See also Religious Watch Forum

 Melanie-H    [26506.   Posted 24-Feb-2010 Wed 11:14]
[26507]

4th Feb 2010 : MSP proposes amendment to criminalise prostitution, customers and advertisers.

The last date for submissions to the proposed amendment to the Scottish Police Bill is Thursday 25/02, though it seems these may still not be accepted - the clerk has judgement as to what is new evidence, and therefore what should be passed to the committee. It has been tabled late as a minor amendment, and therefore does not require proper scrutiny. It could almost go through with just a few minutes mention.


This criminalises all selling and buying of sexual services. Prostitution defintely but if Councillor Jim Coleman gets his way could apply to strip clubs, peep shows, lap dancing.
All Saunas and Agencies would be illegal. No advertisements in any paper, or Internet. (The Sport advertisements would be illegal, only foreign websites would work, adult-work maybe, but punter link would stop). Escort sites would have to be hosted offshore.

No doubts the `End Prostitution Now` propaganda tool will have a major influence on the outcome (which incidently I can find no reference to this campaign in the most recent annual Company report of the Glasgow Community and Safety Services Limited Company and even stranger when Glasgow City Council were approached under the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland 2002), as to - see Letter posted to Mr. Adams below - Access to the information was denied).


Dear Mr Adams
Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Thank you for your email received on 8 December 2009 requesting that the following information be provided to you:

“Please could provide me with the following information, regarding the political campaign initiated by Glasgow City Council to change Scotland`s laws regarding prostitution:

a) The cost to the Glasgow taxpayer of your `End Prostitution Now` political campaign and associated activities.

b) Any additional funding or assistance received from other sources towards the End Prostitution Now` political campaign and associated activities.

c) Details of the number of people employed by Glasgow City Council working on this political campaign and associated activities, and of any other persons involved in this Glasgow City Council political campaign and associated activities not employed by the council.

d) Minutes of the meeting at which funding and approval for this political campaign and its associated activities was given.

e) Copies of any communication, or details and minutes of any meetings, between Glasgow City Council employees and outside campaign groups, campaigners, or politicians regarding the setting up or operation of this political campaign.

f) Brief details of any other political campaigns currently or recently being run by Glasgow City Council.”

The Council is treating your request as a request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

On inspecting our records, it would appear that Glasgow City Council does not hold the information which you have requested. Neither does anyone else hold



it on our behalf. Accordingly we are unable to comply with your request.

I can confirm that Glasgow City Council does not run political campaigns.

If you are dissatisfied with the way Glasgow City Council has dealt with your request you are entitled to require the Council to review its decision. Please note that for a review to take place you must:

• Lodge a written requirement for a review within 40 working days of the date of this letter
• Include a correspondence address and a description of the original request and the reason why you are dissatisfied
• Address your request to the Executive Director of Corporate Services:

Executive Director of Corporate Services
Glasgow City Council
City Chambers
George Square
Glasgow G2 1DU
Email: xxx.xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.xx

You will receive notice of the results of the review within 20 working days of receipt of your request. The notice will state the decision reached by the reviewing officer as well as details of how to appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner if you are still dissatisfied with the Council’s response. You must request an internal review by the Council before a complaint can be directed to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

If you have any further queries regarding this process, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely

Link found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/taylor_adams



I`m not really sure how this forum works but apologies in advance if I`ve ballsed up and I`m sure if I have someone will let me know.

 IanG    [26505.   Posted 24-Feb-2010 Wed 08:56]
"In addition, after viewing the content complained of Ofcom noted that during all three broadcasts the website www.bangbabes.tv was promoted. When accessed by Ofcom this website featured images of a strong sexual nature equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material (R18-rated equivalent material) which could be readily viewed without appropriate protections. Although this R18-rated equivalent material was not broadcast on-air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared on a website being promoted on Ofcom licensed services freely available without mandatory restricted access from 21:00."

Well, I`ve been visiting the www.bangbabes.tv website for months and never once have I seen anything close to R18-type material. You`re talking SHIT Ofcom and we`re now going to prove what an unfit, rights-abusing bunch of cretins you lot truly are.

If anyone here is interested, I along with several of the 27,000+ (if only we`d had these numbers on the days of Ofwatch...) members of www.babeshows.co.uk forum, have created a campaign group to represent the rights and interests of UK babe and adult channel viewers. BACVA (the Babe and Adult Channel Viewers Assoc.) has quite literally just launched a blog site at www.bacva.blogspot.com.

