See also Religious Watch Forum

phantom    [27159.   Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 12:32] View Near Messages
DoodleBug [27158]

Well, the gents at the BBFC must continue to justify their existence.
They do so most of all by finding `potentially harmful material`.
(the beauty in this lies of course in the adverb)

Some might argue that this creates an inherent conflict of interest. After all, what happens would the BBFC - heaven forfend - not find anything to ban in a calendar year?
Would not significant numbers of staff then be deemed superfluous?
Well, yes. Thus they will happily continue to find material from which we need to be protected.

It follows therefore that, as long as there are censors, there will be censored material. Which in turn will be used as an argument for the continued need for censors. Ah well...

There is however something which will throw a spanner into these works.
I can imagine that functionaries in Whitehall already will be fearfully toward the internet and the evermore practical proposition of global film distribution via the net.

We already know that this is happening to a large scale in video piracy, but it is bound to take off legally in some form sooner or later.

It will then very quickly become an irrelevance where you live, or where the seller is based, when downloading your legally purchased movie.

Essentially we all know this is going to happen. It is a matter of time.

At such a point the BBFC, finally, will be rendered powerless.
Sure, they will still be able to oversee cinema releases. But anything regarding video will very quickly - and irreversibly - slip from their grasp.

And hey, we will all be there - to spit on their grave. ;)

phantom    [27157.   Posted 25-Aug-2010 Wed 07:02] View Near Messages
emark [27154]

re: A Sadistic Prosecution...

Yep, it seems an interesting step change here.

First off, this is not bestiality which seems to have been the mainstay of DPA prosecutions thus far.
Also, it`s not something tagged on to some other charge. Or at least that`s how it reads in this article.

What is unclear however is why the police raided his properties.
Was this really a raid to find 3 movies and 26 photos of BDSM?

Or was it - as I would deem more likely - a raid for something else which proved fruitless? Thus, the DPA once more would be the fall back charge in order for police to justify their actions and not be seen to be wasting their time.

The mention of BDSM in this is extremely worrying.
Also the vagary of the lingo used seems very suggestive of much lesser material than this law was ever (claimed to be) set up for.

But then I do approach this with an element of `I told you so`.
To me the most contentious paragraph in this law has always been `likely to result in serious injury`.

From the start I asked, how likely is a likeliness?
What is the difference between, say, a possibility and a likeliness?

And that`s before we ever get into the notion of `serious injury` in this context.

I have always suspected that it is the `likely to` which possibly opened this up to all matters BDSM.

Now true, we do not know the details of this. And we have no way of ever finding out. Perversely, this means that we - some of the best informed people on this matter in the country - therefore still remain clueless as to what actually is culpable under this law.

But then that is why this is bad law.
One can not know.
The prosecution is thus at liberty to try it on - no matter what.
Authoritarian nirvana.

Truly one of Blair`s legacy laws it seems.
For I would definitely call that a legacy.

phantom    [27117.   Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:50] View Near Messages
Harvey    {27113.   Posted 9-Aug-2010 Mon 18:39}        
"Would he have been allowed to call experts to testify that the image was not pornographic? I would expect the court to say it was a matter for the jury to decide and that they could be expected to do so purely by looking at the image itself. " 

Yes, the expert cannot enter into the sphere in which the `average citizen` is supposed to have all the expertise required.

It`s almost comical what lengths are needed in order to keep a structure upright which, left to its own, would collapse.
The semantics of bad law.

That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best.

I wonder what credibility would be ascribed to a political poll of 12 people by MORI regarding the current popularity of the political parties. Anyone?

I think we all know it would be deemed not broad enough by far to represent the nation`s sentiment, - that is before even considering the regional and local variations in juries which are all said reflect a `national` standard.

Now I do find it funny how we are happy to have experts interpret oil paintings for us on TV to tell us why something is a masterpiece or art per se – something on which apparently there is such a thing as expertise, - but we are all suddenly elevated to the level of experts when it comes to judging the relative offensiveness of porn.

So for artistic nudity we require an expert. For offensive nudity the lack of an expert will do.

Now sure, the supposed `expertise` simply rests in the hands of the jury to prevent stalemate of experts. (i.e. the defence brings half a dozen testifying it`s ok, the prosecution brings half a dozen to testify it is not).
But in essence this boils down to keeping the law practicable. (not practical, mind)
In the end it is just semantics.

