingstone and the Labour Party make anyone become more prone to anti-semitism?

How does reading about a subject or viewing an audio visual piece on a subject make one more inclined to corrupt as an individual on any matter?

In what way does exposure to ideas, concepts and fictions increase any tendencies within us?

To hark back to your example; car accidents. We know car accidents happen. We know how they come about. We know how car accidents damage traffic users and pedestrians. We understand the function and interconnection of the processes of an accident.

But does the fact that young women see many slender fashion models really make them more likely to be anorexic?
If so, how? Why? By what process?
It is not comparable to a car accident. Because the link is entirely an assumption.
(See Okham`s Razor)

The connection between various people hearing certain stories and developing an interest in the subjects covered within those stories may appear intuitive to some – but as you can see with me, it does not to others.

There is no immediate logic which points to hearing about something and then wishing to partake in it.

I will grant you that, if you do not know something exists, you cannot possibly wish for it.
Therefore basic knowledge precedes desire. That much is agreed.

But just because people know there is a brick wall, does it mean someone will seek to run into it, assault it or rub their genitals up against it?
There is just no inevitability in that at all.

You will forgive the further reductio ad absurdum:
St Paul`s Cathedral exists. We know it exists. Over time it has been glorified in articles. Paintings have been completed. Books have been written about it. It even played a stirring part in the Blitz. Documentaries have been made about it. But so far, to my knowledge, no one has tried to mate with it – despite the media coverage.
Thus it would be hard to argue that extended media coverage about St Paul`s Cathedral would increase the likeliness of someone developing a sexual interest in it.
Not even among 0.0001% of the population.

Now, I know I`m being facetious. But you will grant me there is more than a grain of truth in it.

For us to suppose that hearing about or seeing something can corrupt us there must be more than a mere assumption that this corruption might be possible.
`Might` is just not good enough.
There is nothing to suggest that it can happen.

You are connecting two dots. `Hearing of` and `desiring`.
But you do so not because there is any inherently logical reason to so. Instead your intuition alone leads you to conclude this.
This intuition however derives from your private assumptions.

You are perfectly free to make these assumptions. I cannot prove them wrong. - One cannot prove a negative.

But you`ll equally need to grant me that there is nothing – other than private intuition – which inherently connects hearing of paedophilia in the media with having an interest in paedophilia.

Sorry for this being a long one.
But I think folk will appreciate why I go on so about these points.

Thus far I`ve seen plenty of gay kisses on tv. Though I`m still not interested....

braintree    [30936.   Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 12:40]
  Tens of thousands maybe an exaggeration but I am certain there are followers of the subject who would otherwise never have taken an interest if not for the subjects constant presence in the media.
The censors are right to a certain extent. It is obvious that what we watch and see influences us but the majority of people are intelligent enough to know that grabbing a gun to solve your problems is not ideal.Nor is any kind of violence , but those examples always have consequences. I think for a lot of followers of kiddie porn they take the risk that there will be no consequences - that is they won`t get caught. If they take a gun and go and kill someone there are immediate consequences. If they view porn there are none. If they download it to keep they take the risk there will be none. And if there are any they may be years down the road. The censors are basically correct but where they go wrong is asking for things to be suppressed from everybody for the sake of the 0.0001% who might genuinely be affected enough to take action. It would be like banning cars from the road because of the daily accidents where people die. People do die in cars every day but the percentage is tiny.

phantom    [30935.   Posted 30-Apr-2016 Sat 05:27]
  Braintree,
I`m actually not all too sure that media attention has helped `normalise` paedophilia for people who would otherwise never have heard of it.
Neither do I think that media`s focus on paedophilia piqued people`s curiosity.

In fact if ever-presence in media could influence people in that way, then the censors would be correct. We would need to keep bad things – even ideas and concepts - out of the media to prevent them influencing people.
Because if, as you suggest, the mere mention of paedophilia has created `perhaps tens of thousands` of paedophiles, then being exposed to bad ideas does indeed do harm.
I fundamentally believe that this is not the case.

I do however agree that over-representation of the problem of paedophilia in the British media (and political discourse) has helped foster an atmosphere of paranoia within society because it has granted the problem much greater prominence than it deserves.

braintree    [30934.   Posted 29-Apr-2016 Fri 13:34]
  The stories about child abuse images continue. And I do wonder if the authorities had refrained from making the UK a country where men stay away from parks for fear of being labelled as paedophiles whether the problem would be reduced. Foreigners sometimes comment on the UK obsession with paedophiles and you have to think if they`d just shut the hell up about it 20 years ago whether it would have remained a niche interest for some rather than giving it publicity nobody could ever pay for on such a regular basis that there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people who now have an interest in the subject who would never have given it a second thought were it not in the public eye on a permanent basis. The IWF report proves it`s a losing battle so why keep advertising the subject? Being able to take down the content in only the UK is surely a waste of time when presumably other countries can provide it.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30933.   Posted 29-Apr-2016 Fri 05:00]
  phantom.

The concept of political correctness seems to be some form of extreme politeness enforced by a lynch mob. However the lynch mob doesn`t seem very good at graduating its demands. Any perceived sleight, no matter how small is considered up for mob punishment. The lack of a minimal tolerance limit seems to mean that absolutely anything can be conceived as un-PC... and rather leaves the ultimate outcome that the only acceptable behaviour is absolute silence.

phantom    [30932.   Posted 28-Apr-2016 Thu 17:56]
  Since I`m at it... :)

Here`s another one I just stumbled across.
Sure, I`m a year late with this one but it`s a beautiful article by Brendan O`Neill for the Spectator.
I wonder why I myself never spotted the similarity between the two yellow bikini poster attacks. Beautiful. Enjoy.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/04/feminism-becomes-more-like-islamism-every-day/

phantom    [30931.   Posted 28-Apr-2016 Thu 04:35]
  The latest microaggression to `harrass` the snowflake generation on the tube:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/71485/matchcom-sorry-for-saying-freckles-were-imperfections

Not to be outdone by tube passengers the student unions also ponder matters of severe gravity; i.e. whether to censor the net or not to preserve their `safe space`:
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/facebook-twitter-and-yik-yak-could-be-banned-by-nus-motion-to-ensure-safe-social-elections-a6992496.html

goatboy    [30930.   Posted 24-Apr-2016 Sun 15:46]
  On the subject of Erdogan, noted Dutch comic Hans Teeuwen was in take no prisoners mode on the subject- http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/24691/hans_teeuwen:_president_erdogan_was_a_%E2%80%98boywhore

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30929.   Posted 24-Apr-2016 Sun 06:15]
  Sergio

I just downloaded the VPN system and it works fine on Windows 7. An excellent facility

sergio    [30928.   Posted 24-Apr-2016 Sun 04:21]
  Free vpn in Opera if you got a mac(only mac?)
http://www.opera.com/blogs/desktop/2016/04/free-vpn-integrated-opera-for-windows-mac/

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30927.   Posted 23-Apr-2016 Sat 00:52]
  Thanks braintree, I will delete the link today. It all seems to be commercialisation gone mad. As far as I can tell the US DVD is exclusive to Amazon. I must be missing something, surely that is a step too far.

braintree    [30926.   Posted 22-Apr-2016 Fri 13:05]
  The news pages mentions the Steelbook on Amazon being classified by the BBFC.
I suppose I`m being a bit pedantic but for accuracy, the steelbook on Amazon UK is actually the Italian import as the steelbook is a Zavvi exclusive in the UK although I daresay every single disc is exactly the same bar the label and on most things only the cardboard sticky bit that lists the contents of the steelbook is foreign so once its removed the steel book case should be identical to the UK one. Important when they`re asking £40 for it.Of course if you order direct from Amazon Italy you can get it for half that or a bit more at £24.99 from Zavvi

braintree    [30925.   Posted 22-Apr-2016 Fri 13:00]
  It is when it`s the waffle I`ve seen you post more than once.
Although it is amusing that you being called a troll is "bully boy tactics" yet you labelling anyone who disagees with you a fanboy isn`t. I think it`s clear few people would agree your comments have merit.
I never had any hassle getting ZFE exchanged.
And as Cronenberg himself signed off the restoration of Shivers you might expect Arrow to pass the blame on to him. With TIFF having performed the restoration it was always going to take some time to get it corrected. Arrow said this at the offset when they decided that the disc needed correcting.
You can pop over to Amazon and have some more Arrow bashing as it seems both cuts of the Bride of Re-Animator have been supplied in mono by mistake.

And how nice to admit that you don`t feel inclined to write any positive reviews for Arrow titles that you`re happy with. If that`s not clear evidence of your bias I don`t know what is.
No you don`t have to tell the world how happy you are with your Arrow titles yet for some reason you seem to find the need to tell as many people as possible when you`re not happy.
Lets agree to differ and move on

Pooch    [30924.   Posted 21-Apr-2016 Thu 13:51]
  @braintree [30923] Well, if you can`t be bothered to read anything I write, then there`s no point wasting my time on you any more! Clearly, expecting you to bother to read what someone writes, is asking too much of you!

braintree    [30923.   Posted 21-Apr-2016 Thu 12:48]
  Pooch- I read the first few lines then decided if you really are too stupid to realise why calling me a fanboy makes you look an idiot then you`re also too stupid for me to bother with at all.
So you did do one piece that was positive toward Arrow. I think they`re having a day off in celebration on Friday

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30922.   Posted 21-Apr-2016 Thu 08:11]
  Thanks phantom, I enjoyed that article about `coded` sexism. It is one the laws of humanity that if you initiate rules about communications, no matter how well meaning, there are low lifes that will exploit them to bully and abuse their fellow man.

Pooch    [30921.   Posted 21-Apr-2016 Thu 04:54]
  @braintree [30918]:

Okay, let`s just clarify things:

You agree that the publicity for the book`s content (namely that around two-thirds of it being reprints) wasn`t very good.

You agree that that I`m not the only person who was angry/disappointed/upset that the book was mostly reprinted content.

And you agree, that there have been plenty of other negative complaints both on Amazon and Arrow`s Facebook page.

But you assume - incorrectly, I might add (but hardly unsruprisingly) - that just because I (alleedly) haven`t posted any positive review of Arrow products, that makes me a troll?

To then claim - again, with no evidence to back it up whatsoever - that "your views would have been the same regardless of how good the book was", is complete horseshit! But again why does that not surprise me!

And, no, I am NOT "that predictable". Maybe, if you and the other Arrow fanboys had actually bothered to ask, I could have directed you to a blog post I wrote back in February 2016, in which I write about Arrow finally growing-up, and releasing decent, fault-free sets?

http://cinema-extreme.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/have-arrow-video-finally-grown-up-part-1.html

Labelling me a "troll" is a petty excuse, used by people who neither know me, know the meaning of the word, and just disagree with what I do, and the way I do it! It`s schoolboy bully tactics, used by people who don`t bother to make any effort themselves to contribute to the debate on whether anything I write has any merit to it whatsoever. No, in their eyes Arrow cannot be criticised. We mustn`t criticise Arrow, despite the fact they are still making silly, stupid screw-up`s, and refuse to admit that they are in the wrong!

I would be equally scathing of any company who had released as many bothched relases, as Arrow had. I`m not anti-Arrow! I would much rather all of their releases were flawless! I would much rather that almost none of their products had faults in them. But when they still refuse to accept any blame for faults in their products (such as their botched release of SHIVERS), then yes, I am going to hold them to account for it! For a company that has been in business for over five years now, and they`re still making petty errors, simply due to not bothering to check things out (e.g. not checking what version of SHIVERS they had been given, before mastering the discs and putting it out on sale) or simply because they don`t want people to know about something (like their Cult Cinema book), then that says to me either the people running the company don`t care about their customers, or that they really don`t want people to know what they are doing, and are trying to pull the wool over people`s eyes.

I know many people will try and argue that other companies have released as many bothched films as Arrow has, and I don`t take those companies to task, but the fact is, I haven`t bought many of those companies` releases (e.g Shout Factory, Code Red, etc, etc), so I am unaware of the problems in the first place. I DO buy a lot of Arrow titles, and that`s why I complain so much about their shoddy work - because a lot of the titles I`ve spent my hard-earned money on, is being wasted by a company putting-out shoddy work, and then trying to defend it as not their fault.

You also say: "The glitch on Zombie Flesh Eaters was corrected"! Well, yes it was, but only very begrudgingly, and done so after a lot of complaints! But they made it as complex and difficult as possible, and as I mentioned on one of my blog-post`s, they initially weren`t going to take any responsibility for it, and then decided that they would charge customers to rectify their mistake. This kind of lying, deception does them no favours!

And, yes SHIVERS has been corrected, but it`s taken almost a year-and-a-half to get it fixed, and Arrow have never actually apologised and admitted they are to blame for it (They still blame T.I.F.F. - Toronto International Film Festival, and even Cronenberg!)! Again, the errors and mistakes are never Arrow`s fault, but always someone elses!

I`ve loved Arrow`s HELLRAISER: SCARLET BOX set, and their JACQUES RIVETTE and BATTLES WITHOUT HONOR AND HUMANITY sets, but I don`t feel the need to go on Amazon, and post a lengthy, positive review about it. Why should I? It`s my choice who and which products I review. Just because I like something, doesn`t mean I need to tell the world about it.

Arrow`s a company who have consistantly released products that are flawed, and they never apologise for it! Why do they do this? I`ll stop castigating Arrow, when they start apologising for their mistakes, and start accepting responsibility.

I trust this answers some of your concerns, if not all of them!

phantom    [30920.   Posted 20-Apr-2016 Wed 17:58]
  re: Free speech stifles political correctness so must be banned...

Interesting that Yvette Cooper (one of the establishment backed candidates for the Labour leadership - and thus a politically significant voice) should be banging on about the poor victims of online harassment.

It seems very interesting just how and where the likes of Yvette Cooper draws the line.

No wonder that the feminist writer Polly Vernon gets mentioned. Criticising her, attacking her en masse is of course `wrong`.
No doubt the inane Caroline Criado-Perez who has little else to do with her time than to campaign for more women on bank notes (who has since been handed an OBE for her troubles) and who received violent online threats would also be included under the Cooper doctrine of protection.

But what about the other side?

Remember Dr Matt Taylor? He is a astrophysicist who during the broadcasts related to the Rosetta probe which landed on a comet had the audacity of wearing a shirt with a print featuring drawings of scantily clad women.
The feminist storm which erupted around his daring to wear an `offensive` shirt eventually reduced the man to tears during a European Space Agency press conference.
But I bet his sort don`t deserve Cooper`s protection.

Then there`s nobel prize laureate Tim Hunt. He dared made a `sexist` quip during a speech in South Korea. A feminist journalist utterly misrepresented what occurred at the conference. Another feminist storm of online outrage whipped up, seeing a flurry of headlines, follwed by universities distancing themselves from one of the country`s leading biochemists.
Again, I hardly think Cooper wishes to see his case included in her online protection.

Once again it`s not about providing law for all.
It`s merely about providing law which will protect those who hold the `correct` view from harassment (or simple criticism).
The sheer avalanches of hate her own camp can unleash Yvette Cooper surely will not want to see in any way curbed.

phantom    [30919.   Posted 20-Apr-2016 Wed 08:01]
  re: Drawing a little prick...

Just to inject a little balance.
Hillary Clinton hardly holds out much hope to libertarians.

Here`s a flavour of the Clinton approach:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/26/pro-hillary-group-puts-female-new-york-times-repor/

I`m hardly a fan of `the Donald`. I think he`d be a disaster.
But I suspect that the more Blair-like Clinton may unleash a political correctness avalanche.

braintree    [30918.   Posted 19-Apr-2016 Tue 13:23]
  Pooch - I seem to recall you were ridiculed on this site for your anti Arrow status which isn`t surprising. I agree the publicity on the Arrow book was lacking and the detail that only 35% of the content was new was not highlighted well enough. As you can see from Amazon and Facebook there are lots of disappointed buyers but the reason you get picked out is because your views would have been the same regardless of how good the book was. Yes you are that predictable. You do yourself no favours by calling anyone who picks you up on it an Arrow fanboy. It just makes you look more of an idiot than you have done already. Those who label you a troll do so because of your anti Arrow reviews , the number of them and the petty list of things you use as an excuse to criticise. But you call people fanboys on Amazon who might have never reviewed an Arrow product before or like me never reviewed an Arrow product ever. I agree that Tele 62 might be labelled a fanboy as I`ve seen his posts on a variety of forums but there don`t seem to be many others , not on Amazon anyway. I`ve not seen anyone saying Arrow cannot be criticised. What I`ve seen are people criticising your comments for exaggerating. For example , one of your comments says the book is nothing but reprints. That is completely false. And that is why you are labelled a troll. On here too IIRC
I think in amongst the Amazon comments someone asked you for a link to one of your positive reviews of any Arrow title. I`m guessing we have a long wait
I guess I have between 20 and 30 Arrow titles altogether and I can say that I haven`t found anything to complain about. That doesn`t make me a fanboy. If something is wrong I will complain about it. The glitch on Zombie Flesh Eaters was corrected. The disc problem on The Beyond was corrected. And at long last the uncut version of Shivers has been supplied. Apart from those problems the only one I would take issue with was their decision to issue Bird with the Crystal Plumage cropped which is why I have the Blue Underground disc

Pooch    [30917.   Posted 19-Apr-2016 Tue 13:10]
  [30916] Clearly, braintree, you (and some of the other Arrow fanboys) don`t know the meaning of the word "all"! I don`t "routinely slags off all Arrow titles"! If you`re going to lambast me, at least get your facts right!

Oh, and for what it`s worth, I`m not the only one who has been critical of that book! Even Arrow`s own Facebook page, had plenty of negative comments on it, because purchasers were less than happy that a book costing £35 contained more than 65% reprints in it, and this WASN`T widely known or publicised!