I have also been running a poll over at babeshows to test the veracity of Ofcom`s claim in Bulletin 151 that the material on Bang Babes was "So strongly sexual it likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience". This struck me as total and utter bullshit and indeed, this has been borne out in our poll with over 51% saying their expectations are never or rarely met, let alone exceeded. There are several members on the babeshows forum who regularly post recordings of shows and highlights (many clips appear on the www.babevideos.co.uk sister site too). The Amanda Rendall thread has received over 190,000 hits and contains most of her flashing and `strongly sexual` activities. Clearly, Ofcom have no idea what the expectations of `adult` viewers are and cannot cliam to know or represent our views.

I made the point recently that had the material on Bang Babes caused widespread harm or offence as Ofcom claim then, Ofcom would have received 1000`s of complaints instead of the usual ONE. I`m tired of one solitary twat being able to ruin programmes many tens of thousands of viewers are perfectly happy with, aren`t you?

If you are sick of being lied to and misrepresented by Ofcom then please join us at the Broadcasting Regulations thread at www.babeshows.co.uk and/or sign up at www.bacva.blogspot.com.

Cheers

IanG.

 bleach    [26504.   Posted 23-Feb-2010 Tue 16:38]
@IanG

Good point. A lot of the problems lie in society. Everytime someone jumps on the moral bandwagon, I think "here we go again". Basically, I`m bored of it and don`t think there`s any need for it.

Also the report was by Linda Pappolopadas (or whatever her surname is). She loves to blame men and has a feminist attitude. I`ve seen her on TV saying how much women enjoy sex, yet on another programme she made out that a prostitute couldn`t enjoy what she did and was exploited. She just comes out with hackneyed cliches but has enough power to get published. Basically not really worth listening to.

 dano    [26503.   Posted 23-Feb-2010 Tue 12:14]
Re: Mad Mel Phillips and violent films....

It`s laughable that a woman who still supports the illegal slaughter of Iraqi citizens and the Israel war machine wrings her hands over violent films!

By her logic she should be corrupted by watching those violent "evil" films on her flight. She must now go and brutally torture and kill people.

She suggests that mearly by portraying violence causes violence. Guess that means that the illegal war in Iraq was caused by Bush and Blair watching Platoon then!

And the Israeli soldiers sit around watching Apocolypse Now before they go and blow the heads off Palestinian children!

 IanG    [26502.   Posted 23-Feb-2010 Tue 06:49]
bleach, there`s no need to speculate on the real and positive effects of open and honest treatment of sexual matters and pornography. Just over the Channel sex is legal at 14 and young adults of 16 are treated as such. And despite such `lax` precautions against `early sexualisation` ( by religious, `traditional` British `standards`), teenagers wait a year longer to lose their virginity than British kids (ave. is 17 not 14, 15 or 16 years), 95%+ use condoms and practice safe sex thus the rates of teen pregnancies and STI infections is next to NIL compared to the UK.

I`m sick of the lies and bullshit British people allow themselves to believe based on their very particular British conditioning. British `attitudes` and `values` are perversely sick and do exactly the OPPOSITE to that which is KNOWN to be beneficial to every child`s health and wellbeing across the Channel.

 bleach    [26501.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 17:23]
"A Sexualised Government"

Another day, another bullshit report. in terms of children being exposed to high levels of sexualised material; dare I say it some "children" i.e. ages 11ish to late teens want to see sexualised material. A lot of 15 year olds buy FHM, Nuts etc. I`m sure younger teens have seeked out hardcore porn. I don`t think it has a harmful effect per se. I don`t think it`s a bad thing to be aware of sex at a younger age, surely it prepares you for the future; I think sex education needs to be taught earlier in school. We need less disinformation from Government lobbys and less moral preaching from religious nutters.

 MichaelG    [26500.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 12:28]
Looks like we have another case of Mary Whitehouse Syndrome on our hands:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1252786/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Bafta-fawns-Tarantino-But-stomach-churning-film-giving-nightmares.html

Does anyone in the western world these days actually not understand what they`re getting into when they sit down to watch a Tarantino movie? Apparently not, and even though this silly twat was warned with a `V for Violence` before the film, she still chose to sit through it. If she has such a nervous disposition as to actually have nightmares after watching a violent movie, you`d have thought that she`d give this sort of stuff a wide berth.

Not when she has a column to write, apparently.