The entire idea of obscene publication or dangerous pictures is flawed.
There is no way of measuring obscenity, be it by experts, or by laymen.
A law on obscenity is a law on the length of a piece of string.

Were this law a house, it would have no roof.
But the courts nonetheless would maintain the strict rules regarding the choice of the house`s wallpaper.

Else the illusion fails. The illusion that this is real. That there is logic in this.

In truth we are dealing not with logic, but – to borrow a phrase – with pseudo logic.

We develop rules and conventions, note precedents. All to maintain the illusion that we can precisely quantify that which we have emotively proscribed in law

Namely whether any random piece of string is of the permitted, albeit undefined length, or whether it is intuitively too long or too short.

Now repeat after me:
`The Emperor is wearing clothes. The Emperor is wearing...`

phantom    [27116.   Posted 10-Aug-2010 Tue 08:45] View Near Messages
Harvey    {27106.   Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 17:23}        

“Lastly... Backlash - please publish the names of the individual police and prosectors who staged this outrage.”

I definitely second that motion.

I have oft argued that there should be some comeback on prosecutors.
Fines, docked pay – something.
It seems to me that they frequently abuse their position, simply `having a go` to see whether a conviction can be achieved, irrespective of guilt.

I trust the early Romans had a reason to brand those lawyers who made unfounded accusations in court with the Greek for `false accuser`.
It meant that the accusing lawyer had a risk of his own and consequences to bear. No doubt he would thus see to it that he was certain of his facts before he brought a case.

Whereas today our dear prosecutors garner large wages irrespective of success or failure and reap no penalty if they are found to have brought frivolous charges.

Thus, with no consequences to themselves, it soon becomes a game to them.
A game of have-a-go prosecutors who no doubt think it a laugh if they get an accused to fold under the pressure before it ever comes to a trial in which they never could have produced actual evidence.
A game completely divorced of morality or justice.

A very dirty little game indeed.

phantom    [27068.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 12:41] View Near Messages
IanG [27066]
`On a similar note - did anyone see the suntan lotion that`s being advertised with "7 out of 10 women say they envy friends that tan easily"? Envy is now a blatant ad man`s tool - not that `keeping up appearances` or `being one step ahead` hasn`t always been in their bag of tricks...`

Actually, that does ring a bell.
In fact, is this the ad in which the tanned lady walks past, causing the head of a another woman to turn enviously?
I remember seeing said television ad and thinking to myself how odd a world political correctness has created, whereby the bikini clad beauty can no longer turn the head of an admiring man, but instead must turn the head of an envious woman, lest she offend anyone.

phantom    [27063.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:05] View Near Messages
emark {270614}
`Having a label on commercial advertising to say that an image isn`t real isn`t inherently unreasonable....`

Sorry, but must vehemently disagree here.
It`s a matter of basic freedom of expression.
There needs to be a reason to curtail or regulate it.

Also, consider that photography is an art form and be it an advert or not.

Are you aware that Michelangelo`s statue of David is actually altered anatomically to be more aesthetically pleasing?
(elongated arms and hands. so a sort of rennaissance photoshop job)

Some folks indeed find the idea of curtailing adverts with airbrushing acceptable, as they believe that the exposure to unrealistically beautiful models can do `harm`, particularly to young women.

But what about posters of Marlene Dietrich and Greta Garbo, or Marylin?
All retouched.

But the inherent problem is that the whole idea of this is based on the fact that pictures to harm.

After all, if you say it`s not unreasonable to demand a label on an image on which a model has had her cold sore removed, then I must ask, why is it acceptable?
Why is necessary?

For the minister to demand this law implies a necessity.
And in her statements she hasn`t merely implied.
It`s all about `harm to women`.

So to accept the law is to accept the premise that pictures cause harm to people.

You see, having computer manufacturers state that footage is not actual game play footage is to prevent being misleading about the product.
That is understandable.

But having to state that a pic has been photoshopped (and yes, they all are!) would solely be to `prevent harm to women`.

Thus to accept the law means to accept that the sight of pics can do you harm.

I`m sorry. But what harm?

It`s the old feminist notion of not liking beautiful nubiles up on posters.
(They all say it`s due to exploitation. We all know it`s that they`re jealous.)

