Melon Farmers

 phantom    [27635.   Posted 4-Mar-2011 Fri 09:29]
Did anyone here witness the train crash that was the Jacqui Smith `documentary` on pornography last night? I think `editorial` might describe the piece more accurately.

Jacqui Smith must have friends at the beeb.
After all, how else does one get a program commissioned to start with?

The supposed piece was quite hideous.

I kid you not, at one point she consulted a professor for `feminist liberation and theology`. Yes. Feminism and theology in one package. A double whammy.

Of course she also interviewed the left`s ever convenient intellectual Allan de Botton. Anyone who knows of him, knows that he is an avid champion of social interventionism. In short, he argues that we need nannying for our own good.
So what a coincidence that Smith chose to interview him on porn. His conclusion? Porn needs banning for our own good. Anyone surprised? Please speak up if you are.

Naturally the outrageous lie was maintained that, prior to this program, Smith had never seen porn. Given that she is arguing that porn is ubiquitous there seems to be a contradiction there. But not that anyone ever pulled her up on that. Thus, pornography is everywhere and unavoidable. Except for Jacqui Smith.

To prove herself even handed, she interviewed porn producers. Primarily the Barry`s. But that was more a question of who they were and what they produced. Not the `nasty, foreign stuff`.
There seemed little doubt that such appearances of the pornsters were not there to add to the argument but to try and make the program more entertaining. In short they were the light relief who added sauce to the program.
For rather tellingly no one was interviewed who would argue on a deeper level why porn should be legal. No one was allowed to question the idea of prohibition. There was never a serious `pro` argument forwarded by anyone. But plenty of `contra`.

All the while, did Jacqui Smith talk to trafficked women, forced into porn? Any crack addicts appearing solely to feed their habit? Oddly, no. None of it. After all, where would she find these fictitious creatures? But of course, there was everlasting editorial about her `concerns`.

Again, there was the endless stream of verbiage about what effect this pornography is having on the viewers. Was any science applied to this? Why bother with science if you can just speak into the mike and voice `concern`?

And of course she `worried` profusely about what men are made to see women as, if they have seen pornography. After all, women are displayed as mere `receptacles` in this films. `Objects`.
Again, very even handed. No?

The program amounted to little less then the ramblings of a bigot, who brought in her equally bigoted friends as guest speakers and denied the opposing argument any coherent voice.

The debate following the program was a joke. The callers consisted of women bewailing how porn had broken up their marriages, religious types declaring porn is against the will of Christ and men men telling the nation that they were addicted to pornography. Several callers went as far as congratulating Jacqui Smith.

And actual critics? If anyone tried to object they even had the presenter to contend with who invariably would declare that the (perfectly valid) point they were making was not relevant to the topic.

Meanwhile the panel really only had one person on it (a porn content producer) who made a serious effort at having a go and from the off he was treated as the pariah at the table.

Given that Smith struck a pose of moral superiority in this documentary (Surprise! Surprise!), isn`t it odd that she received little stick for actually being a fraudster who stole money from the taxpayer in the expenses scandal?
She was being conveniently shielded. Not least by the presenter. Perhaps the odd aside here or there. That`s all.
So this fraudster was free to pontificate, lecturing the nation on sexual morals, while her BBC pals made sure she wasn`t unduly disturbed.

What went on was quite outrageous. (There is such a thing as a BBC charter, after all. It requires even handed, unbiased programming.)
Personally I tried to get through on the comment website time and again, but just about anything I posted was culled by the moderators. To all avail it seems the board was moderated by Jacqui Smith`s PA. Yes, it was that bad.
Finally they let a few critical points slip in. But only once the clear majority of comments were of the `porn has ruined my life` tendency.

The BBFC were mentioned in the `documentary` and naturally Smith referred to them repeatedly in the `debate`. After all, they are the experts. And they had advised her.
It goes without saying they got a segment in the documentary when they went on about what they deemed harmful.

Again, anyone really atuned to this sort of sny presentation would have pointed out that the BBFC are hardly unbiased. Their much vaunted expertise is self proclaimed and their exceedingly well paid jobs depend on the myth of harm being maintained..
Yet no one was given the opportunity to point out this blatant financial interest. They were the experts. That was that.

Such discretion shown toward the interests of the staff of the BBFC didn`t extend to all and sundry of course. Jacqui Smith went on about the financial interests of the porn industry at some length.

And yes, folks. Twice the DPA was mentioned in the debate. Twice it was batted away by the BBC presenter as not relevant to the conversation. But Jacqui Smith was of course allowed to rebut an argument that had not been permitted to be made fully.
If you really want to know. The issue of extreme pornography was very much `cut and dried` at the time of the law`s introduction and not at all controversial.
Yes, I too choked at hearing that one.
Oh, and the laws on pornography are very clear. Yes, you read correctly. They are very clear.

And no, just because she was involved in introducing very severe laws on porn, that didn`t mean she was approaching the making of this documentary from a position of bias at all.

And no again, the fact that – according to her own statements in this documentary – she had never seen porn at all, yet saw fit to legislate on porn is not the slightest bit controversial also.

