See also Religious Watch Forum

 IanG    [26542.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 08:44]
Thanks for that hobosoup - do you know if or where this cummulative study is published? (Can`t see any links on Xbiz) Many of us here are aware of Milton Diamond`s previous studies in Japan in particular and, the work of Beryl Kutchinsky, indeed, even of Guy Cumberbatch, Neil Malamuth, Donnerstein and Linz.

The evidence for the Governmnet`s stance on porn is clearly against their policy. Indeed, we can be certain Ofcom`s position re porn on TV is placing children in danger. I mean (awful as this is) their (Gov/Ofcom) prohibitions did nothing to save Baby Peter or Khyra Ishaq, nor, indeed, any of the other 220+ chidren that were starved, tortured, abused and murdered in their own homes by their own families last year alone. I see no protection of `vulnerable children` coming from censorship. Indeed, I see only mindless human rights abuses coming from people who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence (of over 50 years of studies) that proves conclusively their beliefs to be absolute nonsense and, dangerously perverse nonsense at that.

It`s 10 years since the High Court ruled that hardcore porn was not a danger to children. How can Ofcom dare to claim it is `harmful` without providing any proof to back up their claims and, indeed, act in complete contempt of the law of this land as handed down by the High Court?

 Paul B    [26541.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:55]
MichaelG @ [26533] If I lived in the area I`d be wanting to know the address, not thinking that they should be leaving!

 hobosoup    [26540.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:00]
This article is from www.xbiz.com

might be worth forwarding to Ms. Patterson.

MANOA, Hawaii — As the use of porn increases, sex crimes usually decline or do not increase at all according to a study done by a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.

And men who watch X-rated movies have better attitudes and are more tolerant toward women.

What’s more, the study suggests that there’s a higher correlation of sexual offenses like rape, by those offenders who had a strict, repressive religious upbringing that prohibited viewing porn.

According to the study, “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 by Milton Diamond, professor of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology, “Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged `obscene`) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased."

Diamond’s study goes on to say that some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encourages rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, it contributes to the degradation of women by causing men to want their women to act out misogynistic fantasies.

Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal, the study said.

But the professor`s research contradicts the claims of anti-porn crusaders.

Diamond said that to examine the effect this widespread use of porn has on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured variables such as changes in attitude or predicted behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault.

“Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation," he said.

Diamond quoted FBI stats that report despite widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the internet.

"The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the `70s and `80s. He showed that from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increased, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level."

The report continued, "Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last two decades."

Diamond`s study added that no community in the U.S. has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. "The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers,” the report stated.

The study said that although the police sometime suggest a high use of porn by sex offenders, the claim is meaningless because nearly all men have at some time used porn.

“Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing.”

Another researcher quoted in Diamond`s study, Richard Green, also reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of "normal’ males.”

As far as porn`s negative effect on women, Diamond’s research pointed out that studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies. Furthermore, studies by other investigators, both male and female essentially agreed. "There was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes."

"No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography — by any definition — has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women," the research reported.

“There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography — just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm,” the study stated.

The professor concluded that any freedom can be misused and sometimes spawn illegal activities whereby those who do are punished and incarcerated. But that doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted. “In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal — there’d be more people in prison than out,” Diamond said.

 Shaun    [26539.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 04:00]
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.


Oh the irony of it. I just sent a comment message to the "sparticus" article, on the Daily Mail and as part of the check for humans it asked me to type in "xbbfc" !

Honestly!

So I just thought I`d share that one.

 MichaelG    [26538.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 23:38]
As fully expected, my favourite newspaper has decided to fan the flames of the `Spartacus` TV series `controversy`:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1255093/Blood-orgies-nudity--The-Spartacus-epic-campaigners-battling-ban-British-screens.html

Another soapbox for `is it worth the risk?` Pattinson. It`s just a shame that they`ve had to resort to untruths just to add a little extra `shock, horror` factor:

"Ever since Caligula in 1980 - a movie so blue Oscar-winner Helen Mirren refuses to talk about it..."

Er... except on the full-length 156-minute feature commentary she provided for the most recent DVD release of `Caligula`. I`ve been good enough to post a comment pointing this out. Anyone fancy a wager on whether or not it gets published?

 bleach    [26537.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 16:22]
@IanG / MichaelG
Re:sex on television
As mentioned Viv Petty-son seems to be speaking for what I would class as a minority. People like seeing sex and violence on TV. Secret Diaries of a Call Girl is probably ITV2`s biggest programme ever and could be one of the things which helps them financially. I think the Sachs/Ross/Brand thing may have been a factor in moral-purists speaking out: "we don`t like swearing on TV, a survey said 70% feel the same" or whatever they say. Programmes like Sopranos, True Blood and a lot of stand-up comedy wouldn`t be the same without naughty words, plain and simple. But, I digress; the bottom line is I`m sick of people with a moral agenda thinking they are speaking on behalf of the people when they`re just speaking on behalf of a few silly, possibly even juvenile and certainly deluded (un)individuals who think we should all think the same as them.

 ste    [26536.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 12:45]
Scottish Parliament`s Justice Committee calling for evidence on Trish Godman`s attempt to ban all `paid-for sexual activity` (among other things):

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2CallforEvidence.htm

Already some submissions received here, including some from sex workers themselves.:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2submissions.htm

Looks like the vote will take place within the month.