The fact is that photography is much less forgiving than film. The human eye focuses in on imperfections on a still image, whereas it hasn`t the time in moving pictures.

The most standard retouching on a photograph is under the eyes.
Puffy eye bags and grey lines. i.e. signs of tiredness.
A model can be gorgeous. If she`s tired, she`s tired.
So it`s simply retouched afterwards.

Why oh why is this supposed to be harmful to other women?

The simple fact is it is not harmful at all.

But the minister`s embracing of this idea (grown on Harman`s midden) is an ill omen.

With people still in government firmly wedded to the idea that pictures do harm, Melonfarmers is going to be kept busy for some time to come.

If they`re claiming that porn (extreme or otherwise) is `harmful` without a single scrap of evidence it`s bad enough. But once they say a mere picture of a woman without grey lines under her eyes is dangerous.

Well, that`s worrying. It suggests someone is taking a long run up....

phantom    [27059.   Posted 28-Jul-2010 Wed 11:30] View Near Messages
Hello everyone,
Been a while since I`ve been on here.

Anyone read the Sunday Times?
Seems the `Liberal` Democrat Equalities Minister is very much enamoured with Harriet Harman`s project to have health warnings on photoshopped pictures.

No point trying to link to an article as The Times has gone into pay-to-view.

But clearly the new government (especially the left wingers among the LibDems it would seem) are still quite in love with the principal of the `harmfulness` of images.

So it seems there will still be plenty of moves (not least those pet projects left behind by Harman) in order to `protect` us all from coming to harm by seeing things we ought not.

phantom    [26884.   Posted 7-Jun-2010 Mon 04:38] View Near Messages
dano {26879. Posted 4-Jun-2010 Fri 10:18}

`Re: Cumbria...
Nah the Tories won`t tighten our gun laws. They`ll probably just blame violent films and video games!`

Well, correct me if I`m wrong, but don`t they say he was being investigated by revenue and customs?
Ergo, following the violent films and video games theory, it thus must be revenue and customs which is to blame.

Only one thing for it then. Guess we`ll need to ban revenue and customs. ;)

After all, if it saves only one life....

phantom    [26856.   Posted 28-May-2010 Fri 10:31] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/10184476.stm

`....

Prime Minister David Cameron told BBC Look North in Leeds that the decriminalisation of prostitution should be "looked at again" in the wake of the situation in Bradford.

"I dare say it should be looked at again. I don`t think we should jump to conclusions on this, there are all sorts of problems that decriminalisation would bring," he said.

He also called for a clamp-down on kerb crawling.

...`

phantom    [26839.   Posted 18-May-2010 Tue 06:00] View Near Messages
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7734926/Academic-disciplined-over-fruit-bat-sex-paper.html

phantom    [26683.   Posted 2-Apr-2010 Fri 09:25] View Near Messages
re: First victims of the Dangerous Prostitution Act

`Under the new legislation, courts have the power to close down premises associated with certain prostitution and pornography offences.`

Did I miss something?

`power to close down premises associated with certain... pornography offences...`

Is the BBC legislating again? Or has the `great leader` really passed such a new offence into the statutes?

phantom    [26674.   Posted 1-Apr-2010 Thu 05:37] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

phantom    [26366.   Posted 30-Dec-2009 Wed 06:49] View Near Messages
Harvey,
As usual I read your contributions with great interest.

First let me say, I would assume that criminal law does set precedents which would act as template for private law such as libel cases.
Also, I do remember the Perrin case being quoted repeatedly as legal precedent in the government blurb during the time of the DPA debate, in particular regard to the notion of sovereignty of English law over such content.
Thus it clearly must be of some import.

I cannot quite believe that pure print media would be libelled in the UK, unless it is available within the UK. Thus either it is so through the internet, or because it is actually directly on sale.

The bizarre case of a Ukranian oligarch suing a Ukranian newspaper for a Ukranian language article published in the Ukraine, just illustrates how hideous things have become.

In any case to try to address libel law alone regarding internet publication (and let`s face it, this is what is at stake in most of these cases), leaving criminal law aside would cause somewhat of a glaring disparity.

The fact remains that downloadable equals published does represent a farce in law.

The idea that English law can claim supremacy over anything published online anywhere in the world, be it in criminal law or the private law courts, is preposterous. And no, I don`t care whether other countries do the same.