"True, they had a `V` for violence warning in the airline entertainment guide. But this also suggested that these were high-quality, well-reviewed films."

Er... they were, going from the talent involved and the reviews from PROPER film critics (i.e. not the pathetic, lily-livered, perpetually-offended, shrinking violets who make up the film review team at the Mail).

"There was no indication of quite how disturbing were the images I was about to see."

Apart from Tarantino`s worldwide infamy and... er, the `V for Violence` warning(!). And if it was that offensive and disturbing, why did she feel the need to sit through ALL of it, then ALL of another violent movie immediately afterwards?

"But this isn`t how such films work on people`s psyche. Their main danger is that they have in general a desensitising or brutalising effect - and may indeed inspire a few disturbed individuals to commit acts of violence themselves."

A `main danger` we still need to see actual proof of, despite being almost 40 years on from similar accusations being levelled at Kubrick`s `A Clockwork Orange` upon it`s 1972 release.

"Next time I fly, I`ll stick to a book."

We live in hope. Perhaps then, we won`t have to read another piece of poisonous, directionless, anti-cinema drivel like this. Somehow, though, I very much doubt it - as the thrill of being appalled, even though they know perfectly well what`s coming, is clearly just too great for some people to resist.

 Harvey    [26499.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 11:55]
Parody?

From the start it has been clear that there are people who really do think that a picture can be dangerous to posses.


The lawyer might have actually said "images portraying in a realistic and explicit blah, blah... an act which was life threatening or likely to cause injury... blah blah" but the reporter just thought "dangerous" summed it up in a lower word count. I`m sure the press reporting is likely to be losing something in translation. I know people who have read a press report and didn`t initially recognise it was a report of their own trial!

 emark    [26498.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 05:27]
I`ve got to laugh - for years, "dangerous" was a parody term to mock the ridiculous and hysterical labels being used to label these images, now here we have it - a prosecutor using the label "extreme and dangerous", and leading to the press using terms like "dangerous pornography". Reality has outdone the parody.

(Where is she getting it from anyway? There is no category or mention of "dangerous" in the term. Heaven forbid a lawyer know the law - or is this a misquote?)

 Harvey    [26497.   Posted 21-Feb-2010 Sun 14:08]
phantom

You would hope that if the images didn`t satisfy the requirements of the DPA, Mr Wilson would not have been advised to plead guilty. You would hope ...

Don`t be surprised that this is how cases get reported. Clearly it`s not an accurate discription of the offences, so I doubt if the report of what happened in court is any more accurate. But wait until sentencing. "12 occasions" probably means 12 separate counts on the indictment and each count can relate to many images. Wilson is clearly going to jail for the images of children and consequent to that he will be "ordered to sign the sex offenders register". For reasons only known to themselves the local rag have him labelled as the `animal porn` man, and that`s how they`ll report it. Maybe they think readers are bored with reading about child pornsters.

 IanG    [26496.   Posted 21-Feb-2010 Sun 14:02]
phantom, I don`t know how many times I have to say this but, its pointless trying to find logic in insanity. There is no such thing as a dangerous picture. Just as there is no such thing as dangerous terrorist materials. Intent is, was and always will be the test as to whether the possessor is a danger to society. Without intent the possessor is merely a collector of oddities, pictures, memorabilia, antiquities. We have some very sick people in some very powerful positions - and their intent is crystal clear.

 phantom    [26495.   Posted 21-Feb-2010 Sun 12:18]
re: Extreme porn takes precedence

`Janet Gedrych, prosecuting, said a total of 642 images fell into the two categories of extreme and dangerous.`

I`m sure she did.
But `dangerous` is such a nice term.

What, pray, is `dangerous` to mean?
Sex while driving in a car on the motorway?

And please, this seems to be her Majesty`s Prosecution Service speaking.
So not just some reporter getting things wrong.

So according to the CPS, we now have `dangerous` to consider.

`Wilson also admitted possessing dangerous pornography on June 5, 2009 which depicted scenes that could have resulted in serious injury to those taking part.`

`Could have`?
Or were likely to? I assume it means that.

After all, language is such a flexible thing. Many things could, but are not likely to.
Any Asian man with a beard could be a terrorist. But few, if any at all, are likely to be.

Now sure our intrepid reporter may not know the difference.
But it is still somewhat confusing to consider what such `dangerous` scenes supposedly depict.

Not actual injuries but pictures of act that might cause potential injuries.

