phantom [28349. Posted 25-Mar-2012 Sun 07:31]
774 prosecutions on publication of fisting alone?
Consider me staggered.
If each one of those cases cost, say, £1300, then that comes to more than £1,000,000. (and £1300 surely is a very low estimate! £10,000 would be more like it.)
And that`s just the prosecutions for publications containing fisting.
Given what else is banned and gets prosecuted, just how much money are we blowing?
I think we might just have stumbled on a way of fixing the budget deficit.
Perhaps someone ought to let George Osbourne know...
sergio [28348. Posted 24-Mar-2012 Sat 10:12]
I must have missed this. Is it April the 1st?
The BBFC say the ride which is not a ride ...
`The BBFC considered carefully the feedback and unique nature of the attraction (which is neither a ride, performance nor a maze) and agreed to lend their advice.`
`Lend their advice` -- what, for free?
ING [28347. Posted 21-Mar-2012 Wed 17:04]
How about another request to just ask for detailed info from either 2010 and 2011 or just 2011? So the information is held in each C.P.S. region?
If it takes 15 minutes to transcribe each case 2011 should take about 20 hours of work. The computer system didn`t exist before 2004 - but entire casework system will be electronic this year.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28346. Posted 21-Mar-2012 Wed 02:26]
Surely a statistic they don`t want you to know.
I will write up something to keep MF readers updated on the quest.
sergio [28345. Posted 20-Mar-2012 Tue 11:23]
I am not sure what sort of CMS (computer management system) the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) actually has. Seemingly they estimate it will take more than 3.5 days to look at 774 criminal cases and to extract the information.
What about "Select * from criminal_cases where `charge` like `fisting` or `charge` like `obscenity`" (sorry if this SQL query is wrong).
It feels like they have to look at 774 paper files. They then direct me to the Ministry of Justice.
So, when the BBFC say they talk to someone at the CPS, then how do they know what the stats are? The specific stats for obscene prosecutions and `fisting`.
Anyway, the CPS don`t seem to have recorded stats for offences before 2005?
OFFENCES CHARGED AND REACHING A FIRST HEARING IN MAGISTRATES` COURTS
Obscene Publications Act 1959
The CPS go on to say ...
`(B) The official statistics relating to crime and policing are maintained by the Home Office and the official statistics relating to sentencing, criminal court proceedings, offenders brought to justice, the courts and the judiciary are maintained by the Ministry of Justice.`
Next stop the MOJ.
sergio [28344. Posted 19-Mar-2012 Mon 08:59]
Myles Jackman - the Michael Peacock advocate - is to give a short talk on 20th mar 2012 to uk adult producers.
Shame he didn`t respond to my email.
goatboy [28343. Posted 18-Mar-2012 Sun 19:17]
IIRC the fact BFI was the distributor of Salo 120 days of Sodom, and therefore that it would be marketed at the right audience, was a factor in it getting released on video in 2000.
sergio [28342. Posted 18-Mar-2012 Sun 04:59]
What a load of bollocks.
`The new President accepted the argument that the `excrement` scene was not likely to be considered obscene in context, because of its lack of sexual motivation.`
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28341. Posted 18-Mar-2012 Sun 00:53]
An interesting article. I`ll have to dream up a way of adding `an uncut if it were to be sumbmitted` entry in the cuts database.
goatboy [28340. Posted 17-Mar-2012 Sat 16:23]
Dunno if this has been mentioned but the bbfc have put a `case study` for John Waters` Pink Flamingos online saying it would get an 18 uncut now, though it has not been submitted to them since 1999.
sergio [28339. Posted 17-Mar-2012 Sat 11:42]
Does having the BFI logo help? It is categorised as `Genre Art House` by the BBFC. Only 10% of the population want to watch it, don`t they? What actual tropes does `Art House` have to have to be considered `Art House`?
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28338. Posted 16-Mar-2012 Fri 22:06]
I think there is probably some positive discrimination going on for adult gay material. Eg the shock horror amongst London PC politicans that a gay strip show needs a sex entertainment licence.
However I think it is probably good for straight material as it tends to push up what is allowed, so it is in equality with gay material.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28337. Posted 16-Mar-2012 Fri 22:01]
The US push to get most films into the PG-13 bracket means that they are not far off the BBFC 12, and so tempts the distributors to make those extra cuts.
What I don`t really understand is how or why the family market has got so important. I always thought cinema was more for teens and up.
sergio [28336. Posted 15-Mar-2012 Thu 16:10]
Do gay sex/erotic works get more lenient treatment because they are a minority?
anceps [28335. Posted 15-Mar-2012 Thu 13:16]
I don`t think the BBFC can be blamed for passing on advice about how studios can get the certificate they want - and that`s certainly been around for years. The problem of course is with all the greedy grubby studio bosses wanting the largest possible audience, and when they find the film they assumed would be a family hit has come back more mature, forcing a definitively R/15 film to PG-13/12.
(Though I have to agree that cutting like that is bizarre, essentially leaving the overall tone unchanged...)