 IanG    [26535.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 09:49]
MichaelG, the loonies have all come out of the woodwork mate.

Where`s Shaun? Where`s anyone who, like myself, grew up in the 1970s with programmes like I Clavdivs, Monty Python, Q8, Bouquet of Barbwire, The Cleopatras, any number of Play for Today...the list goes on and on... I recall seeing dozens of programmes which contained "full frontal nudity, sex and violence". This begs one very important question: why did NONE of this `unsuitable for children` material do anything to cause anyone of my generation to be `harmed physically, mentally or morally` nor indeed, cause any concerns over `early sexualization` of us children. I`ll tell you why shall I, because it did NOTHING to affect our healthy, normal and quite enlightened progress into sane rational adulthood.

I speak from 100% experience. I was THERE. I am absolutely sick to death of insane religious, feminazi nutters fucking up the psychological development of our children.

None of this `unsuitable for children` material damages children. It in fact adds to their sexual education and prepares them for the harsh realities of life. We were not dumbed down. We were not mollycoddled. That twat Whitehouse was an enemy of freedom and rationality even to my tender 10 years old eyes. And I`m afraid Ms Pattison you`re no fucking better - you know nothing and care even less.

The things that traumatised me as a child were: the death of my pet dog, the death of my father, Leeds Utd not winning the FA Cup - all things which I had real emotional attachments to.

I recall watching Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon. I recall seeing a Vietnamese girl about my age running from her napalmed village with all the skin from her back trailing behind her. I knew then that we live in a totally fucked-up world and that its all the fault of our gloriously deluded, insane, psychotic `leaders`.

I know this: you cannot create the world of your dreams through censorship. Hiding the brutal truth, sex, warts and all, improves no one`s life. In fact it demeans and debases, degrades and insults our very intelligence. But then that`s what they want - a whole generation of easily offended fuckwits to back them up on their insane crusade to the promised land of cottonwool and candyfloss and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

We have a right and need to experience everything in the realm of human existence else we can never know or claim to be sane and rational human beings. Knowledge and experience give us power over our own minds and bodies. The easily offended are nought but infantile cretins. The morally superior are nought but deluded children. If you cannot react to a stimulus in a sane and rational manner then you are not a sane and rational human being - end of.

 MichaelG    [26534.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 02:52]
Apologies if I seem to be hogging this forum at present, but fucking hell, is there something in the water supply at the moment that has the nutters crawling from the woodwork and foaming at the mouth?

Firstly, Vivienne Pattison needs to get herself a new catchphrase. This "is it worth the risk?" malarky is already becoming mighty tiresome.

"There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence on TV with violent behaviour at large and if there is the slightest possibility that explicit sex and violence on screen can cause this harm, is it worth the risk in the interests of entertainment?"

OK, once again, where are these studies and what is the harm? We`re all waiting...

I despair. It`s getting like a recurring nightmare from which you can`t wake up. Entertainment, civil liberties, the internet, private correspondence, private sexual practices - EVERYTHING seems now to be under constant scrutiny, subject to constant criticism by anyone and everyone and there`s not a day goes by when someone, somewhere, who has little or no business or interest in that which they condemn, howling for something to be banned or criminalised.

And just when you think things can`t get any worse, you get two so-called Liberal Democrat peers (oh, the irony!), proposing state filtering of the internet. Well thanks for `protecting` me, but please just fuck off. If I wanted this sort of shit I`d go and live in China or Iran.

I fully realise that fascist, draconian bollox coming from the mouths of someone supposedly standing for Liberty and Democracy (if you take the party name as representative of their basic ideals) is nothing new - I`ll never forget the self-motivated machinations of that twat David Alton after the Bulger case. But seriously, where does this news now leave people like us, who believe in individual rights and freedoms? Even the fucking Lib Dems can no longer be trusted not to attempt to implement legislation which would be better suited to a Communist regime if they attain power. I`m still going ahead with a tactical vote in an attempt to remove the Scottish Communist Occupation Force when (and if) the election comes, but the future is looking far from bright, pretty much whatever happens.

I guess when the situation looks as bleak as it does, the only thing left is to laugh about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254697/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Browns-Britain-2015-Queen-fled.html

Then again, this is so spot on, it`s actually terrifying...

 MichaelG    [26533.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 23:30]
The brutal clampdown on human sexuality continues:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254912/Sex-dungeon-discovered-sleepy-village.html

"Officers were alerted after neighbours reported `unusual behaviour` and `strange sounds` coming from the four-bedroom semi in Lee Mill, Devon.

Police arrived with battering rams to raid the home..."

So, no suspected guns or drugs, but plod arrives armed with a battering ram after a few `strange sounds` and a bit of `unusual behaviour` are reported.

"It`s fair to say we were not expecting to find a masochistic dungeon in sleepy Lee Mill. You don`t expect to find this sort of thing anywhere." - Detective Sergeant Stuart Gilroy

Really? Clearly not a copper with much policing or life experience, I`d say.

"One neighbour said: `It might sound funny but to be honest we are nervous about the place... I`ve seen traffic jams caused by people trying to go there. It`s disgusting. We just want them out and have a nice family move in."

I know, traffic jams are terrible. I find them `disgusting` too, especially when you`re stuck in one yourself(!).