Interesting again to see the complete absence of the mention of injuries to genitalia.

`He will understand that he faces the overwhelming likelihood of a custodial sentence because of the number of type of images involved, added the judge.`

The number?
The number being 642.
I`m sorry, but I`m not sure that strikes me a great deal.... not in the age of the internet, terrabyte hard drives and CD and DVD writers.

So an overwhelming likelihood? If I recall the initial sentence is to be up to 6 months.
Would be interesting to see just how much time 642 images buys you.

As for the 12 child porn images.
Strange how low key that seems. One thus wonders whether they were at least `proper` child porn. Or just technical child porn, given the ludicrousness of that area of law by now.

After all, it seems odd that such prominence would be given to the extreme pictures (sorry, `extreme and dangerous`) when there was child porn involved.

But in any case it clearly demonstrates that the evolution of the DPA is in full swing.

We`ve had mention of `extreme bondage`, `injuries to the body`, now we have the emergence of `dangerous`.

What irony that they should be choosing – with perfectly straight faces – to use terms which our use of the the abbreviation DPA satirised.

Clearly an image is being painted here. A chilling effect being created by design.

 Teddy    [26494.   Posted 21-Feb-2010 Sun 05:28]
Hi All,

Well, the whole "Dangerous Pictures" thing seems to be hotting-up in terms of prosecutions! Let`s just hope that the human costs don`t start to rise commensurately. And here we were, thinking that the DPP would have to be consulted before any cases reached court...just another Ministry of Injustice lie.

Quite a few of these early cases seem to have been in Wales, which is curious. Maybe the result of a child porn crackdown by the local cops there, leading to dangerous pictures being unearthed? Disturbing, indeed, that the press are reporting the child abuse images as being of secondary importance.

T.

 IanG    [26493.   Posted 20-Feb-2010 Sat 05:48]
"Last month developers were notified that all screenshots for the App Store had to be free of objectionable material and be acceptable for a 4+ rating."

Can 4 year olds legally purchase iApps? I could have sworne the World Health Org. recommend breast feeding to at least the age of 2 years and that they say the average age to stop breast feeding world wide is 4 years. Ah well, such is the power of social conditioning. Tits become `objectionable` as soon as you turn 4 years old. Odd though, as most women in the `west` don`t bother breast feeding past the first 6 months, an average age to stop feeding of 4 years world-wide must mean many over 4s are still being exposed to `objectionable` boobies - in their millions.

Maybe Apple mean a mental age of 4...? And what was that ruling by the US Courts...oh yes, women can get their nipples out anywhere men can get their nipples out.

I thought all civilised countries had laws against monopolies specifically to stop anyone who controls a mass communications medium having their opinion foist upon the masses, dictating to the people what `public` opinion `is` by way of lurid headlines and dictats on what can and can`t `be allowed`? Perhaps not? Was there really `mounting pressure` on John Terry to resign or be sacked, or was it all just media hype? Does anyone really have a right to judge Tiger Woods because he has a private life? It`s a good job we don`t live under Sharia law else many celebs would have been publically flogged and their names dragged through the mud by the press...but now I come to think of it... :sigh:

 Harvey    [26492.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 15:46]
A clue to the reason the guy was searched.

Child porn... which he denied.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2064102_man_pleads_guilty_to_extreme_porn_charges

"Charges to lie on file" is court-speak for the fact that they were not proceeded with by the prosecution because the court directed it. Probably because of no evidence. The EP was clearly a back up charge to try and make it look as though it wasn`t a complete waste of everyone`s time. It will go down as a win for the CPS and as a crime solved for the police.

This also answers the puzzle as to why the case took nearly a year and got as far as Crown Court. In the absence of the child porn charges, a £1000 fine could/should have been handed down in Mags court in return for a guilty plea.

 emark    [26491.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 15:29]
Indeed it`s very confusing (and shows how blind we are relying on vague reports from local news). My reading is that the "extreme piercing" and "extreme bondage" were not things that he was charged for, but the fact that they are mentioned shows how the police/courts/media are happy to paint things like BDSM in a negative light, even if the images are entirely legal (otherwise, why are those images any more relevant than any porn images, or indeed images of any other kind?).

But the reference to "likely to cause injury to body parts" in that same sentence is also odd, since that`s one of the clauses in this law - was he charged under that clause, or not?

£1000. What a disgusting waste. Someone should send the bill to Salter/Longhurst.