So there you go.
I am in no doubt that the program will be hailed a great success by the very friends of Jacqui Smith at the BBC who granted her this virtually unopposed platform in the first place.
After this `success` I fully expect to see her on telly any time soon.

 pbr    [27634.   Posted 4-Mar-2011 Fri 05:35]
The plane crash one is most troubling... most troubling indeed... it would be even more so if he were found guilty instead of pleading... but... if the state is going to start persuing every instance of off-colour humour, which is what it appears to me this is... it`s not as if he set up camp outside some dead footballer`s descendant`s homes and hurled abuse at them... then... well... I wonder if you can make a comment about wanting to be on the first plane out without causing offence to someone in police or cps...

 emark    [27633.   Posted 3-Mar-2011 Thu 14:59]
Two pieces of news on the issue of free speech, even that which people reasonably find offensive:

In the US, the Supreme Court rules that Fred Phelps has the right to protest funerals: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?_r=1&hp

In the UK, a man is sentenced for posting a video to YouTube where he mocks air crash victims: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12634907 . There is no question of harrassing people (you have to go to see the video) or inciting violence (are viewers going to go and cause a plane crash), but it is nonetheless illegal because of causing offense to those who choose to watch it.

We may have little sympathy for the individuals in both these cases, but there are reasons to be concerned. There`s a good blog post at http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2011/03/free-speech-for-evil-hateful-repulsive-nutjobs-you-betcha.html on the issue.

 phantom    [27632.   Posted 2-Mar-2011 Wed 19:00]
Well, it`s wonderful how Jacqui just takes the BBFC at face value.
(`forcibly restrained, abused or injured`)
There is for example a blanket ban on gags. Whether the gagged woman in question shows any signs of distress or not.
It`s a sort of blanket rule comparable to the infamous nunchaks rule from way back.
The above because the person in question - may - not be able to voice disapproval.

Now, how much containing bondage may in some form of another contain a scene with a gagged girl having her bum spanked, or some such thing?
No matter how tame or ludicrous. It must be cut. So says the politbureau at the BBFC.
And everytime this happens it`s because someone is being `forcibly restrained, abused or injured`. Of course it is, Jacqui.

Someone please hand me the hemlock... I really have had enough.

 sergio    [27631.   Posted 2-Mar-2011 Wed 14:56]
I thought I posted this already.
For the year 2010
1135 r18 dvds
209 cuts
18% cut rate.
Seems like Jacqui seems to have got hold of a particular high month.

 bleach    [27630.   Posted 2-Mar-2011 Wed 12:19]
"And it`s not only women being `abused` - I notice she doesn`t mention the pissing or the fisting that is cut."
There is a lot of gay themed works containing solely male performers cut not just for watersports but also throat gagging, and insertion with everyday objects.

"25 per cent of films need to be cut – usually because they show women being forcibly restrained, abused or injured."

I think the percentage cut in 2010 was actually 18% based on the figures on this website - making Smith`s findings total bollocks. Admittedly some months more than 25% of titles have been cut in a single month but it sort of evens itself out i.e. the more titles submitted the larger percentage of cuts. Also most cuts were not for "restraint, abuse or injury" - some are for trivial things such as non-BBFC certificate logo displayed, references to age-play or incest (not harmful within a staged context), urolagnia which anyone whose made a woman squirt or is or knows a woman who has squirted knows it is in fact pleasurable. I would say urolagnia would be the main one.

"BBFC research also shows that one of the reasons for watching pornography is to get ideas for use in your own sexual activity. "
One of the reasons? Maybe? The main reason is to have a wank, surely?

"he "I`m a Porn Star" T-shirts and Playboy pencil cases are the multi-million-pound porn industry seeping out into our everyday lives. "

Never seen the t shirts in my life. I also haven`t seen the playboy pencil cases for some time and the playboy merchandise is also often reduced meaning it doesn`t sell. At least from what I`ve seen.


It does seem that the BBC have been pandering to concerned parents and pressure groups with a Panorama "too much too young" special which was biased towards enforcing fear tactics and now this. I`ve no idea why.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27629.   Posted 2-Mar-2011 Wed 11:12]
Sergio

The legal definition is material produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal` is starting to creep into many places. Used by BBFC for `sex works` now Ofcom have adopted it and hence banned Emmanuelle type softcore from free to air TV. There`s no tricky differenced between hard and soft with the definition. It has also been used in the dangerous pictures/drawings legislation.

Surely a Smith lie about the 25%. I dont suppose many performers have been forcibly restrained or injured. But of course if the definition of injured is `slightly beyond trifling` then perhaps a few in BDSM material. Certainly some have been restrained but the word `forcibly` surely makes for very low percentages. That only leaves abuse which could be used as a catch all for rough sex cuts. Still a lie though

 sergio    [27628.   Posted 2-Mar-2011 Wed 06:23]
`I took the opportunity to ask those I met what they think porn is. The legal definition is material produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal`

No it`s not. There is no legal definition of `porn`.

`Even in the pornography submitted for classification by the BBFC, 25 per cent of films need to be cut – usually because they show women being forcibly restrained, abused or injured. `
where did she get that figure from? 25%? And it`s not only women being `abused` - I notice she doesn`t mention the pissing or the fisting that is cut.