It seems Arrow is never allowed to be criticised, when they do things wrong, but sycophantic fawning is positively encouraged and demanded! Hmmm....

braintree    [30916.   Posted 18-Apr-2016 Mon 13:51]
  I see Pooch`s rabid anti Arrow propaganda is flowing as well as it used to here on the Amazon reviews for the new Cult Cinema book. Although he routinely slags off all Arrow titles he`s jumped at the chance to have a go at this one thanks to Arrow not making it well known enough about the amount of reprints in the book

braintree    [30915.   Posted 14-Apr-2016 Thu 14:08]
  You`re right. It`s an excellent documentary although it is at least a couple of years old now. I doubt it`s been updated.

Edit: wow- it`s 2011. How time flies

Pooch    [30914.   Posted 14-Apr-2016 Thu 11:49]
  If anyone`s interested, there`s a good documentary on BBC4 at 10pm TONIGHT (Thursday 14th April) called TIMESHIFT: DEAR CENSOR in which they look at the history of BBFC film censorship, examining specific films that have caused the most problems. Should be worth recording. It`s only on tonight though, for one hour.

sergio    [30913.   Posted 11-Apr-2016 Mon 04:01]
  What?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/business/media/on-the-job-blurring-the-private-parts-in-naked-and-afraid.html

braintree    [30912.   Posted 9-Apr-2016 Sat 13:15]
  The news pages mentions the May release of the dvd Respectable: The Mary Millington Story. It`s odd to see that the film is being screened by the London Live channel this week on Freeview so London area viewers can get it far cheaper than the rest of us.
Fancy showing it on free tv before it gets a home video release. A Bluray would soften the blow

braintree    [30911.   Posted 2-Apr-2016 Sat 13:59]
  Yes that`s right. It was TFTC that was R. The 3 versions of VOH on the US Bluray are the uncut version in 16:9, the uncut version in 4:3 and the PG version in 16:9.
I don`t think they originally intended to include all 3 but they had to put so much work into finally getting the uncut version which resulted in several delays to the release I think that`s why they put the BFI and Fox versions on there aswell.
I`ve not seen the UK discs of either film but it`s worth pointing out that the UK disc of TFTC does include a documentary that is not on the US disc

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30910.   Posted 2-Apr-2016 Sat 05:23]
  Thanks Braintree, am interesting update. I am just adding it to the news item. I believe the cut US version was for a PG rating rather than an R.

braintree    [30909.   Posted 1-Apr-2016 Fri 14:40]
  Just to clarify the Vault of Horror story on the news pages. The promotional material is inaccurate. This is the first time it`s been released uncut on UK Bluray - in fact its the first UK release on Bluray at all. But the earlier dvd release from Vipco was the only uncut version released to video in the UK before this Blu. Unfortunately it was in 4:3 but it was a bit of a tatty print but the cuts were so extensive on the R rated version that the Vipco one was the one to see even though the US Midnite Movies disc was lovely quality and 16:9. The Video release in 1988 was a very welcome double bill with Tales From the Crypt from CBS/Fox. Unfortunately both films were from NTSC transfers so TFTC was the standard blurry quality we always had with NTSC sourced prints at the time and I believe the very brief shot of Richard Greenes intestines was missing as this was the R version. VOH was the cut version again. Fast forward to the dvd era and screeing in the 00`s by Sky Movies , C4 and even Film 4 were of the cut version much to the dismay of collectors. Somebody alerted Film 4 to the cuts and after quite a long wait Film 4 proudly announced the uncut version of the movie but despite the BFI byline at the end the presentation was no better quality than the Vipco dvd although it was at least finally uncut.
When Shout initially announced the US Bluray double bill they seemed unaware of the cuts to VOH and after a while announced they were unable to obtain the complete version. I like to think it was my post clearly stating the wording at the end of the Film 4 version regarding the BFI that encouraged Shout to return to the correct department at the BFI having only had negative results with an earlier enquiry. Apparently the uncut version was preserved somewhere they didn`t look the first time. At any rate they got the uncut version and managed to put together a marvellous set with (I think) 3 versions of the movie. As its a double bill with TFTC its better value than the UK releases but the US disc is region coded -as I suspect the UK one will be too. Oh for more Amicus on Bluray

Therumbler    [30908.   Posted 28-Mar-2016 Mon 14:11]
  A similar thing happened with Monkey. The BBC only aired 39 of 52 episodes. It took over 20 years for the remaining episodes to be dubbed and aired.

braintree    [30907.   Posted 26-Mar-2016 Sat 15:04]
  It was made in 1968, did the rounds of ITV then reappared on the early Sky cable service where they showed more than ITV but still not all 17 episodes. I don`t know why ITV only aired half the series. I had people all over the UK keeping an eye on their local region but we never got past 9 episodes. As a 35mm show made by Hammer it`s ripe for rediscovery and I`ve emailed the Horror Channel to see if they might be able to get hold of it. About 15 years later Hammer teamed up with Fox again to make Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense. Awkwardly timed around 73 minutes each these haven`t been seen for years either but they did at least get a long deleted dvd release. It was aired in the US as Fox Mystery Theater.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30906.   Posted 26-Mar-2016 Sat 01:01]
  braintree.
Re Journey to the Unknown

So obscure that I didn`t even know that I was missing it.

braintree    [30905.   Posted 24-Mar-2016 Thu 16:33]
  It`s good to see The Horror Channel have done deals with several companies in order to acquire their catalogue of Hammer titles. Studio Canal, Sony and Universal movies all popping up. It would be great if they could give us a real scoop though and pry the Hammer tv show Journey to the Unknown from the claws of Fox. Shown only as half a series in the 80`s on ITV the show hasn`t been seen since so instead of bringing us the good but easy to obtain Hammer House of Horror how about something that will generate real excitement among Hammer fans.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30904.   Posted 22-Mar-2016 Tue 23:11]
  phantom, I take your point that police pc/phone checks are not a new thing explaining the rise in prosecutions.

I try to scan local news papers for extreme porn prosecutions but haven`t really noticed the dramatic rises being suggested being reflected in the number of local newspaper stories.

Maybe something to do with dangerous pictures found whilst scanning for other crimes. I noted that one article that said that extreme porn prosecutions associated with child abuse cases was specifically excluded from the figures being discussed, but maybe this exclusion does not tend to associations with other crimes.

phantom    [30903.   Posted 20-Mar-2016 Sun 07:36]
  Dave,
I don`t know whether police procedure has changed notably in that respect for the period to which these figures refer.
I would assume they were already checking mobile phones of folks arrested before this increase.

That`s why I suspect that the increase in the figures might be due to the expansion of what pictures which now qualify as `extreme` (so-called rape imagery, etc).

What is clear is that something significant seems to have changed to generate such a dramatic increase in prosecutions.
Given that the increase of scope by the law is the only change I know about for certain, it is the only thing to which I can point.

In keeping with the law, this increased scope is far from clearly defined, making it a perfect catch-all.

My main concern is that we are not seeing the absolute increase of prosecutions but merely the indication of an upward trend. Who knows at what annual figure of prosecutions it might eventually come to rest.

It is why I think this is now out of control. One thousand prosecutions per annum was obscene, given the parliamentary belief that this would at most affect a dozen per year.
But if prosecutions are now to rise to a multiple of the previous one thousand per annum then we are now really heading into legal nightmare.

No one in their right mind could ever claim that this was the parliamentary intention of the statute.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30902.   Posted 19-Mar-2016 Sat 21:43]
  phantom, re `I can only imagine that the increase is due to the widening of the parameters of the law by the current government`.

Surely the increase is down to the current police tactic of searching the phone and PC of anyone picked up for a suspected crime. Eyes must light up often when something is found that is `dangerous`. Another crime detected and solved. (Such prosecutions must register as near 100% success rate for the records and performance related pay. After all not many such `crimes` are reported but left unsolved.

phantom    [30901.   Posted 19-Mar-2016 Sat 18:54]
  575 prosecutions for extreme porn in Greater Manchester in one year?
This is getting way out of control.
We were running at roughly 1000 prosecutions a year - nationally.
Now Greater Manchester alone seems to account for over half that figure.
With South Yorkshire appearing also to report a dramatic rise (albeit that their figures are mixed in with those of OPA), I think the national totals are going to reach eye watering levels.

Remember that parliament was assured at the time in the impact assessment that, at the most, 12 prosecutions per year were predicted - because prosecutors were only going to go after the most extreme, depraved cases.
It therefore seems that Manchester alone has made up for roughly 50 years worth of prosecutions for the whole nation, if one was to grant the impact assessment any credence.

This is utterly insane. A veritable orgy of pointless prosecutions.
I can only imagine that the increase is due to the widening of the parameters of the law by the current government.

phantom    [30900.   Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 17:10]
  Isn`t it peculiar how a polemic always gets deemed a diatribe.
Some folk are quite capable of typing a goodly few sentences without bleeding from the eyes...

joshua    [30899.   Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 12:38]
  Wow Phantom, that`s quite a diatribe. Don`t expect me to be an apologist for the BBFC so all I can say is, if you see any further posts from me you`d best avoid them; it`ll do wonders for your blood pressure!

sergio    [30898.   Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 03:15]
  ` it’s hard to understand why Cohen and his cowriters decided to stage the world’s most elaborate and explicit elephant-sex gag`

Ah, inter elephant sex not human/animal sex. Beasts are beastial, so when they have sex it is beastiality?

sergio    [30897.   Posted 14-Mar-2016 Mon 02:54]
  According to Mr Cohen, the MPAA doesn`t understand the term "beastiality", "I had to read them the definition of beastiality".
Is he saying that if there is a scene he wants and knows will cause trouble (how?, how does he know it will cause trouble?), then he shoots a longer - 9 minute scene so he can argue for 6 months about what to cut out? It`s all a bit rather vague.

phantom    [30896.   Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 11:01]
  re: Let`s jail everybody, especially men...

Alright, I`m a little confused here.
We all know that prosecutions for POSSESSION of `extreme porn` have been running at around 1000 per annum since the law`s inception.

So this article seems a bit of a googly. It speaks of PUBLISHING.
We`ve not really had much on publishing in recent years. Not least of publishing according to the DPA. (up to five years - remember how that came about? we did that. lol)

First off, what police seem to have reported here is a trebling in
"cases of publishing extreme porn and other supposedly obscene materials" in West Yorkshire.
So they are chucking the figures regarding the ancient, decrepit OPA in together with those of the DPA, thereby blurring the lines - no doubt deliberately.

Meanwhile England and Wales have seen 10644 cases of obscene publication? Ten thousand???
What on earth does that mean? Surely this cannot mean ten thousand prosecutions. But if it simply includes the running totals of publications of every offender, then it could mean that a hundred people have been prosecuted for publishing a hundred images each.

Can anyone make sense of this? We need the expert.
Harvey, Harvey! Wherefore art thou, Harvey?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30895.   Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 03:41]
  Therumbler

Indeed the censorship of particular words does seem rather blinkered to the infinite wit of man to dream up equally effective (or insulting) words as those being censored.

Therumbler    [30894.   Posted 13-Mar-2016 Sun 02:44]
  Banning search terms on Instagram backfires:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/instagram-pro-anorexia-ed-eating-disorders-study-a6923856.html

phantom    [30893.   Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 18:42]
  Now hang on, Joshua.
This affects workers` rights, maybe.
But the rights of what sort of workers?

These people have voluntarily subscribed themselves to a rather odious organisation.
People who do not share in the outlook of such an organisation do not do that.
What I mean is, liberal minded people do not volunteer to be censors.
Only censorious people do. It is a self-selecting crowd.

So this is a group of people who intellectually set themselves above us all.
They deem themselves capable of watching material they think we cannot handle.
The arrogance of this position is self-evident.
I find it hard to sympathise with such people.
After all, what sympathy do they show to those who are prosecuted due to offending their judgements? None, I guess. Else they would not do that job.
In short, you are asking us to sympathise with judgemental folks who care not one jot what their work does to others.

As for your mentioning their child protection credentials again; what child protection?
I agree that certification provides a service to parents who wish to have an idea of the age suitability of material. (Something the BBFC is notorious for getting wrong time and again.)
But the BBFC – and its workers - are a cabal which is instrumental in the infantilisation of our country. They are at the forefront of those claiming that all should be treated as children in order to protect children.
Their recent aggressive campaigning to achieve overlordship of sports and music videos proves that very point.

If the BBFC can achieve such power through its lobbying, it would be an easy thing for internal pressure from within the BBFC to finally achieve an end to outright censorship in this country (something they do by denial of certificate).
But your supposedly poor, hard done by workers are unlikely ever to do us that favour.
Because they are all subscribed to the dogma of denying us `for our own good`.
They are all convinced that they know better.
And now you wish to rally our support for their cause?

These people willingly make their living from causing misery. People go to prison because of the folks for whom you are asking us to care.
And the latter more than likely enjoy the idea of the former being incarcerated. No doubt, they`d claim is was for `child protection`.

Meanwhile, in what other country could censorship workers get the sort of rates they get at the BBFC?
North Korea? Iran? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Or are they in fact the best paid censors in the world?

Whose pay will you ask us to care for next?
Will you be launching a campaign to secure the pay of `Enhanced Interrogation` Officers at Guantanamo Bay? That too would merely be about workers` rights, no?

The people at the BBFC clearly choose to do what they do.
Of course they do not like the idea of getting paid less.
But the job of censor is not one one chooses because one has three kids to feed. One chooses it because one is a judgemental bigot.
I have no problem with bigotry becoming less expensive in this country.
It already costs enough – in ruined lives.

So if the management are offering voluntary redundancy, I suggest folks take it.
If they`re so highly qualified as they think they are, they`ll no doubt have no problems finding proper jobs in the City.
Or who knows, being such experts they could start making films. No doubt theirs would be better than anyone else`s – given their `expertise`.
Unless of course they all want to stay at the BBFC, no matter what, so they may continue to enjoy their feeling of power.
But then, please, they should spare us any talk of not getting paid enough.

p.s. I love that implicit claim that the majority of the population in this country back the BBFC. It`s so perfectly – unsubstantiated. Very much the way in which BBFC workers operate. But then, it is `a friend` of yours we`re talking about, isn`t it? ;)
p.p.s. Joshua is a biblical name, no? :)

joshua    [30892.   Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 17:39]
  Thank you Phantom. I know a lot of people do share your views. But I think quite a few more people than you realise do value the BBFC, not least for its child protection role. I`ve been following them for years and I remember adverts for the Examiners (some time ago now) always used to mention a need for some experience in child development as a necessary attribute (one reason why I could never apply myself unfortunately.) But, all this misses the point. Whatever your views on the work of the BBFC, this dispute is about workers` rights - I understand the Management are offering voluntary redundancy or redeployment to Compliance Officers, with a hefty reduction in pay and status. This is hardly taking their responsibilities seriously. Apparently the Unions are already involved (Unite I believe) so perhaps we can expect Red Len to be storming the gates of Soho Square sometime soon!

In answer to The Rumbler - you`ll have to put that question to the BBFC although, judging by the murmurings of discontent, the answer you get may well depend upon who you ask.

My friend told me there is a lot more to this story. I will certainly try and get more information as and when I can and post again.

phantom    [30891.   Posted 12-Mar-2016 Sat 07:00]
  Not sure I`d welcome Corbyn`s support for decriminalistion of prostitution.
First off, he`s really the last any libertarian movement needs as a would-be ally. Seen as having a serious credibility problem and predicted to crash and burn at the next election, his support may well only tar the movement with his brush - and render them a bunch of loons in the eyes of the public.
Second, given the number of `wimmin` surrounding Corbyn in the Labour leadership, I would ask how genuine this support is and whether it is not pre-conditioned by the simultaneous introduction of other feminist policies.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30890.   Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 23:12]
  I`m not sure of the practical difference between the two roles but `compliancy officer` has the ring of dumbly checking against current rules, probably being assigned to kiddy cartoons and porn. Perhaps the perception of `examiners` is that they interpret rules rather than blindly follow them, so are given the more border line films to consider.

In today`s news that `Fat Cat` David Austin will now be known as the BBFC CEO rather than its Director. Surely this is another nod to `child protection` becoming a big business.

Perhaps this explains the cost reduction programme hitting staff pay.

Therumbler    [30889.   Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 15:50]
  What difference is there practically between a compliance officer and an examiner?

phantom    [30888.   Posted 10-Mar-2016 Thu 13:30]
  Interesting story Joshua.
Although I feel obliged to say that I do not value the people at the BBFC at all. Much of their work has little value and they do not actually do much - if anything - for child protection.
They may claim to. But claiming is not doing.

Personally, I believe the BBFC ought to be abolished and a new certification service ought to be founded in its stead - albeit without the power to deny certification.
Moreover nobody previously hired by the BBFC should be admissible for employment by this replacement agency.
Such is the nature of the `infection` I judge to reside in the BBFC, the above step would be necessary to assure the BBFC`s corporate culture does not take hold in the new company.

Incidentally, their downgrading of staff should be welcome by any person concerned about censorship issues.
For years the BBFC have claimed to possess nigh on mythical `expertise` in matters of taste and decency in films.
It should be interesting to see them publicly trying to continue these claims when they internally insist that such expertise does not exist among their staff and therefore need not be paid for in wages.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30887.   Posted 9-Mar-2016 Wed 22:11]
  Thanks Joshua, interesting stuff. I will add something to the main website, maybe it will stir some extra input.

joshua    [30886.   Posted 9-Mar-2016 Wed 16:49]
  Apropos of nothing at all...I met a friend for a drink the other day and he was telling me about someone he knows at the BBFC. Apparently, their new Director is not only the first one appointed from within during the BBFC`s 100 year history but also the first to take up post in the middle of a bitter industrial dispute. It seems this fellow has been getting rid of the Examiners and replacing them with Compliance Officers - you know, the kind they have at the Beeb and Sky etc. They get paid a lot less than the Examiners (hey, who are we to worry about that I hear you cry) but they are also young, and inexperienced...and the collective knowledge and experience accumulated over years is being made redundant, unless they take a huge pay cut and take the compliance jobs as well. I don`t know about everyone else but I actually value some of the work they do there, especially looking out for the protection of children and shafting these people seems pretty damn short sighted to me. I`ll see if I can pump my mate for more info or get him to reveal his source!