The principle that anyone saying anything online these days better seek legal advice from a lawyer in every legal dominion on planet earth is risible.
But this is the principle of which we are effectively speaking.

Should you have ever said anything on the internet, voiced any opinion at any time anywhere, then think hard whether you wish to spend a holiday in the UK. For should the English authorities, or any private individual on earth for that matter have taken issue with it, you could be in trouble.

As a basic principle the above notion is plain daft.

The idea of jurisdiction seems to have gone awol, merely in the back of English law struggling to come to terms with the emergence of the internet.

Yes, globalisation in general can throw up interesting challenges to the law, be it with the NatWest Three, or with McKinnon.

But the premise that the English law effectively holds sway over anything that is ever published and that the English authorities reserve the right to prosecute anyone who under their own domestic law operates perfectly legally is fantastical.
It appears our judges and prosecutors now believe themselves the Masters of the Universe.

The entire situation has been allowed to develop because in government one clings to the dearly held wish that one day one will be able to reassert the controls on adult publication one had prior to the emergence of the internet.

Law is being made ass to allow some ministers to desperately cleave to the hope that one day they will be in the position to turn back time.

Clearly Straw is one of said ministers, a man in whose mind the world was a better place in the `good old days` of more effective state censorship of morality.

Straw has no desire to see any of those cherished hopes fall by the way.

Nor has he hitherto shown any interest in libel laws. If his sudden insight that libel law is `currently in the wrong place` has any cause it is solely that the Tories have recently been making great play of it, with voluble backing by the Tory press.

Straw is simply playing to the galleries, with no intention of actually seeking to achieve anything in this field. For the last thing he wants changed if the concept that his department`s powers should be limited to what actually is published within England alone.

phantom    [26358.   Posted 28-Dec-2009 Mon 08:42] View Near Messages
Re: Libel Laws

So Mr Straw now has suddenly been seized by a desire to reform the libel laws?

Why are they in such a mess in the first place? Because the government allowed them to drift there. Being in government entails a certain degree of stewardship, maintaining law as it ought to be, as unfortunate precedents throw it akimbo.
This government however has done none of this, instead spending its time entirely inventing ever more new offences. Thus we gradually slid into this mess.

However, the latest statement of `looking into this matter` is mere window dressing. I do not believe that Mr Straw has the faintest intention of addressing the issue at the heart of this problem.
After all, the precedent at the core of this is not to be found in libel law, but in criminal law court precedent: the Perrin case.

It is that unfathomably unfair verdict which still hangs over English law.
Mr Straw will have no intention of overturning this. After all, this government is much enamoured with it and its consequences. I remember in fact it being frequently quoted by government and by people such as Mr Straw regarding the matter of the DPA, alongside that other notorious legal outrage – the Spanner case.

The truth regarding Perrin remains this, as long as – as this ruling insists - everything which is downloadable in the England is deemed published in England, then anyone has the right to operate within English libel courts regarding what might be said in any publication on the internet; no matter what the relevant language or domesticity may be. Their nationality or place of residence would be irrelevant. After all, all are equal before the law, no matter from where they might hail.

Thus, only if Mr Straw (who hates pornography with nigh pathological intensity) would be willing to overturn the Perrin precedent by an amendment to the law, would there be any chance of undoing the international libel merry go round.

The Perrin case being rooted in pornography means that Straw will never, ever concede that ground. Even if he were willing to do so, the cabinet around him – with the son of the Manse Gordon Brown and hard line feminist Harriet Harman in the chief positions – would never be willing to allow it.

Their desire to maintain a de facto claim of authority over all internet content and simple matter that Perrin deals with a subject which includes nipples and the likes, means they will never be willing to sacrifice this legal power.

Therefore we are stuck with Perrin. Therefore we are stuck with libel tourism.

Everything which is published anywhere on the internet – and thus is downloadable in England will remain published in England. It follows that anything that can be argued to be libellous on the net is subject to the English libel courts.

Explain that one away, Mr Straw. Or simply concede that the Perrin case needs to be overturned, by act of parliament, if need be.

phantom    [26279.   Posted 27-Nov-2009 Fri 07:00] View Near Messages
Surprised how this story hasn`t really made it onto Melonfarmers.
Or have I just missed it?