 Harvey    [26490.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 14:38]
Re: Extreme Piercing

It`s pretty clear from the press report that the offences related to the four counts of possessing the 188 bestiality images.

The prosecution might describe the bondage as being "severe", the piercing as being "extreme" and/or "likely to cause injury", but unless these were included on the indicment it`s probably just a case of the prosecution "sexing up" the charges and they are nothing to do with the "crime". However, a casual reader could get the impression that possessing images of severe bondage or extreme piercing could land you in court.

Furthermore, he pleaded guilty, so we have no idea why he became a subject of a search in the first place.

The judge also says that "making" such images must be discouraged...

But "making" extreme porn isn`t an offence, yet.

 DarkAngel5    [26489.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 13:32]
Regarding the General Synod, why does anyone care what a glorified church council thinks of violent computer games?

(by the way, wasn`t "General Synod" one of the bad guys from Superman 2? Terence Stamp played him IIRC)

 MichaelG    [26488.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 11:32]
Re: Extreme Piercing...

I knew it was only a matter of time before this vile law started to be twisted and abused. It`s not enough to do this guy for the bestiality imagery, for which it sounds like they had him bang to rights. No, they have to start trying to twist the wording of the legislation and the facts of the case to try and get the two to conveniently fit together, just so they can stick it up the accused just that little bit further.

The law says:

`An act which threatens a persons life;
An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breast or genitals;`

It does not fucking say anything about "likely to cause injury to body parts"!!! Six reasonably firm strokes with a cane will do that, admittedly not `serious` injury, but that little adjective seems to have been conveniently left out of this case. Are we now to assume that spanking movies are all going to be outlawed? Or any stuff which depicts even minor injury?

Also, is it now going to be a simple as dropping in the words `extreme` or `severe` in there to justify prosecution? How do you judge `extreme` or `severe`? And as phantom rightly points out, bondage in itself does not constitute anything life-threatening or likely to cause serious injury. Bondage is usually carried out by someone with a reasonable amount of experience in its application, therefore they know precisely how to bind someone without putting them in danger.

As for `extreme` piercing, isn`t having the clitoris pierced quite `extreme`? I hope to God it was something more serious than this.

What really irks me here is this idiotic statement from the judge "These are serious offences because the making of images of these sort must be discouraged."

What utter tosh!!! WHY must the making of such images be discouraged when, going from the description, they don`t actually seem (apart from the bestiality), to be in contravention of the DPA as it stands? W-H-Y must the making of such images be discouraged when we supposedly live in a free country where such sexual practices are not illegal and sexual minority groups are SUPPOSED to be protected from persecution and discrimination by the law?

Even more of a piss boiler is this:

"Laura Plant, prosecuting, told the court that the man had in his possession both still and moving images downloaded from the internet. She added: It`s mostly horses and dogs I`m told..."

TOLD?!?!?!?!? So the prosecution haven`t even seen the fucking evidence? What kind of a joke shop has the UK legal system become when you can mount a prosecution without seeing the evidence?

I absolutely despair. Martin Salter should be tarred and feathered for making this possible, the rotten, scruffy cunt...

 phantom    [26487.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 08:23]
re: extreme piercing...

So this guy had in his possession - apart from bestiality - `pictures described in court as being of an extreme sadistic nature likely to cause injury to body parts` - and - of `extreme piercing` and `extreme bondage`.

Now first off, notice how this is a joblot.
Has this guy been done for the bestiality or for the other? Or even for both? Impossible to tell really. Which is just what the prosecution wanted. To blur the lines.

But again, the descriptions are fantastic.
`extreme sadistic nature likely to cause injury to body parts`

Does the sadistic nature matter? What is the difference between sadism and extreme sadism?

And at last here we have the entry of this `like to cause injury` clause (well, the latest attempt since Tony the Tiger!).
So please can anyone tell me what this is? `Likely to cause injury`. For I still cannot tell what `likely` means.

Does it mean a picture in which the person most likely was injured, albeit that the subsequent injury isn`t shown?
I doubt it, because I very much doubt there are that many crippled BDSM models hobbling around planet earth.

Thus the acts obviously didn`t really result in any permanent injury of any sort. Therefore again, what does `likely` mean?
I suspect we will never know. (I`d translate it to mean `likely to be disliked by prosecutor`.)

Next what is extreme piercing? Blood? Skewers? All such exists... But then so too does piercing with syringe needles... shocking to some (and to those who want to be shocked, no doubt), but hardly dangerous, given the safety of medical syringe needles.

