Melon Farmers

 phantom    [28367.   Posted 3-Apr-2012 Tue 04:50]
My email just sent to the local Tory MP:

Dear Mr ,

The very reason I loathe Labour with a passion is because of the obsessive control-freakery they displayed during their years in power. With their being voted out, it seemed we were rid of these big brother tendencies.
Now it appears some in government have been infected by much the same virus.

Please, I do not need telling that the precise details of the legislation are not yet established. I also do not need reassuring that these latest proposals only intend to catch the ‘really bad people’, leaving everyone else untouched.

I do not want to hear about whatever ‘safeguards’ Theresa May proposes.
We always hear the same. How it all will be terribly safe and tightly regulated.

... (sic: the MP`s predecessor) talked just that kind of tripe when faced with objections to Labour’s big brother policies.
London was always right, his party’s leadership was infallible and any critic had either misunderstood or was just being foolish.

Until now I thought it was only Labour who suffered from an unhealthy obsession with ever more prohibition, proscription, surveillance and control. The Conservatives and LibDems thus far seemed not to suffer the same affliction.

Though here we have yet another Home Secretary wanting to look tough, trying to pretend her proposed legislation applies exclusively to terrorists and paedophiles.

I am sick to the back teeth of politicians treating us all as potential criminals and terrorists.

The state currently possesses all the powers it requires – and then some.
Telling me that some in the police or MI5 would wish it to be made easier to check up on us leaves me cold.
I want it to be difficult and awkward for the authorities to get clearance to snoop on us.

The harder it is to snoop, the more thought will be put into the necessity of doing so.
The easier it is made, the more frequently it invariably will occur and the more scope there will be for frivolous usage.

I have no doubt that the security services are in favour of this legislation. After all, why would they object to being granted more powers? That does not mean they need them.
So their liking these proposals cuts no ice with me.

I do not believe for one moment that terrorism is going to be reduced by one iota due to any such legislation.
Meanwhile, no one has forgotten Labour’s regime of under cover camera dog fouling surveillance, et alia.

This whole idea is simply to facilitate the posturing by yet another Home Secretary seeking to look tough in the tabloids.
I do not see why my privacy and more general rights ought to be reduced in order to give Theresa May a favourable headline or two in the Sun and Daily Mail.

Kindly tell the Home Secretary where to stick her proposals for yet greater surveillance of communications.


Kind Regards,

 wrestling111    [28366.   Posted 2-Apr-2012 Mon 12:06]
Have Wrestling choke images - will go to jail

Well guys and girls, I should be concerned cause I have a real kink for wrestling images, of guys being choked out. I have even met up with a guy for a wrestling match and faked choke outs in the match ( our lives were never in danger but the domination affect was out of this World )

You tube is full of guys beating the crap out of each other, mainly play acting in backyard wrestling, none of them are nude ( perhaps bear chested ) none of them are involved in a sex act. They are just ‘ putting other guys lives in danger’ with painful holds and throwing them 10 feet across the room, etc.

Some of the more kinky images . you tube clips involve guys getting chloroformed after wrestling or ‘choked with rope‘, before they drop to the ground. Similar images can be seen in WWF fights and DVD’s can be bought.

Video games ( which kids play ) and Google are full of clips depicting people being killed and strangled in films for example.

Can anyone explain where the logic is here in the Obscene images act in the UK. Am I going to jail over this or should I smash my computer.

Can someone tell me who decides is an image / clip was designed for sexual purposes. I have no doubt that some people get off by seeing other guys being thrown off a cliff but how do you define this in law because it seems to have no definition ?

Thanks
wrestling111

 MichaelG    [28365.   Posted 1-Apr-2012 Sun 22:06]
Well, even though THEY rejected it when CommuNuLabour attempted it a few years back, the ConDemns are rolling out this old chestnut again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123512/New-snooping-law-allow-Government-access-everybodys-emails-texts-internet-browsing.html

I fucking give up with voting now. The cunts are all exactly the same, irrespective of what colour tie they wear...

 bleach    [28364.   Posted 1-Apr-2012 Sun 05:48]
Thanks Michael G for the info. I think there could be another "schoolgirl" title on the list - can`t remember which one though. The BBFC also banned coming of angels which I think features schoolgirls so, it must be the subject (as well as the sex).

This also may interest people - I don`t think it`s been posted. NYC`s suggestion for banned words from tests:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/

 sergio    [28363.   Posted 31-Mar-2012 Sat 05:27]
[28362]
That doesn`t seem to accord with my understanding. Don`t you mean the CPS consider an image of fisting `potentially` obscene?
Even that is doubtful. I think I remember seeing fisting images in the magazine Taboo by the hustler stable.

Even then, it might stray over to `Extreme Porn` - harm to anus/genitals etc.

We are mainly talking about the movies with fisting, they having been found not obscene in 1 particular instance or should that be 6 particular instances?

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28362.   Posted 30-Mar-2012 Fri 21:23]
Sabreman

Yes, according to the CPS, it is obscene (unless of course it`s art)

 Sabreman64    [28361.   Posted 30-Mar-2012 Fri 07:38]
So is an image in print of a woman fisting herself considered obscene by the CPS?