 Silanda    [27627.   Posted 1-Mar-2011 Tue 11:11]
Sergio: As things currently stand, no it isn`t. The police made claims that were simply not backed up by the judgement of the court. The publishers effectivly told them to go to hell and the police then had to issue an apology. The big problem here is that the definition of indecent image in UK law is absolutely useless (i.e. there really isn`t one so virtually anything could be classed as indecent). I really doubt that the powers that be will ever go after the publishers as they can afford to pay for expensive lawyers. If the CPS then lost their case it would provide a nice line of defence for anyone being prosecuted over level 1 images.

 Shaun    [27626.   Posted 1-Mar-2011 Tue 05:54]
Anyone like Mrs Brown`s Boys ? (BBC 1 last night)

I found it feckin` hilarious. Most of the critics in the papers have condemned it, and most of the respondents have said they`ve never laughed so much in ages.

It just illustrates that the chattering classes have little idea what many ordinary people like, be it porn or comedy. Some of the critics are so bloody pretentious they wouldn`t know humour if everyone else was creased up on the floor. Or dare they simply not admit that they too, find it extremely funny ?

Good on the BBC for broadcasting this. I am just sorry I missed it last week.

 sergio    [27625.   Posted 28-Feb-2011 Mon 03:27]
If anyone understands this then please let me know.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2005/jun/23/photography.art

Is it fucking indecent or not?

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27624.   Posted 27-Feb-2011 Sun 22:22]
MichaelG

The BBFC logo size on games is a contribution from Keith Vaz.

So now we can rest easy that all of Britain`s social ills are now solved.

 MichaelG    [27623.   Posted 27-Feb-2011 Sun 15:52]
Has anyone bought `Killzone 3` or `Dead Space 2` for a games console recently?

Is it just me, or are the age certificates still continuing to increase in size?

Don`t know if someone`s having a laugh at our expense with an in-joke - by sticking planet-sized age ratings on two sci-fi themed games - but I do know that if they get any fucking bigger, they`re going to be the only thing visible on the front of the box...

 MichaelG    [27622.   Posted 27-Feb-2011 Sun 03:00]
Fatty Smith is at it again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361012/Fund-school-sex-lessons-Jacqui-Smith-tells-porn-barons.html

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27621.   Posted 26-Feb-2011 Sat 23:30]
More fun from the Dail Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1360750/Revealed-Disturbing-sexualisation-girls-cocktail-parties-stretch-limos.html

Commercial parties for young girls, dressing up and (non alcoholic) cocktails.

Perhaps if parents really don`t want their kids wanting to grow up then they should stop enjoying dressing up and drinking themselves. If kids see their parents enjoying things then they naturally want to follow suit.

 MichaelG    [27620.   Posted 22-Feb-2011 Tue 00:42]
It`s enough to bring a tear to your eye:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359341/Jacqui-Smith-admits-husband-liked-watching-porn.html

I thought this was a joke when I first heard about it - notorious man-baiter and feminazi Jacqui Smith presenting a documentary on porn (hmmm... that`s going to be a nice balanced argument, isn`t it?). But no, it`s all true.

Now for the comedy:

‘I know that it was my expenses people looked at first because I was a woman and should have been at home looking after my husband and children,’

No love, people looked at your expenses before everyone else because you`re a fat, swindling, crooked bag who was taking the piss out of the taxpaying public to a greater degree than just about anyone else in parliament at the time. Not only was she claiming her sister`s bedroom was her main residence (not her family home in Redditch) so she could extort money out of us, but lest we forget, this is just some of the stuff that this poisonous cow though that we should pay for:

• a Habitat stone kitchen sink worth £550
• a dining room table worth £460
• a sofa bed at £704
• a reclaimed antique-style fireplace costing £1,000
• a £399 Hotpoint cooker plus £15 connection
• a £189 Hotpoint tumble dryer
• two washing machines, worth £550 over two years
• home entertainment included DVD players, two Samsung widescreen TVs and two digital set-top boxes worth more than £1,100
• an 88p bath plug
• a video recorder
• a towel
• a patio set
• a toothbrush holder

And that`s before we even get onto her husband`s viewing habits. Jacqui really should thank her lucky stars that she`s not looking at a stretch in prison, like some of her less fortunate CommuNuLabour cohorts.

Nevertheless, let`s all have a big `aahhhhhh` for Jacqui the poor, downtrodden female victim. Oh, here comes my `aahhhhhh` now, excuse me...

BLUUUUUEEERRRGGGGGGHHHHH!

 pbr    [27619.   Posted 21-Feb-2011 Mon 10:51]
That`s funny emark... I`ve got a theory about the carcinogenic effects of the Daily Hate... I wonder if anyone`s put the numbers together... paper read v cancer... *rolleyes*

On the point of the HPV vaccine... I`m still not sure why when it was introduced it wasn`t for both sexes... I mean I remember a comedian (I`m sure more than one must have...) making the a joke about how the moral guardians were up in arms that without the threat that if you have sex you`ll get cancer and DIE, however would they keep the kids from fucking all day long...? But still... I mean big-pharma would be cocker-hoop with doubling the order to innoculate both sexes... and as the Tamiflu episode showed us, HM Gov is always happy to throw silly money at big-pharma... I presume that it`s something to do with herd immunity... but... I don`t follow how leaving the virus live in half the population fixes the problem...?