Therumbler    [30885.   Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 15:51]
  Hear, hear.

phantom    [30884.   Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 14:10]
  I think it was the great Dave Allen who once remarked that many think the definition of a fanatic to be someone who cares deeply for what he gets to do and how he gets to live his life, whereas the true definition of a fanatic is that he cares for what YOU get to do and how YOU get to live your life.

In these days of Al Qaeda and Islamic State that jape of his is more applicable than ever.

But it hardly applies only to such Islamist extremists.

We have student unions on the rampage, desperate to no-platform people whose opinions are deemed too dangerous to be expressed.
We have witnessed ever greater encroachment into the realm of private sexuality with curbs on pornography and political declarations that this or that sexual behaviour `has no place in our society today`.
In a similar vein, child protection is increasingly being used to police adult behaviour, thereby effectively abolishing the realm of adult expression by insisting that all the world must be child-friendly.
Self-appointed witch hunters patrol the net, ready to pounce on anyone who dares to utter `the wrong thing` online. By means of social media this can within minutes result in a storm of self-righteous vigilante hatred, ruining someone`s life instantaneously.
Even the sciences are not immune to this new era of fanaticism. Climate change researchers not wanting to share research data with climate change critics is a worrying example of how `the wrong opinion` now also seems to have taken hold of academia.
In a strange twist of irony, the fanaticism of Islamic terrorism seems to have led to a dogmatic government approach which itself seems fanatical in its willingness to excuse anything, as long as it has the tag `anti-terror` attached to it.
Meanwhile, the Blairite laws that serve political correctness which allow for the silencing and punishment of anything that some people choose to call `incitement to hatred` grant huge powers to the state to interfere in what YOU get to do and how YOU get to live your life.

If you forgive the digression:
I believe it was the stalwart US libertarian Harry Browne who always liked to declare that `government never solved anything`. What he meant was that people, communities, societies solve societal problems, not governments.
So if government implements the will of society then things work out. However, when government announces that it seeks to `send a message to society` with a particular law it stands little chance of ever solving a problem; not least because that is not what government is for.
Government is a tool to provide for its community. A means of pooling resources. It is neither a teacher nor a benefactor. It has no inherent merit or value of its own.
Just as you would not expect your toaster to teach you lessons, you would not really expect it from government.
But as we all know, `sending a message to society` is one of government`s favourite reasons for proposing laws in this country these days.

It might thus be apt to ask whether this is actually an era of fanaticism.
The desire to meddle in the lives of others – both by government, as well as by interest groups and individuals – is perhaps greater than it has been for generations.

All the while the western enlightenment tradition of discourse and reason is under siege.
For innumerable `good causes` exceptions are being demanded.
The phrase `I`m in favour of free speech, BUT...` is so widespread it has become cliché.

phantom    [30883.   Posted 2-Mar-2016 Wed 08:36]
  Freeworld, Dave,
First, Freeworld, the right wing traditionally make common cause with the religious. Hence my allusion to May`s right wing credentials.
When it comes to criminalising men who pay for sex the initiative is indeed that of gender feminists, but society finds itself in a pincer movement by the self styled `liberal left` and the religious.
It is precisely the simultaneous attack by left and right which makes this threat to basic liberty so dangerous.

It is indeed a sad world, Dave. But the hyper aggressive feminist stance is one which has been growing and taking hold for decades now, having its roots in the 1970s.

The source of the `sadness` is that society has remained largely blind to the sheer madness which drives modern feminist theory.

Society is a male conspiracy. They regard all as a `phallocentric` construct. Even science is described as `masculinist`, alien to `female knowing`. they effectively see men as the enemy and seek to destroy society as it is, in order to build from its ashes something more `womencentric`. - I`m not making this up.

Armed with the tag `academic` these loons are being listened to by western governments and have been provided with money to instigate their `transformationalist` agenda in education and many another place.

Please consider that these are people who readily describe `Newton`s Principia` as `Newton`s Rape Manual`.
Again, I`m not making this up.

Any society which grants any degree of credence to such people - who in their dogma are no less fanatical than ISIS - is in for a battering.

The monstrous `no platforming` we are seeing in our universities was self-evidently spawned in the `women`s studies` departments of campuses. It is from there that the language used (`safe zones`, etc) has come.

Society is under siege from myriad political correct claims of equality - all demanding equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity. But the most destructive of these by far is gender feminism. It has utterly divorced itself from previous equality feminism and now indulges in plain misandry.
It has prominent representation in parliament and the media (not least of all the BBC) and seems almost to be taking on the forms of a cult these days.

But still the powers that be are too scared to voice opposition to this madness for fear of being deemed `sexist`.
I think the parallels to authorities not daring to do anything in Rochdale for fear of being deemed `racist` are all too obvious.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30882.   Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 18:24]
  Re Theresa May`s earlier stance
If I have got the right occasion, Theresa May wanted to get a trafficking bill through and simply didn`t want it hijacked by controversy about a new rather rushed anti-sex work measure. I am not sure if this is showed she was against criminalising men.

It`s a sad world when people want to jail men just for wanting to get laid.

freeworld    [30881.   Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 17:18]
  phantom {30880. Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 09:12}
Plenty of "rather right wing" people believe its none of the state`s damn business whether consenting adults choose to pay for sex with other consenting adults. And after all, uber lefty Sweden is the place always cited by p4p advocates as the one to follow when it comes to criminalizing "customers". In fact, I suspect you`d get lots of objections from "Mail on line" types to any criminalization of this kind. This is hardly a burning issue with the general public - the call for criminalization comes almost entirely from the small but noisy totalitarian nutter wing of "feminist" agitation, and from a few obsessive "religious" busybodies.

The topic was covered today by Nicky Campbell`s Radio 5 phone in, with a shroud waving studio guest given a predominant role and little input to inform listeners that being a client of involuntary prostitutes (which constitutes most of the case for the prosecution for restrictionists) is already a criminal offense. Obviously this skewed the whole thing, as it allowed circumstances which are irrelevant to any further measures - which can only target completely innocuous, consensual activities - to dominate much of what was being asserted. There was a surprisingly good guest in the second half, an academic from Northumbria University, who has completed extensive research on the issue which excellently counters the emotive polemical claims being made by the restrictionists. Of course, with measures like these, logic, rationality, truth etc are up against the politics of grandstanding gestures and government`s usual pandering to screeching organized lobby groups with easy access to the political class.

phantom    [30880.   Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 09:12]
  Freeworld,
I suspect that it was hardly the rather right wing Theresa May who opposed the idea of making paying for sex illegal.
My guess would be it was the LibDem coalition partners who put a stop to the idea.
Worryingly, that coalition partner is no longer there...

freeworld    [30879.   Posted 1-Mar-2016 Tue 03:33]
  No rotten policy stays permanently buried when it comes to UK politics. It just keeps returning and returning until the sponsors of these ideas get their way. Those with long memories will recall that the last Labour government`s home office was on the cusp of making all "paying for sex" a criminal offense when they lost office in 2010. The coalition quietly dropped any further law - which, since we have one making it illegal to " pay for sex" with coerced sex workers anyway, can only serve to criminalize perfectly consensual activities between adults (which is what they do now in Northern Ireland since the law was changed last year).

The gender hate groups who have done so much to ruin feminism, and the pious puritanical moralizers, are being given their opportunity once again, no doubt emboldened by their success in uniting left and right to bring in a broad brush law in Northern Ireland.

Vaz`s home affairs committee are looking at the matter this afternoon - it is on the UK parliament video. At worst one may expect the upshot of this to be another phony foregone conclusion "consultation" prior to legislation; at best "Dave" and co will say what they did in 2010, the current law is perfectly adequate to deal with abusive and involuntary prostitution and further client criminalization is police state interference in personal life. I`m not a fan of Theresa May, but as she was in the home office as secretary of state from 2010 and any plans for client criminalization were dropped then, it might be she is not in favour of such legislation.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/160226-prostitution-evidence/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30878.   Posted 22-Feb-2016 Mon 08:42]
  The webserver used by MelonFarmers.co.uk is broken. The engineers are on the job

Update: Now fixed but it took a fair few hours

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30877.   Posted 18-Feb-2016 Thu 06:47]
  Thanks Sergio, That`s a good piece, I`ll make a link to it.

prm2007. The block to imagefap has come up a few times, I`ll have a think on how best to maintain a record, perhaps of major sites blocked in the UK.

sergio    [30876.   Posted 18-Feb-2016 Thu 04:32]
  https://uk.news.yahoo.com/is-this-the-most-inane-government-consultation-of-132722257.html

prm2007    [30875.   Posted 16-Feb-2016 Tue 05:36]
  I notice that www.imagefap.com is still being blocked by almost all UK ISPs

Further details at:

https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?url=http://www.imagefap.com

Interesting to note that TalkTalk Kidsafe does not block access.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30874.   Posted 14-Feb-2016 Sun 07:08]
  Sadly it seems that the webhost used for melonfarmers.co.uk is suffering a denial of service attack, so sometimes is is not working.

Reported as resolved on 16th Feb

sergio    [30873.   Posted 13-Feb-2016 Sat 07:25]
  That`s interesting Dave.
If someone sees these images they are committing an offence, right?
The BBC seems to be judge and jury (they think they are `obscene`). Only a jury can judge?
So, who reported the images? They must have committed an offence at the BBC?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30872.   Posted 13-Feb-2016 Sat 06:51]
  Sergio. Indeed images who`s obscenity is more related to who is looking at them rather than the content itself. However it does seem an issue best not picked up by melonfarmers, anti-censorship ideals probably don`t go down well in the debate.

sergio    [30871.   Posted 12-Feb-2016 Fri 10:48]
  Re: facebook secret paedophile groups: BBC seem to conflate/confuse obscene with illegal. They either are doing this deliberately or are ignorant.

Therumbler    [30870.   Posted 11-Feb-2016 Thu 15:08]
  Facebook now allows pictures of art featuring nudes:

http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/facebook-makes-u-turn-on-nudes-after-paris-ruling/

Therumbler    [30869.   Posted 3-Feb-2016 Wed 16:53]
  Youtube`s DMCA system troubles hit a prominent group of creators:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC3NIdiZF_E

They got it fixed after waiting 3 weeks but only after making a video complaining about. The official means didn`t work at all, and they still don`t understand why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFlgx2LTdeY

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30868.   Posted 2-Feb-2016 Tue 12:48]
  I am off travelling for a few days so updates may become a bit sporadic for that time.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30867.   Posted 24-Jan-2016 Sun 10:45]
  Thanks Sabreman, I will add a correction

Sabreman64    [30866.   Posted 23-Jan-2016 Sat 09:37]
  A few days ago you reported on Penthouse ending its print edition. Penthouse is not ending its print edition:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/20/media/penthouse-magazine-digital

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30865.   Posted 13-Jan-2016 Wed 14:22]
  Hi prm2007

The site isn`t blocked by ee. I haven`t spotted anything about the site for years, but I`ll see if Google has anything

prm2007    [30864.   Posted 13-Jan-2016 Wed 09:07]
  www.imagefap.com is being blocked by almost all UK ISPs

It is the biggest adult porn pics site
Further details at:

https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?url=http://www.imagefap.com

I don`t see any news about this anywhere, but you may wish to check.

Therumbler    [30863.   Posted 9-Jan-2016 Sat 16:38]
  http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/09/twitter-declares-war-on-conservative-media-unverifies-breitbart-tech-editor/

Twitter accused of undermining ideological opponents.

sergio    [30862.   Posted 1-Jan-2016 Fri 06:30]
  Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Ugandan-born British journalist and author, who describes herself as a "leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasmin_Alibhai-Brown

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30861.   Posted 31-Dec-2015 Thu 08:10]
  
Happy New Year to you all, and a speedy drying out to those in the north wet.

phantom    [30860.   Posted 30-Dec-2015 Wed 13:05]
  A happy new year to you all from a wet north of England.
First time in a while that I`ve been on here since the great flood.
I`m even having to type this on my mobile.

So forgive me if this post isn`t very organised.

Safe to say, Harvey, I think you`re wrong. :P

Have a good one folks. :)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30859.   Posted 25-Dec-2015 Fri 02:37]
  Merry Christmas everybody

braintree    [30858.   Posted 23-Dec-2015 Wed 15:11]
  The Bluray remains unlisted om Amazon UK. Even the product link in my official order goes to a dead page

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30857.   Posted 22-Dec-2015 Tue 16:07]
  Braintree
The theory that 88 Film just got ahead of themselves a bit seems to be the most plausible I`ve heard, so I`ll go along with it.

braintree    [30856.   Posted 20-Dec-2015 Sun 14:50]
  I follow 88films on a couple of forums and they always intend to release the uncut versions of films ( with a couple of exceptions that include animal cruelty) and they always said in the months leading up to Nightmare that it would be as complete as the US Code Red version. I think they are aware that if they release any movies where longer versions are available elsewhere they might as well not bother with that title. Nightmare was delayed a couple of times already - but that`s a standard thing with pretty much every 88films release. I don`t think any have ever arrived on the release date first given. Maybe they had the nod it would be uncut but went ahead before official documentation was ready to avoid another delay. The Code Red Bluray of the film has never been listed on Amazon UK despite the dvd being there all the time- although even that`s not there now.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30855.   Posted 19-Dec-2015 Sat 18:35]
  Yes interesting stuff about Nightmares. I wonder if there is the possibility that the 88 Films were originally going to re-release the previous cut version, using the existing BBFC certificate. They then seemed to change their mind when the weasel description of the cut version was spotted and they changed to to the uncut version without thinking about BBFC requirements. When the oversight was spotted after release, the BBFC obligingly did a rush job to help out and get the certificate cleared same day. Just a wild guess.

braintree    [30854.   Posted 19-Dec-2015 Sat 15:36]
  Interesting news about Nightmare. From what I read there was speculation that 88films had not put the film and the Emmanuelle Cannibals film in to the censor but I expected all that happened was that the BBFC site had not been updated. It`s strange the titles are withdrawn as the BBFC site has been updated now. Are they saying that the 88films releases are uncut but the BBFC wanted edits? If that is the case, that fool who runs Code Red in the US will be pleased although he spends most of his time whinging about poor sales while at the same time doing everything he can to stop people having access to his titles ( most of which are crap to be fair)
However , it seems that the BBFC have only just passed the disc as legally compliant so it was made available illegally and too early by 88films but the standard disc that was sold is the same as the one that will be out again soon. Whether 88films have any consequences remains to be seen - perhaps 6 months in prison like the original VHS distributor in the 80`s?

sergio    [30853.   Posted 13-Dec-2015 Sun 03:42]
  Ok, so you go through a proxy
http://www.proxy4free.com/list/webproxy1.html

Harvey    [30852.   Posted 6-Dec-2015 Sun 15:14]
  @phantom [30851]

"Why do I have a problem believing that the above is really about recouping tax?"

I`m sure that is all that this is about.

Earlier in the year HMRC made a similar anouncement, that they were targetting people running businesses using ebay, airbnb, paypal, Gumtree, etc. and avoiding taxes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/household-bills/11632478/HMRC-targets-Etsy-eBay-and-Gumtree-sellers-but-when-is-your-hobby-taxable.html

I don`t think they are going after online escort agencies because they are escort agencies, but because they are online.

BTW, I don`t post often mowadays, but I do check in from time to time. You will know my specific interest is in challenging legislation which criminalises harmless activities of minorities and it`s been a bit quiet on that front lately.

Too quiet??

phantom    [30851.   Posted 4-Dec-2015 Fri 17:36]
  BBC: `Strippers told to reveal all about tax to HMRC`
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35004472

Why do I have a problem believing that the above is really about recouping tax?

Well, after we`ve witnessed EU regulation for online television being used as a means by which to obliterate UK porn production, I would say people have plenty of reason to be cynical about such announcements.

This looks once again like an indirect way of clamping down on vice by the authorities.

So, at a time when government is facing increasing public complaints about multinational conglomerates not paying tax in the UK, they decide that their priority is going to be the enforcement of taxation on strippers?
How many people are gullible enough to believe that?

And a 5 billion pound industry? Based on what figures?

Hyped numbers, menacing sounding officialdom and a disguised moral cause, all combined with an anecdote about a convicted benefits cheat?
I believe I hear a bandwagon rumbling down the road...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30850.   Posted 2-Dec-2015 Wed 11:37]
  Many thanks Braintree. I am just adding your note to the listing. It will be published later tonight.

braintree    [30849.   Posted 1-Dec-2015 Tue 14:58]
  Just a quick note to say that while the new 88films release of Nightmares in a Damaged Brain is uncut for the gore content there are a few brief non gore moments included in an earlier VHS release that are missing from both the 88films Bluray aswell as the US Code Red disc although some of those missing seconds have been restored by 88films - just not all of them.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30848.   Posted 1-Dec-2015 Tue 01:16]
  Sergio

Isn`t it ludicrous how much money is being wasted paying expensive professionals to go carefully vet every single second of video material. Vast amounts could easily be self certificated by the distributor, eg porn, kids stuff and TV material.

TV material is a particular example. What`s the point of vetting something that has already passed strict controls and has already been shown to a vast amount more viewers than on DVD.

With most material being viewed on the TV and internet, where realistically, parents and kids have to be pragmatic about watching material with a higher age rating.