The blood spurt is bizarre though, I have a feeling that`s probably an internal directive based off a few fairly specific complaints.
DoodleBug [28334. Posted 14-Mar-2012 Wed 10:23]
The new Bruce Willis movie THE COLD LIGHT OF DAY also cut to get a 12A certificate instead of a 15.
"This film was originally seen for advice. The company was advised that the film was likely to receive a `15` classification but that their preferred `12A` could be achieved by making cuts in two scenes, to reduce a focus on injury in one scene and to remove a large blood spurt in another. When the film was submitted for formal classification, these changes had been made and the film was classified `12A`."
I`m starting to think that sights of blood are the BBFC`s no-no for the year, they always have a taboo subject which lasts about 12 months. It reminds me in the late 90`s/2000`s with their obsession with head-butts, such as The Matrix and Attack of the Clones etc.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28333. Posted 14-Mar-2012 Wed 05:54]
I haven`t heard of plans for the DVD versions of The Woman in Black` and now `The Hunger Games`.
I think censorship is a fair issue at Hammer so I would have thought a 15 version will appear.
It sounds like the Hunger Games has extensive cuts which go a bit counter to the violent setting of the film. I would therefore guess that a 15 version will be more appropriate for fans. However the distributors may want to stick with a 12 rated version for kids. I predict a 12 DVD and a 15 Blu-ray
Immortals was cut to avoid an 18 and the cut version is 15.
MichaelG [28332. Posted 13-Mar-2012 Tue 23:53]
Re: The Hunger Games...
Seems like the BBFC have a new target - the 12A certificate.
`Immortals`, `The Woman in Black` and now `The Hunger Games` have all been cut to fit this age rating. Annoying, as the subject matter seems to me as though it`s aimed at a slightly older audience, but it`s as much down to greedy studio suits wanting a bigger return from a potentially bigger audience as it is to the BBFC.
Does anyone know if these films will be given an uncut `15` when they hit DVD? Even though `Immortals` has been raised to a `15` for DVD, is it still the cut cinema version?
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28331. Posted 13-Mar-2012 Tue 00:44]
Just looked up that Mantis In Lace from the Harry Novak Boxset was also banned back in 1972.
irish bloke [28330. Posted 12-Mar-2012 Mon 16:14]
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/CFF284121/ Hunger Games cut by 7 seconds for violence + precuts from the distributor. NO doubt an unrated version will appear sometime in the future.
bleach [28329. Posted 12-Mar-2012 Mon 08:35]
Horror film Break cut for sexual violence
Harry Novak Boxset with the previously banned Kiss me quick plus some other goodies:
sergio [28328. Posted 11-Mar-2012 Sun 06:55]
BBFC R18 Cuts for Feb 2012
Number of items=38
sergio [28327. Posted 11-Mar-2012 Sun 03:59]
I can`t believe it but there seem to be no R18 cuts of the 38 dvds for February 2012.
sergio [28326. Posted 9-Mar-2012 Fri 04:23]
`Your book on censorship was censored`
Shaun [28325. Posted 9-Mar-2012 Fri 03:22]
Wasn`t there a case where Ofcom had a go at the broadcaster in one of these countries for showing material too explicit for kids at the wrong time, and the broadcaster tried to protest that no one there would be bothered ?
The thing that irritiates me is that most people don`t give a stuff about sexual material nowadays provided it`s not on the mainstream channels, and even when it is, it`s OK if it is in context.
But as usual the prudes rule the roost.
Why people killing maiming and murdering each other is allowed almost without question, but something which does the opposite IE - creating a new life isn`t, is completely beyond me.
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28324. Posted 8-Mar-2012 Thu 21:37]
Re Ofcom Censors vs Ducth Regulators
It is interesting to note that Ofcom don`t seem to have a problem with Swedish channels being licensed in the UK for transmission to Sweden.
As far as I recall this is done so that the channels can evade Swedish censorship rules (to do with massive restrictions on advertising, in the name of child protection)
Shaun [28323. Posted 8-Mar-2012 Thu 17:14]
That one must have passed me by. For many reasons I`ve not been paying as much attention as I really should do, lately.
Even so it`s interesting to see Ofcom and the censorious politicians squirm a bit.
Why adhere to this repressive censorship. The truth is that most people actually don`t want it or couldn`t care less. But those with the biggest gobs seem to get their way.
IanG [28322. Posted 8-Mar-2012 Thu 15:51]
Shaun, didn`t you read the AVMS Directive? The traditional TVWF `country of origin principle` was turned completely on its head. If a foreign channel has a majority of viewers in the UK then, OFCOM can appeal to the foreign regulator (and if necessary the EC) to basically force OFCOM`s completely unjustified bullshit guidelines upon the foreign channel.
Imagine the state of Oklahoma being able to enforce its anti-masturbation policies upon the citizens of California...? I don`t know who dreamt up this `cuntry of reception principle` but it makes a fucking mockery of freedom of expression. I`m absolutely certain it goes against the free trade treaties that created the EU in the first instance. Even the UK Government don`t have the power to impose its policies on other states but, OFCOM - that unelected bunch of puritan arsewipes - can!!!???