 goatboy    [27618.   Posted 20-Feb-2011 Sun 21:44]
The John McCain quote on the frontpage about UFC is out of date, he was against it when it was no rules (UFC 2 may well be the most violent video the bbfc have ever passed, no joke) but the state athletic commissions wrote up a list of rules to turn it into a legit sport and McCain has since said "The sport has grown up. The rules have been adopted to give its athletes better protections and to ensure fairer competition." (http://web.archive.org/web/20071123100541/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/11/20/sogadd120.xml)

Interestingly there appears to be little in the way of MMA regulation in the UK and UFC has run here many times.

 emark    [27617.   Posted 20-Feb-2011 Sun 16:20]
Ah, it`s another one for the list: http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ ;)

Note that the study itself has been reported before ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1168462/Men-look-away-Oral-sex-REALLY-does-cause-throat-cancers.html ).

I have no problem with vaccinations if the evidence suggests they may be useful - the bigger worry is "No we couldn`t possibly vaccinate children, they shouldn`t be having oral sex anyway! And vaccinations are evil!" scaremongering. Though it is indeed hard to rely on the Daily Mail for what causes cancer, as they think everything causes cancer.

 sergio    [27616.   Posted 20-Feb-2011 Sun 15:01]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358845/Oral-sex-bigger-cause-throat-cancer-tobacco.html

..`Last year a study at Johns Hopkins University found that HPV posed a greater risk in contracting cancer than smoking or alcohol.
Vaccine: Doctors want boys to be given treatment to protect them against the virus
Vaccine: Doctors want boys to be given treatment to protect them against the virus
The American study of 300 people showed that those with more than six..`
Sorry, what was that ... 300 people? What sort of study is that?

...`In Sweden in the 1970s around a quarter of tonsil cancers were linked to HPV ..`
Sorry, what was that? Linked? What does that mean?

`..The proportion of these cancers that appear to be related to infection by HPV is also increasing...`
Appear to be related to ... what does that mean?

`The trials done to date have looked at cervical cancer or genital warts as endpoints, so we need new studies to show effectiveness against these HPV-related head and neck cancers.`
Thats more like it. A study that says we need more study. How unusual.

 pbr    [27615.   Posted 20-Feb-2011 Sun 06:08]
I think I may have said this before... but... just in case:

ECHR ≠ ECJ

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the Court of the Council of Europe, it rules on the European Convection on Human Rights (also ECHR *rolleyes*).

The European Court of Justice is the highest Court of the structures we know as the European Union, it rules on matters of European Union law.

They`re very different beasts but the media frequently fail to draw any distinction between the two... some because it`s in their foaming at the mouth interest to conflate them and the others because they`re lazy *rolleyes*.

Rencent examples:
The prisoner voting ruling came from the ECHR.
The ruling about getting premier league matchs from other EU member`s boardcasters instead of Sky`s more-or-less monopoly came from the ECJ.
The sex offenders register ruling came from the Supreme Court.


I think if you try to get to the bottom of the rationale as to why MPs are of the opinion they should defy the Court... you`ll find it deeply irrational and... most likely, applicable only to the MPs... One rule of law for us, whatever rule of law they set for them...

Still... I look forward to the Daily Hate article stating that the way of the Greek military dictatorship is the right path for the UK (saying that... I wonder what they think of the Greek system for dealing with people seeking asylum... I suspect they approve strongly...).


As to compulsory voting... I don`t think any UK Parliament would ever for a moment consider compulsory voting... the less participation by the people the easier it is for the system to run as it is, ie, for their benefit. Forcing people to vote would produce in my opinion masses of spoiler candidates... it would certainly be interesting... in any event if compulsory voting were introduced I suppose you could always spoil your ballot in protest... or vote for the man outside offering people goldfish in exchange for votes...



PS: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/20/ken-clarke-european-court-human-rights

"He added: "We are considering the debate we had in the House of Commons and considering what the legal position is, but everybody – the prime minister and everybody else – has said we will of course comply with the law. It would be startling if we had a British government which said we aren`t going to comply with legal judgments."

The government is due to launch a commission on the creation of a British bill of rights, but while it would look into how to improve the relationship between the UK and Strasbourg, Clarke said it was not clear how this would work with the convention on human rights.

Although some have called for the UK to withdraw from the convention, Clarke said it would be "startling" for any British government not to comply with the court`s rulings.

But Clarke said he wanted to look into whether some issues could be handled by other courts and parliaments rather than Strasbourg."

 Shaun    [27614.   Posted 20-Feb-2011 Sun 04:34]
The politicians who want to take no notice of ECJ judgements and abolish universal human rights are undermining the rule of law. If they don`t want to take notice of the judgement of higher courts, then why the hell should the rest of us ? This is a question many are now asking themselves.

I think politicians of all persuasions stink; it is becoming the most dishonourable profession of all. Lower even than prostitution might be considered to be. At least there is some honour in that profession, to their clients and each other. Which is more than I can say, for the relationship between politicians and the people who voted them into office. It seems the norm here is for the politicians, once in power, not to give a stuff about either them, or their opinions.

