See also Religious Watch Forum

 freeworld    [27033.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 16:28]
dano [27029. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]

If you look at yesterdays "Mail on Sunday", you can read Neil O`Brien`s thoughts. He`s saying (in his reasonable article) that we do not need the sort of internet censorship which New Labour would quite possibly have indulged in as a result of the "Raoul, man you are a legend" stuff. You can just hear them-"These opinions have no place in our society, therefore we will introduce a bill criminalising websites hosting them and people expressing them...2 years in prison and then onto our new hate speech register...blah blah". Who can say with any certainty this would not have happened given their track record?

I have not seen an article in the "Mail" saying people should be "banned" from praising Moat and blasting the police on the internet, or that people do not have a right to express opinions on the internet of this kind. What I have seen are many opinion pieces, in the Mail and elsewhere, expressing a distaste for those pro Moat and anti police opinions (which I tend to share, though I am by no means pro police these days). There has been some bemoaning of the fact that the most rabidly offensive opinions can now be instantly beamed into cyberspace by anyone, wheras in the past they would have only been heard in pubs and not paraded in the print/broadcast media which had to exercise degrees of censorship. I would be interested if someone can point me to an article(s) calling for such expressions of opinion to be illegal and websites "banned" from hosting them.

As the O`Brien article says, in parliament "Dave" criticised-rightly I think-those who worship the Moat idol, but he has not used this as a Blunkett might have in his home office, to "demonise" the internet and use public "outrage" as a means to bring in totalitarian legislation to pander to what is perceived as "public opinion".

Some commenters on melonfarmers take great exception to anyone in the press for expressing opinions about films/tv etc which they don`t share. But we don`t all have to have the same views, nor are the views we happen to hold necessarily the only valid ones which deserve expression. So why get angry if any media organ prints opinions which do not meet our own? So what if people have different ideas about what is good and bad in culture and say so in print? There is nothing at all wrong with criticising things because they don`t concur with your own morals/aesthetics... whatever. Good, down with uniformity, up with diverse opinions and debate. That isn`t censorship, which is what melonfarmers exists to combat.

To my mind, what is tending to happen is... let`s say, a critics disapproval of the perceived morality of a movie, is somehow being seen as on par with him/her wishing to "ban" it. These are simply not the same thing at all. The first is completely legitimate, the second is not. So, in another context, "Dave" criticising facebook for hosting what he finds are unpleasant opinions and wishing people didn`t say these things, is not the same as "Dave" making it a criminal offense to print them...banning a site by legislation (and maybe criminalising the expressor). In a free society the first is legitimate, the second would not be. Nor is Simon Heffer being legitimate in the "Telegraph" in hoping the cops are taking the names of those venting anti police opinions on facebook, so they can be charged under "hate" laws if they ever physically attack the police later on (I don`t think the Heffalump is quite correct in his assumptions about the law here, I don`t think there exists a hate crime to cover expressing a hatred of the police?). Unfortunately this is the nasty territory you slide into when politicians foolishly decide to create "thought crimes", punishing what people think, rather than just what they do. Straw(curse him forever!) loved doing that. So, what is really very wrong, where I would become "indignant", is if critics go beyond "criticism" and advocate censoring that which they dislike, so nobody else can see/hear/read it.

And what is far worse, downright evil, is where some go so far as to implement/advocate laws which imprison people for looking at/reading/saying/hearing/possessing that which they dislike-where that totalitarian interference in people`s lives rests on the basis of subjective morals/taste/aesthetics and nothing else. Now, is anyone doing this apart from off the wall religious nutters, Beyer`s old mob and the man hating feminist lunatic fringe? Oh yes, a government, the New Labour one,they did it, boy, did they do it (DPA, dangerous cartoons..), in the most savage attack on people`s rights since (the Liberal-radical) Labouchere`s homo hounding amendment in the 1880s.

We will not see new DPA style/ban mania legislation, unless people are stupid enough to again allow grisly old Stalinists into positions where they can write our criminal laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1295614/Raoul-Moat-Facebook-proved-bring-law-order-Wild-West-Web.html

emark {27032. Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16}
No emark-the state should not place people under arrest for a mild slap to a child. No doubt thousands of us would have had our parents in prison and we ourselves may have been at the tender mercy of the many sexual and physical abusers who got into work within child care homes, if that totalitarian madness had been up and running in our childhood. Bit suprised at you (I usually tend to agree with you and really admire your tireless fight against stuff like the DPA) stereotyping "Mail" readers as wanting children "beaten"- no we don`t. Merely the right to mildly physically chastise a child without being arrested and have our kids taken off us as "abusers". That word, which falsely implies the odd mild slaps are on a par with savage cruelty, is deliberately utilised by the "banners" to justify a quite needless and what would be a dangerous draconian measure, wherby a totalitarian state would impose into private life. It`s really the same sort of tactic the DPA advocates used with their harping on about legendary raped and murdered Guatamalans etc to justify a law criminalising any and all images, however mildly produced. Beware of giving the state even more power to criminalise us where there is no proof of harm and necessity-we should know all about that here. Even New Labour failed to give the banners their way on this one.

 emark    [27032.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 15:16]
@axis45 :

I`ve also noticed this online. On general English-speaking forums, that presumably mostly have US visitors, there`s a largely liberal viewpoint, and also generally what I feel is a clearer moral line. When I`ve been on UK-focused forums, in general (except here), there`s an awful lot more Daily Mail-style thinking, wanting to ban anything they disagree with, whilst supporting "their" right to do things like beat kids. Whilst there are sadly plenty of conservative religious nutters in the US, I think in general they have a greater sense of supporting freedom.