You know, I wish we could, once and for all, get the law cleared up in this country so everyone is in absolutely no doubt as to what is illegal and what isn`t in terms of an individuals private sexual practices. To be honest, there shouldn`t be ANY legislation dictating rules to consenting adults who want to play with each other to in private (and make no mistake, this IS in private, despite what the curtain-twitching cunts who live in this `sleepy village` seem to think).

What`s most disturbing here is that three people have been arrested after reports of `comings and goings` (no pun intended) and `strange noises`. No-one seems to know what they`ve been arrested for, and they have been bailed while police carry out `further enquiries`, which likely means they need some time to string some shit together which they can attempt to make stick. My guess is that the only line the filth can take here is attempting to pin the `brothel` tag on the place, as it`s almost certain that money would have been changing hands here. My guess, though, is that as this is a BDSM establishment, it`s unlikely there`d be any real sexual activity taking place. So, how can you charge someone with running a brothel if no-one is having sex there?

Once again, the BDSM Community feel the bite of the law. If this was some kind of gay sex club, I doubt plod would have touched with a bargepole - whether money was changing hands or not.

I`m beginning to think that reading the Daily Mail is some kind of masochistic experience. Perhaps I`m suffering from something along the lines of `Mary Whitehouse Syndrome`. I know I`m going to be appalled and outraged when I look at the site, but somehow I just don`t seem to be able to stop myself...

 MichaelG    [26532.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 22:49]
Re: Melon Farmers (Dave) [26528]:

"Just supposing these loons somehow got their way and eliminated sexuality and body image issues.

So that everyone was judged on the merits of their minds...."

Judging from some of the minds these loons are in possession of (if indeed they do possess anything in this field at all), then they want to pray this never happens...

 bleach    [26531.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 16:28]
@pbr
Another factor is it means Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft whoever need to make a console with the parental controls specifically for the UK market. How many manufacturers will agree to that? Secondly, as you mentioned a "chipped" console of some description could easily bypass it just as it can bypass regional coding. Also what about the "sexist", "violent" or "morally dubious" games that already exist? As mentioned Duke Nukem 3D and Lulu are now quite old games and fit the bill of being adult, yet they were invented before any lockout as such, parental controls which no-one used is the only form of control. Also, what about earlier consoles of current generation consoles (i.e. Wii, 360, PS3) they have no lockout? Also, It`s been widely reported that when the PS1 came out the average age of the gamer was in their 20s; so surely it would punish the vast majority of gamers. Linda Pap clearly isn`t a gamer, just a publicity seeker.

 pbr    [26530.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 14:24]
You know... I keep seeing these common sense solutions to gaming being the devil... sell consoles with the parental controls "switched on", what a smashingly simple and common sense approach... because having a BBFC rating on it didn`t stop little Johnny and Janey getting hold of "Duke Nukem does terribly naughty things with Lula and then kills lots of things in a awfully unsporting fashion" just as an enforcable PEGI rating didn`t either... but... pray tell gentle reader... how do these miraculous parental controls work?

I do believe they involve the "parent" setting a password or PIN which "controls" which age-level a system may play without prompting the gamer to enter said password or PIN...

I do hope everyone`s common sense tells them that this is clearly a brillant idea which has absolutely no flaws what so ever...

 sergio    [26529.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:32]
`The introduction of a system of ratings symbols for photographs to show the extent to which they have been altered. This is particularly critical in magazines targeting teen and pre-teen audiences.`

Why not a default state, these images have been altered? A rating for every photo in every magazine? WTF?

`The government should work with internet service providers to block access to pro-anorexia (`pro-ana`) and pro-bulimia (`pro-mia`) websites`

I am not sure on what grounds they want to do that. Because it is a `bit dangerous, harmful`? What a slippery slope. Melonfarmers to be restricted due to being for harmful freedom. Pro uncensorship sites to be removed with the help of ISPs.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [26528.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:14]
Just supposing these loons somehow got their way and eliminated sexuality and body image issues.

So that everyone was judged on the merits of their minds....

Then there would STILL be half the population that had less than average talents. They would just get a different set of complexes about their lack of wit, intelligence, artistic ability or whatever.

 bleach    [26527.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:02]
@dano
I think you`re absolutely right. I can`t believe people are taking Linda Pap so serious. She isn`t even a leader in her field in any field (i.e. social science, sexuality, child psychology) she is simply a bigot who has a hidden moral agenda i.e. I don`t want my children to see "offensive" images so why should anyone else`s children. Also Linda Pap is an American citizen why didn`t she submit her report to the American government because she`d be laughed out of the white house and the onslaught from the music industry and magazine publications (such as GQ, FHM) would be unbearble for her. Why the fuck is no media company speaking out against this (or maybe I missed it), why has no real expert spoken against it? Is it because they don`t want to appear sexist? I don`t know. I don`t think people should take it lying down because Linda P has thrown a lot of shit and given Mr Brown and his cabinets reputation for believing bullshit; there`s a real chance it could stick.

 IanG    [26526.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 08:54]
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Causes.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

Shaun, yes, not looking to other countries/cultures is why I made the point about `Dr` Papadoloulus and, indeed, this Government, not presenting an existing `model` human society as a control or baseline before arriving at their extraordinary `fixes` for our perceived `problems`.