And finally - and this one takes the biscuit - `extreme bondage`.
Err, what, pray, is this m`lord?

Bondage involves tying up... yes, it can be quite outrageous. It can involve suspensions, etc.

But please, where does this figure in all of this? Bondage is neither bestiality, nor necrophilia... and I fail to see how it poses a threat to life, threat of injury - or even likeliness of injury....

I do not care how `extreme` bondage is supposed to be, I cannot see how and why this figures here.

Well, I know why.... Because the prosecution are keen to gradually work it into the convictions.

It seems to me we are seeing a tactic being put to work here. Accuse someone of a kaleidoscopic variety of such material, gain a conviction which no doubt appertains to the worst of the stuff, then claim it appertains to all the material... Simple.

So now a guy has been convicted for - among other things - the possession of `extreme bondage`. For possession of a depiction of someone being `extremely tied up`.

What is that? Is that beyond `reasonably tied up`?

Given that this is a law from a government which delighted putting Iraqi prisoners in `stress positions` while restrained and hooded, the irony seems somewhat caustic.

Plainly, the idea of `extreme bondage` being illegal under this law seems risible. But then, that is what law is these days. Laughable.

I refuse to believe that `extreme bondage` is against the law. Even this barmy one.

But it is disconcerting seeing devious, twisted minds working so feverishly at trying to make it so...

Let`s face it. This guy was done for possession of bestiality. (Among others apparently also for depictions of bestial acts which are actually legal to perform under English law - oral)

The other hodgepodge is just something the prosecutors cynically tagged on to try and get a conviction under it.

But `extreme piercing` sounds highly suspect to me. And `extreme bondage` sounds nonsense.

As for extremely sadistic acts likely to cause injury... Your honour, what does that mean? If you can`t say, then just shut up, will you...

 dano    [26486.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 07:41]
Yesterday on BBC Parliament they showed the Generol Synod debating violent video games.
A more highly prejudiced debate based on conjecture and personal opinion (and not on actual evidence of harm) I have yet to watch.
Here`s the link to the video:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00qvlcv/General_Synod_Violent_Computer_Games/

 emark    [26485.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 03:38]
"incite hatred/murder"

But those are two very different concepts. I have no trouble with laws against inciting violence, which has long been illegal AFAIK. But I`m a lot more wary over the various newer laws on inciting "hatred" (most notably the recent religious hatred law). It`s not even clear to me what "hatred" is meant to cover.

The article doesn`t give much details on things that I can see would count as inciting violence (e.g., comparable to your "kill the infidels" and "behead those that insult islam" examples). Rather it simply talks about being "offensive" and "highly disturbing". (I`m sure I would find it very offensive, but it`s not clear to me that this should be illegal, and being offensive isn`t the same as inciting violence.)

 DarkAngel5    [26484.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 01:48]
@Spiderschwein

Difficult to comment without seeing what he actually put, however there is a line between airing an offensive opinion and actively stirring up trouble.

Just look at the likes of Abu Hamza, or those cartoon protesters waving banners saying "kill the infidels" and "behead those that insult islam". Saying you don;t like something or someone is one thing, but trying to incite hatred/murder is another.

If he just wanted to post videos about why he didn;t like people of other races that would be one thing, but if he was posting videos actively encouraging hatred or discrimination, then that`s a bit differant.

Again though, I would really need to see what had actualy been put on his site before I could comment further.

 Spiderschwein    [26483.   Posted 17-Feb-2010 Wed 14:07]
Hey all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8520702.stm

Not that I approve of racism or white supremacy in any way, but my first thought on reading this was, "thought crime."

 IanG    [26482.   Posted 17-Feb-2010 Wed 11:16]
DarkAngel5, "This is what happens when you don`t view things for yourself and rely upon hearsay." Such as that from the BBFC... Their description of Grotesque was frankly ridiculous, I dare say, horrific, biased and increduluous.

 MichaelG    [26481.   Posted 17-Feb-2010 Wed 00:24]
Take cover, everyone, Vernon`s back!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251531/Underage-drinking-bigger-problem-white-middle-class-families.html

Everyone`s favourite political blunt instrument has now been made the Schools Minister... God help us.

`The widespread adoption of European drinking attitudes across Middle England will dismay the Government.`

Er... the Europeans don`t have the alcohol-related problems we have over here, so why is this such an issue?

