|
sergio [27175. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 13:56]
`While all the above scenes are shocking and uncomfortable to watch, this film IS very good.`
`...that being said, I`ll be surprised if they were phased by the necrophilia / rigor mortis sex moments,...`
Sorry? Isn`t that now illegal?
`While I`m no fan of censorship (I wouldn`t be on here if I was), I do believe that a metaphorical line should be drawn in the sand, especially when dealing with children and sex in films.`
I was just watching this with Heather Brooke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdszORp_-fk
Interesting what she says at the end ... `...some sort of provable harm that can happen...` pbr [27174. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 12:41]
Following on from Sergio`s comment...
"as it does suggest you can easily drug and anally rape a child"
...this may come as a surprise........... sergio [27173. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 06:54]
`While you don`t actually see anything as such, the repeat viewings could be seen as being titillating and arousing for certain viewers`
Is it me or does that sound moronic? pbr [27172. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 23:51]
@Cappy - can`t say I`m entirely sure what you`re trying to express there... if you`re trying to suggest that the previous ruling clique had a healthy respect for the ideals of liberty (and I hold no dillusions that the Tory belief in it goes any further than crass NIMBYism, but frankly, that`s a step up from where we were...) then... well... let me just say we`ll be in disagreement on that :)
Oh yea... as Tony has come out of his crypt... you may all enjoy this particular little documentary:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/when-britain-went-to-war/4od
I recommend you watch the whole thing, it`s about the Miners Strike, but if you`ve not got the time, skip straight to 47:00 to get the background, and then at 48:41 someone will appear and he will speak words, words which will bring you the most sardonic smile you`ve ever had... Cappy [27171. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:26]
@pbr liberal views ??? Are you having a laugh when the liberals have just got into bed with the tories hmmmmm !!! and i dont know what the crack is with william coz there was a jeremy and norman for the liberals. Now you have a condem f lies all over the place Cappy [27170. Posted 1-Sep-2010 Wed 15:23]
@pornomania Yep the do gooders are having a right laugh saying we can watch and regulate whatever we want coz we know its better that way you arseholes Pornmania [27169. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 12:58]
Did any of you watch Logun`s Run on Film 4 yesterday at 4.45pm in the afternoon? It was the uncut version with full nudity. Nudity in itself according to censorshiop law as I understand and as long as it is not sexual should not really be censored even in daytime if there was warning before hand, however there was a scene at the beginning when Jenny Agutter wearing very little with glimps of buttocks came to see Michael York for sex. Another scene at an orgy had full frontal nudities. pbr [27168. Posted 29-Aug-2010 Sun 05:39]
I see your Daily Hate and I raise you MichaelG!
While looking for any news on the Freedom/Repeal Bill I found this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1291007/Nick-Clegg-launches-Freedom-Bill-cut-red-tape-reduce-nanny-state.html
And the comments are... delightful... my pick is this one:
I know, people fought for freedom of expression so that they could talk about things in an open discussion without fear and all we have left is the DM
- John Alex, London, 03/7/2010 01:49
...I can only hope that the poster`s comment has the meaning I think it does and that the Hate`s moderators aren`t as sharp as they think they are... MichaelG [27167. Posted 28-Aug-2010 Sat 23:50]
Anyone fancy a laugh?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1306470/The-Girl-Who-Played-With-Fire-review-No-spark-Swedens-gloomy-Noomi.html
Tookey gets it wrong again! After giving `The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo`, one of the most critically acclaimed movies this year, a feeble 2 stars, he now gets the knives out for the sequel.
"Once again, the origins of this piece in Scandinavian TV are evident."
Once again, Tookey`s world-class stupidity is evident. They`re based on a trilogy of books, you fucking halfwit.
"The murky lighting, dull camerawork and slack editing (especially obvious during the action scenes) aren`t of the quality you`d expect in a Hollywood film."
Er... perhaps because it`s a Swedish film, not a Hollywood film, with none of the excessive budgets or colossal salaries from the latter. Any real film critic would, you`d think, be glad of the chance to review something a little bit different to the norm. Not this juvenile minded cretin - he`s probably just upset because there weren`t any fluffy talking animals or toys that come to life in there.
And no review of `A Serbian Film`, Chris? What`s all that about then? pbr [27166. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 10:32]
@ Hartfordshire conviction....
"Sergeant Dey said: We are the first officers in the county to make use of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 – possession of extreme pornographic images – and it was only possible by the fantastic support from FACT and BPI."
...FACT and the BPI are protecting their beastiality catalogue? O_o
"The investigation into him took nearly a year."