What`s the point of spending all that money getting perfect ratings, when it reflects such a small proportion of viewed content, and where self certification is going to be right 999 times out of a 1000 anyway?

sergio    [30847.   Posted 30-Nov-2015 Mon 05:00]
  So, the BBFC are non-profit. Therefore what they charge is correct, otherwise they would be making a ton of profit.
If the BBFC reduce their fees then ... ?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30846.   Posted 29-Nov-2015 Sun 15:09]
  Re avoiding a fast forward on paint drying.

I suggest a dirgesome soundtrack with just a couple of songs that have lyrics that are 12/15 rated.

How about a 14 hour looped 10 green bottles

phantom    [30845.   Posted 29-Nov-2015 Sun 14:56]
  braintree [30844]
Not necessarily.
Perhaps some of the fun will be getting them to prove that they`ve actually done the work - or else be guilty of fraud.

braintree    [30844.   Posted 29-Nov-2015 Sun 14:14]
  If the paint drying video does go into the BBFC the person submitting would be best advised to ensure there is some additional material within it.Perhaps some almost subliminal hardcore stills or similar.If they don`t the BBFC won`t watch it all the way through and they certainly won`t watch it properly. They`ll take the money and laugh all the way to the bank

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30843.   Posted 29-Nov-2015 Sun 01:42]
  Re watching paint dry.

And don`t forget the idea has also generated a fair amount of publicity. There are plenty more people now aware of the futility of state mandated censorship of even the most innocuous material.

phantom    [30842.   Posted 28-Nov-2015 Sat 15:33]
  sergio [30841]

Well, personally I sympathise with the project.
Sometimes there is little one can do but ridicule the system with the few tools one has to hand.

One is reminded of Vaclav Hazel, the Czech dissident and later president.
He contended that the people were being treated like children by the communist regime, so he and his followers took to the sandpit and built sandcastles. This of course meant that the state security men which were watching everything also had to spy on him building sandcastles.
Did it overthrow the eastern bloc? No.
But he made what little point he could within a system against which he was powerless.

It`s the same with the BBFC. They are a monstrous entity which is simply foisted upon us. With every political force in the UK subscribed to maintaining this incompetent, censorious institution, what can one do?

Will it end the reign of the BBFC over the UK?
You are right. It will not.
But does it allow people to make what little point they can? Yes.

Vaclav Hazel would understand. It`s building sandcastles.
You want to treat us like morons and insist on pre-viewing everything to assure our minds do not melt. You insist on infantilising us.
Alright, do your duty. - Watch 14 hours of paint drying.

The voice of the powerless must sometimes take bizarre routes to make a protest. In that regard this paint drying film project continues that long tradition.

sergio    [30841.   Posted 28-Nov-2015 Sat 14:35]
  I don`t understand this. Why would someone pay the BBFC to classify a 10hr movie about paint drying?

Let`s bore them to death? Let`s highlight the absolute insanity of the censorship process?
Let`s clog up the system, poke the bicycle wheel with our rod of stupidity?

I see it as the first step to bringing down the wall of the BBFC.
Or maybe not.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30840.   Posted 28-Nov-2015 Sat 03:04]
  An interesting thought phantom. It would apply equally to other areas of censorship too. I guess that prison costs a lot more than accommodation, I guess a few fair of those sent to prison (and their families) end up on benefits for life

phantom    [30839.   Posted 27-Nov-2015 Fri 16:49]
  re: dangerous tweets

Very interesting figures there.
5 folks a day convicted for `internet insult`.

And 155 custodial sentences at an average of 2.2 months.

Now, the figure for the cost of a prison place ranges from £45,000 to £60,000 per annum, depending on source and method of calculation.

So for sake of ease, let`s take £50,000.

Thus:
155 x 2.2 : 12 x 50,000 = £1,420,833.33
So the policy is currently costing ca. 1.5 million pounds per year in prison sentences alone.
That is without ever calculating the other costs...

And we`re running a deficit, are we? :)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30838.   Posted 26-Nov-2015 Thu 15:02]
  Pooch re [30837]

I stand corrected. I looked up `banned` in the dictionary and it is indeed defined as an `official or legal prohibition` ...and there I was thinking I could speak English.

I do use the word in wider context such as my wife `bans` me from going down the pub...but I see that implies the irony that my wife makes the law.

But saying that, when the 3 cinemas formally publish rules, these then could be said to be their official rules...So they could still be said to ban religious advertising according to their official rules.

Pooch    [30837.   Posted 26-Nov-2015 Thu 06:38]
  r.e. Post 30836:

Sorry Dave, I`m going to have to politely disagree. Vue, Cineworld and Odeon have always had a policy on not allowing any religious or political ads to be shown in their cinemas, for many years. I know this, because I`ve worked with these chains in the past.

The fact is, that the ad is not banned. It can still be shown elsewhere. It simply cannot be shown in those three, specific cinema chains. That said, this kind of thing should have been checked by the Church Of England, before they created the ad, to make sure that the ad was going to be able to be shown in cinemas, in the first place.

It`s their fault that they`ve created an ad that can`t be shown in certain chains! These cinemas, like any business, can dictate any rules/restrictions they wish to do so, as long as those rules don`t break the law. As their rules don`t break any laws (because the rule applies to any/all religions/political movements equally) then the Church Of England can`t really complain that they`ve created an ad that doesn`t fit in with guidelines for three of the UK`s biggest cinema chains.

I`m sorry, but the ad has not been banned, in any definition of the word! It`s simply not suitable to be shown in those three chains. But it absolutely has not been banned!

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30836.   Posted 25-Nov-2015 Wed 06:44]
  Pooch

Well it is banned from being shown at Vue, Odeon, and Cineworld. True it is not in any sense banned by the state or by law, but it has been banned by the cinemas involved... up to them though.

I reckon `banned` is a general purpose English word and can be used as English speakers feel fit.

Pooch    [30835.   Posted 25-Nov-2015 Wed 06:02]
  For what it`s worth, the Church Of England cinema ad that features the Lord`s Prayer has not, and isn`t banned.

The three cinema chains, Vue, Odeon, and Cineworld simply have a strict policy on advertising that states "We do not accept any advertising from any religious or political organisations, for any reasons whatsoever"!

Other cinema chains, are free to show the ad, if they so wish. And as that is the case, then the ad can not be classified as "banned"!

phantom    [30834.   Posted 24-Nov-2015 Tue 16:05]
  Charlie Drake banned???? On Ozzie radio?
Are they out of their minds?
He`s comedy royalty.

At what point did the use of comedy stereotype become racist?
After all, we all know it`s a stereotype.
There is not a single nasty sentiment within a Charlie Drake skit.
Frankly, seeing Charlie Drake as nasty borders on psychosis.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, the inimitable Charlie Drake:
My Boomerang won`t come back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXJR5NWM_xI
Please, Mr Custer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgOd3jgJtvc

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30833.   Posted 24-Nov-2015 Tue 06:15]
  BBFC announce that its current deputy director, David Austin, will take over as director when David Cooke leaves in March next year

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-announces-new-director

Phantom. Yes I agree. I think it is fair to summarise that cinemas don`t want religious advertising because it simply causes too much trouble.

TV have similarly banned religious advertising years, way before political correctness took hold. I think this ban was more based on not wanting to police religious fund raising.

phantom    [30832.   Posted 23-Nov-2015 Mon 14:25]
  I see, the Daily Mail went into full `outrage mode` over the Church of England`s Lord`s prayer ad being banned.
You could not really make this up. Folks really do not like a taste of their own medicine, do they?

To my mind the focus on the advertisement `causing offence` is entirely the wrong one.
From what I heard, the cinema advertisement distribution company who had refused the ad did so, not for fear the ad might offend, but because they saw a legal trap opening up before them.

Simply put, if they were to accept this Church of England ad they would not be in a position to turn down other religious ads without being accused of (legally actionable) religious discrimination.
If they accepted the Church of England, then how to say `no` to the Church of Scientology? How to say `no` to the Catholic Church, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Methodists, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, etc, etc...?

Meanwhile, how much fun would it be for the cinema going public to watch ten minutes of diverse religious broadcasting prior to seeing the movie?

Of course they were absolutely right to turn down this ad. But not because they allegedly bowed to a militant Muslim lobby, fearing the ad would cause offence. They simply knew that accepting this ad would unleash an avalanche of Ian Paisley style religious rants and images of aborted foetuses on an audience which simply just wanted to watch the latest Bond movie.

phantom    [30831.   Posted 22-Nov-2015 Sun 12:24]
  My heart bleeds.
An advert produced by one of the main supporters of censorship in the UK has been censored.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34893762
Somehow they don`t seem to get the irony of it, do they?

braintree    [30830.   Posted 13-Nov-2015 Fri 16:10]
  Has anyone actually been prosecuted for possession of the type of material the Dangerous Pictures Act was originally created for? As far as I am aware, all the prosecutions have been for material that some busybodies decided to add to the act for no reason except their own. And have any prosecutions for the DPA been as a direct result of a police investigation for the offences? Or have they all been side offences where people being investigated for other crimes had the misfortune to have some material on their phone or computer that Britain no longer allows that the police just happened to find? Britain seems to be a unique country run by moron politicians who like to blame the inadequacies of some people on media content and feel the need to try and ban it regardless of the fact that the material banned in each decade since the 50`s is now laughable,has never been proven to actually disturb anyone and much of it is now available to teenagers legally. The desire to offer a lazy easy reason for something is so ingrained in British society that the fools who make the laws are too stupid to learn from history.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30829.   Posted 13-Nov-2015 Fri 04:24]
  Re the BBC

I cannot really work out why the BBC is under so much attack from the government. There is no way that any other organisation will feed politically correct news straight from government press releases to so many people as the BBC does.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30828.   Posted 13-Nov-2015 Fri 04:19]
  Therumbler

I had a read of most of the murder trial coverage. I`m not sure that the porn angle provides much focus for campaigners as the offending material has recently been banned anyway. I`m not sure what the campaigners would be calling for. Maybe most likely perhaps is foreign website blocking.

phantom    [30827.   Posted 11-Nov-2015 Wed 13:51]
  re: no shocks

So some bloke called Alex Dyke thought something and said so?

He could have said that he thought the BBC to be the `best broadcaster in the world`. (A phrase often heard from the BBC, I might add.)
He could have said that he thought that the BBC is an equal opportunities employer and not at all an institution mired in self-evident nepotism. (ever wondered how Dan Snow and David Dimbleby got their jobs?)

The above would have been the right sort of things to say.

But dear Alex Dyke (is his surname even permitted to be spoken aloud on the BBC?) said the wrong thing. Or was it that he thought the wrong thing? Who knows?
He said he thought public breastfeeding was unnatural.
Apparently, this puts him on a par with holocaust deniers.

Ominously, Alex D*** is now scheduled to attend "further compliance training".
Could there be anything that sounds more illiberal than `compliance training`?
I bet the good old DDR under Erich Honnecker had such a thing as compliance training programmes.

As things go, I think the BBC is pretty much dying before our eyes.
But not, as they would have it, due to funding shortages. No, simply because the whole structure is rotting from within.

Therumbler    [30826.   Posted 11-Nov-2015 Wed 13:43]
  The conviction of Nathan Matthews for the murder of Becky Watts is no doubt going to inspire numerous anti-pornography types, as we have seen in the past with films and videogames.

phantom    [30825.   Posted 5-Nov-2015 Thu 09:12]
  Dave, it`s not so much the vetting agency we need to worry about.
(Although that`s another can of worms!)

Far more, it`s the hackers at their next visit to TalkTalk (or any other ISP for that matter) that can really screw things up for people in Mr Cameron`s future Britain.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30824.   Posted 5-Nov-2015 Thu 01:12]
  Interesting stuff phantom.

I am waiting to spot a few things in the bill but haven`t noticed anything in the press coverage so far. One of the key issues is how searchable the ISP data records are. Previous incarnation sf the Snooper`s Charter had the ISPs providing an SQL like interface so that the snooper`s effectively had a searchable central database (albeit a bit slow).

Also has anyone spotted if the vetting agency has access to the data? I`d hate to be a teacher if the vetting agency was noting my visits to the likes of PornTube.

phantom    [30823.   Posted 4-Nov-2015 Wed 15:39]
  Hm, unusually for a BBC piece, the page I provide a link to below seems to have been altered substantially.
Who knows, perhaps someone at the BBC realised that in their original piece they were taking propaganda too far...
Mind, it still seems much too kindly. But at least they`ve reduced some of the crawling sycophancy of the original article.

phantom    [30822.   Posted 3-Nov-2015 Tue 20:32]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34715872

The one, two, three on how to be a loyal, cowed broadcaster:

Just look how the section ends, titled:
`Analysis by Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent`.

"Critics will call this a snooper`s charter - but security chiefs and police say they`re not interested in your online shopping habits - only the habits of serious threats to society.
And they say this legislation is long overdue - and has the backing of three major reports in the last year that broadly agreed that there should be no safe space online for criminals."

You know how the BBC always go on about how they show balance?
Well, look at it.

"Critics will call this a snooper`s charter - "
That is the some total of the `balance`.
The rest of the entire paragraph - and the last word within the analysis - is given over to Mrs May`s people.

It`s a perfect example of how not to do journalism.
That said, the BBC have been scraping the bottom of the journalistic barrel for some time now.

phantom    [30821.   Posted 2-Nov-2015 Mon 18:25]
  Interesting link, Dave.
Very interesting how councils should be permitted to access our web history in order to `help detect crime`.
You see, there was I thinking it was the police`s job to detect crime.
Whereas it now seems to be the job of Mrs Jones in booth 3 at the council planning office.

What is bizarre is that nobody sees fit to tell us why councils and God-only-knows-what public bodies ought to have these powers. What possible use can a municipal council have for anyone`s web browsing history? It beggars belief.

Last time councils were handed surveillance powers it didn`t end well. Surveillance powers were used against dog fouling and in school placement cases.

What is also of considerable interest is that MPs will be exempt from this new surveillance law, it seems.
So too will journalists (to protect their sources).
This means that the people voting on this in parliament will all be exempted.
So too will those people in the press who are in a position to damage said parliamentarians with media coverage. What a coincidence.
What`s the saying? One law for them and one for us?
Well, here it is literally the case. The law will only affect us, not them.
The hypocrisy is quite staggering.

When it comes to combatting terrorism or paedophilia, etc, I cannot really see how this law adds anything. By asking a judge for permission the security services can already check all this information. Why must they be able to do this supposedly `preliminary check` of seeing what websites one has visited without asking a judge for permission?
Surely this only is of use if they seek to investigate people who are not actually suspects.
After all, if someone is a legitimate suspect there would be no problem obtaining permission from a judge. Therefore, all this enables is police fishing (i.e. mass surveillance of people who are not suspects).

Meanwhile, if not fishing, what is the purpose of the law, other than to create a deliberate chilling effect?
By law you are perfectly entitled to visit BigBazongas.com if you so wish. But how many will think twice about it, if they fear that their wife`s best friend who works part time at the municipal refuse collection agency will, with the click of a mouse, be able to ascertain that they have done so.
It thus seems to me that one of the clear purposes of this law is to stifle perfectly legal activity – by fear.

Fishing and chilling. I cannot see any other use for this law.
Can anyone else?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30820.   Posted 2-Nov-2015 Mon 02:39]
  Phantom

Good points. All we will need is a few magistrates with a rubber stamp and then any Tom, Dick or Harry will be able to read our browsing histories

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11968999/Councils-and-taxman-to-be-given-power-to-view-your-internet-history.html

phantom    [30819.   Posted 1-Nov-2015 Sun 14:01]
  Well, the snoopers charter has hit the BBC headlines today.
The spin is of course a positive one.
Home Secretary Teresa May (whose nigh pathological bitterness more than likely stems from not being as attractive as the former page 3 girl of the same name) is announcing to the world that the police only want powers to check every website you`ve visited, not which web page on those websites.
That of course is a massive difference. Isn`t it?

Well, it means that the authorities will be able to ascertain that you are a subscriber to BigJuggsMonthly.com but won`t be able to check on which buxom models you favour.
That makes everything different, doesn`t it?

Of course, it`s only because the police themselves have been asking for these powers.
The politicians don`t want them per se. It`s merely that the law enforcement experts in the security services are saying these powers are necessary.
In short: they need to know who is visiting BigJuggsMonthly.com. It`s vital. For national security.

The BBC in its reporting of course does not ask – not even for a moment – why it should be the police lobbying for a law they desire, rather than merely enforcing existing law.
No, ever since Tony Blair, the police are in effect a political body with political ideas of their own.
And – repeat after me – that is not worrying at all.

The great worry for people interested in the melonfarmers angle on things is of course the law on so-called `extreme porn`.
Is there any tool more ideally designed to facilitate police fishing expeditions than this ability to check who has visited which site?
It seems perfectly designed for this precise purpose.

The very thing which makes this law suspect is that Teresa May claims it to be for exceptional purposes, but that it is designed to be used in non-exceptional circumstances.
Whatever the security services may claim, Britain does not have that great a number of terrorists active within its borders that it would be impossible to get authorisation from a judge each time you want to tap a terrorist suspect.
But here is a law designed so the police do not need to ask a judge`s permission, but can simply – on the spur of the moment – check on anybody`s browsing habits.
It is self-evident that this is not a law designed to deal with the exceptional. Far more, it is one designed to enable snooping on the masses.
This is a law created to enable mass surveillance of web browsing habits.

This begs the question, why would the police even want to know what I am doing on the net?
What could they possibly gain from this knowledge?
I am convinced it is entirely for fishing purposes. One wants a means by which to ensnare the thousands who are currently circumventing with impunity many of Britain`s ludicrous laws.
Most of these people would never be suspected, thus cannot be tracked. Their offences are effectively minor misdemeanours, but thanks to some of the hyped moral legislation in UK law these minor breeches can land them in prison.