Ahh, of course. It`s the white, middle classes, isn`t it? The root of all evil as far as CommuNuLabour are concerned...

 DarkAngel5    [26480.   Posted 16-Feb-2010 Tue 12:54]
@bleach

Yeah, when you start looking into the whole phenomena of the nasties, you find that most of the titles on the list were only included basically because of their lurid title or box artwork or because the press (who are never ones to be relied upon) had written a few nasty things about it.

I mean, SS Experiment Camp? What a sack of $hite, how could anyone take a film seriously that has the line "You Bastard, what have you done with my balls?" in it? They should have called that one "Carry on up the Kaiser"! The fact that it`s now available uncut and society hasn`t crumbled as a result is testament to how wrong they got it.

This is what happens when you don`t view things for yourself and rely upon hearsay.

 bleach    [26479.   Posted 16-Feb-2010 Tue 06:41]
RE: Video Nasties
Some films on the list are surprising such as Possession which is basically an art-horror film, although violent it`s hardly nasty on the level of some cannibal films.

RE: Violent Video games
I wonder why the sudden interest from church groups, government etc. I haven`t seen this level of "fuss" since Mortal Kombat was granted a 15. It`s an old debate. I wonder if it`s a deflection tactic; i.e. "we`re spending your taxes wisely we`re stopping kids playing violently explicit vdeogames". Needless to say some church groups will jump on any bandwagon.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [26478.   Posted 16-Feb-2010 Tue 04:18]
DarkAngel

Thanks for the comment, I have deleted an ambiguous statement. I was reading Shock! Horror! by Francis Brewster, Harvey Fenton & Marc Morris.

The explanation was that Mario Bava`s film was indeed listed but the list didn`t make enough detail available, and so retailers pulled Joel M Reed`s film of the same name.

 DarkAngel5    [26477.   Posted 16-Feb-2010 Tue 03:32]
Just looking at Dave`s Video Nasty list, I`m sure there`s an error on there.

Whilst the Mario Bava film Bloodbath (AKA Bay of Blood/Twitch of Death Nerve) was indeed on the list, the Joel M Reed film of the same name (AKA Blood Sucking Freaks) was not (so far as I can tell from all other reference material any way).

Whilst it is entirely possible that videos might have been confiscated in error, that doesn`t amount to inclusion on the list. Much like "Last House on Dead End Street", which also had a release as "The Funhouse", and was often confused with the Tobe Hooper film, but wasn`t actually included.

 pureform    [26476.   Posted 16-Feb-2010 Tue 03:04]
[26469]
with referance to utube censorship there doesent seem any hard and fast rule just serch for Vicky Layton aka sticky vicky

 emark    [26475.   Posted 15-Feb-2010 Mon 16:19]
Sadly I think the Times have got it wrong[*] - I don`t think this is in the DSM proposal (I can`t find it on http://www.dsm5.org ), rather it`s a proposal by someone else, Carol Queen ( http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24664654 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absexual ). A good idea though :)

[*] The Times also falsely define hypersexuality as merely "the desire for multiple partners". It`s sad to see this level of misreporting, especially on an issue that many people won`t know much about.

 phantom    [26474.   Posted 15-Feb-2010 Mon 14:02]
It`s official!
Harriet Harman and Vera Baird are mentally ill.
They have a disorder.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7026324.ece

 Harvey    [26473.   Posted 15-Feb-2010 Mon 10:41]
For those who have been following the saga...

"The Operation Ore appeal is listed for hearing in the High Court in London on 27 and 28 April 2010."

http://www.inquisition21.com/

 MichaelG    [26472.   Posted 14-Feb-2010 Sun 12:13]
Re: Synod in a Fantasy World...

It shows just how little the General synod know about videogames when the recent release `Dante`s Inferno` was conspicuous in its absence from their irrelevant, directionless and utterly futile little tirade this week.

I`m playing this at the moment and it`s chock full of material guaranteed to twist the knickers of your average God-botherer; nudity, insane levels of violence and gore, demons, apocalyptic and disturbing visions of hell, plus a religious undercurrent. Yet somehow, they missed it. Shame.

Re: Small Ads and the Small Minded...

I knew Harman and Baird couldn`t leave this issue alone for more than five minutes. I can`t wait for the day when they can no longer play with the law like it`s their own personal train set. Not long now. They clearly don`t give a fiddler`s fuck about even trying to win the election with timewasting, repressive, hateful bilge like this being their only pursuit.