...your taxes at work... goatboy [27165. Posted 27-Aug-2010 Fri 04:16]
I`ve not seen it, but A Serbian Film is reportedly VERY over the top, I don`t think it`d have got through unscathed at any point, though if the tories are wanting bloody Medal of Honor banned, I can see why the bbfc wouldn`t want to pass the baby rape movie uncut at the moment, I`d guess they`d think it`s not worth it in terms of the level of heat they`d get, although it`s interesting the bbfc say in the press release "the Board does not regard these images as likely to contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978", which does raise the question of what the justification is for cutting it.
And of course the irony of this is the film, uncut, is on the pirate bay website, so the bbfc doing this may well increase interest in seeing the uncut version, which anyone with a computer and broadband can do anyway. MichaelG [27164. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 21:11]
Re: goatboy [27163]:
Didn`t know about this, thanks for the info. Very interesting point you make about the activities of the BBFC in relation to which political party are in power. Don`t know if we`re just seeing a number of particularly troublesome releases which they would have felt compelled to hack chunks out of regardless, or if they feel obliged to be a little more ruthless with the scissors now the Tories are back in power. Perhaps they`re still a little wary of the party who gave us the original VRA.
It`s also very interesting to consider that under CommuNuLabour, despite their overarching implementation of draconian, fist-clunking, stifling policies, one thing that did improve was the relaxation of censorship of entertainment, at least in some ways.
And no, that doesn`t mean I want the fuckers back in power... goatboy [27163. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 17:36]
Surprised it`s not mentioned here yet, the bbfc have ordered 3 minutes 48 seconds of cuts to A Serbian Film, 79 cuts, and a screening in London this weekend for frightfest is off as Westminister council won`t allow them to show anything but the bbfc approved version.
Though to be honest I think it was optimistic of frightfest to think the film, which has a scene where a newborn baby is raped, would get through the bbfc, especially given the tories are back in power. MichaelG [27162. Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 12:08]
I`d just like to say a big `THANK YOU` to the BBFC for the heads-up about cutting the piss out of the `I Spit On Your Grave` remake - I really appreciate their transparency - and also for doing their bit to ensure that the distributor of this movie loses sales because no-one wants to watch something that`s been rendered incoherent by their excessive meddling and pruning. Dissuading movie fans from going to see the cinema release and from buying the DVD - the recession rolls on thanks to self-important, hand-wringing cunts like this.
I mean, what is the fucking point when I can order it totally uncut from the US Amazon site months before it gets released here anyway? The BBFC should just wind up right now and pack all their employees off to the nearest job centre...
Oh, and after his comments about `Medal of Honour`, Liam Fox can fuck right off too - the first member of the Coalition to royally get my back up. Every government has at least one, don`t they? DoodleBug [27161. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 22:55]
phantom [27159]
Loved that last comment phantom :-)
As far as I`m concerned the BBFC were doomed once DVD`s became popular at the end of the 90`s. DVD importation kicked in in a big way and there are so many UK based importers around you can have the latest uncut epic through your letterbox within 2 days of ordering it.
bleach [27160. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 15:21]
The new Medal of Honour game has also been rated 18 for violence. The first game of the series to get above a 15. phantom [27159. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 12:32]
DoodleBug [27158]
Well, the gents at the BBFC must continue to justify their existence.
They do so most of all by finding `potentially harmful material`.
(the beauty in this lies of course in the adverb)
Some might argue that this creates an inherent conflict of interest. After all, what happens would the BBFC - heaven forfend - not find anything to ban in a calendar year?
Would not significant numbers of staff then be deemed superfluous?
Well, yes. Thus they will happily continue to find material from which we need to be protected.
It follows therefore that, as long as there are censors, there will be censored material. Which in turn will be used as an argument for the continued need for censors. Ah well...
There is however something which will throw a spanner into these works.
I can imagine that functionaries in Whitehall already will be fearfully toward the internet and the evermore practical proposition of global film distribution via the net.
We already know that this is happening to a large scale in video piracy, but it is bound to take off legally in some form sooner or later.
It will then very quickly become an irrelevance where you live, or where the seller is based, when downloading your legally purchased movie.
Essentially we all know this is going to happen. It is a matter of time.
At such a point the BBFC, finally, will be rendered powerless.
Sure, they will still be able to oversee cinema releases. But anything regarding video will very quickly - and irreversibly - slip from their grasp.