Of course, this legislation will create a chilling effect like never before.
In an area of law where very few still know with certainty what is legal and what isn`t, the fact that – at any moment – your browsing history could be tapped by police will deter huge numbers from accessing sites they are perfectly entitled to visit by law.

At a time when crime figures are falling – and have been falling for thirty years or more – it is no doubt becoming ever more hard work to keep increasing the prison population.
More and more draconian measures are required for any Home Secretary to prove his or her spurs by showing that yet more `criminals` are being locked up than under his or her predecessor.

This law would suggest the police would have a ready source of `criminals` to arrest permanently on tap. At any given moment, one need only do another search of the browsing database to find oneself some more culprits.

The supreme irony in all this is that it is Teresa May overseeing it all.
Who in 2002 at the Tory party conference warned that the Conservatives had in the eyes of many become `the nasty party`? Yep, you guessed it.
Interesting to see just how she plans to resolve this now that she`s in power, no?
Not by being nicer. No. But by being able to check who visits sites where such things are said.

phantom    [30818.   Posted 29-Oct-2015 Thu 15:45]
  sergio [30817]
Yes, I`m not surprised that David Cameron is a Daily Mail reader.
He never struck me as being a broadsheet reader.
The words they use are too long and complicated, you see...

sergio    [30817.   Posted 29-Oct-2015 Thu 11:57]
  http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-10/28/cameron-porn-filter-law-net-neutrality

sergio    [30816.   Posted 25-Oct-2015 Sun 05:30]
  http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/paedophile-artist-s-photographs-and-paintings-must-be-destroyed-judge-rules-a6692921.html

Is the painting/photo they use indecent? Only a judge can judge? Why is the face blocky? Is those bum cleavage lines been cut? Nudity ain`t synonymous with indecency? Where does one get more detail on the judges summing up? Has this mostly been reported by Ovenden, the artist?

phantom    [30815.   Posted 24-Oct-2015 Sat 10:54]
  Harvey {30813}
re: Destroying Art

I know you are pretty much the legal eagle in this area, Harvey.
But in recent years I`ve become pretty cynical about the whole subject.
To my mind law these days is simply made to fit the case, rather than the other way around.

Being accused really seems as good as a conviction.

Do I believe that the infamous Judge Roscoe has a pseudo-political (pun intended) way of talking her way out of this? Yes.

I`m sure she will have some flimsy justification.
Whether it actually stands up to legal scrutiny does not really matter.
Because it will never come to that.

Legal matters of this kind appear to be such affairs these days where the unpopular cause simply does not have a leg to stand on, no matter what right they might have on their side.

The infamous Judge Roscoe no doubt believes herself in safe territory, knowing the pediatrician`s-house-burning mob on her side on this one.
Everything else is irrelevant.

People may ask technical questions but they can be readily ignored.
Winning the argument has become irrelevant.
Backing the popular cause is what matters, irrespective of how low it makes us sink.

sergio    [30814.   Posted 23-Oct-2015 Fri 00:54]
  Audio files? Does atvod/insert present censor, have some sort of power over `audio` files. I am thinking that instead of video previews you`d have audio previews. Audio is tv like, yes?

Harvey    [30813.   Posted 22-Oct-2015 Thu 07:18]
  re: Destroying Art,

It is normal, in cases where people are convicted in cases involving images, that along with any sentence, the court rules that the images, or more usually, the media on which the images are stored, is destroyed.

So what Judge Roscoe has done, is not particularly controversial... provided that the images would actually be illegal for someone to possess.

Hence it is quite important to know which law has been enaged and whether the images do actually fulfil the requirements.

For the paintings, which were derived from photographs, the fact they were so derived does not make them pseudo-photographs. A pseudo-photograph is, specifically, an image which is not a photograph, but appears to be one. Therefore, the paintings should not have been destroyed if they were merely "indecent". They could be destroyed if they fell within the definition of the Cartoon Porn Act and be pornographic and grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

Given the amount of time we spent discussing exactly what those words could mean, it`s probably worthwhile checking whether they have actually been adhered to by Judge Roscoe.

Pooch    [30812.   Posted 22-Oct-2015 Thu 04:54]
  The new Bond film SPECTRE, has been passed with a 12A, but it was sent to the BBFC before for previewing in an unfinished form, and the content was considered likely to be a 15 rating, due to a scene "showing the aftermath of a violent act". Other violent scenes were also recommended to be reduced/toned down, in order for the distributor`s to secure their preferred 12A rating.

When the film was submitted for formal classification, acceptable reductions had been made in these scenes and the film was classified 12A, with a 148 minute running time.

It`ll be interesting to see if this version will be shown elsewhere in the world, or whether the USA gets another version (ala CASINO ROYALE), and also whether a longer, uncut version with a 15 rating, might arrive on UK Blu-Ray and DVD in a few months time.

phantom    [30811.   Posted 19-Oct-2015 Mon 13:46]
  Re: Destroying Art
Let`s just call it the Roscoe Act 2015, shall we? :)

Well, I think largely we`re talking photographs.
But I wonder whether the `paintings` may in fact be manipulated photographs and thus might possibly fall under the photograph clause or that of pseudo porn.
The Independent article talks largely of photographs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/paedophile-artist-s-photographs-and-paintings-must-be-destroyed-judge-rules-a6692921.html

Though I must admit, Harvey, the legal framework under which this vandalism is taking place really is not of that much concern to me.
I`m not that much of a technocrat.

But the fact that a judge has determined that art ought to be destroyed, that just appalls me beyond measure.

To my mind Judge Roscoe cannot hide behind the law. Claiming to merely apply the law of the land, does not hack it. Anyone who soils their hand by participating in this outrage is a vandal - and be they a judge. Claiming that one was only taking orders doe not absolve one of this.

I wonder if the infamous Judge Roscoe is going to have the material destroyed publicly.
You know, on an evening bonfire. Perhaps the BNP and EDL can bring a few standards along. And flags, plenty of flags. An umpah band. Perhaps a few guys in uniforms. Lots of saluting, of course.
And while we`re at it, we can perhaps chuck a few books on the fire as well. No doubt, the infamous Judge Roscoe will tell us which ones...

Harvey    [30810.   Posted 19-Oct-2015 Mon 10:16]
  Re: Destroying Art.

I have been unable to find out what law was used in the destruction of Ovenden`s artwork.

Mention of the word "indecent" in press reports and articles suggest it was the PCA 1978, but that would only apply to the photographs or pseudo-photographs.

For the work which was neither a photograph or an image which appeared to be a photograph, the only available law would be the "Cartoon Porn Act".

Even the OPA does not prohibit obscene material to exist or be in someone`s possession, so I can`t see how that would apply.

Any ideas?

phantom    [30809.   Posted 17-Oct-2015 Sat 17:45]
  Re: Destroying Art

Yet again. Wow.
Art destroyed by judicial decree. What next?
Judge Elizabeth Roscoe has something coming to her, I think. History is not forgiving toward her kind.
It seems the infamous Lucius Mummius is at last reborn.

`Standards of propriety` has a horrible ring to it. It is worthy of a Mummius.

I will say straight out that I despise modern art, which includes `artsy fartsy` photography.
I have no time for all this interpretive rubbish. But that is mere opinion.

I would never dream of agreeing with Judge Roscoe.
To destroy what others deem a work of art is vandalism. Barbarism.

It is the equivalent of pissing in a temple sanctified by a religion in which you do not believe.
What matters is that it is sacred to someone.
To that extent it ought to be granted that minimum of respect. i.e. the right to exist.

Now to make it clear: Just because someone thinks Ovenden`s work is art, does not mean it should be treated as art by everyone. Were we to go down that route, we would end up in the place of not offending Mohammed with cartoons because someone believes in him.
There is always freedom of expression.
Thus, I am free to express my opinion that Ovenden`s supposed art is a heap of crap.
Destruction, however, is not a form of expression.

Nobody ought - ever – to wilfully destroy something which is considered a work of art. Whether they think it one or not.

To my mind, Judge Roscoe – infamous Judge Roscoe, henceforth – has just become such a destroyer of art. It makes no difference whether it`s an Ovenden or a Rembrandt. It is the same thing.

What is ironic is that a judge – a profession keen on insisting that everyone shows it sufficient respect in court (on pain of punishment, no less) – has proved completely incapable of showing any respect to art.

No, it`s a commodity to Judge Roscoe. Interchangeable. Definable. Regulatable. A thing.
Hence the comparison to Mummius suggests itself.

Effectively, modern art photography involving children now depends for its legal status on who owns it.
We have heard of the time a piece got into trouble with police in the north east – until it emerged it was the property of Sir Elton John.
If Ovenden were not the man with a conviction, would this matter ever have troubled the brow of the infamous Judge Roscoe? Of course not.

The material is suspect because it is owned by Ovenden, the convicted paedophile.
Were he still to be Ovenden, the artist free of conviction, this would never have happened.

Could there be a more vacuous state of law? Material is legal or illegal depending on who owns it.
So much to equality before the law.
But worse, material is now considered art, depending on who owns it.

Anyhow, I foretell a great career for the infamous Judge Roscoe.
Ofcom will no doubt be looking for `talent`, now that they intend to do ATVOD`s job.
Or maybe the BBFC may need new leadership....

braintree    [30808.   Posted 17-Oct-2015 Sat 14:46]
  Welcome back Pooch

Pooch    [30807.   Posted 16-Oct-2015 Fri 05:40]
  THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE ARMIES - EXTENDED EDITION will be a 15 in the UK. Although the BBFC haven`t classified the extended version of the film yet, several of the extras are already rated at 15, so all Blu-Ray and DVD releases will also be a 15.

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES EXTENDED EDITION - THE LAST STAGE - JULY 26TH, 2013 [Additional Material] (15 - Passed without cuts)
bbfc.co.uk/node/487239

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES EXTENDED EDITION - ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE VIRTUAL BATTLEFIELD [Additional Material] (15 - Passed without cuts)
bbfc.co.uk/node/486488

phantom    [30806.   Posted 14-Oct-2015 Wed 18:28]
  I could well imagine that you`re right about ATVOD.
People who act as quasi governmental extortionists may well turn out to have a skeleton or two in the cupboard.

But I`m not sure that the sharing of porn these days goes on purely out of the kindness of folks` hearts.
Many of the download sites do provide financial incentives to those who provide the content for download.

Thus a cottage industry has arisen of folks ripping off sites, then uploading the content for quasi public download.
What at first seemed a fairly innocuous affair by now has grown into quite a beast and is proving nigh on impossible for the pornsters to fight. Not least as the porn producers get little help from law enforcement or politics.
It`s been deemed that they`re fair game, as they are `immoral`.

I go back to the very beginnings of the net, when a certain amount of altruism and laisser faire was part of the spirit.
But much of what you see by now is an organised rip-off on a nigh on industrial scale.

Producers cannot really hope to survive that - as well as the simultaneous assault from regulators and law makers.

I think people have come to view porn as an inevitable part of the net, due to its ubiquity. Many may well be in for a surprise when it starts croaking over the next few years.

What do they say? You don`t realise how you value something, until it`s gone?

Therumbler    [30805.   Posted 14-Oct-2015 Wed 17:06]
  I can`t see Ofcom cancelling the contract without some minister`s approval. There`s probably something foul in the works that will be announced in the next couple of months.

As for porn. It`s a product high in demand but due to regulation and stigma hard to monetise. A curious quirk of capitalism if there ever was.

Another interesting aspect is that people share it (illegally) at all. There`s some risk in sharing it and no guaranteed payback, either in money or porn in exchange. This could be said for piracy as a whole. The taking is obvious, but the giving is altogether a different matter.

phantom    [30804.   Posted 14-Oct-2015 Wed 13:34]
  Wow.

“We are immensely proud of the work ATVOD has done since it was given the job of overseeing a brand new set of regulatory rules for video on demand services in 2010,” said ATVOD Chair Ruth Evans and ATVOD Chief Executive Pete Johnson in a joint statement.

For the above please read. `We are fantastic. We think we have done a marvelous job. So good in fact, we`re being cancelled....`

“We have done this as a co-regulator dedicated to engaging fully with the industry we regulate in order to ensure that consumers enjoy the protections to which they are entitled without the imposition of unnecessary burdens on providers of video on demand services. Under our regulation, the UK video on demand industry has grown strongly and consumer complaints have been dealt with effectively and efficiently.”

Err... `Engaging fully with the industry`? Without the imposition of unnecessary burdens on providers of video on demand services`?
This is a sick joke, right?

Hundreds, if not thousands of UK websites are no more.
How the hell does one square that with those statements?
It appears to me that Ruth Evans and Pete Johnson are to media regulation what Jim Gamble was to policing.

I must say, the gall some people have is quite staggering. These two, together with that evil egghead Sajid Javid, have been the most destructive force in media for the past twenty five years.
Yet listening to them, one would think they had been the most soft-touch, easy-going regulators on the planet.
But then extortion racket running fascists would portray themselves that way, wouldn`t they?
I bet they`ll get hefty golden handshakes...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30803.   Posted 14-Oct-2015 Wed 01:31]
  The first news item have read confirming the sacking of ATVOD

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/10/14/ofcom-to-end-vod-co-regulation/

phantom    [30802.   Posted 13-Oct-2015 Tue 18:51]
  Well, well...
I`m offline for a few days with connection problems and what happens.
ATVOD wobbles and Playboy announces the end of the nude.

As for Playboy, not sure it`s the feminists winning. It may just be what the mag is saying; that internet porn - especially the rise of free, ripped off internet porn - is simply killing them.
I think in that regard the internet is eating itself. When it becomes financially unfeasible to make anything, because five minutes after it is published everything is freely available for download everywhere, it quickly becomes impossible to make any sort of content.
Producers cannot even recoup their costs.
I know I`m sounding like some anti-pirating Hollywood agent here.
But I do think for pornography in particular things have become increasingly impossible online.
Clearly the surge of creativity in that field, which we witnessed some years ago, is over.
For a few years porn was the cultural phenomenon. It`s visual energy influenced a great deal. One need only look at how it changed some of the visual language of music videos.
But now it is a spent force. Simply because it`s financial model has collapsed.
The very force that built the net, is now being consumed by the net.
What we`ll end up with online are party political websites, online shopping and videos of cats doing funny things. Oh, joy.

As for Ofcom replacing ATVOD.
Hmm, I`ll believe it when I see it. But are we not possibly just talking of Ofcom subsuming ATVOD? In short, nothing will change in practice. Extortion money will simply need to be paid to Ofcom instead of ATVOD.
Meanwhile, even if common sense breaks out. Isn`t it already too late? ATVOD has effectively murdered hundreds if not thousands of UK websites when the relevant law came into effect.
None of those sites will be back anytime soon.
Established web-traffic cannot simply be regained by the flick of a switch.
What may have taken a decade to grow in the face of fierce international competition online was wiped out in a day (ironically, by the pro-market Tories). It was wiped out for good, I say.

Regarding `Midnight Run`, thanks for the info, folks.
I still am astonished, mind.
Dear Mr Ferman was - evidently - an idiot.
Then again, what other than idiots do we expect an institution like the BBFC to attract?
Who will apply for a job to censor stuff? Anyone sensible?
It seems to be a job for which idiots are in fact self-selecting.
In an ideal world, anyone who wanted to work there would be disbarred from working there by default.

But yes, `Midnight Run` is a wonderful film. I advise anyone who has not yet seen it to give it a view.
For one, because it`s a good film. But also, because Mr Ferman evidently did not want you to watch it. That ought to be reason enough.

peegee123    [30801.   Posted 13-Oct-2015 Tue 16:23]
  Breaking news from the twitterverse: Ofcom to replace ATVOD as UK VOD regulator from 1st Jan 2016...

Sabreman64    [30800.   Posted 13-Oct-2015 Tue 06:11]
  I see the miserable feminists have won another victory. Playboy is to scrap all nudity early next year.

Their circulation has been falling steadily over recent years. I wouldn`t be surprised if this move causes their circulation to plummet. I for one will be cancelling my subscription (been buying the magazine for 25 years; subscribed for about 10 years). If I wanted to buy GQ or one of those mags, I would. My subscription to Playboy is mainly due to the tastefully posed nude women.

Pooch    [30799.   Posted 13-Oct-2015 Tue 04:47]
  MIDNIGHT RUN was passed as a 15 by the BBFC in 1988...

http://bbfc.co.uk/releases/midnight-run-1970-5

Ferman then upgraded it to an 18, presumably because of the extensive use of strong language.

As far as I know, the film has now been downgraded to a 15 by the BBFC, but I believe that the UK Blu-Ray is an 18, because of some of the other material the disc contains, e.g. trailers, extras. At least, that`s my understanding of it.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30798.   Posted 12-Oct-2015 Mon 08:48]
  DarkAngel, phantom

Who`d have thought in the time of the video nasties and Midnight Run that it would be hearing strong language that would persists as a censorship issue.

And who`d have thought back then that it would be simple opinion that would be the censorship focus of the nest generation. Even in political issues that are most dominant in the news, we are not allowed to comment on the ructions that are threatening the very existence of the EU. But at least we can watch Cannibal Holocaust.

DarkAngel5    [30797.   Posted 11-Oct-2015 Sun 01:33]
  Oh how times have changed. The Horror Channel screened the old video nasty "Cannibal Apocalypse" last night, which would have been completely unthinkable a few years ago.

Also it appeared to be the uncut version, the scene with the rats in the sewer getting splattered with napalm was intact in this. Compared it against my uncut US DVD from Image and both scenes were the same.

phantom    [30796.   Posted 7-Oct-2015 Wed 19:25]
  Just watched that old classic `Midnight Run` with Robert De Niro and Charles Grodin.
Marvellous movie.