This has also led to oddities, e.g., it seems I`ve seen more support for the "extreme porn" law on UK _BDSM_ sites, whilst general international forums have hardly anyone in support at all.

I don`t know how England compares to other countries though.

"Contrast the french reaction."

Perhaps, but then there are other issues, like the recent Burka ban (or of anything covering people`s faces in public).

On the subject of beating children, see this story about the MoJ: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/18/guide-punishing-jailed-youths

Yes, the same Ministry that made it so people now get locked up for drawing a picture of a fictional 17 year old being "abused" says it`s okay for the Government to physically abuse actual children.

 IanG    [27030.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 09:02]
"Jackie Hill, who runs the Limelite Costume Shop on the other side of where the sex shop would be, said she intends to start a petition against the application: You don`t need it shoved in your face. You can get everything you want online if you really want it and it`s the clients that are going to be using the shop that really worry me."

Well, Jackie, its people like YOU that REALLY worry me! You judgeMENTAL twat.

What of ALL the other people YOU don`t see who "get everything online"? Do they worry you too dear Jackie?

I suggest you PUT BRAIN IN GEAR, OPEN GOB and SHUT IT AGAIN RAPIDLY. MORON!

 dano    [27029.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:55]
Notice the Daily Mail has been jumping all over the Facebook Rauol Moat controversy to start bleating out yet another one of their rants about the "evils" of the internet.
One idiot (the woman behind the Facebook page) has now drawn all those who wish to censor the internet out of the woodwork.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27028.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 08:27]
pbr, a bit saggier now. As octopus ladies go, she looks a bit past it to me.

 pbr    [27027.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 07:33]
Dave... you sure that long tentacle of the law drawing is kosher? As neither the guy or octopussy (...sorry...) have their imaginary birth certificates and grey hair in the shot... they could be under 18...

 MichaelG    [27026.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 00:41]
Re: DarkAngel5 [27024]:

"How is he still in a job exactly?"

Because every time he manages to get himself bogged down in sleaze and scandal, the greasy little shit pulls the race card and he`s instantly off Scot-free.

I`m still completely baffled how he ever got to stay on as Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee though. All he ever does is whine on about violent video games and abuse his position - hardly qualified, is he?

Moving on, Chris Tookey again proves what a complete helmet he is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1295090/Toy-Story-3-Brilliantly-bravely-tackling-real-human-problems-grown-film-year.html

Tookey has obviously been so excited at the prospect of reviewing a wholesome `family` movie, he`s launched into a `War and Peace` length review on the Mail site. He`s been so busy working up this epic, in fact, that he doesn`t appear to have had time to review any of the other movies out this week, including `Inception`, `Predators` or the new `Twilight` movie, a task which seems to have fallen to colleague James O`Brien, who has been saddled with the task of reviewing every other movie out this week whilst Tookey is utterly consumed by the task of gushing out his weighty praise for `Toy Story 3`. Seems O`Brien was so knackered he didn`t get the cinematic joke that is `Mega Piranha`. Oh well.

Tookey, meanwhile, indulges in the journalistic equivalent of having a wank onto his computer keyboard:

"It dares to examine the grown-up idea that some day our lives will have run their course."

Exactly Chris, take the fucking hint, will you?

"Intelligent adults may notice that the movie is, at heart, about letting go and facing death."

So, Tookey noticed this, so therefore he must be intelligent, right? Gosh, we`re all really impressed down here, I can tell you. Get a life, you cock. It may be brilliantly made, and have certain themes which strike a chord with adults, but it`s not exactly Ingmar Bergman, is it?

Unless, of course, you`re an overly-sentimental, juvenile-minded fuckpuppet who can`t get his head around the plot of `Inception`, subsequently passing that one over to his colleague to cover (who also doesn`t seem to get it, going from the review), then trying to impress the Mail readership by waxing lyrical about the weighty, adult themes to be found in the latest Pixar offering.

"This could yet prove to be the most grown-up film of the year."

What, more than `Lebanon`? Or `The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo`? Grow up, you twat...

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27025.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 23:14]
DarkAngel

Vaz even retained his chairmanship of the Commons Home Affairs Committee

 DarkAngel5    [27024.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 22:13]
Is Keith Vaz still an MP then?

Thought with all the scandals this guy caused when labour where in office, he`d stepped down.

How is he still in a job exactly?

 MichaelG    [27023.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 21:29]
Re: Publicity Seeking...

Oh will you please just fuck off, Vaz, you tiresome, irrelevant little cunt...

 axis45    [27022.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 17:30]
Re: The Raoul Moat Facebook contoversy:27021.

We in the UK are often accustomed to thinking as ourselves as quite an advanced society,sure enough we almost invented the modern world and more than punch above our weight in our contributions to science,art,literature and technology.

Surprisingly though i think that in terms of our general understanding of democracy and human rights and other related concepts we collectively resemble a bunch of retarded baboons.