And hey, we will all be there - to spit on their grave. ;) DoodleBug [27158. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 09:39]
After hearing about the problems the makers of the remake of I Spit On Your Grave had in the U.S. trying to get a rating I made a prediction that it wouldn`t pass uncut in the UK and it looks like I was right :
This work was cut. The cut(s) were Compulsory. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 21s were required. Details of cuts below may contain spoilers of plot details.
Company was required to make a total of seventeen cuts during three separate scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material (in this case, shots of nudity that tend to eroticise sexual violence and shots of humiliation that tend to endorse sexual violence by encouraging viewer complicity in sexual humiliation and rape). Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. phantom [27157. Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 07:02]
emark [27154]
re: A Sadistic Prosecution...
Yep, it seems an interesting step change here.
First off, this is not bestiality which seems to have been the mainstay of DPA prosecutions thus far.
Also, it`s not something tagged on to some other charge. Or at least that`s how it reads in this article.
What is unclear however is why the police raided his properties.
Was this really a raid to find 3 movies and 26 photos of BDSM?
Or was it - as I would deem more likely - a raid for something else which proved fruitless? Thus, the DPA once more would be the fall back charge in order for police to justify their actions and not be seen to be wasting their time.
The mention of BDSM in this is extremely worrying.
Also the vagary of the lingo used seems very suggestive of much lesser material than this law was ever (claimed to be) set up for.
But then I do approach this with an element of `I told you so`.
To me the most contentious paragraph in this law has always been `likely to result in serious injury`.
From the start I asked, how likely is a likeliness?
What is the difference between, say, a possibility and a likeliness?
And that`s before we ever get into the notion of `serious injury` in this context.
I have always suspected that it is the `likely to` which possibly opened this up to all matters BDSM.
Now true, we do not know the details of this. And we have no way of ever finding out. Perversely, this means that we - some of the best informed people on this matter in the country - therefore still remain clueless as to what actually is culpable under this law.
But then that is why this is bad law.
One can not know.
The prosecution is thus at liberty to try it on - no matter what.
Authoritarian nirvana.
Truly one of Blair`s legacy laws it seems.
For I would definitely call that a legacy. pbr [27156. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 10:37]
@Cartoon Banners...
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Tuna Empire work isn`t being displayed for its porn quality... Tuna Empire satirised Bin Laden... and this is Denmark... pbr [27155. Posted 24-Aug-2010 Tue 00:21]
*amused aside*
...Dentist in sadomasochistic shocker...
*rollseyes* emark [27154. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 15:45]
Another "extreme porn" case that seems to involve only humans, with no other charges: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/8346808.Dorset_Dentist_spared_prison_over_pain_porn/
This may also be the first case where the defendant admits having an interest in BDSM (as opposed to looking at "shock" images for curiosity, etc). Shaun [27153. Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 05:47]
Fourty five years ago when I was but seven, we used to play "Allies and Germans" in the school playground. I once even took the part of hitler.
These morons who whinge, moan and demand censorship and try to do "good" haven`t got a clue. Nor do they realise just how much HARM they are doing.
There may be less censorship in some spheres, but that`s only due to modern technology and the fact the politicians cannot control it.
In many ways we have lost LOADS of freedoms since I was a kid.
So much for that freedom site of the government`s. It is clear they don`t have any intention of even considering the MOST popular ideas.
Politicians in this country are not fit for purpose and should be treated with complete disdain like the charlatans they are. They prostitute their position, and abandon their former stated principles completely for a bit of extra time in power. It makes me sick. pbr [27151. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 14:48]
When I first saw the headline play as the taliban I though "damn that`s brave"... but what it actually means is that in multiplayer, someone has to be on the other team...
=/ Do they really need a gamer to explain that when you`ve got competative play and only 2 teams... someone has to be on the other team?
I mean... come on now... shall we ban all WW2 games in case someone plays as an axis power? What about going back further... is that Napoleon: Total War on my shelf an insult to those that died at Waterloo?
I mean good grief... MichaelG [27150. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 11:59]
taken them a while, but here we go:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305164/Medal-Honour-Liam-Fox-outraged-video-game-play-Taliban.html
This is the first bit of controversial entertainment that anyone from the Coalition has called for to be banned!
"I am disgusted and angry. It`s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game"
It ain`t that hard mate. I bet it`s going to go down a storm in places like Luton and Bolton with young members of certain minority groups who idolise the likes of Abu Hamza and who jet off for summer holidays to remote parts of Pakistan to... er, `learn new skills`.
`I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.`
Yeah, they`re going to do themselves out of thousands of pounds of sales just because you said so....