And needless to say the Gaurdniad article is a load of bullshit anyway. Its based on the hysterical machinations of mumsnet users and self-serving MPs riding the current "let`s ban porn" wave of supposed child protection. As if a toddler is likely to be watching ch 94 at midnight? And if Babestation goes further than the UK based channels then...I guess I`m a Dutch man. Its just typical of OFCOM to spout a cart load of biased, prudish, lies.
Shaun [28321. Posted 8-Mar-2012 Thu 10:08]
It`s interesting to read about Babestation on Freeview being licenced from Holland. I wonder why that is ?
One thing is clear - The Dutch regulator cannot impose different standards to UK broadcasters as opposed to its own domestic broadcasters.
So Ofcom and some Tory poliicians think they can boss or bully the Dutch regulator do they ? It will be interesting to see what happens there.
It`s funny how Ofcom have always been prepared to allow their licenced broadcasters to break the rules of other countries, such as child focused advertising, but complain bitterely when someone undermines their REPRESSIVE censorship.
I hope Babestation et al, and the Dutch regulator don`t back down and give Ofcom a metaphorical good kicking. It will serve them right. Tbey are a repressive bunch of zealots to be sure.
irish bloke [28320. Posted 7-Mar-2012 Wed 09:35]
All cuts waived for new Rob Roy Release.
sergio [28319. Posted 7-Mar-2012 Wed 09:08]
sergio [28318. Posted 6-Mar-2012 Tue 12:18]
sergio [28317. Posted 2-Mar-2012 Fri 03:01]
Ira Isaacs obscenity trial in the US.
Film 3 seems to contain some real doggie action
So, the person who made the film is not an `expert`. Wow.
How to become an american expert ...
IanG [28316. Posted 1-Mar-2012 Thu 18:22]
MichaelG, its clear the DM believe horror films etc. can seriously impair the normal development/behaviour of adults, let alone children. So, perhaps it might be useful if the DM ran some articles about what types of material ATVOD are NOT going to protect the under 18s from viewing on demand?
Although phantom doesn`t seem to agree that drug abuse, gratuitous violence and all manner of anti-social and abnormal human behaviour typically found in most mainstream 18-rated movies isn`t likely to seriously impair the development of minors, I think the BBFC and most right-minded parents might disagree. Clearly, the DM disagree.
I also believe that once we point out that sex is perfectly normal and natural behaviour common to all living creatures, we might just make some headway in undermining the typically British politician`s insane views on consensual adult porn...?
ATVOD have clearly not considered what the law actually says nor indeed what type of material is likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors. Obviously, the portrayal of normal and natural behaviour is NOT going to seriously impair anyone, whereas anti-social, sexually-violent and abnormal behaviour most certainly could.
MichaelG [28315. Posted 29-Feb-2012 Wed 23:43]
Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo No. 5,477:
Nothing to do with a history of mental illness or drug abuse then. No, in Mail-land the mere fact that he owned a DVD box set of the `Saw` movies was all it took to turn him into a depraved killer.
And the reference to the films came from someone else, not Scott, and it sounds like she was trying to put words in his mouth. Perhaps she`d had a bung from a newspaper to generate a soundbite or sensationalise the story. Oh no, that would never happen, would it? ;(
phantom [28314. Posted 27-Feb-2012 Mon 13:19]
Interesting article on Bamforth saucy seaside postcards in the Sunday Times Magazine.
A business man bought the rights for the many pictures when the company went into receivership. He`s now seeking to sell licences for use of the imagery.
But when he inquired with Royal Mail whether the iconic images could be used on `smilers` for letters and parcels, the reply was `no.`
Good to see that standards are still being strictly enforced. After all, where would we be if miniature versions of 1960s postcards would be seen on post today?
sergio [28313. Posted 27-Feb-2012 Mon 10:37]
Techdirt Deemed Harmful To Minors In Germany
sergio [28312. Posted 26-Feb-2012 Sun 16:17]
What cunt did this?
MichaelG [28311. Posted 26-Feb-2012 Sun 13:39]
Re: Fear of PEGI...
Ho hum, here he goes again...
"Tiga, the trade body representing independent UK video games developers, has come out in support of targeted tax relief for the games industry;"
Yes, we`re in a fucking recession, Keith, in case you hadn`t noticed. You should... it was at least partially caused by YOUR sodding party.
"wishes the public was more aware of the risks to children and young adults;"
Those risks being...? Eh? Sorry, didn`t hear you?
"and calls on the Government to place more scrutiny on the PEGI classification system."
More scrutiny = more censorship.
Keith, Keith... please, please, please, just shut your ridiculous little, tiresome, repetitive hole and fuck right off, will you?
sergio [28310. Posted 26-Feb-2012 Sun 09:07]Previous >>
I think the term is `mosaic`.
Let`s say you get an extreme pornographic image as a template for a mosaic image. The image is made up of innocuous images but the overall image relates to the extreme pornographic image.
Now, is the mosaic an example of an extreme pornographic image?