At odd times something will happen or be observed that draws attention to this fact.For example i was watching an episode of Question Time on the BBC last year where they were discussing something in the news where a child had been beaten by their parents,i cant remember the exact story but i was struck by the divide between english politicians/celebs on the panel and the others [i remember one guy being from ireland and others being from outside the uk]For the non english panelists there was a clear moral line and none of them hesitated in articulating that it was wrong to beat a child even under difficult and challenging circumstances.This was in mark contrast to the english panelists who each had great difficulty in deciphering where the right and the wrong lay,theres was much mealy mouthed double speak and even those who offered a degree of condemnation,their language was couched in caveats and a kind of duality and confusion.

I digress of course but my point is that when you look at any news story in the uk you have to do it thru the prism of the "english disease" or neurosis that for whatever reason is unable to grasp the concept of basic rights and their consequences.

The Raoul Moat story is interesting for a number of reasons,his [alleged] judicial execution which is now the defacto accepted standard in the UK as in the US for any one deemed to be a dangerous criminal by the authorities and is kicking off.And many,perhaps even a majority support this policy.Yes people want to see these lawbreakers killed,murdered,executed whatever,it has widespread support and the police are [allegedly] willing to do it.

Much of the media collude to paint the picture of those who break the law as deviant,dangerous and using all methods of subliminal programming to portray criminals as sub human even animals.Remember the ad about car thieves portraying hyenas breaking into cars,the inferences are clear,dangerous,wild animals,not human.Very much a direct parallel can be drawn between ads like that and Goebbels infamous nazi propaganda films potraying the jewish race as rats.

Goebbels would have hated the internet too as much as the propagandists of our age,with its uncanny knack of exposing hypocrisy and going decidedly off message.So it was the Facebook campaign that struck a sour note for our tabloids.The howls of derision came thick and fast with not surprisingly a lot of time and resources used to discredit those behind the campaign.

Of course i dont support Moat but as politicians will tell you its not so much what you do more the message you send out that matters.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10672400

Contrast the french reaction.They fucking rioted when a copper had the gall to shoot an armed robber.

Vive la France !!

 dano    [27021.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 08:54]
Re: The Raoul Moat Facebook contoversy:

I see the person behind this page has decided to close it down. This demonstrates the way that many of us rather than take on opinions we find objectionable seek to get those opinions censored/banned.
Debate and reasoned argument are thrown out and replaced with reactionism and enforced repression of ideas.

 sergio    [27020.   Posted 16-Jul-2010 Fri 07:41]
I thought the problem was `ignorant pig` and not `nazi`.
It seems that the law will determine what is `offensive` and not ofcon.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27019.   Posted 16-Jul-2010 Fri 07:29]
Good point Ian. Now all we need is an expensive barrister and a high court appointment. It is always tough to get our interests aligned with those that have got the money and/or inclination. All sorts of weird reasons make for contrary results. To follow your lines of logic, I guess the TV companies may prefer for Ofcom to rant at the likes of Gaunt. Keeps them off their own back a bit.

 IanG    [27018.   Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 23:47]
Dave, this Gaunt case is clearly fucked-up. Sir Anthony appears to be quoting Ofcom`s Code when offering his pathetic opinion. He`s not applying or reading the law and assessing if Ofcom`s Code does what Ofcom are required to do by law.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act 2003 requires Ofcom as part of their Standards Obecjives to "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material".

Clearly, the host/presenter/guest is not responsible for what is broadcast by the licensee. The generally accepted standard means of preventing offensive and harmful material leaving a broadcaster`s aerial during live tranmissions is to employ a short delay such that an operator can bleep or silence any offensive material so that it is not included in their transmission and the the public are thus adequately protected from exposure to it...that is as per the requirements of section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act and Ofcom`s Standards Objectives as dictated by THE LAW.

As Ofcom`s Code doesn`t state what generally accepted standards are to be applied to adequately protect the public from inclusion of offensive and harmful material in programmes; and the Code fails to specify what is to be considered offensive and harmful material; and fining people after the fact or giving them a ticking off doesn`t prevent the inclusion of such material then, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM`S FAULT for NOT ENSURING Talksport prevented the inclusion of Gaunt`s comments in their broadcast.

Just to illustrate: If the Comms Act required Ofcom to "ensure adequate protection against people being shot" and then someone got shot, who could and should be held accountable?

Surely, Sir Anthony cannot believe the intent of Parliament was to allow Ofcom to prevent people expressing their thoughts and feelings on air? Such a notion is an absolute violation of Freedom Of Expression. Clearly, no matter how offensive 53 people found Gaunt`s comments, his right to state his opinion in any terms he so chooses is sacrosanct - as is everyone`s right to do the same.

I agree with Gaunt. Mr Stark is a `health Nazi` and an ignorant pig - is he going to sue me now? As a smoker I can assure Sir Anthony and Mr Stark that I feel I am being ostracised, scapegoated, marginalised and excluded from social activities simply because I smoke. My smoking does NOT "seriously harm those around me". More deadly crap comes out of a car exhaust in a minute than my smoking creates in a day. You could once go into a pub where donzens of people were smoking and walk out alive after serveral hours and very probably live the rest of your life totally unaffected by the experience. However, if you placed a car in that pub and left the engine running almost everyone in the place would be dead or dying with a few hours. New Labour were/are a bunch of lying, theiving, two-faced, fascist pigs - are they going to sue me now?