If I were him, I`d be rather more concerned about this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305076/Iran-goes-nuclear-Fears-regime-plans-bomb-gather-pace-Russian-atomic-reactor-started.html pbr [27149. Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 04:25]
Yet another surreal story out of Kent... there`s something awry with that force... emark [27148. Posted 20-Aug-2010 Fri 18:47]
Nice to see the Guardian turning into the Daily Mail. Janus17 [27147. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 23:30]
Re: Just 3 Victims of Paying for Sex Law...
Just love the Guardian`s approach to this. They don`t seem to be able to accept the facts. There aren`t prosecutions because there just aren`t the ludicrous numbers of trafficked or coerced women suggested by the likes of CommuNuLabour idiot Denis McShane a couple of years back. There aren`t prosecutions because it`s so damn difficult to prove, which should have been taken into consideration by the halfwits who created the law in the first place.
`Men who use brothels are escaping a new law intended to crack down on the coercion of women into prostitution, the Guardian has learned.`
Yes, they`re likely `escaping` because the women they visit haven`t been coerced or forced(!). Fuck me.
Now APCO claim that at least 2,600 prostitutes working in brothels in England and Wales had been trafficked from abroad. `Trafficked` - meaning they have been led, coerced or forced into coming here by a third party who will gain from the situation, or are they girls who have come here of their own volition? Irrespective of being assisted in arriving or travelling - if this is the criteria for establishing `trafficking` cases, you may as well go after the airline company by which they arrived too - I`d just love to know how the term is being defined.
As for the figure, how can they possibly know this? One week it`s 2,500, the next it`s 80,000, depending upon who you`re listening to at the time. But with only three cautions (and no prosecutions) since April 2009, don`t all these massive figures seem, well, just a little... unlikely? sergio [27146. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 04:01]
Irony:
Next to story of `Prudish council` and `Artist John Vesty `
was
` * Kelly Brook is a goddess in gold as she FINALLY puts some clothes on for Piranha 3D premiere But slashed dress was still rather revealing
`
I am not sure why he is `astonished` - has he never displayed nude paintings before? Of course the opinion of a few council officials is flimsy.
`But former actor Mr Vesty, 57, and his supporters insisted that none of his paintings were erotic or pornographic.`
Again, that is his and the supporters opinion. If it is not erotic then it must be bad art.
(`No nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even if it be only the faintest shadow — and if it does not do so it is bad art and false morals.` - Ch. 1: The Naked and the Nude by Kenneth Clark)
I am not sure if this is censorship. They put them up and then take them down and then put them somewhere else - a gallery.
I wonder if some of the people were so turned on by the pictures that they couldn`t take the acres of flesh.
Council officials, public/staff and opinions of offence.
Interesting game, how many opinions of offence does it take to take a picture down? cor [27145. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 15:38]
RE: "in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?"
granted none, but in no other spheres do we need to, how can we maintain the right to remain silent until your day in court when you had to talk the last time you were in court. Or ensure a fair second trial when the first is on public record, likely sensationalized by the media potentially biasing the second jury? Or a speedy trial the fourth, or fifth time around?
now i feel like i have to explain the value of the right to remain silent, how it protects the innocent and condemns the guilty by the very nature of evidence itself.. but I`ll assume you understand this principal and move on.
The courts are only half the problem, being under investigation can be a life destroying process where none of your belongings are your own and every move you make is twisted out of context to make a case against you.. this process has to have an end, a conclusion, otherwise its just an exorcise in terrorism.
RE"If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result..."
...there will always be new evidence, doubts, inconsistencies, but we`re not setting up a method of scientific study here, this isn`t a proof or a theory that can be re-tested every time someone spots a vulnerability, its someones life, someone who, when accused of a crime, should be aloud to clear there name once and for all, and then move on without continual harassment or fear of being retested if someone sees a circumstantial weakness in them.
I think we need to look at what exactly we want from justice, if its simply to find the absolute truth, then a scary, intrusive system will be the answer, my hope is that its `to convict the guilty where possible, taking every precaution to protect the rights of the innocent and wrongly accused` - considering an innocent man in prison *means* a guilty man on the street i can`t see how anyone can disagree with me, the process itself should accept that some errors will happen that we can`t fix - or it would make the whole system worse.
pbr [27144. Posted 18-Aug-2010 Wed 14:20]
I`m very much aware of the value of the double jeopardy rule, consider though... in what other spheres do you make a massive mistake and just leave it be?
If there`s compelling new evidence, or something which later discredits what appeared at the time to be the proper result... there should be a mechanism to retry the offence... the question is how you determine what`s compelling and how many bites or rather, in what circumstances can the cherry be bitten again... cor [27143. Posted 16-Aug-2010 Mon 03:05]
RE: Double jeopardy..