`Gender inequality` is fundamental to all living creatures and most certainly has been central to human cultures since Homo Sapien evolved some 250,000 years ago. Evolution is a NATURAL process - you fuck about with it at your peril. Indeed, the state of the world today can be pinned firmly on bullshit religious beliefs, farming, finance, finite resource exploitation and of course government. None of this bullshit is natural and its consequences can all be seen in all good history accounts leading to the untimely deaths of countless billions of lives.

The NHS link above states some of the known factors leading to young people (mostly girls) developing anorexia. It says along with bullying, depression and (perceived) obesity, the onset of puberty is a trigger in developing such eating disorders. Now I don`t know about anyone else, but teaching `gender equality` - i.e. social androgeny - would tend to clash with girls entering puberty when they begin forming curvy hips and breasts. One consequence of exercise at the level 12 y/o East European gymnasts used to train was to hold back the onset of puberty (the NHS recognise excessive training/exercise as a factor in causing eating disorders too). All the `psychological` evidence points toward inappropriate messages of gender nutrality or social androgeny and body sterotyping playing a role in creating anxiety, depression, low self esteem etc. that CAUSES eating disorders in "VULNERABLE CHILDREN".

WHY can`t people be happy with their own gender? WHY can`t society celebrate sexual differences? WHY do we `demonise` sexual expression? WHY must we steer our youngsters down a totally untried, untested, unnatural path toward social androgeny? More to the point, if the self-proclaimed engineers of social sexual equality can`t see the effects their sick ideology is having on real human beings then WHY should anyone trust them to know what`s `right` at all?

I DEMAND `Dr` Papadopoulous and this Government point us to the `ideal` society upon which ALL their unnatural claims and `fixes` for our society are based. Who, what and where are these wonderous people? I`ve a sneaking suspicion all the recomendations are based on the sex lives of bisexual worms or slugs because they sure as hell have got fuck all to do with social primate (e.g. human) society.

Any society that doesn`t rejoyce in our sexual differences and permit boys to be boys and girls to be girls is on a course for total and utter sexual dysmorphia. A glaringly obvious consequence of anorexia in teenage girls is the halting of puberty and attaining not just a cronically thin body but one that looks like a prepubescent boy`s. To a child`s innocent mind, the message of `gender equality` sounds like "boys and girls are the same" - the fact that prepubescent boys and girls bodies look the same is the key to understanding what happens next in the vulnerable child`s perception of body `perfection` and "what society wants me to be like".

Now you`d perhaps expect in times of great stress and food rationing, such as during and atfer WWII, that anorexia would have been a natural consequence but, surprise, surprise it wasn`t. In my mother`s 35 years as a nurse, midwife and health vistitor, anorexia was unheard of. It is a modern, post-women`s lib disorder that, as far as I can tell, affects girls who`d likely grow up to be just fine specimens of womanhood were it not for the `equality` bunch filling children`s heads with the idea that girls should be more like boys, sexuality is abnormal, sexiness is degrading...and the rest of the femo-fascist mantra.

I have absolutely nothing against sexual equality in terms of law and human rights, but, it does not follow that we should fool ourselves (indeed, our own children) into believing boys and girls are remotely similar in their roles as natural sexual human beings.

Moving on. I`m deeply concerned with the sexually repressive stance this Government is yet again planning to enforce on the populace of this nation. It is a proven FACT that such environments CAUSE sexual abuse. It is a proven FACT that sexually liberated societies are far healthier and safer than sexually repressed societies. It is known that pubescent teenagers don`t like to watch pornography - it angers them (why we don`t know - could be their repressed upbringing). I don`t like the soap operas, kids programmes or bloody football on TV - they anger me hence I don`t watch such bile. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that under 18s are unlikely to access pornographic materials of their own free will if they don`t actually like it. Ergo, there`s no need to implement human rights abusing restrictions on adults accessing such material via TV and on-demand audiovisual services.

Indeed, here are the conclusions from Ofcom`s report from 2005, "R18 material: its potential impact on people under 18":
[quote]
Almost no research has been done with the under 18 age group and R18 material (Corne et al., 1992; Donnerstein et al., 1992; Haynes, 1987; Linz et al., 1992; VanEvra, 2004)52. The result is that there is no conclusive empirical evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to R18 material and impairment of the mental, physical or moral development of minors.

Whether or not R18 material will be made available on UK television, it is probable that young people will be increasingly exposed to violence towards women, sexual messages and depictions of sexual intercourse in the media (Harris, 1994; Kunkel et al., 2003; Kunkel et al., 2001; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004)53.

A bigger exposure to this kind of material is related to children being sexually active at a younger age (Brown et al., 1990; Brown & Newcomer, 1991; Brown & Witherspoon, 2002). This is a correlation and not a causal link however.

Young children (under the age of 12) do not seem to have developed enough emotionally to understand what sexual material is about and older children appear more angered by it than traumatised (Donnerstein et al., 1992; Silverman-Watkins & Sprafkin, 1983; U.S. Department of Justice, 1986).

Most researchers stress that good sex education and an open relationship with parents in issues of sexuality are more important for the child to develop normally than a ban on R18 material (Linz et al., 1992; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004; Zillmann, 2000).
Zillmann (2000) argues that results from research carried out with college students should be transferable to adolescents. He refers specifically to research on long term or frequent exposure to pornography and its relation to attitudinal changes (eg. less appreciation of traditional (sexual) relationships) (See also Allen, D`Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Allen, Emmers, & Gebhart, 1995; Bushman & Cantor, 2003)54.