Jon Gaunt needs to appeal on the grounds that Ofcom`s Code doesn`t do what is required by law and request or force a Judicial Review of Ofcom`s pathetic excuse for a Code according to the letter of the law. The High Court is not there to enforce Ofcom`s unenacted Code. They`re there to uphold and enforce the LAW. 319(2)(F) certainly doesn`t say Ofcom are supposed to hang around waiting for someone to complain about feeling offended and then fine the channel - but that`s exactly the line of FRAUD they`ve chosen to adopt. And Ofcom can sue me anytime their miserable little minds choose - I CAN`T FUCKING WAIT FOR MY DAY IN COURT WITH THESE TWISTED CUNTS!

Come on Ofcom SUE ME! I DARE YOU!

 Spiderschwein    [27017.   Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 12:43]
RE: Eastenders.

Not to mention the child abuse lobby who want to keep everyone terrified of the nonce in their midst because that way they can gouge massive public donations.

Incidentally, it`s a total myth that homosexual relationships are "gentler" than hetero ones. The reason why you get fewer gays and lesbians reporting domestic violence are because there`s fewer of them, numerically. But it exists, and it`s every inch as nasty as hetero domestic violence.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27016.   Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 10:24]
sorry about lack of Melon Farmers update today. Bad internet day.

 emark    [27015.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 15:17]
So now we have David Cameron calling for Facebook to shut down a group because it supports Raoul Moat (Facebook`ve so far told them no) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7891206/Facebook-defies-David-Cameron-and-keeps-Moat-tribute-page.html . And of course we also get the tabloid anti-Facebook hysteria to follow...

 MichaelG    [27014.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 13:37]
Re: Mind if I Speak Candidly & freeworld [27011]:

WTF is going on in Scotland at the moment?

What an utterly pointless load of fucking drivel. Have you got to get permission now before you slip in (ooo-er!) a bit of innuendo into a conversation with your mates down the pub?

"Er, pardon me lads, but would it be OK if I told the one about the actress, the bishop and the Rabbi?"

It may well also be illegal to chat someone up if the question of "would you like to come back to my place?" was going to be broached at any point. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. And how the hell is this going to be policed, for fuck`s sake?!?!?

At least we all know now what the N in SNP stands for. Fascist cunts...

 dano    [27013.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 09:18]
Re: Christians winging about Eastenders....

It`s not Christians who Eastenders are portraying badly it`s MEN. For 25 years Eastenders, written mostly by middle class burgeious liberals has portrayed men as the scum of the earth which if it had portrayed any other social group in the same way there would be uproar.
Wife beaters, rapists, liars, criminals, adulterers and child abusers the image of working class men by this God awful soap opera is disgusting!
The writers work alongside man hating feminist domestic violence pressure groups to send the message out that ALL men are wife beaters and chld molestors who cannot be trusted!
The public are conned into thinking Eastenders is doing some good by raising awareness of social issues but all they are doing is filling our airwaves with poisouness misandry which seeks to further the agenda of the man hating wing of the feminist lobby to further push men out of relationships with their wives/girlfriends and their children.

 IanG    [27012.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 07:54]
RE: More Spit

"The BBFC commented on their latest cuts:

•Company was required to make cuts to scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material."

What material did the BBFC require to be cut and how, exactly, is it potentially harmful?

I saw this movie in its original uncut form almost 30 years ago. It was powerful, disturbing and exciting but, it did not convince me or any of my pals that gang rape was a good idea or something we`d like to try.

When I watched the first BBFC butchered version on, I think, the Horror channel a few years ago, it left me angry and dissappointed that such a powerful film had been utterly ruined by a bunch of idiotic morons who clearly don`t know their arse from their elbow. The BBFC had, according to their own deranged thoughts, made the rape scene MORE `acceptable`, MORE `palettable`, MORE `repeat-watchable`.

The scene is SUPPOSED to be sickening, violent, unrelenting...in short, HORRIFIC.

Just what type of psychotic sicko the BBFC believe they`re protecting the public from by hacking such scenes from movies is beyond my comprehension. I was thinking just the other day following my previous post and that mention of Grotesque; if I`d gone to the trouble of building a sound-proof dungeon, selected, subdued and transported a victim or victims to my torture chamber undetected and, subjected them to unimaginable abuses for my own sick enjoyment then, there`s really no film or scene on this earth that could inspire such behaviour or cause such a mental disorder. Likewise, there`s no amount of censorship that could prevent or cure someone harbouring such plans and desires from carrying them out whether they watch an uncensored movie, a BBFC butchered cut or, indeed, never see such scenes and movies in their entire life.

Censorship is futile and wholly unnecessary in such circumstances.

WHY do the BBFC believe they can somehow cure the unstable and mentally ill and thus protect society with cuts to the sight of stuff they`d rather not let anyone see? WHY do they believe for instance that any gang rapists would be inspired by I Spit on Your Grave when all that`s really required to inspire such copycat gang rape behaviour is a real news story about a group of young men raping some teenage girls in a local park - this really happened so, how many copycat gang rapes followed as a result?

Are we to believe gang rape never existed before I Spit on Your Grave was made? How many young women were brutalised in Roman times? How many girls were gang-banged, beaten and murdered by Viking raiders? How many were raped and tortured to death by the Church in pursuit of confessions of pacts with Lucifer? How many suffered unimaginable horrors chained to the decks of slave ships and a life of enforced servitude?

Censors are clearly not of this world. They live in cloud cuckoo land and believe they hold the power of life and death in their own miserable and misguided hands.