But one thing does bewilder me.
How does a film with no nudity and no really serious, gory violence end up with an 18 certificate?

Was this another one of those episodes where the BBFC ran mad?
Sure, the language is fruity, but it was the late eighties, for heaven`s sake.
Did they still snap an 18 on it because the distributors were not willing to dub `flipping` and `melonfarmer` onto the audio track in the late eighties?

I would challenge anyone to watch that movie and tell me that was an 18 certificate.

Is that particular film yet another one of those times when the BBFC`s self appointed experts fell off their rocker? (as for example they did with their infamous Spiderman 12 certification)

One simply struggles to see how Robert De Niro and Charles Grodin in an unlikely buddy movie can warrant anything like an 18.

Wanton incompetence?

phantom    [30795.   Posted 2-Oct-2015 Fri 06:09]
  new PC Rule No1:
Maybe they ought to pixellate any churches which they happen to capture in the background of the picture in their reports on such violent incidents.
Just so there can be no suggestion that God was involved. :)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30794.   Posted 2-Oct-2015 Fri 04:32]
  Re sheriffs and power.

Perhaps anyone who dreams up a new PC rule that the BBC is keen to grab at. It just takes a `bright` idea, maybe it only needs sufficient rank to get the idea aired in the first place.

sergio    [30793.   Posted 2-Oct-2015 Fri 00:51]
  Does the daily mail have the ugliest readers?

sergio    [30792.   Posted 2-Oct-2015 Fri 00:49]
  Bin readin `Black Box Thinking` by Matthew Syed. He talks about RCTs - Randomized Controlled Trials. So maybe that stupid pastor will have his idiotic idea strengthened that if the students all had guns then they could kill the shooter on the campus.
We would have a college where all the students and teachers have AK47s and another college where the students and teachers don`t have guns.
Let`s see how many people get killed.

The BBC was interesting on Radio this morning, a sheriff says that he wouldn`t name the shootist, so the BBC follow by not naming the shootist. But they had previously reported the name of the shootist - it is on their website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34419802.
How does a sheriff have some much power?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30791.   Posted 22-Sep-2015 Tue 08:39]
  phantom, a good find, I will slot it in somewhere.

Sergio, I guess immorality in films is when the bad guys don`t get their comeuppance. And super immorality would be where the bad guys get the girl.

sergio    [30790.   Posted 20-Sep-2015 Sun 02:29]
  I still don`t get this. How does `morality` impact a BBFC age classification/censorship decision?

What film is the most immoral film at cert PG?12A?15?18?R18?

phantom    [30789.   Posted 19-Sep-2015 Sat 18:43]
  I know, I know...
This story is from Nov 2014, but I`ve only now come across it.
I don`t think I saw it on here, so I just had to give it a whirl.
Surely, this must be one of the ultimate censorship stories.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/28/china-media-watchdog-bans-wordplay-puns

Apologies if this has already been dealt with long ago.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30788.   Posted 19-Sep-2015 Sat 05:11]
  Sergio, phantom

Good points indeed. Anthropologists with no humanity, ethicists without ethics, and academics who haven`t twigged that sex robots are likely to be sex Roberts

phantom    [30786.   Posted 18-Sep-2015 Fri 14:51]
  The Unintelligencia...

A question or two for the anti-sex-robot feministas:
a) is a dildo/vibrator a primitive form of sex robot?
b) if so, are you prepared to disavow the use of them?

I think the idea that men will flock to having sex with robots says everything about feminists. Misogyny may be their favourite word, but it is self-evident that it is in fact they who hate men.
Thus, their opinion of men.

In truth, men have no more interest in having sex with robots than they have in having sex with trees or a cup of tea.

Andrea `All-Sex-is-Rape` Dworkin may have spread the term `sex object` about (by misquoting Immanuel Kant), but the truth is, men do not want sex with objects.

Meanwhile, women like the idea of pleasuring themselves with plastic objects. Men generally do not.

So, if the sale of sex aids is anything to go by, sex robots are more likely to be called `Big John` than `Melinda`.

Frankly, there is something embarrassing about this whole project. Primarily, because it is unwittingly self-revelatory.
For it tells us everything about what these anti-sex-robot feminists think about sex. Clearly it is they who are objectifying people here and who are concluding that, therefore, everyone else objectifies people too.
Thus, they are objecting to behaviour which they are inferring from their own attitudes.
Can there be anything more ridiculous than publicly objecting to yourself?

So, dear feminists.
Women may like vibrators. Feminists may like vibrators.
It does therefore not follow that men like vibrating holes.
By publicly protesting against the latter you are merely broadcasting the former.

sergio    [30785.   Posted 18-Sep-2015 Fri 02:38]
  Anthropology is the study of humanity

Kathleen Richardson, a robot anthropologist ...
...
A robot is [part of] humanity.

Cats are people too ...
2+2=5
Everything, is everything ...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30784.   Posted 14-Sep-2015 Mon 03:31]
  Thanks Therumbler.

I am not quite sure what happened on Saturday, Sunday`s links appear back to normal

Therumbler    [30783.   Posted 13-Sep-2015 Sun 15:08]
  The links for Saturday 12th September don`t seem to be directing correctly.

phantom    [30782.   Posted 11-Sep-2015 Fri 14:38]
  The day the female form stops being something which is erotic to a man, please, shoot me. :)

sergio    [30781.   Posted 10-Sep-2015 Thu 10:46]
  `Proudman said she had named Carter-Silk because she believed the public interest in exposing the “eroticisation of women’s physical appearance” by an influential and senior lawyer was greater than his right to privacy.`

phantom    [30780.   Posted 7-Sep-2015 Mon 12:58]
  Disgusting Prosecution:

Doesn`t that sound as though it was a rather `fire and brimstone` trial?

The judge sounds like the late Ian Paisley.

One can`t help but wonder whether the prosecutor quoted the psalms, Moses and Leviticus during his oration.

The supreme irony is that these two legal eagles, depending on their age, may well once have been saying the very same things about homosexuals in the courtroom.
But I don`t think irony is rated very highly at Leicester Crown Court.

Hatred and anger at things and people which are `disgusting` however still seems to be alive and well in Leicester.

Reading that article one does not get the impression that Leicester is a particularly friendly place to anyone who isn`t a heterosexual, white, Anglo-Saxon protestant who does it strictly in the missionary position.

Remind me to give Leicester a miss on my travels...

phantom    [30779.   Posted 6-Sep-2015 Sun 10:45]
  Sergio,
Yes, I saw this one too on telly.
They introduced it as `5500 sex crimes` at schools in the past three years.
Then they featured one of those angry, campaigning women with a perpetual frown who spoke of there being `6000 rapes`.
Note how she rounded up the figure and concluded that all sex crime is rape.
More to the point, the BBC presenter neither corrected nor questioned her statement.
And yes, the `tip of the iceberg` was mentioned there too.

Personally, I cannot really accept this figure.
It seems born of the same sort of surveyism which produces `research` that declares thousands of ten year olds to be addicted to hardcore porn.
It just sees divorced of the reality we see around us and simply is designed to exploit parents` fears.

It goes without saying that none of this is in any way substantiated beyond a BBC freedom of information request to police forces.

Let us keep in mind that `Joey groped me` will be recorded as a `sex crime`. `Joey called me a slag` might also, in the current climate.
So too, `Joey said I was gay.`
Thus, what we are supposed to make of the usefulness of these figures is anyone`s guess.

But as the nation is in the firm grip of an `ism` these day, dogma is more important than anything else. Not least as we`re teaching it at school.

Feminism is just that. An `ism`.
We`ve had socialism, fascism, communism. We`ve had them all taught at school in their time, as quasi academic subjects.
I knew a Bulgarian woman once who told me of having had to sit through `socialism` classes at school before the iron curtain came down.

Feminism is another `ism` designed to pursue some strange, ill defined ideal.
Just like fascism and communism, etc it creates it`s own pseudo science which is purported to be undeniable (and unquestionable!) fact.

The very notion however that most of these supposed facts are either myths or vague ideas, reveals that - like all `isms` - it is really all just hot air.

Ideas such as trade, property and money are how old? How long did communism last? Yep.

How long have the civilisations of the earth had concepts of family and differing roles of the sexes? How long has feminism been around? Exactly.

We simply find ourselves in another one of these periods of mass delusion, Sergio.
It appears, all received wisdom of the ages is wrong and we must create society from scratch - on the back of an envelope.

Just as politicians in this country once quoted Marx and Engels as though they were prophets, they now wax lyrical about feminist ideals - and the need to crush all resistance to it.

When we wake up from this latest folly is anyone`s guess.
Until then just smile as they quote their statistics.
Once they kept going on about how the USSR produced so many more tractors for the proletariat than the corrupt west.
Now they tell us about mass rape at school.

Ah well, just remember that pinch of salt...

sergio    [30778.   Posted 6-Sep-2015 Sun 09:35]
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34138287

Sexual abuse sells:

"`The National Police Chiefs` Council lead for child protection, Chief Constable Simon Bailey, fears the problem may be even worse.
"I believe these figures are the tip of the iceberg.
"It is good news that more victims have the confidence to come forward and report abuse, although - while I cannot prove this - I believe more child abuse is taking place. "

I wonder why he `cannot prove` it.
------
Jon Brown, head of Sexual Abuse Programmes at the NSPCC, said: ...
"We know that for some older children, accessing hardcore pornography is warping their view of what is acceptable behaviour. And the very young - those of primary school age or even younger - may be copying sexual activity they have witnessed."

Maybe?

------
ATVOD was interviewed on radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0680hnw#playt=0h16m14s
Clips on daily mail are not `tv like`.
Most complaints are about childrens access to porn.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30777.   Posted 4-Sep-2015 Fri 00:10]
  phantom,

Absolutely disgraceful policing but I think the USA are the world leaders on this topic

phantom    [30776.   Posted 3-Sep-2015 Thu 07:41]
  Good to see UK law setting an example to the rest of the world again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34142241
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34136388

phantom    [30775.   Posted 2-Sep-2015 Wed 06:35]
  I love it. I`m a film! :)

And having watched the trailer, what I now need to do is practice staring intently into the mirror and doing a lot of pointing and shouting. ;)

gauravmanral    [30774.   Posted 1-Sep-2015 Tue 23:29]
  Pakistani Actors Shaan Shahid & Mawra Hocane start Twitter war over Phantom!
http://www.maglol.com/shaan-shahid-mawra-hocane-twitter-war-phantom/
Since its release, Kabir Khan’s ‘Phantom’ has been in the news not for its run at the box office but about its content against Terrorism. After banned in Pakistan, the Saif Ali Khan and Katrina Kaif starrer is again in a row. Two Pakistani actors Shaan Shahid and Mawra Hocane have now faced off each other on social networking site Twitter over the film.

phantom    [30773.   Posted 1-Sep-2015 Tue 17:11]
  Censorship, Islamic State-style:

One wonders whether the much-reported destruction of the Temples of Baal-Shameen and Bel in Palmyra by IS is merely the cultural vandalism it is made out to be.

You see, there is a nagging suspicion at the back of my head that it might in fact be an attempt at censoring something inconvenient from the collective memory.

Various historians have long argued that Islam is a religion which evolved out of pre-existing Pagan cults in the region.
Suspicion centres around various deities which bear the name Bal, or something close to this.
Baal, Ba`al, Bel, Bol, H`bal, Hubal, even El Gabal, etc
They largely seem to be variants of much of the same thing. (usually, celestial deities)

One such deity seems to have ended up being worshipped in Mecca.
According to Islamic tradition – until – Mohammed threw out the Pagan gods and introduced Islam.
According to some historians, it`s more likely that this Pagan deity evolved into what is now Allah.

Whether you attribute any credibility to these historical theories or not, it is rather telling that some hyper-religious Islamic cult has now taken to destroying temples related to such a possible, historical connection.

To me it suggests that this might not merely be the destruction of Pagan temples by zealots. After all, what threat could a ruined Pagan temple be to Islam? Is anyone really suggesting it represents any temptation for Muslims to resort back to Paganism? It seems a stretch – even for fanatics.

But with the worship of Baal/Bel being at the root of the historical suspicions surrounding the beginnings of Islam, the destruction of these temples takes on a different nature.
It seems one is trying to expunge something from history, because one doesn`t want to confront a possible alternative truth. Perhaps one is even a little afraid. After all, what if the theories are true?

It is of course very interesting is that the media have stayed away from this angle. I cannot have been the only person to have had this thought.
So why the silence? Well, the fear of offence to other Muslims, no doubt. After all, the theories regarding proto-Islamic history are not merely unpopular with IS...

Before anyone says so, I know that Islamic State have form on destroying Pagan sites and artefacts. Their alleged bulldozing of Nineveh was widely reported, so too did they film themselves smashing up statuary in an Iraqi museum.
Their actions at Palmyra may therefore simply be maniacal, religious rampage.

But with the Temples of Baal and Bel being the first thing they go for, one cannot but feel there might be a little more to it than barbarians doing what barbarians do.
One might in fact be trying to censor something from history.

braintree    [30772.   Posted 29-Aug-2015 Sat 13:56]
  Not the sort of post I would usually put on here but I have to say I don`t think they are looking purely for revenge regarding the Scottish bin lorry incident. They are looking for justice. The driver was clearly criminally negligent and it`s a disgrace the authorities are forcing the families to take the legal action.Despite killing all those people the driver actually applied to have his licence back AFTER the incident.The legal system should at the very least prosecute him for failing to disclose his medical condition. One person lost a parent and their daughter in that one incident

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30771.   Posted 29-Aug-2015 Sat 10:03]
  phantom, re BBC news

We are living in a strange BBCland these days. AS far as I can see there are only 3 things going on, endless mourning at an airshow accident, endless lust for revenge over a bin lorry accident and of course ongoing glorying in the plight of people trying to escape Africa and the Middle East.

It is sometimes a pleasure to channel hop on to Russia Today and Al-Jazeera news, still propaganda but at least it is about more important news than the BBC car crash, public grief and blame broadcasting.

phantom    [30770.   Posted 27-Aug-2015 Thu 06:44]
  Talking of violence, these days we have censorship of the news at an unprecedented level.

Yes, we report on the `car crash` events, sensationalising them. But at the critical moment our media always `blinks`.
`Violence` is represented by staged occasions of IS fighters emptying their kalashnikovs at a clearly fictional enemy at the other end of a field, or war planes taking off. Maybe even a grainy black and white image of a laser guided missile going off.

I guess because `violence corrupts`, news must corrupt also – if it`s reporting on violence.

I recall imagery and film of the South Vietnamese general ruthlessly shooting a Vietcong prisoner in the head.
These were pictures which went around the world.
They shocked. But they told us something.
Most of all, they reflected the truth. Not a truth, filtered for taste and decency. But a stark, uncomfortable truth.
I recall naked Vietnamese girls running down a road, after a napalm attack on their village, their skin hanging from them.
Stark, brutal truth. Truth about consequences. Truth about actions. About governments.

Now apparently we`re much too `tasteful` to broadcast this sort of truth. So we`re told.

We live at a time of victims being a pixellated blur. Or presenters take the moral high ground by telling us how they are much too sensitive and caring to show us the details of an outrage.

Instead they pillory those who would show these things on the internet.
As Newsnight did last night when taking a swipe at LiveLeak co-founder Hayden Hewitt.

Naturally, the BBC presenter didn`t accept the argument that mainstream media, such as his, was sensationalising the event of journalists being shot in Virginia, causing people to want to view the event. No, no. It`s all someone else`s fault.
Michael Wolff, the talking head brought in to pillory Hayden Hewitt did come spectacularly unstuck when it emerged that he – the man arguing that people should be prevented from seeing this – had in fact viewed it himself.

I have long felt uncomfortable with this BBFC style reporting of the news.

Especially in a day and age, when we partake in warfare whereby we strike death and destruction on enemies from miles away in planes, it is rather convenient to feel `too sensitive` to show our people the effects of such Nintendo war.

We have entered this strange world in which violent events are described to us on the news, but not shown. A strange paradox for what is an audio-visual medium.

But if the powers-that-be accept the notion that we can be corrupted by violence in film, then – by logical extension – we can be corrupted by violence in the news. Thus, we must be prevented from being corrupted.
Truth corrupts. Thus, truth must be censored.
It`s for our own good.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30769.   Posted 27-Aug-2015 Thu 00:34]
  Re `obscene` violence

A lot TV news these days seems to be `car crash of the day` reporting relishing in the grief of the victims. This is all very reminiscent of watching news in Thailand, where they are at least trying to wean themselves off this mawkishness. Commentators seem to consider this as propaganda in that it is used as a distraction for more important news.

As to violence prosecutions for obscenity, all the video nasty prosecutions were brought under obscenity law. Since then until around 2000, customs seizures of violent films were based on obscenity claims, albeit rarely actually being tested in court.

Therumbler    [30768.   Posted 26-Aug-2015 Wed 15:14]
  Was there ever a case in which obscenity law was used against non-sexual violence?

sergio    [30767.   Posted 26-Aug-2015 Wed 08:09]
  What do you think? People being shot live on TV? Is it obscene? Posted on a family newspaper website? Ok? ok...

braintree    [30766.   Posted 24-Aug-2015 Mon 13:31]
  I wasn`t referring to VHS I was talking about dvd. The UK Laserdisc was the UK premier for the uncut version of Videodrome and the very first UK dvd carried the same version - it wasn`t anamorphic so might have even used the same master. Trouble is, I sold it when the Criterion dvd came out but Amazon only list the 2008 dvd which is cut - and we know that the UK didn`t have to wait until 2008 for Videodrome on dvd. I have a stash of old dvd mags from the early era so I`ll have a look through those. I remember being very pleasantly surprised when we got the film on dvd before the US. And if it had been the R version I wouldn`t have bought it at all.
I can`t locate the details of the early release other than it was not anamorphic. The dvd on Amazon shows as 2008 but we know that non anamorphic dvd`s were gone many years before that date.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30764.   Posted 24-Aug-2015 Mon 00:10]
  Braintree re Videodrome (corrected)

A CIC VHS presumably in 1990 claimed on the cover "Includes Footage not previously available on video in the UK". This was true in that it restored material pre-cut for 1987 VHS. However it was still the R rated version.