There is some evidence for a positive effect of R18 material and young people; exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes
[/quote]

Let`s quote that last line again: "exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes". Have you got that Mr Government? How about you Ofcom?...YOUR mindless, baseless `protectionism` is what`s REALLY fucking vulnerable young people up!

Leave people ALONE to be free to find out what suits them PERSONALLY and we all turn out fine. Fill people`s heads with religiously inspired Victorian bullshit, constrain and restrict their choices and access to knowledge and information and you`re asking for absolute disaster. The British people deserve better - I deserve better, everyone here deserves better.

 dano    [26525.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 07:19]
I think underlying these reports and all this anti sexual entertainment propaganda is a deep seated mistrust and even hatred of male sexuality.
Whilst female sexuality is seen as empowering and postivie male sexuality, and in particularly young male sexuality is seen as sexist, dangerous and a threat to women.
Young boys finding scantily clad or underdressed women in magazines attractive is regarded as seedy and dirty and the cause of rape and violence against women.
A teenage boy cannot be trusted to see sexy images of women without wanting to go and rape or batter the first girl he meets.

 Shaun    [26524.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 06:12]
To be honest, I am just sick to death, and weary of all the fake science.

Censor happy people should just take a look what goes on elsewhere in the world and see how necessary things really are.

Censorship is the suppression and restriction of ideas and knowledge you don`t agree with. Therefore the British government is just as bad as China in my opinion

Only when something is generally universally unacceptable, (for example child pornography) is censorship at all justified, and even then there should be limits measured only by real and manifest harm. IE not cartoon censorship.

Otherwise freeborn adults should be exactly that. Free.

 IanG    [26523.   Posted 1-Mar-2010 Mon 05:53]
I`m wondering which human society Ms `Dr` Papadopoulus used as the `control`, `baseline` or `model` in order to identify what`s `wrong` in our society to mysteriously `know` these could be `corrected` by her recommendations?

You know, off the top of my head I can`t think of one human society that doesn`t practice some form of body alteration/adornment or, indeed, have some regimented stereotypical gender roles. Indeed, there are many that practice some form of body fear and loathing. There are also many that base their culture upon strange mythological beliefs too.

I do hope the Government chose `Dr` Papadopoulus based on her decades of experience working with children and not for her fame as a TV pop psychologist. I wonder why the Government didn`t pick some relatively unknown Dr with 20 or 30 years experience working with children? If I didn`t know `better` I`d say they picked someone they could rely on to deliver Jacqui and Harriet`s vision of model Britain rather than someone who would likely find the Governmnet sadly lacking in any knowledge of child wellfare and developmental issues.

Reading what I have so far about the contents and recommendations of `Dr` Pap`s report I`m inclined to believe its not even pseudo science but, something more akin to the religio-feminist agenda. This surely cannot be what the Government spent the taxpayer`s money on can it?

I was also shocked to read this in the Guardian: "The difference between "inappropriate" and "appropriate" behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. New guidance for social workers states that they should recognise that children are at risk from their peers, and that they should not interpret sexual play as "normal". Social workers are advised not to accept a high threshold before taking action. There are numerous experiences that are entirely harmless in the context of children`s lives which would take on a more sinister meaning if they were carried out by an adult. The Home Office report falls into the trap of seeing the dark side of adult sexuality in the playground."

This is Government advice? "Sex play is not normal"? Well I`m sorry Gordon but I beg to differ in the strongest possible terms, indeed, I`m CERTAIN the VAST MAJORITY of Child Wellfare EXPERTS and Child Psychologists would agree this behaviour is PERFECTLY normal. I think you lot in Parliament have forgotten everything you did when you were just toddlers. In fact you all seem to have forgotten what you did as teenagers.

Of course, the religiously corrupted British Government believe this behaviour is not `normal` according to their interpretation, idea and vision of `Britishness`. This is surely PROOF of what I`ve been saying for years - people are being systematically brainwashed with the FALSE ideologies of complete nutters from the moment they`re born.

If anyone hasn`t noticed (esp. you Ms `Dr` Papadopoulus), children are born with sex organs. And just as they`re predisposed to discover what their eyes, ears, arms and legs are for, so too their inherant purpose in life, to procreate, drives them to need to know what every other part of their body is for. Indeed, they inherantly need to discover that fundamental difference between boys and girls and how to cement fruitful relationships. That is, as they say, LIFE.

Of course we see the underlying problem with Big Government now. Human Beings are more than capable of learning how to live and perpetuate our species without state education and without religious brainwashing - hell, even our dumb ape relatives seem to mamage it just fine. And of course, social norms are what society as a whole deems normal not, as the case may be, having unnatural, unjust and misguided `norms` dictated from cretins in positions of unimginable power. And of course, those positions of power could not exist unless people were brought up to believe in nonsense - such as those who would be `kings` mysteriously know what`s right for everyone `below` them. It`s a pity these dictators are only human else I might believe they were infallible, alas, that`s not the case and at least 1 in 4 are, we`re assured, guarnteed to be sufferring some form of mental illness at some point in their pathetic lives (and believing there`s something fundamentally `wrong` with sex is surely a mental illness...?).