I`m not an expert in law, but to me double jeopardy is more than just another addendum to law that can be easily scrapped or re-written. I believe its the foundation of out system, by that i mean the concept of `clearing your name`.
Without it i think there will be 3 fundamental differences in how our justice system will operate;
first, accepting the minimalist attitudes of public sector workers, cases will be brought with little to no evidence, and little to no prep, in the knowledge that if a conviction fails the more `new` evidence they can put forward the greater the chance of getting another trial.
second, where charges will be brought against the innocent more readily (as a side effect of the first point) people who have `cleared their name` will still be under investigation after the trial, their every move scrutinized and taken out of context for an indeterminate amount of time, there will literally be no way for them to re-join normality.
and third, there will be even more pressure on the innocent to plead guilty, to get a lesser sentence and put an end to their torment -knowing it likely wouldn`t end even if they won their case now.
RE pbr [27142]
unbending rules are our only protection from the public servants that do everything but serve the public, rules like `innocent unless proven guilty` or the right to remain silent, or the concept of clearing your name in court (supported by double jeopardy). Without them we rely on the judgment of people i wouldn`t trust with the remote to my TV. pbr [27142. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 12:05]
Double jeopardy is a double edged sword... it`s pro preventing the state from trying you over and over and over and over ad infinitum has to be balanced against the shitstorm that is... say... being acquitted then writing a book about how you did it... if you did it... *rolls eyes*
I think it`s something which needs considerable care... but... an unbending rule regardless of the facts... that`s dangerous too... on balance... double jeopardy is something which can be sacrificed - if there are the proper gatekeepers and penalties for abusing its absence...
There haven`t been that many egregious cases of abuse since we lost it this side of the border... though... 2 `wobbly` shall we say... ones come to mind... Teddy [27141. Posted 15-Aug-2010 Sun 06:38]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10977281
I find this absolutely incredible! 800 years of jurisprudence...not a bit of it; our wonderful politicians know what`s best. I thought that Nu Labour were bad, but the SNP are of an even worse ilk, if anything. pbr [27140. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 10:13]
RE: Consent to prosecute
I was looking for some statistics... didn`t find what I was looking for, did drop by and get some details on consent to prosecute though:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/consent_to_prosecute/#a06
"Where the consent of the DPP to institute proceedings is required, this may be given by a Crown Prosecutor by virtue of section 1(7) Prosecution of Offences Act (the 1985 Act)."
So... everyone above caseworker and associate prosecutor is able to consent :) and I`m making the assumption that AP`s can`t I don`t know for sure... my understanding is that AP`s are non-qualified (as in they`re not solicitors/barristers) staff... that`s what I`m basing the assumption on... and a sliver of hope... Spiderschwein [27139. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 04:39]
RE: Bel Mooney and music that`s poisoning kids minds.
The 80s were innocent?!
This was the era of glam and big hair and "Girls, Girls, Girls," and groupies and cocaine-fuelled excess.
I am with her on the unnecessary flesh-baring though. I do think that a lot of it is just put in because the object is to shift some units and cover up for mediocre actual product. Then again I don`t buy it, so... pbr [27138. Posted 14-Aug-2010 Sat 03:13]
@ Harvey
I`m sure the most -noticeable and reported- trouble will be with the prisons, but it`s always easier to bellow rhetoric on cutting "admin" rather than "the front line"... Harvey [27137. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:23]
@ pbr,
I tend to think the biggest trouble will be with prisons, rather than the courts. pbr [27136. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:17]
@ Harvey
lol, I chuckled when I saw the met chief (granted, different budget) saying he "rather likes sending villians to jail"... I see ground work for a scuffle between the hang-em and flog-em wing of the Clarke & the Treasury coming... and I can guess which side the foaming at the mouth sections of the media are going to bay for...
But in all seriousness... Courts have this awful habit of getting terribly backlogged... if you take 15,000 people out of the MoJ and the only bodies it runs I can think of with real numbers are HMPS, HMCS and HMTS... and yea... legal aid has become something of a target of choice...
...could be all kinds of trouble...
In other news... I was most amused by The Sun`s new campaign to shop benefit frauds... talk about biting the hand that feeds you... Harvey [27135. Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 17:09]
@ pbr
Well legal aid was being squeezed even before the government`s finances got so out of shape. But I take your point that when the budget gets slashed, there will be less justice to go around.
Although... the slashing of budgets at the MoJ could work to prevent the CPS spending money on such nonsenses as the tiger porn man`s case. So it`s swings and roundabouts.
|