Sergio

Don`t you think that video is downloaded from the internet that is nothing to do with regular programming is more DVD-link than TV-Like. I think this is the nub of the ATVOD land grab, as the Euro directive was very much talking about linear TV like programming delivered via the internet, at least during the discussions leading up to the law.

sergio    [30763.   Posted 23-Aug-2015 Sun 04:03]
  
Are there TV-like programmes?
It remains ATVOD’s view that the Service does contain programmes the form and content of which are comparable to that of programmes normally included in television
programme services.

Normally, right, I see loads of explicit spanking on terrestrial TV.

Right? What was the last hard caning I saw on BBC4?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30762.   Posted 23-Aug-2015 Sun 03:52]
  Re Videodrome Thanks Braintree, I`ll follow this up.

braintree    [30761.   Posted 22-Aug-2015 Sat 13:39]
  Although the first UK Bluray of Videodrome is not the unrated version the first UK dvd release was billed as "the directors cut" which presumably is the unrated version. IIRC it came out in the UK on dvd before the US. Don`t know if the 2008 reissue is unrated or R.
I got the UK Laserdisc of the film which was uncut and it was a surprise to see the uncut version appear on dvd before the US although it was released in the early days of dvd so is not anamorphic. But it`s not on Amazon who only show a 2008 dvd version which must go back to the cut version again which is why the UK Blu is also cut

phantom    [30759.   Posted 21-Aug-2015 Fri 19:03]
  Now this one is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34017423

I`m not a great fan of the unions.
However, just exactly why should they not be able to be active on social media during strikes?

This has more than a hint of the Iranian approach to social media about it...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30758.   Posted 19-Aug-2015 Wed 23:53]
  Perhaps David Cooke will be exchanging his scissors for gardening shears.

phantom    [30757.   Posted 19-Aug-2015 Wed 12:48]
  May he rest in peace. ;)

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30756.   Posted 19-Aug-2015 Wed 10:40]
  BBFC Director David Cooke to retire in March 2016

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-director-david-cooke-retire-march-2016

phantom    [30755.   Posted 18-Aug-2015 Tue 14:56]
  Ah, but you`re not thinking like a sneaky, cynical leech on society, are you, Sergio?
You are making the mistake of applying common sense.

Because you see, crime has been falling for thirty years now.
There is no reason to think it will suddenly start rising.

So, what you do is you connect something with crime. Ban it. And then claim the predictable fall in overall crime was due to your intervention.

Politicians have been playing that game for years now. Or have you not heard them tell you that any fall in crime is due to their good stewardship? When crime has fallen across the developed world, that is of course nonsense. But things making no sense has yet to discourage any blackguard from taking credit.

So is it not a natural thing for the censorship industry to follow the example of politicians?

a) you claim that some activity is causing the earth`s gravity to fail.
b) you ban said activity.
c) you drop an apple to demonstrate that gravity is now fully functional.
d) you claim credit for saving earth.
e) you find something else which you don`t like and claim it causes water to run upstream....
f) You collect your BBFC paycheck.

sergio    [30754.   Posted 18-Aug-2015 Tue 10:35]
  Children watch violent/sexualized and inappropriate content music videos.
Crime goes up. Right?

BBFC are now part of the Police state and helping drive down crime. Right?

What if crime doesn`t go down?
Maybe it`s not about crime. What`s it all about Alfie?

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30753.   Posted 14-Aug-2015 Fri 23:58]
  A very good point Phantom which amused me

I will have to add this to the main site.

phantom    [30752.   Posted 14-Aug-2015 Fri 06:13]
  Is it me?
Today the BBC is broadcasting a royal sob story, whereby Prince William (the future monarch) is letting it be known, how intrusive the surveillance of Prince George (another future monarch) is becoming, with paparazzi hiding in the boots of cars to get photographs, etc.

Correct me if I`m wrong, but isn`t the current state surveillance apparatus - in which the security services do considerably more than lurk in car boots with photo cameras - being run in the name of Prince William`s very own grandmama (the present monarch)?

If Prince William does not want intrusive surveillance of his son, does this mean he would object to it being done in his name to his own people when he eventually ascends the throne?

Or should one maybe not bandy about the word `surveillance` so lightly?
At least not while Her Majesty`s services are collecting data on us all at an industrial level...

phantom    [30751.   Posted 10-Aug-2015 Mon 05:03]
  Yes, I agree with Dave.
Framing this in terms of violating women`s rights has way more chance of achieving an impact with media and politicians than framing it as violating human rights.
For some reason in the current political climate women trump humans.
Make of that what you will...

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30750.   Posted 9-Aug-2015 Sun 14:21]
  Sergio, whilst it all smacks of the usual discrimination that men`s enjoyment of sex and sex entertainment is always considered morally repugnant, the feminist angle is surely one to applaud. It has probably got way more chance of succeeding then men complaining that they are being censored.


sergio    [30749.   Posted 9-Aug-2015 Sun 04:21]
  Is Backlash a feminist organization?

`Backlash is concerned, in particular, with the effect of regulation on small British businesses, especially female-owned and managed porn production companies.`

Why are they concerned with `especially female-owned` companies?

sergio    [30748.   Posted 6-Aug-2015 Thu 07:29]
  Look`s like Pandora`s box is closed or waiting for an appeal.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30747.   Posted 5-Aug-2015 Wed 01:06]
  Re Amnesty and prostitution and the Guardian

The Guardian have published an article providing a bit of a balance to their stridently feminist editorial.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/aug/04/amnesty-must-stand-firm-decriminalising-sex-work

But one of the comments noted that the piece was published in an obscure column:

"In the storm of (mostly moralizing, generalizing, opinion) articles on the subject, this is the first one with actual links to actual reports with actual evidence. Sadly it`s all but hidden in an obscure "Global development" column, meaning that it won`t be read (as demonstrated by the 4 comments in 24 hours)".

phantom    [30746.   Posted 4-Aug-2015 Tue 13:16]
  So Amnesty`s position on prostitution is `divisive and distracting`?

Can there be any argument more intellectually lazy than simply to state that something is `a distraction`?
In essence the Guardian is taking the position that it`s not Amnesty`s job to deal with prostitution. That it`s a distraction from their core cause.

Then again, is it the Guardian`s job to opine on what is Amnesty`s job? Or is that a distraction from the Guardian`s core cause? One can go on with that ad infinitum. Frankly, it`s cheap.

Amnesty decided that the routine, casual, institutionalised violation of human rights of prostitutes by government agencies around the world called for action.
I do not really see how it is the Guardian`s role to question whether the above is Amnesty`s role.
It seems very much that one is seeking to disagree, despite not really having an argument.

As for it being divisive; is the Guardian`s position that Amnesty ought only hold views with which everyone agrees?

After all, I recall a good many republicans in the days of George W Bush`s reign who did not agree with Amnesty`s position on the `enhanced interrogation` of al Qaeda prisoners.

So why is the Guardian concerned when the objection to Amnesty`s policy is made by Meryl Streep, rather than Dick Cheney?

Moreover, what greater moral authority does Meryl Streep have over the likes of Dick Cheney?

Is it not that dear Meryl has for some time been a vocal feminist and that the Guardian is a self-proclaimed feminist newspaper? Does not the Guardian itself in this very article say that a good many feminists object to this policy?
So is that not really the crux of it? Traditional feminists disagree with legalising prostitution. We agree with Meryl.

The reality is that prostitution exists in a sort of legal limbo in most nations around the planet. The powers that be are well aware of the necessity of `the oldest profession`, but for reasons of moral tradition and good old fashioned politicking, they have always taken the opportunity to express their distaste for this trade; in word as well as law.

Prostitutes remain the `unclean`, the `untouchables` in the world`s societies.

Lip service may be paid to equality of all, but under the so-called policies of `discouraging the trade`, a great deal of unfairness and hypocrisy is doled out.
As we all know, much of this country`s law makes little sense when it comes to prostitution. Much proposed law is even worse.

So the question is, what is the Guardian`s own position?
Wishing for nirvana in which there is no prostitution, there are no drugs and all people are nice to each other, is not a position.
Prostitution exists. It always will. How is one to handle it?

Multimillionaire actresses, ensconced in their Hollywood mansions, may feel that prostitution ought to be abolished and the women instead should be allowed to live in fairy castles.
But if the Guardian has the gall to criticise an institution as noble as Amnesty International, then it better have an alternative to Amnesty`s position.

The truth is, it is uncomfortable to find that the very organisation which once stood up to the Pinochets of this world now may be challenging a view one holds dear oneself.

But the Guardian, – rather than question its own dogma toward prostitution and the women who work in it, - finds it more convenient instead to attack Amnesty.
It seems that – even at the Guardian – shooting the messenger is oft the preferred option.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30745.   Posted 4-Aug-2015 Tue 07:36]
  Glenn, I added the news about Nekromantik 2 and it stirred plenty of interest.

Therumbler, an interesting comment from the Guardian, i read it as accepting the harms caused by criminalisation but concluding that the feminist/PC cause trumped those concerns.

Therumbler    [30744.   Posted 2-Aug-2015 Sun 15:25]
  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/02/guardian-view-amnesty-international-call-to-legalise-sex-work-divisive-and-distracting?CMP=soc_3156

Guardian condemns Amnesty`s motion to to legalise sex work, calls it a dangerous distraction.

My favourite journalist lately takes issue with it https://twitter.com/frankiemullin

I recommend keeping an eye on her Twitter feed as she regularly covers stories like this, and so far she`s been on `our` side.

Glenn Quagmire    [30743.   Posted 2-Aug-2015 Sun 11:07]
  I just though I`d let people know that "Nekromantik 2" has been passed uncut by the BBFC for home release.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30742.   Posted 2-Aug-2015 Sun 05:35]
  Phantom

I reckon if they somehow managed to ban all porn from the internet overnight, there would be enough to last a life time already on hard drives.

A single 32Gbyte stick full of porn passed around amongst kids would be enough to last a fair while.

Therumbler    [30741.   Posted 1-Aug-2015 Sat 10:56]
  http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-amnesty-sex-work-argument-broken-down-622

Frankie Mullen, the only journalist who seems to bother questioning anti-sex and anti-porn stories, breaks down the faults in recent attack on Amnesty.

phantom    [30740.   Posted 30-Jul-2015 Thu 20:28]
  Yes, Cameron seems determined.
And the left (represented by the Guardian here) is right behind it.

So it just looks like a juggernaut that`s unstoppable now.
Reason simply doesn`t apply here. This whole censorship malarky follows its own, twisted logic.
Children are assumed to be in danger from an assumed harm. So censorship will provide the solution, one assumes. :)

Are we truly `protecting children`? Or are we far more playing to the sensitivities of easily offended women (i.e. voters!) with a chip on their shoulder about porn?

Of course, the moment you have an industry which complies with the government`s ludicrous regulations, you will have a lobby group interested in protecting its position and investment.
So the UK porn industry (the BBFC approved and ATVOD registered material providers) will invariably need protecting from the utterly unregulated, mainly American providers with their far superior material.
Having ruled the material illegal over here, one will then need to create the great fire wall, to protect those who comply from competition that would otherwise crush them.

In that respect it will be the same story as with the sex shops who pay licences. They must be guaranteed a quasi monopoly. Else why pay for a licence?

Thus, we have entered a new censorial era. Who has forgotten the days of David Sullivan`s `hardcore` material being sold in the UK in the 1990s?
This is where we`re headed. But now on the net. This time with full nudity. How exciting. :)

Naturally it`s an utterly futile effort.
Censorship never works. We know what happened to the desperate censorship efforts of the 1990s.
They collapsed. They always collapse.

For what which once was censored remains censored?
The censorial and legalistic types talk of censorship adapting to changing standards. But the truth is, that the standards only ever change in one direction. The past centuries of censorship have only ever seen standards go one way. One would think at some point someone would learn.

Not too long ago, I swallowed hard, when Depeche Mode`s `Personal Jesus` was used in a male perfume advert. When that record came out it was deemed a product of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now it`s the background to daytime television advertisements – in the run up to Christmas, no less.

Censorship is a science of ignorance, where those who deliberately hold themselves ignorant, by refusing to learn from history, try to keep their compatriots equally ignorant.

I remember reading Duerrenmatt`s `Physicists` yonks ago. In it the great thinker examines how a thought that has been thought cannot be `unthought`.
What has been thought simply is. Like a weed it will find a way. Simply because it will.
You cannot censor the thought which has been thought, the discovery which has been made. It exists. You can pretend that it doesn`t. But it will continue to exist.
Duerrenmatt may apply this to nuclear theory and atom bombs, but it applies just as much to porn or horror films.

Just as you cannot censor atomic knowledge (look to Iran on that very matter!), so you cannot stop Debbie from doing Dallas, over and over.

It is simply an incontrovertible truth. Censorship fails.
But it creates untold misery while it continues its futile struggle.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30739.   Posted 30-Jul-2015 Thu 03:42]
  So the government are kicking off another round of publicity for their anti-porn efforts

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/jul/30/cameron-promises-action-to-restrict-under18s-accessing-pornography

Sergio re the legal argument.

I think it also quite key that none of the other countries have decided that porn is seriously harmful. It would be interesting if the UK had to argue its case in Euro court, any winning arguments would have serious ramifications for the rest of Europe.

sergio    [30738.   Posted 30-Jul-2015 Thu 00:48]
  Ms Pandora letter: she seems to be saying that because she sadistically and sexually beats men and women and that she is a feminist and a woman then she is not sleazy. Ok.

The last part of the letter seems to be the legal advice she is getting from those backlashers.

`Anyway, my substantive representation is as follows. Your Rule 11 and 14 claims rely on an implementation of the AVMS that goes way beyond the provisions of the underlying Directive 2010/13/EU. Whilst I accept that in certain quarters it is currently in vogue to blame all the ills of society on those dastardly continentals, when approving the Treaty to join the EU in 1972 Parliament anticipated this pernicious influence in the European Communities Act 1972, and under Section 2(2) granted a Secretary of State the power only to pass secondary legislation for the purpose of implementing any EU obligation, but to go no further - an interpretation buttressed by case law, in particular Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA 1992 1 CMLR 305.

Hence I submit the Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014, which introduced sections 368E(2) and (3) into the Communications Act 2003, were made ultra vires the Secretary of State`s power to pass secondary legislation.`

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires
Hey! Secretary of state, you ain`t got no authority (to pass this law).

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30737.   Posted 28-Jul-2015 Tue 14:18]
  DarkAngel

I rather think these figures don`t really suggest there is much porn viewing going on there. There are typically 1000 members and maybe 2 staff each, so a fair amount of websites being accessed. Then there are also loads of sites like melon farmers that are blocked with the message `porn` so surely there are thousands of useful non-porn sites similarly blocked.

But it is interesting to note that people are trying to generate new laws about porn without actually being able to see what they are legislating against.

Also good to note that the authorities feel the need to block MPs from viewing porn in the first place. They`ll be initiating drugs tests next.

And of course it is excellent that this attempt to prevent MPs from viewing porn ends up suggesting that they watch loads of the stuff.

DarkAngel5    [30736.   Posted 28-Jul-2015 Tue 08:10]
  Have you guys read this? Seems our learned peers see nothing wrong in viewing porn whilst simultaneously seeking to prevent us from doing to same....

http://www.rt.com/uk/310857-parliament-porn-sites-access/

Hypocrisy in the extreme!!!!

braintree    [30735.   Posted 27-Jul-2015 Mon 13:53]
  I think the version I saw was uncut. The "eye" scene was there and that`s pretty much the goriest moment of the film. July 1983 is much later than when I first saw it.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30734.   Posted 27-Jul-2015 Mon 12:46]
  Braintree.

Interesting about the versions of Zombie Holocaust.

There may be an explanation here:

http://www.pre-cert.co.uk/display.php?vId=UK10026

VTC issued a less cut version before replacing it with a more heavily cut version

braintree    [30732.   Posted 25-Jul-2015 Sat 14:59]
  Re Zombie Holocaust. I remember renting this movie in 1982 from a local video shop and it was the complete version. So when I went to watch it again a year or two later and got the VTC version I was gutted to see it was also gutted of the juiciest scenes. I never did find out the source of the uncut version. I did wonder if it was the Dutch tape but that would have had subtitles on it (although I`m not sure it didn`t) but I can`t see why my local video shop would have bothered to buy in a Dutch tape when there was more than enough blood and gore coming out at that point. Very surprised when the UK dvd was uncut in 2000. The new Bluray is an upgrade and worth buying for the feature length documentary on cannibal movies which is only available on US Bluray on the region locked disc of Cannibal Ferox

Therumbler    [30731.   Posted 23-Jul-2015 Thu 14:44]
  Interesting that ATVOD targeted Vice. One of their writers, Frankie Mullen https://twitter.com/frankiemullin, appears to be in Melonfarmers` and has questioned the validity of some of the research being used to push internet filters.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/uk-porn-addiction-teenagers-304

This isn`t the first time someone questioning ATVOD`s vision has been targeted by them:

It seems pretty likely that my visibility as a campaigner has made me a target. In other words, ATVOD are punishing me for speaking out against them. My priorities as a loud-mouthed activist have, it seems, ended up conflicting with my priorities as a creative artist. If I`d kept my head down and stayed quiet, and not attended any protests, or argued against the regulations on the news, or done interviews with the press - if I`d not written a lot of angry blogposts or fundraised £3826 to help Backlash fight the laws - maybe I`d have been left alone a bit longer.

http://dreamsofspanking.com/blog/2015/5/under-investigation-by-atvod

cor    [30729.   Posted 20-Jul-2015 Mon 03:39]
  phantom[30728]

We can extrapolate how the big music companies would like the future to go by your example and things like this;

https://www.eff.org/en-gb/deeplinks/2005/11/are-you-infected-sony-bmgs-rootkit

And as for Operating systems, Microsoft, Apple and Google seem happily compliant trashing our rights for a pat on the back from political leaders as well.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/12/30/the-nsa-reportedly-has-total-access-to-your-iphone/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-google.html

Whether skeptical about some of this or not, the utopian future idealized by some clearly includes total annihilation of personal privacy.