Come the next election I will not vote. If voting were made compulsory I still would not vote, and I will ignore the verdict of any court which tried to compell me to vote, and I shall behave exactly like the politicians themselves do.

 emark    [27613.   Posted 18-Feb-2011 Fri 19:51]
Yes it`s all very mad. Of course it`s no secret that the Tories wanted to abolish the HRA - if it wasn`t for the hung Parliament, I suspect this would have happened already.

Also depressing to see Labour propping up the Tories with the vote on prisoner votes (glad to say that my Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert was one of only 22 MPs to oppose it).

I was also disappointed by the BBC coverage on this ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979 ), who seem keen to remind us that "sex offenders" includes "paedophiles and rapists", with no mention of other crimes included by the register - as if the average reader might be mislead by the term. What is this, the Daily fucking Mail?

 phantom    [27612.   Posted 18-Feb-2011 Fri 09:26]
re: Human Rights in Politically Challenged Times...

Well, welcome back to the twilight zone.
It didn`t take the new lot very long, did it?

Aside from the fact that clearly they don`t seem to like the concept of human rights for prisoners (I bet they all side with the guards when watching `Midnight Express`.), their whole reasoning is actually flawed.

In essence they object to the courts interpreting law, according to overarching values.

Now firstly, law needs to be interpreted. Any legal person will tell you that`s what the whole jurisprudence is about.
Secondly, if parliament passes laws which ban things which as `obscene` how is anyone to know what is meant, if the courts do not arrive at their own definition.

Thus, the objections are not really against interpretation. But in essence against interpretation the PM doesn`t like. Oh, diddums... poor him.

But the supposed solution would solve nothing.
Whether you have a human rights act or a bill of rights, it will fall to the courts to measure the authorities` laws and regulations against such a standard - and reject them when found wanting.

Parliament would have no more a right to breach the `Bill of Rights` than it may breach the human rights act.
So Call-me-Dave would see his measures undone by the courts due to such breaches just as well as with the human rights act.

If you give people rights, the courts will act accordingly and protect them from abuses. The most likely party to be found in abuse of human rights is always going to be the one which significantly impacts on people. Government.

What name you give these rights is therefore irrelevant. The principle remains precisely the same.

Can someone please explain this to Dave...

 IanG    [27611.   Posted 18-Feb-2011 Fri 08:37]
"It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these."

Oh yes, lets bring some sanity to cases like this... You can serve as little as 5 years for murdering someone and never have to report your whereabouts to the police ever again. But take secret pictures of someone using a public lav for your own masturbatory pleasure and not only will you serve a long stretch for such a harmless `crime`, you`ll be required to report your whereabouts to the police for at least 10 or many more years.

There is clearly something WRONG with the supposed `laws` Parliament make. You may never have harmed anyone in your life but, get caught in possession of a mere picture of someone shagging a dog and you`ll likely get 3 years inside and have to report your whereabouts to the police for at least the next 10 years.

Of course, no one has mentioned folks have a fundamental right to enjoy their own inherant sexuality without persecution and discrimination by mindless bigots - not that this stopped the British `laws` (i.e. Parliament) persecuting gays right up to the end of the 1960s and, indeed, persecuting any other harmless possessors of so-called `extreme porn` and `dangerous drawings` to the present day.

Sanity?...in Parliament? I see none.

Human Rights are Inherant, Immutable and Absolute - at least that`s what the Home Office published in 2000 in the Government document explaining what the Human Rights Act was all about. Human Rights DO NOT "apply diffrently to pornography" (as one Baroness once remarked), they DO NOT "apply differently" to so-called `sex offenders` who simply enjoy sexual material intolerant and ignorant members of Parliament haven`t got the capacity to stomach or understand.

 cor    [27610.   Posted 17-Feb-2011 Thu 19:15]
"The final decision of whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police, not the courts."
Who is this crazy bitch.. and who let her watch Judge Dread again?

 pbr    [27609.   Posted 17-Feb-2011 Thu 17:22]
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/news/british-bill

She explained: ‘It is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals; and above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these.`

...you know that moment when you see something terrible is about to happen, the adrenaline kicks in but you can`t react before it happens...? This could well be one of those moments.

 THE JUDDERMAN    [27608.   Posted 16-Feb-2011 Wed 17:55]
PHANTOM (27607))

Dear old Annie eh? (Conservative lmao) While it is very easy to assume that she declined because of the reputation of the movie, could there be another reason?

The fact that the film shows that political parties who pander to & chase the populist vote are complete fuckwits?

Just a thought!!

 phantom    [27607.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 19:32]
THE JUDDERMAN {27605}

Well, your Whitehouse quote reminds me of dear old Anne Widdecombe (who surely must be her current representative on earth).

When Channel 4 decided to show `A clockwork orange` they wanted to make it an evening by attaching other programs, such as a documentary on the history of the film and its withdrawal from distribution here in Britain, as well as a debate.
Channel 4 producers decided that as an advocate for censorship Anne Widdecombe might be a good member to have on the panel for the debate.

They approached her and she was very willing to appear. Eager in fact.
(But then what politician is not eager to get his face on the box?)
However, the producers stipulated one single condition to allowing her on telly: she had to actually watch the movie. They were not going to have people on the panel who hadn`t seen the film.