Here is his article from Monday`s Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece

Now Lawson is an outspoken climate change sceptic. No news there. He`s against things and doesn`t see the point of negotiating in Copenhagen. Big deal.
However, the latter paragraphs are very interesting.

“Moreover, the scientific basis for global warming projections is now under scrutiny as never before. The principal source of these projections is produced by a small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), affiliated to the University of East Anglia.
Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.”
Well, as we know global warming is by now a political sacred cow. It is a means by which politicians (who generally no nothing about science – or anything else for that matter) can prove their green credentials by being greener than green.

The question now however must be whether information regarding global warming is being suppressed or withheld. Is all we are getting the `official` view, or that favoured by a group of scientists?

Is the debate regarding global warming effectively being censored at source?

The apparent existence of emails by scientists by the CRU debating how to prevent the publication of academics championing opposing opinions is very worrying.

We may be rightfully worried about the censorship of scientific debate by English libel laws, but the prospect of scientists themselves being engaged in censorship, denial and manipulation of information is alarming.

Now sure, it`s not censorship of adult material or an intervention by moralist nuts, but nonetheless – if this is true - this is censorship of the first order.

But given the prominence of this subject in current day politics the possibility of censorship in this field seems quite staggering.

phantom    [26261.   Posted 24-Nov-2009 Tue 08:02] View Near Messages
bleach [26257]
`To be honest I`m glad Mr Savage is banned from Britain.`

Fine, I suggest, as our next trick, we ban you.
I don`t agree with you. I will thus simply state that your arguments are inflammatory. Thus we should better be safe than sorry.
So shut up. It`s for the common good. :)

IanG [26260]
Well, actually the Swiss weren`t occupied by the Nazis, Ian.
What some researchers over there have researched I don`t know. But let`s be fair, you don`t write off all of Britain because of the three `adademics` who did the rapid evidence assessment as a whitewash for the DPA.
Thus why have a go at the Swiss because some people with an agenda over there had a go at computer games?

As for the firebombing of cities. It`s actually very much in doubt whether that really led to victory...

phantom    [26249.   Posted 21-Nov-2009 Sat 21:10] View Near Messages
re: Jon Gaunt has a knock at radio censorship

That self-obsessed lump of lard Jon Gaunt is at it again, ey?
My, he makes me laugh, that fool.

I think everyone here is familiar with the DPA.
When people were still trying to stop it from going through and we were trying all we could to raise awareness, I ended up on one of the chat sites dedicated to Jon Gaunt.

Gaunt was having Cameron on his radio show and was claiming to ask his audience what questions he should put to the Tory leader.

As we know Cameron was always delightfully ambiguous on the issue of the DPA.
So I suggested that, should Gaunt really be wanting questions and it was not merely a pretence of asking the audience, then he could prove it by asking Cameron about the upcoming DPA.

What was Gaunt`s immediate reaction? He threatened me with legal action. this apparently for implying that his request for questions might not be genuine.

I pointed out to him that he might want to read my words carefully to see whether I actually called him a liar. He did. He couldn`t. He shut up.

However, my having raised the issue of the DPA on the board, - after the initial barrage of people calling me a pervert and a paedophile - gradually started raising real interest. The more people asked and I explained, the more they were beginning to really dislike this law (and by proxy want Cameron asked about it!).

Back came Jon Gaunt. Having moderator powers on the site, he first banned me, in order to make sure I could not answer back.
Then he accused me of `grooming` (yes, that was the word) members on this board into my `perverted way of thinking` (again, verbatim).

Naturally, he then went on to pour insult upon insult upon me for raising this matter. It`s pretty self evident that his kind would use the paedophile word quite freely.

But please, I wasn`t telling these people what to think. I was simply providing them with information - including the link to the online home office pages. I was providing them with the means to judge for themselves.
Thus, I was banned - censored - by Jon Gaunt, for making people think.

Please consider the above in the light of the poor, poor Jon Gaunt now wailing at the moon at the unfairness of it all. Now he`s supposedly a champion of free speech.

Well, he first threatened to sue, then accused a person speaking against the DPA of online `grooming` and saw them banned - and all the posts on the DPA, including the relevant link to home office page, removed.
The posts which saw people agreeing with the idea that the DPA was wrong, were also removed.