 MichaelG    [26522.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 23:11]
Hands up anyone else who saw this one coming:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1254384/Jonathan-Rosss-wife-Jane-Goldman-causes-outrage-film-featuring-foul-mouthed-11-year-old-assassin.html

Both Total Film and Impact magazines this month warned everyone to steel themselves for the inevitable media backlash. Naturally, the Mail would have to be leading the charge. So handy for them that one of their favourite targets is linked, albeit indirectly, to `Kick-Ass` - as Jonathan Ross`s wife Jane Goldman was the writer of the movie.

"Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University, criticised the film industry for not distinguishing between what is suitable for children and adults.

‘This promotes the idea that infantilising adulthood is okay and that we are no longer expected to draw lines between us and kids,’ he said."

God , they`ve really got the bit between their teeth with the `let`s protect the children` argument at the moment, haven`t they?

"Isn’t there a limit to what we can ask children to do on screen?"

Funnily enough, I was actually reading an interview in Impact magazine with Chloe Moretz, the 13 year-old American actress who plays Hit Girl in `Kick-Ass`. Her mum chaperones her everywhere and helps her pick roles. Chloe herself seems very down-to-earth and also seems to have a good grasp the themes of the film. Most importantly, she demonstrates a wisdom beyond her years and a clear understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality that would put most Daily Mail journos and sociology professors to shame. On her use of the `c` word, she stated that she would never use, or be allowed to use, such a word in real-life, stating that she would be "grounded for years".

I kind of wish the BBFC had made this an `18`, but thinking about it, it`s not the certification that the nutters seem to have a problem with.

I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website......

 bleach    [26521.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 17:00]
RE: Sexualisation report
"PSHE already includes teaching about advertising and body image and from 2011 will include issues around violence against women and girls."

What about violence again men? What abut male body image? Some men/boys are just as insecure or conscious of their body image of girls/women.
I think the report is not only biased against men/boys to the point were they are written out completely. Secondly, I think it is offensive to refer to teenagers/adolescents as vulnerable stupid little boys/girls which is the conclusion I came to after reading between the lines.

"When I asked Shakira, the Latin American superstar, how she can square being sexy, wearing skimpy clothes, with her charitable work championing children in the developing world..."
As a sidenote Linda Papadopoulos who wrote the report isn`t adverse to wearing skimpy dresses and using her image to sell products, a bit hypocritical. Also, as mentioned before I can`t believe people in the Government take her report so serious; she is a pop-psychologist using pseudo-science (the word "pornify" for example). She`s not a proper scientist on the level of Richard Dawkins (whose work covers evolution, natural selection, religion etc) or pretty much anyone else within the science field.

 dano    [26520.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 13:16]
Re: Liz Jones:

As usual personal distate is presented as evidence of harm.
She does not demonstrate how all these sexy raunchy pop stars and music videos is apparently harming children.

There is a world of difference between a few female pop stars dancing sexily in their videos to porn. The fact that the Daily Mail`s ultra censorious hacks equate Girls Aloud or Shakeerah wiggling their bottoms with hardcore X rated material shows how prudish they are!

As for the comments about Shakeerah`s charity work I think that`s just ridiciculous. Like children in the developing world are gonna be corrupted by her raunchy videos when they are so poor they can`t even afford to eat let alone have TV to watch her videos on!

 MichaelG    [26519.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 00:42]
Must. Stop. Reading. Daily. Mail. Website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254248/PETER-HITCHENS-More-sex-education-means-teenage-pregnancies--always.html

It`s little wonder we`re plunging headlong back into some kind of sexual dark age when we have fucking pea-brained, moralising twerps like this who are so horrified by anything to do wih sex that they refer to sex education as `smut`. Let`s just keep kids in the dark about sex, let them make their own mistakes and fuck up their lives. Or better still, like Hitchins and Liz Jones, let`s terrify them into thinking that it`s `dirty`, that they should be ashamed of even thinking or talking about it. Let`s make them deeply afraid of their own bodies and sexuality.

Why can`t people see that it`s attitudes like this, at which most of the rest of Europe must be pissing themselves with laughter, which leads us to have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe?

Moving on, but just down a few lines to this worthless individual`s opinion of Tim Burton`s new version of `Alice In Wonderland`, I find my piss fermenting itself into pure sulphric acid yet again:

"The serial weirdo Tim Burton has instead been let loose on this classic, and appears to have turned it into ‘Willy Wonka meets The Lord Of The Rings’."

So, an undoubted creative genius whose films have won awards and constantly dazzle their audiences with surreal, wildly original premises and imagery is simply a `serial weirdo`. How kind. Clearly there is no room for originality or quirkiness in Hitchins super-orderly, sterile, fun-free world. He`d get on so well with Martin Salter - they could rant about `weird people` to each other till the cows come home.

"Who needs this? Does anyone really want to see it?"

No-one `needs` movies - they`re simply there to entertain. And I really want to see it, as it happens. So fuck off, you moronic, tiny-minded, poisonous, fascist prick. No one is dragging you to a cinema with your arm up your back, forcing you to watch it...

 bleach    [26518.   Posted 27-Feb-2010 Sat 10:53]
@ Paul B
My Daughter`s a cocksucker
I think the incest theme is what caused the banning as well, but as it is a "cocksucking" video, I wonder if forcible gagging, hair pulling etc also lead to the banning.