Prove what you claim BBFC or FUCK RIGHT OFF you mindless Nazis (and please, BBFC, feel free to take me to court for libel and slander...I can`t fucking wait...)!

 freeworld    [27011.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 06:51]
Looking at the repressive legislation spewing over Scotland under "Labour in a kilt" (the SNP) with the collaboration of former/ex New Labour, it seems England has had a lucky escape.

 IanG    [27010.   Posted 11-Jul-2010 Sun 06:22]
MichaelG, you know mate, I`ve said all along that the moral guardians have extremely sick and twisted minds.

This Twilight saga and Moir`s `insight` into the girl`s options highlight the issue perfectly.

I had a good go at all that bull the BBFC puked up about Grotesque. It`s the same with their `reasons` for hacking 30% of porn movies (that are freely available uncut across most of the rest of Europe) to remove supposed `harmful`, `imitable` and/or `obscene` material - all based purely on the BBFC`s distinctly low opinon of their idea of the stereotypical porn movie viewer (i.e. a member of the British public).

In the censor`s view it`s always these unknown `other people` that will do these bizarre things as a result of simply seeing something in a movie. If the hypersensitive censor or biased critic can imagine people being influenced in the ways they claim then, again, as I`ve always said, they themselves must feel these influences to be able to claim they could occur in the mysterious and easily influenced `other people`. It`s not other people at all...it is the censors/hypo-critics who are insane enough to believe other people might do nasty things or pick-up subliminal messages the censors/hypo-critics alone(?) perceive to be present/possible/plausible. They would probably make good fiction writers...no...actually they make good fiction writers - the problem is they get to censor what the rest of us are allowed to see based on their own fictional nightmare scenarios.

Whenever these folks make their deranged claims and observations, we should quote Lord Herschell (paraphrasing from Derry v Peek): "If someone claimed to know something they could not possibly know and, had made no attempt to find out the truth then, that person would be an untrsutworthy character".

They are liars, pure and simple. They are deranged, sick and twisted liars to boot. They postulate, extrapolate and condemn without any knowledge that what they believe is actually true. Censorship is clearly a matter of Thought, Conscience and Religion, as such, NOTHING the censors/hypo-critics believe CAN EVER be used to restrict the fundamental rights of others - the BBFC and Ofcom and no doubt the ASA are all Human Rights Abusers.

HRA, Article 9(2) "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Our rights and freedoms are all protected from restrictions arising purely from the beliefs of others. It`s the law. Moreover, its the law that all other laws are supposed to be read in such a way as to make them compatible with this law. None of us have to believe the censor`s beliefs or be subjugated by or be subject to their ravings.

PROOF of HARM is all that cuts it these days irrespective of perceived risks to `health and morals` - if these things can be damaged by stories and images then there must be some proof somewhere? After more than 40 years of watching golden showers and fisting (even bestiality) there should be some indication across Europe that the sight of these activities does `corrupt and deprave` the viewer shouldn`t there? As Shaun says, if any of the material that`s routinely cut from films and banned from TV were as dangerous as is claimed then the evidence of the harm it does should be overwhelming by now - so where is it?



freeworld, following on from the above, there`s no doubt certain drugs can influence people`s behaviour and personality. Whether these effects are permanent with regard to steroids I cannot say. I do know that females who take testosterone (a powerful steroid) cannot reverse the enlargment of the clitoris or voice box. Why some women want to beef themselves up could be (perhaps very likely) due to some predisposition and/or crisis/conflict of sexual identity (I believe that`s one possibility). Why men want to beef themselves up with drugs is also very likely to do with some underlying insecurity or some uncontolable desire to be `more` than they are (again I believe these are plausible possibilties). What drives someone to want to look like Mr Universe? Is it for the adoration of jelly-kneed women? Is it simply the addiction to exercise and the endorphine rush strenuous exercise induces?

I mean, clearly, Mr Moat was off his rocker. However, there are numerous incidents of people committing suicide after the loss of a beloved pet cat, birdie or pooch. What drives people to commit murder and/or self-harm has fuck all to do with what we watch or indeed, what some may use to try and `fix` their own perceived faults or blot out some externally inflicted pain, let down, betrayal etc. The list of things that upset perfectly normal people is almost endless, as I`m sure most of us have at one time or another felt all these things, and perhaps, even contemplated revenge or doing `something silly`...? (I know I have...sort of)

We can all kill or choose to `end it all` if pushed beyond our own individual breaking point. Just which straw will break our camel`s back is anyone`s guess. All I know is you don`t need to blame steroid abuse for the things Moat did. He had plenty of scores to settle and the fact he may have abused steroids simply points to some deeper insecurity that suggests an extreme course of action if `dissed` by those he cared about.

Casual, `recreational` drug use is usually fine. We all enjoy the odd tipple or spliff from time to time I`m sure. When drug use becomes more of a necessity or, indeed, results in physical changes, there`s a pathology at work - its a disease or the symptom of a disease (if perhaps `only` psychological disease - usually the worst type to detect or cure before its too late).

This will probably not come as a shock to most but, I don`t think any human being is 100% sane (i.e. in rational control of ourselves) 100% of the time. We are highly evolved animals and sometimes that animal takes over and we act on pure fear, anger and/or hate. We can also act uncontrollably in positive ways so its not all bad news. It recently occured to me that the cause of bullying is likely actually part and parcel of our inherant ranking/pecking-order instinct, which in itself is a result of the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. We`ve tried to bypass all the mechanisms that gave us this brain and it shows in our inhumanity to unarmed civilians (murderer, terrorist bomber or `misdirected fire` incident, it doesn`t change the fact someone`s loved ones are now lying dead, does it!).