Did I mention that politics featured heavily on this site? I was hardly intruding.

So much to censorship and Jon Gaunt.

Oh, and before I forget it. To my knowledge, he did not ask David Cameron about his position on the DPA on his talk show.

Jon Gaunt against censorship? Yeah, right.

I rest my case.

phantom    [26208.   Posted 13-Nov-2009 Fri 07:55] View Near Messages
Hi,

Well I think those two last pieces of news only confirm to me that - in its present form - the parliamentary process simply is not working.
This is not merely because I happen to disagree with these laws.
But I believe that the particular measures are in fact inherently stupid.
There is frankly no other way of putting it.

Effectively banning (consumption of) female prostitution and declaring certain drawings dangerous is - well - political cloud cuckoo land.
They might as well make the tides illegal or outlaw zips.

What possible good may come of banning drawings? Does anybody really believe a single child will be protected by this? But is there anyone who doesn`t believe that miscarriages of justice are quite likely with this statute?

As for prostitution, the arguments for this law are so shot to pieces, one struggles to know where to begin.
Save to say, that there appear to be very little good which can come from this legislation. Yet the potential for mischief is nigh limitless.

But why is the above an indictment of the parliamentary process?
Because there wasn`t even a real debate. And even if there were to have been her Majesty`s opposition wouldn`t have opposed.

So here are plainly daft laws which serve no point and will only cause harm going through the house without so much as a whimper.

Are we to believe that parliament is working, given this?

Now sure, there will always be mistakes made. Laws will always be passed which later prove regrettable.

But this is different. Passing laws without scrutiny or debate is now the norm. It is routine.

Truth be told, there is no parliamentary process any more.
Any idea - unless for some reason politically inopportune - will go through the house these days. Most likely it won`t even be opposed, either because the opposition agrees, or because it sees no point in opposing on principle alone.

Given the demise of the process, we are now seeing the creation of laws which serve no purpose and make no sense.

What however is most frightful of all is that there seems no saviour in the offing. British parliamentary democracy has effectively been rendered defunct - excepting perhaps the odd headline grabbing subject.

When to collective political process fails you get arbitrary dictat. The fall of the Roman republic saw the Roman emperors take over.
Had before the senate and the various councils debated and voted, now the emperor decided. Thus Caligula made his horse a senator.

Looking at these latest two dictats to `move through the house`, one can not help but feel that Harriet Harman is promoting many a horse these days...

phantom    [26200.   Posted 11-Nov-2009 Wed 07:21] View Near Messages
I see we have yet more on `body image` today.
Photoshop is the new evil it appears. Apart from photoshop used by men, which I would assume is yet more evil.

Was listening to five live yesterday when a professor came on to talk about this very thing. Naturally women were suffering untold agonies at the existence of these pictures of beautiful young women.

The professor in question was - of course - a woman.

I`m sorry people, but we are witnessing the creation of a new scare here. Serious effort is being put into telling us that we are vulnerable to subconscious manipulation which is harmful to us.

The parallels to the tall tale some years of ago that vinyl records played backwards could subconsciously influence the listener are obvious.
If I remember rightly the Beatles` `We are live in a yellow submarine` was said to incite smoking marihuana.
The band `Judas` Priest` even ended up in court over it.

There too we had a lot of pseudo psychological mumbo jumbo being spouted. Again we had `studies` showing that it was so.
But the studies were such by people who wanted it to be so. They disliked modern secular music. - Thus of course they hated the likes of `Judas` Priest`.

Now here we have something else that is hated. The publication and proliferation of female beauty.

The arguments range from exploitation of the subject to unseen harm to the viewer. In fact, just about any desperate straw one can grasp in order to try to make a point.

Now we are to believe that photoshopped beauty should be harmful.
Well, long before photoshop there was a technique call airbrushing.
Was that harmful too?
Are posters featuring Marlene Dietrich dangerous?

No, of course not. It`s not those pictures, isn`t it? It`s those of contemporary beauties. It`s pictures of people of whom some people today could said to be jealous.

In fact, photoshopped and airbrushed beauty is simply idealised beauty.

Is there really anybody in their right mind who thinks the principle of idealised beauty is wrong?

If so, what is to happen with the de Medici Pieta of Michelangelo? Or the works of Praxiteles? The paintings of Leonardo? The various portraits of Antinous or Alexander?