She declined.

 cor    [27606.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 19:06]
THE JUDDERMAN [27605]

"I dont know, I havent seen it, once I have, I will let you know"
The only difference from the 1960 prosecutor saying "you would wish your wife or servants to read" is that now they group the entire working class as lowly servants.

This would be annoying enough, if a sizable chunk of the population (mainly daily mail readers) didn`t actually act the part.

 THE JUDDERMAN    [27605.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 18:15]
RE; Erm, everyone really!!

Having been widely published in our local press in the 80s/90s regarding censorhip, it is gratifying & refreshing to see that a message of mine has sparked such healthy debate!! (Thank you!!)
Given that I left school in 1981, just as Thatcher was destroying this country, I will never be what you might call a "Blue" but this forum is about censorship, not politics!! lol
There can be no doubt that legislation such as the VRA panders to the likes of the "Blue Rinse Brigade" or, as I prefer to think of them, "The Vocal Minority" But, I do remember a quote, many years ago, from Mary Whitehouse, that completely blew apart her own arguments for censorship & is probably just as true today!!
She was asked if the movie "The Last Temptation Of Christ""
Should be banned. "I dont know, I havent seen it, once I have, I will let you know" So, from the horses mouth, its OK for reasonable people to view contentious movies, but not the great unwashed? Hmmmm.

 phantom    [27604.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 08:38]
MichaelG    {27602}     
`...but who knows what their attentions will turn to when the pressure`s eased a bit and we start to emerge from this recession? Will the devil find work for their idle hands? Will we see the dawn of a new age of censorship of movies and videogames?...`

Same here.
I remember all too well the time of the `Brown bounce`, when Labour surged in the polls after axing Blair as leader.
Cameron wobbled and immediately sought to sure up his position with speeches pandering to the blue rinsers.
Violent computer games and song lyrics were identified as targets. It doesn`t bode well for times to come when call-me-Dave feels cornered and in need of some cheap popularity.

 Shaun    [27603.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 04:45]
re JUDDERMAN -

Don`t forget it was Tom Sackville, a Conservative minister working at the department of Culture Media and Sport, who said that liberalisation of R18 "was certainly something well worth exploring" when James Ferman said that the then current R18 videos "contained nothing that the punters wanted to see.." and then gave the nod, started the ball rolling to allow a very small amount of liberalisation. Then it was penetration: yes, but don`t over-do it, but ejaculation: no. What we then ended up with was "medium core" in films like Carnival and Batbabe (particularly). Then (fortunately or not) Labour came to power and tried to put a stop to the whole lot... There were two appeals and a judicial review and the BBFC lost the lot after which the modern R18 standard was born in 2000.

Regarding age, I am 54 years old next month (how time flies) and remember a time before the hated VRA when police regularly raided the local video shop, for obscenity. It`s a shame they didn`t have better things to do. Another of their favourites was after time drinking. Back then I lived in a pub for a while, ran by my parents and the police were regular late night videos. As a trained VCR engineer, I well remember it all, as I used to do quite a bit for the big video store in town modifying customer`s TV sets to get rid of line jitter due to mechanical head judder on the recorders. I well remember the hysterical campaign by that quite obnoxious newspaper (in my simple opinion) which brought about the VRA.

All these kind of censorious things have been a sop to the people who pray to invisible beings who never answer them back. Why we put up with this is beyond me, when religion is responsible for MOST of the MAYHEM and carnage on the face of this planet. People being mutilated, executed in many nasty evil ways, lashed to death, Christians demanding that teachers should have the right to beat the shit out of their pupils, and parents the same, whilst demanding material they cannot properly prove is harmful, be censored ostensibly for the purposes of protecting those same children, even though the evidence now clearly shows that such censorship can actually be harmful and cause INCREASES in sex crimes not the other way around. Well I am sick of the lot of them. To me they are derranged and delusional. Religion is a cancer of humanity which should be treated for what it is. Completely fucking dangerous. Christ Himself would not have allowed the deeds of some of these bastards.

All religious texts and videos would certainly be promoted to the "Adults Only" top shelf sections with a severe warning about mind bending and addiction if I had my way. I`d keep the BBFC just for the SOLE purpose of classifying works targeted at religion.. Ho ho.. I don`t believe in censorship BUT......

 MichaelG    [27602.   Posted 15-Feb-2011 Tue 00:37]
Re: JUDDERMAN [27599]:

Hello and welcome to the forum.

I`m afraid I am old enough to remember the Thatcher years (I`ve just turned 40), and I recall all too well the clout Mary Whitehouse seemed to carry at the time, the Daily Mail and assorted other tabloid scare stories about `Video Nasties`, the subsequent VRA of 1984, the farcical tales arising from the `Nasties` scare (such as over-zealous rozzers seizing copies of war movie `The Big Red One` because they thought it a porno and one hapless video dealer receiving a prison sentence for dealing in copies of `Nightmares In A Damaged Brain` that weren`t the BBFC-approved version). Then there was the frustration, for me, as a world-class movie geek from the age of about 14, not being able to view such widely-praised classics such as `The Exorcist` and `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre`, mainly because a certain scissor-happy lout by the name of James Ferman at the BBFC deemed that they could be `harmful` to the Great Unwashed.