I believe that if we could all just sit down and think about all the important basic stuff for a while we might actually figure out how to save ourselves from those that want to order us to war.

Of course, while you`ve got a bunch of alpha male wannabies calling the shots, and broken individuals like Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird roaming the land, the likelihood of anything like sanity prevailing is pretty remote. Still, I guess we can live in hope.


In conclusion, drawing on all the above, it seems to me that the censors/hypo-critics simply do not understand human nature. When the BBFC cut or ban material they are in fact deeming it `obscene` according to their beliefs or some perceived feelings of British society - as we know, such excuses hold no favour in the light of human rights. I simply do not believe the producers of such BBFC/Ofcon banned material had/have any intent whatsoever to `corrupt and deprave` the likely audience. Indeed, writers, directors and producers usually want to convey a message or warning as well as to entertain.

To try and illustrate the situation. No one painted a cinematic picture of what it might be like in a Nazi death camp before the 2nd world war. The Nazis created such horrific scenes all by themselves. If the BBFC had seen such images prior to 1939 they would without doubt have claimed they could inspire radicals to commit such acts of inhumane depravity, torture and murder. However, the fact is we create and watch horrific scenes in order to warn ourselves just how inhuman and evil we can become if we never consider both perspectives - i.e. oppressed vs oppressor, victim vs murderer/torturer/exterminator. The censor worries about desensitisation and, consequently, chooses to conceal the awful truth of what we are capable of doing in order to try and perpetuate the myth that we`re somehow better than rabid animals. However, had we seen or imagined the scenes created by the Nazi in death camps before 1939, there`s a good probability we would (or could) have guarded against such an eventuality. Forewarned is forearmed. No one could (or wanted to) have believed the true horror of Nazi depravity until those images from Belsen and Auschwitz appeared for real in the post VE Day news reels.

This is, yet again, what I`ve always said is the danger of censorship. It is a lie by omission. An obfuscation of the truth or a vision of a potential truth. It is a denial of our inherant prepencity toward inhumanity to our fellow man. Horrific scenes warn us of just how fucking evil and horrible the sufferers of deranged beliefs and/or followers of repressive religions can become.

 freeworld    [27009.   Posted 10-Jul-2010 Sat 07:39]
MichaelG {27003. Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 13:32}
I suspect Raol Moat`s drug use, especially any "bodybuilding" steroids he was taking, will get some media attention as a factor in helping warp his personality.

 sergio    [27008.   Posted 10-Jul-2010 Sat 03:14]
Seriously though, is a man putting his arm up the vagina of a cow - bestiality?

 MichaelG    [27007.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 13:07]
Re: IanG [27005]:

`First Blood` was the first thing that sprang to my mind too.

Was wondering why the Mail hadn`t gone off on their usual irrelevant arc with this one, but I guess there`s still time. Perhaps they`ve been too busy elsewhere, like sticking the boot into poor old Christine Bleakley (a WAG who doesn`t fit the standard stereotype - that would never do), which didn`t take them long as she`s only been big news for a couple of months.

However, it would seem, going from this latest load of utter bollox from spiteful, poisonous fat bag Jan Moir, that `Twilight` is the new menace to society:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1293291/Twilight-Saga-Eclipse-twaddle--I-teens-love-it.html

Admittedly she ends the article on a positive note, but along the way we have these howlers to contend with:

"Bella must choose between Ed the Undead and Jake the Pecs, a decision that seems to be, if you think about it, a straightforward choice between necrophilia and bestiality."

Typical - you can`t win. You cop off with a werewolf and you`re into bestiality; shag a vampire and you`re a necrophiliac. What kind of tangled mess is going on in Moir`s head than enables her to read perversions like this into a teen movie about vampires?

"So she wants to be dead for ever in Edward’s arms, which could be interpreted as an allegory for suicide."

It gets worse. So `Twilight` not only encourages bestiality and necrophilia, but pushes teens towards suicide too. what a sick piece of vile filth this is, we`d better ban it right away.

Seriously, what can you do with people whose minds operate in this way? There`s clearly something not wired up properly in there...

 malcom    [27006.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 09:07]
IanG.......Organisations like Ofcom are designed to fuck the law......So called independent when in fact they are Government puppets.......Regulators are a way the governments can flout the law and not seem to get the blame.......

Ultimately its down to the adult broadcasters - Togther they could raise the funds for a legal challenge But.......They don`t seem to have the drive to change anything unless it`s falling into their lap......

 IanG    [27005.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 08:22]
MichaelG, sounds like the plot of the Thirty Nine Steps to me...perhaps with hints of First Blood? ;)


malcom/DM, I`m sure you guys can understand my not so infrequent outbursts and outrage at the illegal activities perpetrated by Ofcom. What I cannot fathom is how or why such abuses of law and human rights go unchallenged for so many unbearable years. As I say, all see is anarchy so I guess we can all say "fuck the law...Ofcom do". Why aren`t Liberty on the case? Why isn`t the Judiciary on the case? Why aren`t the police investigating possible human rights abuses and the crime I see as a rip-off scam tantamount to fraud being perpetrated by Ofcom? Why does Justice cost us anything? Haven`t we already paid for our legal protections and protectors` services with our taxes?

 freeworld    [27004.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 03:37]
This is getting a lot of traffic. Please vote/comment if you haven`t and encourage others to do so. It is possible to register/vote/comment anonymously via a proxy-

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-section-63-of-the-cjia-2008-extreme-porn

The repellent NL harpy Maria Eagle of dangerous drawings fame was whinging yesterday about the government`s decision to grant those accused of rape anonymity up to any charge being made.