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28360.   Posted 29-Mar-2012 Thu 21:55]
Sabreman

The topic came up when gay fisting was cleared of obscenity at a jury trial.
The CPS/BBFC ban on fisting applies equally for vaginal/anal fisting.

 Sabreman64    [28359.   Posted 29-Mar-2012 Thu 13:42]
Er, regarding this fisting business - is this the fisting of vaginas or anuses that`s being discussed here?

 sergio    [28358.   Posted 29-Mar-2012 Thu 06:11]
Technology is neutral, people are not.
Has anyone else seen the ObscuraCam, smartphone app? It blurs faces.
Is that `good` or `bad`? If I filmed myself mugging someone (for example) and used the app, I wouldn`t leave any facial evidence.

Is it now a `good` thing?

 sergio    [28357.   Posted 28-Mar-2012 Wed 14:26]
Huston, we have contact.

 MichaelG    [28356.   Posted 28-Mar-2012 Wed 11:37]
Re: bleach [28354]:

With so little info on the ban, being that it was rejected by the BBFC back in 1977, there`s not much to go on, but a title search on IMDB takes you straight to the link you posted.

If you`re interested in seeing this film, you may be interested in this:

http://www.amazon.com/Schoolgirl-Report-What-Heart-Thereby/dp/B0045VFINY/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1332959145&sr=1-1

It`s the same movie, I know because I ordered it through Amazon.com and watched it quite recently. I have seen most of this series apart from the first two, which are supposed to be a little tamer than the rest, but by the third installment the producers were upping the sleaze factor and working rape, teenage prostitution and incest into the increasingly salacious plots.

The series is quite entertaining and features a lot of nudity and simulated sex, but I think it must have been the subject matter that got this one banned all those years ago - to be frank, it was a lot more common back then for films to be rejected outright than it is today, but I still wouldn`t bet against cuts or bans today if they were re-submitted. I think the BBFC take a pretty dim view of `schoolgirl` exploitation.

All of these films are still easily obtainable on DVD on the Impulse label and most of them can be purchased via Amazon.com. Part 8 is also coming out soon.

Hope that helps!

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    [28355.   Posted 28-Mar-2012 Wed 00:49]
Thanks bleach, I will follow that up

 bleach    [28354.   Posted 27-Mar-2012 Tue 14:58]
There`sa film listed under cinema bans as Teenage Playmates. I`m certain it is this film:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072124/

 phantom    [28353.   Posted 27-Mar-2012 Tue 11:04]
sergio [28352]

Fantastic!
I think Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem) should get some sort of award for this.
They have demonstrated, - better than anyone else ever could hope to - that the intellectual standard of our current crop of MPs is woefully low.
Apparently they are unaware that you cannot prove a negative.
So, you could ask to prove that prayer works, but not that prayer does not work.
Let`s play a little game.
Do we think that Messrs Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem) could prove - conclusively, that is - that MPs are not morons?
Or that anyone joining either the Conservatives, Labour Party of Liberal Democrats is not an arsehole?
Or could they at least "produce indisputable scientific evidence" that the world would not be a better place if we just drown Messrs Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem) in a vat of pigswill?

Ye Gods! And we wonder why the country`s in such a mess. Look at the bottom feeders who populate the benches in parliament and I think we have the explanation why...

 sergio    [28352.   Posted 26-Mar-2012 Mon 08:33]
`say that they want the Advertising Standards Authority to produce "indisputable scientific evidence" to say that prayer does not work`

http://www.totalpolitics.com/blog/314662/mps-plea-to-overturn-and39god-can-healand39-ad-ban.thtml

I reckon these Politicians should be banned.

 phantom    [28351.   Posted 25-Mar-2012 Sun 16:44]
sergio [28350]
I understand, sergio, that we`re talking charges here, not convictions.
My point is that courts don`t work on sweat shop rates.
If matters pertaining to fisting alone rack up such an amount of court activity, one wonders what sort of money the morality industry is costing the nation as a whole.
One can`t help but feel that the true obscenity resides in the amount of money being wasted.

 sergio    [28350.   Posted 25-Mar-2012 Sun 14:45]
phantom [28349]
Offences charged and reaching a first hearing in magistrates` courts.
The specific offences are yet to be ascertained.

 phantom    [28349.   Posted 25-Mar-2012 Sun 07:31]
sergio [28345]

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?
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2012/00/

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]
Thanks Sergio

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

2005 147
2006 82
2007 138
2008 123
2009 130
2010 78
2011 76

------------------
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]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/24/dailystar-medialaw

---
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]
sergio

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]
goatboy

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.

http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Pink_Flamingos

 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]
Sergio

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]
anceps

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.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/CFF287565/


"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]
MichaelG

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]
Bleach

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]
New releases:

Horror film Break cut for sexual violence
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV287340/

Harry Novak Boxset with the previously banned Kiss me quick plus some other goodies:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Harry-Novak-Collection-Volume/dp/B0078VSKHE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331566788&sr=8-1

 sergio    [28328.   Posted 11-Mar-2012 Sun 06:55]
BBFC R18 Cuts for Feb 2012
Number of items=38
No. Cuts=0
Cuts ratio=0%