And it makes sense that in preparing for such a future corporations (and governments) would like to maintain their legal advantages over us. Though i think this is largely a formality, as it will be fairly easy to strip rights from a people who are under such total observation and so under total control.

phantom    [30728.   Posted 19-Jul-2015 Sun 16:54]
  We seem to be heading toward an age where even our fridge will be connected to the net.
In ten, twenty years time we may well have devices which are all linked.
It may thus turn out to be your home entertainment system, your mobile phone, your laptop or your cloud storage which rats you out regarding what copies you might have made.
We cannot know where things are headed - but they will try and keep their options open - as things may well head their way.
Especially with more and more programmes being operable from the cloud rather than via your harddisk copy, the potential for such future reporting is very great.
I maintain that the music industry know what they`re doing. They are playing the very same game our dear government played with `illegal` porn.
What is clear is that, however pointless or lost the situation may appear, they will never cease fighting their corner, as they always hold out hope that things may swing their way - eventually.

braintree    [30727.   Posted 19-Jul-2015 Sun 13:31]
  I didn`t say anything about downloading. I said making your own copies of cd`s or copying your content to a hard drive, which is something the best technology they ever get won`t even know about. Downloading isn`t something they`ve changed. Illegal downloading remains illegal and they can carry on blocking sites willy nilly and perhaps might even make a difference. This High Court ruling is about making personal copies - not downloading which is why it`s pointless - because they are trying to prevent something they can never keep track of. It`s as pointless as when they tried to bring in the law preventing people from keeping home VCR recordings for longer than 28 days

phantom    [30726.   Posted 18-Jul-2015 Sat 16:58]
  I don`t think it`s because the industry believes it will be able to change something immediately, Braintree.

I believe they simply wish to keep their options open. Future technological developments may go their way. But only if at that point they still have the law backing them, can they use it to their advantage.
I believe that`s the way they see it.

In that regard they are taking their lead from government. For years UK government maintained an insane principle that all content on the entire net is published in the UK and therefore liable to legal sanctions.

But now look at them. Slowly the technological net is closing. They simply maintained a nonsense throughout a time in which things were impossible. Their goal was always porn. And now? Now the legal steps have been put in place with ATVOD etc.
Sooner or later, one will be able to ban foreign porn (or such foreign porn one wishes to victimise) for breaking UK law, - because it`s published here...

The forces of sexual bigotry held on for ten years or so, throughout which their cause looked hopeless. The internet meant we were winning. But we, the libertarians, are a disorganised jumble of idealists.
They won. Because they played the long game. They maintained useless legal options, waiting for the moment when technology turned in their favour.
Now it`s happening. And they`ll have their great British firewall pretty soon. To keep out the foreign muck which is `breaking` UK law.

Who could blame the music industry for playing the same game?
So what if everyone ignores their pointless, unenforcible laws. They`ll wait. Until such a day when enforcement is possible. Then they reclaim their lost territory and start selling cds at 15 quid again.
But that day may only come if they succeed in maintaining the legal status quo.

Remember that Snowden`s revelations shocked the world. Not merely by telling us whom governments were spying on, but by showing what IT capacity`s they have by now.
These tremendous IT surveillance capacities will only increase. And sooner or later they will be turned on music downloaders.

Then tell me again how pointless the music industry`s actions are....

braintree    [30725.   Posted 18-Jul-2015 Sat 14:04]
  It`s incredible that the music business wastes so much money going to the High Court to overturn the legalisation of making personal copies in the delusion that it matters to anyone. We all made personal copies before the ruling and we will continue to do so after it. Does this mean that copying your cds to a hard drive will be illegal? We may never care.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30724.   Posted 17-Jul-2015 Fri 05:42]
  ATVOD has released its latest Annual Report

Press release at

http://www.atvod.co.uk/news-consultations/news-consultationsnews/atvod-acts-to-protect-children-from-hardcore-porn-on-uk-vod-services

Annual Report at

http://www.atvod.co.uk/uploads/files/Annual_Report_2015_FINAL.pdf

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30723.   Posted 14-Jul-2015 Tue 01:47]
  The BBFC has released its Annual Report covering 2014

The press release is at

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/british-board-film-classification-grow-online-child-protection-while

The report is at

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/BBFC%20Annual%20Report%202014.compressed_0.pdf

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30722.   Posted 14-Jul-2015 Tue 01:46]
  Thanks Doodlebug, I will get the info updated.

DoodleBug    [30721.   Posted 13-Jul-2015 Mon 13:49]
  RE : The Cell (U.S. BLU-RAY)

The new U.S. release of The Cell has been confirmed to contain the Unrated version (109 mins) of the movie.

See post below from blu-ray.com forum member "cakefactory" with screenshots :

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=259821&page=9

The reviewer on the blu-ray.com site also states the running time difference in his review.

Despite the back cover stating an R-rating, cover screenshots on Amazon.com show a running time of 109 mins.

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30720.   Posted 9-Jul-2015 Thu 05:57]
  Well the ISP have now `upgraded the server`, and the forum still seems to be working. This is a bit strange as they told me the server would then no longer support the database, Access, that is being used.

phantom    [30719.   Posted 1-Jul-2015 Wed 06:14]
  Funny you should mention government proposals to have teachers spying on pupils.

You see, I have a little first hand experience of that.
I may be born in Britain but I grew up in Switzerland.
There is a little known story from Switzerland which is very relevant to the Snowden revelations and the entire modern day security apparatus.

A little over 25 years ago a scandal blew up in Switzerland, when it emerged that the government had been spying on its people.
It became known as the `dossier affair`, due to the government apparently keeping dossiers on vast numbers of people.
The population was outraged.

Unlike the UK and US governments the Swiss federal government did not have the gall to claim it needed to do this and instead came clean.
It promised to destroy the dossiers.
Everyone was given the right to claim a copy of their dossier in order to see what was in it.

Like me, most did not. Because who would expect to have been of interest to the government anyway, right?

Well, it so happened I much later met an old school friend on a tram. We talked. Turns out, he had asked for his copy.
The first entry had been made when we were in primary school together, at about the age of ten. He was `a loner, kept to himself, tended to get into trouble`, etc.

One thing is clear, if my pal had been reported by the teacher for that, then so will I have been. Not least as I had been his best friend back then at school.
But sadly it was past the deadline. So no chance anymore of getting myself a copy of my dossier. Too bad. It would no doubt have made interesting reading.

So, although I do not know it for certain, I`m pretty sure I will have been catalogued by the nation`s authorities - from age ten onwards. Reported on by my primary teachers and so forth. I would never have suspected it, until I just happened to bump into my long lost friend Alain years later.

The lesson is clear. You may not suspect anything at all. You may think yourself of no interest to the authorities at all. Yet still they`ll make their notes.
Just in case a ten year old loner who keeps to himself and gets into trouble might turn into a terrorist someday.
Better safe than sorry....

You see, the most worrying aspect about the scandal was that nobody ever explained for whom or what the dossiers were actually ever intended. You only collect such data if one day you intend to look at it for some purpose.

The `dossier affair` got more and more sinister. After the first scandal had blown, there followed another one soon after.
Switzerland has military conscription.
Believe it or not, they had a list of officer`s names who - due to their dossiers - were deemed untrustworthy. On outbreak of war, these were to be imprisoned.

And remember, this was Switzerland. Peaceable, quiet, deeply democratic Switzerland. Cheese, watches and mountains.

Yet, if left unchecked, they would spy on ten year olds and file the reports forever and, better yet, lock up their own officers.

So when I hear of the UK government, which is dossier mad, asking teachers to do some intelligence gathering for them, it`s like hearing an old story repeated.

After all, I believe myself to have been logged, filed and catalogued.
Because I was as contrary back then as I still am today. :)

If a teacher files a report on a pupil, then it will need to go somewhere. It will be kept in a file - a dossier - connected to this individual for life.

Over time the curiosity of the state will only expand.
Until they`re logging all kids.
Just like in Switzerland.
Just to be safe....

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30718.   Posted 1-Jul-2015 Wed 05:25]
  phantom, a fascinating post.

Maybe there is another level of societal political correctness at play though.

There are absolute rules that are widely supported. And then there are the rules that everybody knows are bollox, and only given lip service for published comments.

I think many of the issues you note are protected by a veneer of PC but it doesn`t go very deep. There can`t be many who buy the claim that `radicaliation` is some sort of instant 100% transformation/revelation initiated by an internet posting. It seems clear that such occurances are more likely reflections of the milieu in which these people live their day to day lives.

Of course the authorities could never say that... But they could pressgang teachers into spying on signs of exactly that unmentionable community background.

phantom    [30717.   Posted 29-Jun-2015 Mon 14:10]
  I`m sorry but Boris is just plain wrong.
Who knows, perhaps deliberately so.
One of the characteristics of the definitions surrounding Islamist terrorism is that the political leadership of this country are always divorcing it from Islam.
No doubt, they don`t want to lose the votes of the Muslim citizenry who might choose to feel offended.
But the truth is that we simply haven`t got Jewish or Protestant men with Kalashnikovs combing holiday beaches for people to shoot.

--

a) How often have we heard this phrase?
`Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.`
Over and again we are told by self appointed Muslim community leaders, government and opposition politicians that Islamist ideology is a perversion of a great faith and that the terrorists represent merely a tiny minority of Muslims.

--

However, over the past 35 years we have seen a fundamentalisation across the Muslim world. If we are completely honest, does a fundamentalisation mean that, as societies, they move closer or further away from the absolutist ideology of the terrorists?
I believe the answer to that is obvious. To deny that Muslim societies across the world have hardened their stance over the past three to four decades flies in the face of self-evident history.
Ayatollah Khomeini`s rise to power in Iran, the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the diminution of secular leadership in the struggle for an independent Palestine, the decline of Bathist nationalism, the rise of Hisbollah and Hamas. Even Turkey – the country of Ataturk - now has a distinctly Islamic government. All this is not mere coincidence.

It cannot be denied that Lebanon was once hailed `the Switzerland of the Middle East`, with women in western dress walking the promenades of Beirut. Many pictures of men in Afghanistan from the 1970s will show them clean shaven, wearing suits.
One of the things which offended Khomeini so terribly was that there were women in miniskirts on the streets of Teheran.

But where has all this gone? It was swept aside in a gradual, but dramatic fundamentalisation. Caught up in a vicious cycle, Islamic countries almost vied with each other regarding who could prove more devoutly religious.
Women`s western dress disappeared more and more. Life became much more strictly prescribed.
Beards made a big come back. So did the western suit begin to disappear. Everywhere, in every facet of civil life religion entered more and more. Even the tales of `A thousand and one nights` were widely banned for being `unislamic`. (This despite these tales being part of the Middle East`s very own cultural heritage.)
Governments, keen solely on maintaining the immediate, short term civic peace, appeased the religious faction, ceding ever more territory to the religious leadership.

Whereas the response of India and China has been to embrace globalisation, an Islamic world, feeling increasingly threatened by outside economic and cultural pressures, turned inwards and sought to purify itself, creating a bulwark to foreign influence by strict adherence to core cultural and religious traditions.
Societies which involve themselves in too much concern over matters of purity can turn very nasty. 1930s Germany is a ready warning.

Now, if we consider that a society contains a wide spectrum, made up of both liberal and zealous elements, then where does the religiously radical wing go, if the societal mainstream itself becomes increasingly religiously hardline?
Surely, the shelf is of limited width. The more a society tends toward religious zealotry, the more likely the most zealous in said society will fall off the far end of the shelf.

I believe this is exactly how the conditions have come about which now spawn these terrorist organisations.

Religious terrorism is little more than the expression of radicalism by a society`s religious radicals who are bereft of any other means of expressing their radicalism, as much of their fundamentalist ideology has over recent decades been absorbed into mainstream Muslim society.

A radical, a zealot will not simply let himself be re-absorbed into a societal mainstream which adopts his ideas. Far more he will shift his ground, re-establishing equidistance – thus preserving his radical identity.
The more toward religious fundamentalism society moves, so too does the pre-existing religious fundamentalist.

It thus follows, how can you be a zealot in a country of zealots?
You venture where even the ordinarily zealous will not go.
Religious terrorism is an extension of this zealotry. Terrorism is the last bastion of radicalism for those whose radical identity has been eroded away by the mainstream having become more radical.

--

b) Meanwhile, where is the means by which people are turned into terrorists to be found?
The internet - apparently. Al Qaeda and Islamic State supposedly recruit people online via social media and youtube videos. In fact, they `groom` them into becoming terrorists.
`Vulnerable individuals` are corrupted into sharing the twisted beliefs.

--

The lingo used to define the supposed route to radicalisation through the internet sounds incredibly familiar. According to current establishment doctrine, pornography can `corrupt` people. What people? `Vulnerable individuals` of course.
The vocabulary regarding radicalisation is almost entirely lifted from anti-pornography propaganda.
The belief that seeing a sexual act in a pornographic video can corrupt the viewer is being transposed wholesale into the world of terrorism.

Meanwhile nobody questions this credo.
Just as the myths about pornography go almost entirely unchallenged, so too has it been accepted that youngsters simply fall victim to seeing Islamists beheading people and thus becoming Islamists themselves.

Gaps in this anti-porn derived perspective are filled with views regarding paedophilia. Where innocent children are `groomed` by sexual predators, now innocent, vulnerable, young men are `groomed` by fanatical recruiters.
This presupposes that the young men are innocent and vulnerable – like children. One accepts by default the usual line forwarded by relatives that this or that young man, prior to his becoming a terrorist, was not an extremist at all (suggesting in fact that their family are not extremist and therefore not worthy of investigation) and had instead been corrupted and mislead by `someone` online.
It most likely belies that the individual concerned - and his wider family - held what most would consider hardline views regarding sharia law, burkhas, women`s rights and infidels, etc.

--

The truth, I fear, is not very comfortable.

Fundamentalisation has moved most societies in Islamic countries closer to the stance of the Islamists. Religious and cultural tolerance is now in short supply in many of these countries. What marks out the terrorists, if not an abject lack of tolerance?
It therefore takes much less convincing to move an individual situated on the hardline fundamentalist fringe of a fundamentalist society to take that last remaining step into radical terrorism.

I know a number of secular Muslims. But in my time I have also met a number of Muslims who, though outwardly secular, hold quite radical views; preferring the UK to be under sharia law, for example.

The UK`s problem is that living here today we have a large diaspora of Muslims who in many cases maintain very close ties to Pakistan and other Islamic countries. They are thus prone to influence by fundamentalised Islam.
It is this fundamentalisation which poses the great threat. Not youtube videos.

--

So to my mind, this is not as complicated as many politicians and community leaders would have us believe. Sure, Islam per se is not to blame. Mohammed certainly did not have this in mind when he dictated his revelations some 1400 years ago.
But it cannot be a coincidence that religious terrorism occurs on this scale, across the Muslim world, after a continued religious fundamentalisation across the very same territory over several decades.
The connection between the two seems fairly obvious.

When the religious fervour finally will die down across the Muslim world, is anyone`s guess.
But it is only once the Muslim mainstream normalises, once every Iraqi soldier stops feeling compelled to shout `Allahu aqbar` every time he fires an artillery piece, once globalisation is no longer resisted as though it were a foreign invasion, that we can hope to see religious terrorism end.

For one thing is crystal clear to me. It is Islamic society which has spawned this menace – albeit unwittingly – with its widespread fundamentalisation.

Trying to make out it instead was the internet what done it, may well help some politicians secure some votes, but it will never take us any nearer the truth.

Boris Johnson is a classicist, a man who understands his history. He ought to now better than to spout such nonsense.

My apologies for the long post.
Let`s say it`s the conclusion of a great deal of thinking I`ve been doing on this matter for some time.

braintree    [30716.   Posted 29-Jun-2015 Mon 13:39]
  I think the BFI release was 2009 but I can see why this might have popped up as a story because the previous issue was a dvd/bluray combo. This is the first release as dvd only

Melon Farmers (Dave)    [30715.   Posted 29-Jun-2015 Mon 03:02]
  Sergio

Mental gymnastics with terminology seems to the preoccupation of our time. One has to wonder how they will deal with the more substantive problems.

Boris Johnson provides a good example in this morning`s news.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11704735/Islamic-State-This-death-cult-is-not-a-state-and-its-certainly-not-Islamic.html

Braintree

Re Here We go Round the Mulberry Bush. I was just trying to confirm that the current release was the uncut version. I have now added a not to say that it has been uncut since the BFI release in 2005.

sergio    [30714.   Posted 29-Jun-2015 Mon 00:55]
  We must be more intolerant of the intolerant.
-------------Phew! is this some sort of logical circle?-----------

If we are more intolerant then who will tolerate us?
All people are intolerant, but some people are more intolerant than others?

 


Forum Software.  contact malcolm.smith@dragondrop.com or visit http://www.dragondrop.com