 MichaelG    [27003.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 13:32]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293153/Ministers-signal-changes-unions-indefensible-use-members-cash-fund-Labour.html

Hilarious quote of the day has to be Jackboots Straw - "this is totally undemocratic". Priceless. Since when was democracy ever something he lost any sleep over?

Moving on, unless anyone has been living under a rock for the last week, they will doubtless have heard all about how fugitive gunman Raoul Moat has, well... er... disappeared into the wilds of my home county - Northumberland.

What surprises me most here is not how he`s managed to give a veritable army of plod the slip, but how the Daily Mail have not been forthcoming with any lurid tales of how Moat has been `inspired` to commit his alleged crimes by watching violent movies. Has Bullshit Blame Bingo finally been put to rest after all these years? Come on lads, there must be hundreds of cinematic offerings where someone shoots a policeman or his ex-missus and her new partner, or leads the cops on a wild chase through a remote and hostile wilderness...

 malcom    [27002.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 11:16]
IanG said: malcom, haven`t we always argued that the `not quite R18` material on `adult` TV can be no more dangerous to the under eighteens than full-on R18?

---------------------------------

Indeed.......I have always believed bog standard soft core to be more of a risk let alone near HC as it leaves the viewer unsatisfied thus sexually frustrated.......Not a good idea........

What interests me is the broadcasters are now more confident in pushing the envelope at times.....Why are they confident at this moment in time....Where as before they were scared stiff of Ofcom .........

Its been what some five years since I took at look at the soft channels so i am seeing stuff new to me as well as the bog standard awful old stuff......I don`t know for how long the broadcaters have been showing some improved stuff.......Anyone know......I get the feeling they have been at it for quite a while and if Ofcom wanted to stop it they would have done so by now......

PS..Asked before but can anyone say what ever happened to Paul Tavener??????? Is he still around........

 dancing monkey    [27001.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 08:09]
IanG, you are absolutely right - prior to 2000 (or 1997 if you include the brief dalliance with `medium-core`), the adult channels did broadcast R18-equivalent material. In fact, that was their USP, the fact that they were stronger than regular 18 rated videos. Of course, R18 up til then was pretty much of a dead duck, and was much harder to identify in terms of content - with no real sex in either category, where did 18 stop and R18 begin?

 IanG    [27000.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 07:50]
DM, I landed here at MF following a Customs seizure and the usual threats to do me for importing obscenity and...`intent to distribute`, which was always tagged on by Customs to their unjustified charges against personal imports.

Owning `obscene` materials had NEVER been a criminal offence (until this Nazi bunch of religious New Labour cunts were given a majority in Parliament...). Only publishing/distributing obscene materials falls under the OPA. So, Customs had to invent a charge that could negate our right to freedom of speech and legal private ownership of `obscene` materials. If challenged, Customs would have to prove obscenity first and then try and prove intent to distribute - anyone with the money and balls could have smashed their rights abusing regime decades beforehand.

The solicitor I contacted said much the same as yours...i.e. you`ll have to appeal the magistrate`s decision and go to trial where you`ll likely win so long as there`s nothing truly obscene in the matreial (the stuff I was trying to import featured Racquel Darrian and was completely consensual).

It`s not surprising the BBFC didn`t mount much of a fight. After all, it had been their policy to relax the R18 limits in 1997 to try and beat the blackmarket only for Jack Boots to step-in and attempt a forced and unnecessary U-turn (mindless prig that he is). As we all knew then and know to this day, the liberal-minded public were right about the harmless nature of consensual adult sex material. More than 40 years of legal availability in most of the rest of Europe and the USA hadn`t created any obvious porn-related problems had it? The BBFC were desperately trying to justify their continued existence so, they invented the idea that consensual sex is fine but any `dangerous` or `abusive` elements should still need their beady eyes and butchering.

Just to come back to the circumstantial conspiracy theory, I still find it very hard to believe no one in authority at all checked on the implications of hardcore being allowed at R18 and esp. what that might mean for TV broadcasting - i.e. "no real sex" became "no R18" in the ITC Code despite the FACT R18 WAS the defacto fare on `adult` TV throughout the 1980s and 1990s because it contained no real sex in those days.

As I`ve said all along, what the ITC did was ILLEGAL because up until that point all legally available material WAS indeed being broadcast as per the Groppera AG v Switzerland ECHR statement. It stands to reason ALL legally avaiable material SHOULD be available on TV even if some of it needs restricting to specialist opt-in services to protect narrow-minded arseholes from stumblng into it unawares.

 dancing monkey    [26999.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 06:52]
Shaun, you are of course right that customs now use R18 as a benchmark - not everything imported needs to be BBFC approved, but if the content goes beyond what is accepted at R18 - even if not strictly illegal - then they will doubtless seize it. I`m not sure what their policy for screeners and master copies being sent to distributors is - I guess they simplky don`t look at them. I have to say that I haven`t had a single package opened since 2000.