I also remember vividly the whole `Child`s Play` debacle, and the machinations of the odious David Alton. Would anyone be taken remotely seriously these days if they suggested we could cure all of society`s ills by banning all `18` cert DVDs? Or arrange to burn piles of cheesy 80`s horror movies in the street?

No, I remember this all too well, so I know my censorship history as well as anyone! I do have to agree with you that, on the surface, it would appear as though we did have it better under CommuNuLabour (sorry - my pet name for the last dictatorship... er, I mean administration!) in terms of what we were allowed to watch by way of mainstream movies. You`re right, there`s no way the BBFC under the autocratic rule of Ferman would have passed recent grueling horror movies such as the `Saw` series, `Martyrs`, `Hostel`, `Inside` or `Frontier(s)`, even if a cut form.

But look at the flipside of that coin, just for a moment. As phantom rightly points out, on Blair and Brown`s watch, we got the DPA and the DDA - two truly dreadful pieces of legislation that made no distinction between fantasy and reality, nor between consenting adults and those forcing another to comply with their will. Vile, vindictive, incoherent and utterly nasty, these can see you getting locked up for up to THREE years merely for looking at pictures. I don`t seem to remember such disproportionate nonsense from the Tories - you couldn`t get sent to jail merely for watching `Video Nasties`, could you?

And that wasn`t all we had from CommuNuLabour either. Moving slightly away from censorship of movies just for a moment, they even tried to ban all sex-for money transactions, even between consenting adults, just to appease the likes of Harriet Harman and Jacqui Smith. NuLabour`s whole purpose, during their later years in power, seemed to be finding new ways to criminalise the man in the street for doing something they disapproved of.

Now, back to the Tories. I`m no fan (Thatcher`s actions turned my hometown from a thriving community into a virtual wasteland of poverty and unemployment almost overnight), but it would seem to me, at least for the moment, that their ranks aren`t overflowing with frothing-at-the-mouth, militant feminazis, obsessive compulsives with videogame issues or indeed any idiots demanding all `18` cert movies be banned. Admittedly, Julian Brazier did seem to be a cause for concern a couple of years back with his demands for the BBFC to be brought under government control, but we`ve heard nothing from him in well over a year (does anyone know if he lost his seat or resigned over the expenses row?). Also, I`m quite concerned about Claire Perry and her `opt-in` proposals regarding adult content on the internet. I may be proved wrong, but for the moment, it would seem that she`s not enjoying much support on this, and it`s so impractical, unworkable and potentially unpopular that I really don`t think she`ll get very far with it.

So, in general, I don`t trust any politicians. It does have to be said that I am quite impressed with the way the Coalition are taking the bull by the horns in terms of sorting out the unholy mess left by the last bunch of miscreants - but who knows what their attentions will turn to when the pressure`s eased a bit and we start to emerge from this recession? Will the devil find work for their idle hands? Will we see the dawn of a new age of censorship of movies and videogames? As you say, perhaps it is too late to bolt the door. Only time will tell, but I tell you one thing, as far as censorship in general goes, I wouldn`t swap the new administration for the old CommuNuLabour one, irrespective of my across-the-board mistrust of politicians. I`d sooner put up with BBFC cuts and bans of the kind we had 20-odd years ago (irrelevant anyway now we have the likes of Amazon.com and video downloads on demand) than be locked away for up to three years just for looking at pictures...

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [27601.   Posted 14-Feb-2011 Mon 22:36]
Re political brands of censorship

Ages ago one of the commentators now on Spiked pointed out that all sides of the political spectrum are seduced by popularist censorial `something needs to be done` thinking, especially at times when knees are jerking.

For the tories that is the prime motivation and resulting laws tend towards superficiality and impracticality.

But Labour tend to be motivated more by social engieering and the genuine feeling that they should change people`s pehaviour. Labour censorship laws therefore end up being more invasive, permanent and enforceable.

 phantom    [27600.   Posted 14-Feb-2011 Mon 20:38]
THE JUDDERMAN    {27599}

Well, I`ll agree insofar that all politicians are spineless bastards, eager to pontificate and drape themselves in moral superiority.

However, otherwise I do feel the urgent need to clear my voice noisily.

Yes, it`s true that the Video Recordings Act was (albeit incompetently) introduced by the Tories. But when last year it turned out that the Tories had made a bureaucratic error when introducing it (so it wasn`t actually ever in effect!), who passed an emergency bill to get it through into law double-quick? Labour.

So, the Tories could at least make the excuse of their folly being committed in the 80s – a generation ago.
Whereas the Labour government actually put it formally in place in 2010. At least the Tories could claim having the Whitehouse brigade on their back. What was Labour`s excuse – in 2010?

Meanwhile, this was hardly Labour`s only claim to censorship glory. I think it was in 2003 they decided that anything under 18 was child porn. Why? Well, they muttered something about streamlining legislation, yadda, yadda... The end result? Some page 3 pictures of Samantha Fox are now technically child porn. Sam Fox? Kiddy porn?

Now the Tories never did that. Nor was the Daily Mail demanding it to my knowledge. And I`m hardly a fan of the Daily Mail. But fair`s fair.