Once again, it shows a staggering lack of knowledge about the inside workings of the UK sex industry that they think that banning newsapaper ads is going to make the slightest difference. It may have the effect of making the Daily Sport bankrupt (more sterling work in times of recession, well done girls, if this actually happens), but other than that, I can see their latest actions being about as potent as a fart in a wind tunnel.

Even as an outsider, it isn`t hard to tell that most sex-for-money transactions are made possible via the internet. Maybe Harman should try gettting Punternet banned first... oh no, I forgot, she`s already tried that, hasn`t she? Hahahahaahahahhaaha....

I can`t wait to see the back of these retarded harridans in the Spring. Hopefully then their campaign against heterosexual male sexual freedoms will be limited to placard waving outside seedy establishments in the pouring rain. Which is about as far as it should ever have gotten in the first place...

 dano    [26471.   Posted 14-Feb-2010 Sun 09:10]
Re: Church winging at violent video games....

Did anyone read the bit where the Tory MP says he`s got a DVD compilation of violent video games and he asks synod members to watch it?

Lol, the Anglian Church are sitting around watching violent video games for our good!

 Shaun    [26470.   Posted 14-Feb-2010 Sun 06:22]
So, Harridan Harman, and Fear-her Beard are at it again ?

Censorship of newspapers is the order of the day if New Labour get elected. I pray to a god I don`t believe in that they don`t.

I want some of our former freedoms restored URGENTLY.

 sergio    [26469.   Posted 12-Feb-2010 Fri 10:56]
What exactly do they `censor` on youtube safemode searches?

I tried `president kennedy` and got a video of his head being blown off.

You could see all the brain matter being caught by his dutiful wife , not sure she was going to do with the grey matter, give it to the dog?

Community standards means censor nipples not brain smash bullet explosions.

???

 DarkAngel5    [26468.   Posted 12-Feb-2010 Fri 10:48]
@MichaelG

Hey, who the fuck cares what the General synod thinks anyway? Correct me if I`m wrong, but they`re just some jumped up church council, they`re not the Govt, so as far as Im concerned they can bitch all they want!

 MichaelG    [26467.   Posted 12-Feb-2010 Fri 09:51]
Re: Synod in a Fantasy World...

Er, pardon me for asking, but what the fuck have videogames got to do with the Church of England?

"Why is it acceptable, indeed lawful, to portray the killing and burning of a woman in Fatality, the sawing up of a woman in Mortal Combat, playing football with severed heads; the chainsaw killing of a man in Saw III, rape, torture and so on? I have all these terrible games collected and if anyone has the courage to watch it, please do so."

Didn`t know there was a Saw III videogame???

"We are in a great muddle over regulation and the cost… can be seen in the rising crime statistics year by year. To control this material by expecting parents to control their children with warnings is like King Canute`s performance with his waves. This is not just a matter of conscience and morality. It`s a public health and an economic issue."

Great. Another fucking idiot who cannot comprehend a simple age ratings system. The only muddle is in the minds of pea-brained, hand-wringing cunts like this. I know what an `18` cert means on a videogame cover - can someone please tell me how this is so fucking complicated?

And no, the cost CANNOT be seen in rising crime statistics. That`s to do with the Communist Party turning the law into a sick joke where violent criminals have more rights than their victims, bolloxing up the economy and plunging more people into poverty which leads to more crime and also handing out Visas to violent foreign criminals without proper background checks, to name but a few of the myriad of REAL reasons for violent crime in society being on the rise.

As for being a "...public health and an economic issue," show us some fucking evidence that videogames are a health hazard and we might start taking these ludicrous accusations seriously. But yes, it IS an economic issue - start banning adult themed games and watch the booming UK games software industry suddenly take a nosedive and all the talented developers piss off to America or the Far East where their work is better received. Precisely what we need in a recession, you stupid, God-bothering prick.

And the day a representative of the church is qualified to lecture us on economic issues, when all they have done over the years is steal and hoard wealth which isn`t theirs, is probably the same day I`ll go ice-skating in hell, my arrival heralded by a squadron of flying pigs in a neat `V` formation. I`d sooner be turning to Dick Turpin for his opinion.

Perhaps it`s time for us gamers to be asking the church why they are so preoccupied with fictional violence with no proven effects in terms of influencing real-life violent behaviour when their own brands of brainwashing poison have led to real murder, rape, torture, hatred and violence for thousands of years...