Re: Sexualization report
Another thing to note is Linda Papadopoulos is American; as is widely know Religion (Christianity) is more prevalent so I wonder if she is trying to force some (hidden) Christian morality on people, I`m probably speculating a bit. Also, she is indeed married with a daughter; I believe in the separation of church and state but what about the separation of family life and state? Talk about a hidden agenda. She seems to feel kids are hopeless and vulnerable and need protecting from all outside incidents, although this maybe true in some scenarios children are incredibly perceptive and understand sexuality earlier than people think. I think most adolescents become interested (perhaps subconsciously) in sex at around 11, personally speaking I was around that age when I first masturbated; some teenagers have sex by the age of 13. I think the problem lies in society and by curbing desire they are only going to seek them out e.g. many people have sought out video nasties as they were banned, the same will apply to teenagers getting their hands on "Nuts". Also Papadopoulos might have a PhD but the body of work she has written is pseudo-science along the level of "how to get a man" type books.

@MichaelG (music videos and Daily Mail)
You hit the nail on the head.

 emark    [26517.   Posted 27-Feb-2010 Sat 07:33]
A refreshingly different opinion on this latest "sexualisation" hype: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/26/children-behaviour-sexual-images

 MichaelG    [26516.   Posted 27-Feb-2010 Sat 01:11]
Looks like `The New Puritans` are completely locked on to a new target:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1254145/LIZ-JONES-How-pop-porn.html

It`s a bit rich Liz Jones accusing male music video directors of a lack of originality when all we seem to get from her and her Mail cohorts are bullshit pieces like this which seek to add to the stifling repression of living under CommuNuLabour in 21st Century Britain.

"Common themes? ...Girls lying prone, and who look as though they have been or are about to be raped."

Have I missed something (again)? This is a new one on me.

"Women filmed in dark, wet alleyways, inevitably dressed as prostitutes"

How, pray tell, is a prostitute supposed to dress? Especially these days I imagine it`s not something that girls who do this for a living want to scream from the rooftops.

"This is because parents are powerless to police all these images and their dangerous messages. MTV - which pumps this stuff out all day long - and You Tube are just too powerful."

What exactly is the danger?

"As well as a moratorium on sexually explicit videos on television, stricter measures need to be introduced as to what can be viewed by children on the internet, because the safeguards are laughable."

Here we go again. Tell you what, why not just put fucking Mandelson in charge with his `Digital Economy Bill`, so we can not only enjoy Chinese-style government filtering of material right here in the UK, but also allow this reptilian creep to elevate himself to the level where he is in a position to ingratiate himself still further with his rich, gay American entertainment mogul mates? (Come on Liz, I thought the Mail was supposed to be a Tory paper!).

"When I asked Shakira, the Latin American superstar, how she can square being sexy, wearing skimpy clothes, with her charitable work championing children in the developing world..."

Oh please. Shakira is known worldwide as a beautiful, sexy, powerful and rich woman. Her fame, largely attributable to this, allows her to do charitable work to help underprivileged kids. I don`t see Liz Jones contributing much in this respect, but she`s quite prepared to have a pop at someone else`s supposed hypocritical methodology for doing a good deed. What a fucking dreadful bag. And what is so wrong with `being sexy`?

The nonsense continues:

"These days, Madonna`s early videos seem positively quaint. Even the Spice Girls were preferable to what we have on offer today: at least they sang about power."

`Justify My Love` seems quaint sat next to a Shakira or Beyoncé video? The Spice Girls sang about `Girl Power` but they still wore revealing outfits, and did any of them have the first idea what the notion of `Girl Power` was actually all about? Beyoncé, going from her music, seems to have a much more coherent idea about independence (she even did a song called `Independent Women` for fuck`s sake).

"Where are the Carole Kings, the Tracy Chapmans, even the Bjorks of today?"

Er... Florence and the Machine, La Roux, The Dead Weather, Goldfrapp, Little Boots, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Right under your nose, actually. perhaps if you took your head out of your own arse for five minutes, you might be able to see some of them.

It`s no wonder CommuNuLabour really get the bit between their teeth when it comes to repressive new legislation when they`re justified and supported by chin-stroking, moralising nodding-dogs like this, who have a national platform from which to broadcast their narrow-minded, prudish and illiberal nonsense. I`m going to have to stop looking at The Mail`s website. It just makes me angry.

 Paul B    [26515.   Posted 26-Feb-2010 Fri 11:50]
Just seen that another porno has been rejected at the BBFC.

The BBFC give the rejection of MY DAUGHTER`S A COCKSUCKER as September 2009.

Having had a quick scout around on the Internet I suspect the reason for the banning was its incest theme.

 bleach    [26514.   Posted 26-Feb-2010 Fri 06:22]
RE: Labour Growing Up Obsessed by Sexualisation...

"lads` mags to be confined to newsagents` top shelves and only sold to over-15s"
Won`t that mean they`re place next to stronger magazines featuring full-frontal nudity unless they have two top shelves (obviously not a problem for WH Smith and the likes). It`s also a burden on anyone working there; slows down queues (as they need to show ID), encourages verbal abuse etc.

"jobcentres should be banned from advertising vacancies at escort agencies, lapdancing clubs and massage parlours. "
Technically no-one under 16 should really be in a jobcentre searching for jobs, obviously you sometimes get toddlers or babies in there but that`s not really an issue.