After that, we have more, increasingly idiotic legislation on child porn, culminating eventually in what is colloquially called the `dangerous drawings act`, whereby now even a cartoon can be something one can be locked up for. Again this didn`t grow on a Tory or Lib Dem midden, but was entirely Labour`s creation.

Finally, my favourite. The `dangerous pictures act` whereby depictions of perfectly legal acts can be illegal or legal to own simultaneously. Not forgetting that a depiction of an act `likely` to cause serious injury is also illegal to own. But when a possibility becomes a likeliness it known to precisely no one...
Better still with this law we have the creation of yet another new legalistic term. Namely that of material that is `of an obscene character`. Please keep in mind that this material is not the same as such which would be deemed `obscene` under existing law. No, `of an obscene character` is an entirely new definition. So the House of Lords was assured by the spokesman of the day. (I think it might have been Lord Falconer. Yes, he of dome fame.)
What said lord however forgot was to tell the world what the difference actually is. Or what it is to mean at all.

But then I`m sure it`s absolutely clear to you, Judderman. After all, only the Tories ever introduced stupid laws on adult material, ey?

However, to the rest of us this law is a legal black hole and it has brought into being legal terms which may well come to haunt us in other laws... So thank you for that, St Tony of Sedgefield.

If all the above isn`t enough, let`s consider one last little fact, shall we? The relaxations you mentioned which forced into existence R18, came about through court battles. In one of these the judge famously demanded that the censorial side actually show evidence of harm, other than merely to allege it. Thus the ban on videos crumbled and things needed to be put on a legal footing. It was therefore not political will, but necessity.

When in 1997 New Labour came to power, Jack Straw nearly had a fit at hearing this and was determined to reverse it. However, poor Jack couldn`t stem the tide. I think you will find Home Secretary Jack Straw made quite a few outbursts on the subject of pornography...

Thus the easier regime regarding R18 you speak of happened despite New Labour and Jack Straw, not because of it.

I know, it comes as a surprise to many. I too was rather surprised to learn this. Nonetheless here we are.

However, it seems fairly unavoidable to conclude that Labour are in fact much more censorial than the Tories. With the latter it appears they will introduce knee-jerk law, if they see the need to placate their blue rinse brigade or react to some tabloid panic.

But with Labour the wish to censor on moral grounds seems quite ingrained. It seems our socialist friends see it as an extension of feminism.
(just look for any of Dianne Abbott`s quotes on page 3, or any number of the Blair babes on the issue)

Anyhow, there you have it.
Whereas I would be quite happy to drown Cameron in a vat of pig`s vomit and would delight in seeing Clegg choked to death with his own manifesto, it does seem that, if censorship is your main concern, those two are eminently preferable to Milliband and especially – to Harman.

 THE JUDDERMAN    [27599.   Posted 14-Feb-2011 Mon 16:56]
MichealG;

RE: "Governments" I dont know how old you are, but if you honestly think this lot can be trusted, you dont know your censorship history bud!! Dont forget, it was the Tories (With help from the ever reliable Daily Mail) Which whipped (Pun not intended!)up the whole VIDEO NASTIES s debacle of the early eighties & the resulting Drachonian Video Recordings Act. Moreover, several years later, a complete Fuckwit called David Alton (Liberal Democrat) tried to push through his own views that would have made the act even MORE restrictive (If that were possible) As an Anti Censorship publication at the time (Scapegoat) pointed out, he was neither Liberal OR Democratic!!!
While there is a long way to go, the simple fact is this, over the last 15 years or so, censorship for adults in this country has become FAR more understanding. If you honestly believe that you would have been able to buy an R18 video, or even for a movies like the SAW franchise get past the censor 20 years ago, you are very much mistaken. Governments ALWAYS look to push their own agenda, regardless of political stance, but, maybe, now that lost classics like A Clockwork Orange & The Exorcist are legally available, it is too late to bolt the door?

 The Melon Farmers    [27598.   Posted 12-Feb-2011 Sat 23:19]
Sergio

Re why should filmmakers pay tfor online BBFC censorship...Because so many customers prefer to use the big name websites that do or will insist on a BBFC certificate. Censorship by commercialism. But hopefully `UK Unrated` copies can get put on more niche market or specialist sites.

 bleach    [27597.   Posted 12-Feb-2011 Sat 09:21]
@sergio

Although I agree with you. I think the filmmakers are trying to cover all bases. More and more people watch films & TV online. Maybe it was a deal with the distributor who knows? I think the bbfc should have a one-off payment, it would also encourage more companies to put out more releases and better extras. I`ve lost count of the number of UK films where they are readily available in the US but not in the UK, likewise barebones DVD releases compared to special edition US or even European ones. I think because the UK market is relatively small a lot of companies simply said "fuck the UK" - in other words its a market/sales thing as well as BBFC fees; and we haven`t even mentioned the cuts UK films especially R18 are subjected to.

 sergio    [27596.   Posted 12-Feb-2011 Sat 05:16]
Re: The Devil`s Music
Doesn`t seem to make sense to give it to the BBFC, why not just let people import the US version?
What is the point of having it on legitimate streaming site?