In August 2000, I was told that they didn`t give a damn what the BBFC were doing, they would still seize hardcore because they still considered it to be obscene. A few weeks later, they changed their tune. I`m sure the reasons Dave has spelled out are the reason.

Of course, customs always knew they were on dubious grounds. When I had a major run-in with them back in the 90`s, my solicitor told me that I would lose in court - because magistrates will simply rubber-stamp customs decisions - and then most likely win on appeal. But like most people, I couldn`t afford the legal costs, and it all ended in a stalemate.

My dealings with them suggested that the `lower orders` had no personal grudge against this material, but the higher ups were pretty evangelical about it. Go figure.

I was also at the R18 hearings. Fascinating to see the BBFC failing so miserably (though few of their staff seemed too upset at the result). I went to a couple of other VAC hearings, with less satisfactory results.

 Shaun    [26998.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 02:04]
Thanks Dave for the clarification. Ten years is a long time to remember things so accurately.

One thing I`ve always wondered about, is why Customs were so adamant they didn`t want to change things ? They must have known that the game was up.

Did they get some kind of pleasure in this kind of repression I wonder ?

Was it religion or deep seated but unwarranted belief in the harm ?

Or was it that they didn`t want to admit that the time spent on seizing videos was disproportionate, repressive and a complete waste of public money ?

What happens nowadays, ten years on ? I`ve not heard of any seizures for some time. I presume the unjust "extreme porn" law has given their quest new impetus ? I suppose most stuff is downloaded rather than imported and is something they have no interest in, not being tangible.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [26997.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 19:24]
Re Customs

The whole process of legalisation evolved over a couple of years and agencies were obviously taking different views. Customs were embroiled quite early on and had a fair amount of press coverage. Perhaps as you`d expect they were always dragging their feet about it.

But after the court decision, the government organised a series of meetings between those bodies affected, BBFC,police, customs, CPS, home office, trading standards etc. And between the court decision in June 2000 (not checked) and the first proper hardcore R18s in August/September the authorities pulled together and decided to all take the same stance and to all accept that the BBFC R18 guidelines defined that that was no longer obscene. Other issues were sorted such as customs/imports etc.

And as a result all the bodies did seem to pull together thereafter and it seemed to all work smoothly in the end.

The observed changes in customs were surely just down to the where they were asked on ths timeline.

 Shaun    [26996.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 16:44]
Well dancing monkey - I won`t argue regarding the VRA as we both agree that the EU only needed to be informed in the mid eighties before the VRA game into force.

As regards customs, you were not the only one involved in discussions with them as long term readers of this site might testify.

I was involved in an argument with them back in 2000 after the high court BBFC decision regarding the importation of porn and the effect the decision would have. Well before then, after the seizure of my DVDs in 1998 or so, and my subsequent incessant complaints about it, I got to talk to some quite high ranking officials there. Probably you did as well. But I also had much discussion with them after the R18 decision, and was told because the BBFC had lost their judicial review, and the material was legal for sale, it could not be considered obscene. However they DID tell me that the reason for seizure of similar material in the future would be:

That the material imported was not the same as a BBFC classified version and/or did not have an certificate issued by the BBFC and it would still be subject to seizure. As far as they were concerned the situation had not changed, and they siezed material condemned as obscene by the magistrates court. Except it wasn`t so condemned which was the very reason the BBFC gave up and changed their policy according to someone inside the BBFC who I conversed with often.

In anycase the position was "likely to be obscene" as ultimately only the court could decide, and their decisions could be so challenged. Expensive though.

I was also told that any version with an R18 (or indeed any other) certificate or one identical to it, COULD be imported, but NOT if it was even slightly different or not classified at all.


Then it all changed, and one reason given was the HRA which was now law. Other reasoning was EU single market law and all that. However they said stronger material (which would not be allowed at r18) would continue to be seized as it would still be considered to be obscene. In other words they DID initially intend to seize material which was NOT obscene. IE material without classification but the same content as R18.

I think Dave and some others here might remember this issue. I am sure I would have mentioned it all at the time. It was very much ongoing. The seizure of my Vivid DVDs was also an ongoing issue and I had many discussions with customs about that, including one Mr. Field who was also present at the BBFC joint (two video companies) video appeal as was I. When Mr Field realised I was there at the appeal (as was he) then his attitude changed completely and we were really chatty.




When I went to the BBFC appeal, I was asked by Sue Clark if I was the Melon Farmer! "So you`re the Melon Farmer then!" she said.

Fond memories.


PS see:

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arne00c.htm
where my enquiries are documented.

 sergio    [26995.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:30]
Can customs stop material that has no BBFC cert?

 DoodleBug    [26994.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:18]
This has to be the most bizarre decision I have seen this week from the BBFC. A kid`s film called "Adventure`s of a Teenage Dragonslayer" is cut to get a PG rating :

This work was cut. Some cuts were compulsory and some were made at the request of the distributor to achieve a particular category. To obtain this category cuts of 0m 23s were required.

Further information on cuts made (* SPOILER ALERT* Information may include plot details)

A compulsory cut was required to remove sight of children playing with fireworks in a work aimed at children. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Additionally, company chose to make a further cut to remove a use of discriminatory language ("moron") in order to achieve a `PG` classification. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy. A `12` was available without this cut.


So now the word "moron" isn`t allowed to be heard by younger children, what the hell is going on in the censor`s minds !!

The funny thing is a review on IMDB says it`s "campy, fun , and great for all ages". Obviously the BBFC don`t agree !