"a ratings system on magazine and advertising photographs showing the extent to which they have been airbrushed or digitally altered."
I think this is just so women can say "she isn`t so pretty now she hasn`t been airbrushed etc". Secondly, does it apply to male photographs as well. There are also legitimate photographers which offer an airbrush service not just to modelling photos but also for portraits and the like.

"games consoles should be sold with parental controls already switched on. Purchasers can choose to unlock the console if they wish to allow access to adult and online content."
I think they mean videogames. I can`t see any manufacturer changing the hardware just to fit in with a petty UK legislation, some might even choose not to sell it to the UK market. Secondly, like cutting films it is a pain in the arse for any adults as it is effectively punishing them to "protect" kids.

 sergio    [26513.   Posted 26-Feb-2010 Fri 01:17]
Who`d of thunk it? A psychologist with Mary Whitehouse syndrome.

 MichaelG    [26512.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 23:55]
`The New Puritanism` continues unabated:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253831/Explicit-pop-videos-banned-9pm-watershed.html

`Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos said videos of women in skimpy outfits that turn them into `decorative objects` were unsuitable before 9pm.`

`She added that the placing of jobcentre adverts for lap dancers could lead to the `normalisation` of the trade as a `viable career choice` and should be banned.`

`Photographs of airbrushed models should carry a rating to show how much they have been touched up, while the use of models who appear to look under-age to advertise products in a sexual way was also criticised.`

`The trend for sexy children`s toys should end, she warned, singling out Bratz dolls in fishnets.`


You know, if this load of 22-carat shite is so important to the `healthy development` of children, how come we`ve managed without it up until now?

It makes me feel as though I could piss a hole in sheet metal knowing that this worthless piece of shit report has been commissioned by this even more purposeless government and paid for out of taxpayers money.

`She said: `I want my little girl, indeed, all girls and boys, to grow up confident about who they are and about finding and expressing their individuality and sexuality, but not through imposed gender stereotypes or in a way that objectifies the body or commodifies their burgeoning sexuality.`

You know, I`m going to be a dad in around 4 weeks. I want my little boy or girl to grow up confident about who they are and about finding and expressing their individuality and sexuality. I don`t want them to be so brainwashed by claptrap like this that they end up being ashamed of themselves every time they look at their bodies or think about sex. I don`t want them to feel afraid of erotically stimulating images, or end up thinking that anything to do with the human body is `dirty`.

The only thing Papadopoulos missed was that we should all be wearing burkhas, sex outside of marriage should be punishable by stoning to death and piano legs should be covered up. But no doubt that will all be covered in her next report.

I feel like buying this stupid moo a one-way ticket to Iran...

 sergio    [26511.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 15:41]
seemingly a free download pdf
http://www.aup.nl/do.php?a=show_visitor_book&isbn=9789056291501

 IanG    [26510.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 09:40]
Someone sent me this, thought it might interest some
"Myths of Media and Audiences" http://www.aup.nl/do.php?a=process_visit...ial_id=409

 Harvey    [26509.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 04:29]
Melanie_H

Welcome to the board.

I`m a bit confused about your post...

"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."

Any MSP can lodge an amendment during the committe stage of the bill. There isn`t a special process or cut-off date for `submissions`. You can write to the members of the committee and put your point of view. You don`t need to have `new evidence`.

"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."

An amendment is an amendment. There are no special categories of "late" or "minor" amendments that somehow become law without anyone noticing. All amendments on the list require scrutiny and need a vote in committee to become part of the Bill.

 Janus17    [26508.   Posted 24-Feb-2010 Wed 14:36]
Hi, Melanie-H and welcome to the forum.

If what you say is correct, I really don`t know where to begin.

Glasgow City Council stated that they do not run political campaigns (so what the hell is `EndProstitutionNow` then?).

Glasgow City Council also stated that it does not hold the information which had been requested. Nor does anyone else hold it on their behalf.

So, NOTHING exists in terms of information about funding, the cost to the taxpayer of the campaign, the number of council employees working on the campaign, minutes from meetings, etc. etc. etc.

You`d think that without any of the requested information, it would be physically impossible to not only mount a political campaign (which we`re told GCC actually don`t do anyway), but to even attempt to change the law. Unless, of course, the government (and we`re talking LOCAL government here, remember), are now free to do whatever they please without having to justify any of their actions to the taxpayer. This type of denial, non-compliance and deliberate obfuscation I`d expect in the USSR twenty-odd years ago, but in 21st Century Scotland?

This is absolutely deplorable. Surely they can`t pass legislation as far-reaching as this without any debate, records of the campaign, records of funding, employees etc.?

 DarkAngel5    [26507.   Posted 24-Feb-2010 Wed 12:07]
Seems some clothing store in Scotland has been warned by the police about selling "offensive" World cup T-shirts with the words "Anyone but England" on them...

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/24022010/58/world-cup-2010-company-warned-football-t-shirt.html

Well, I`m English and I don;t find them offensive. In any case, where exactly does the law specify that you are not allowed to sell anything that "MIGHT" be considered offensive, which is purely a subjective term?

If people want to wear these, let them. As long as tey don`t mind me making similar remarks about their teams.

Whatever happened to sticks and stones?

 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!