Is there anybody who thinks these depictions are absolute reflections of reality? Of course not, they are perfected ideals. That is the very point of these works.

Now, ignorants like `liberal` democrat MP Jo Swinson may think that photography is merely a depiction of reality per se.
However, photography is an art form. Period.
Anyone who is calling for the regimentation and censorship of photography is actually asking for the censoring of art.

There is of course a historical precedent for that, Mz Swinson.
The Nazis and the communists. So, good company, no doubt.

To make my point, albeit crudely I would ask anyone reading this to simply take a look at Mz Swinson. Then ask yourself if she may have ulterior motives for wanting Claudia Schiffer and Elizabeth Hurley depicted with bags under their eyes.

The entire idea is utterly preposterous.
If mankind is not under threat from renaissance imagery, then it cannot be under threat from modern photography.

The simple fact that in the western world, where exposure to these pictures is greatest, the overriding health problem is in fact obesity, not slimming eating disorders, proves that the supposed `problem` just is not there.
It exists merely in the minds of the researchers and those who would seize on any argument to further their cause.

For if we really are all so susceptible to imagery which would turn us into skeletal bulemics, then please someone explain to me how come we`re all getting fatter. Is the reason childhood obesity is at record level a result of children - not - being exposed to enough photoshopped images?
But then they are supposed to be the ones to be `protected` from this supposed evil.

As said, look at it in detail and it suddenly falls apart.

It is a risible idea based plainly on the stifled vanity of those who feel left out of the beauty pageant.

The principle alone that we ought to prescribe (and proscribe!) art to feed these people`s egos is preposterous.
It would lead to a world in which we`d be making bonfires of Cosmopolitan magazine for printing a forbidden picture.

I wonder if any of the women politicians there at the burning would choose to wear brown for the event....

phantom    [26175.   Posted 30-Oct-2009 Fri 16:13] View Near Messages
Well, the cannabis story becomes ever more telling.
As many will have heard on the news - the expert professor who dared tell us about the scientific evidence (thus, informing the public!) has been sacked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

Who has fired him? The home secretary, Alan Johnson.
It is worth pointing out that Alan Johnson is the most likely man to succeed Gordon Brown in the Labour leadership.
So quite clear then that evidence will not be of interest to Labour as a basis for legislation for some time to come.

As we saw with the DPA the science must be made to match the legislation, not the other way around. Professor Nutt obviously did not understand that.

"Prof Nutt said he was not prepared to "mislead" the public about the effects of drugs in order to convey a moral "message" on the government`s behalf."

So he`s a fool obviously. As we were already clearly told during the DPA, law is entirely about `sending messages` to the public. Whether the message makes any sense is not really that important...

phantom    [26173.   Posted 29-Oct-2009 Thu 05:41] View Near Messages
Another beautiful window into the way this government thinks on evidence-based legislation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/

Sure, cannabis use is hardly related to censorship. However, the wilful ignoring of evidence – and of the relevant consultation result – seems very familiar.
It speaks volumes about a government which likes to ban things, regardless of the advice received by experts. We even have a recurrence of the `precautionary principle` as a basis for legislation.

“"Where there is... doubt about the potential harm that will be caused, we must err on the side of caution and protect the public," as Jacqui Smith put it last year.“

You couldn`t make it up, could you...

phantom    [26170.   Posted 27-Oct-2009 Tue 19:36] View Near Messages
 IanG    {26168.   Posted 27-Oct-2009 Tue 09:08}        

Well, there is always peer pressure in any society. In that regard we are not reinventing the wheel.
However, peer pressure is just that, pressure by one`s peers.
It is not the same as feeling a compulsion to emulate what one sees in a magazine.

Frankly, I find the idea that all girls are being forced to be thin by the pictorial world which surrounds them, rather amusing. After all, body mass indeces are going up and up. If we are indeed under so much pressure to conform to a thin body image it is rather odd that most of us seem to be doing the precise opposite and instead are piling on the pounds.

One thus wonders what peer pressure (or magazine illustrations) are making us eat all those hamburgers....

As for your point on individualism. It`s a sad and deliciously ironic fact that all fashions, styles and lifestyles, etc always seem rather to regiment youngsters into cohorts of stylistic clones, rather than making them individuals, be they Goths, punks, or otherwise... But that seems a trait of human nature and adherence to fashion.
It seems even medieval squires and the ancient Greeks and Romans were not averse to making fools of themselves in that regard.

It is true that different cultures in different parts of the world, or at different times have different views of what is attractive. But as things change through time different ideals will emerge. If at the moment elf-like waifs are required on the catwalks, then there is nothing to say that this will be the case in twenty years time.

But in any case, to haul this back to the lads` mags origin of the debate, the rather well endowed, curvaceous creatures which grace the pages of such magazines could hardly be accused of being skeletal of Belsen survivors.
If Hugh Heffner hit the jackpot with those Marilyn nude shots, then it is worth saying that those pictures, if shot today, would still be of a girl who could feature in Playboy.
Catwalk tastes may have changed. Heterosexual male tastes have not.

As I said, the heterosexual male aesthetic when concerning an idealised female, puts no pressure on women to be size zeros at all. So what worked for Marilyn way back then, still works now. Boobs, bum, legs and a pretty face.
So if in the fifties and sixties the female `body image` was not under threat by Marilyn, why would it be so now? After all, in regard to what men like, nothing seems to have changed.

Of course there will always be pressure on women, largely self-imposed, to be attractive to the male, but that is hardly new. Hell, Roman matrons whitened their faces with cosmetics containing arsenic....

The idea that the presence of pictures of sexually attractive nubiles should in any way damage the `body image` of other females seems wholly implausible to me.
For one wonders where we ought to start with the banning of the depiction of female beauty then, in order to protect the fragile female mindset. Claudia Schiffer? Pamela Anderson? Jordan? Marilyn Monroe? Grace Kelly? Canova`s Three Graces? The Venus de Milo?

One trembles at the thought of how many women`s lives may have been ruined by Greek statuary depicting the female form....

phantom    [26167.   Posted 27-Oct-2009 Tue 07:49] View Near Messages
Tarkus    {26165.   Posted 26-Oct-2009 Mon 23:16}

Tarkus, I am loose. This doesn`t prevent me from debating seriously.

I find it strange how in your response you continue to go on about model sizes.
Again you are speaking of catwalk models.

In turn you are entirely ignoring the point made about the models catering to magazines for a female audience and those catering to a male audience. Cursory observation makes it clear that models catering to a male audience have considerably more meat on them.

It is a long known fact that the female aesthetic understanding of the body is drawn to elf like waifs, whereas heterosexual males prefer curvature. Add to that the overwhelming presence of gay males in the fashion world and you find a another influence by people who seek an aesthetic different from that which would entail boobs and bums.

The notion of the ideal female body simply differs according to sex. It is actually the girls (and the gay designers) who want curveless elves populating the catwalk. Were it for the men, it would be page three girls.

Therefore it is important to realise that all that is going on in publishing targeted at males, is in no way related to what you describe as the pressure on `body image` to be thin.
Both in pornography and in lads` mags style glamour the skeletal waifs do not figure. Thus, oddly, in your own logic porn and lads` mags are promoting a healthy `body image`, which is quite amusing.

All of the above said, I still don`t see why the promotion of the thin is a bad thing. First I do not believe in the power of pictures in the way you do. (in essence, if you believe in such a power to corrupt and influence, then you must, by definition, believe in censorship, despite what you say).

But even if such influence were to exist. In a world in which obesity is the actual, clearly apparent problem, some pressure to slim might not be a bad thing.... The media might be in a tizz about `eating disorders`, but the actual problem in current populations is an excess of fat, not the lack of it.

Meanwhile:

`All the Maxims type magazine can still be presented openly. `

Well, I think you`ve pretty much ended the debate there.
From what I understand the lads` mags publications in question are `Maxim type magazines`.

Thus we all seem to agree that they should be happy to continue as before.
they may be catering toward adults, but they are not `adult magazines`.

But to finally illustrate the point, let`s have a look at Maxim.
So please turn your attention to this page:
http://www.maxim.co.uk/girls/new-girls/17131/emily_scott.html
Is this a starved waif, whose body image will `damage` girls into starvation diets?
Size zero doesn`t spring to mind when looking at her.

But more to the point, does any sensible person really think photos such as these should not be permitted to be seen within a newsagents? Is this really the corrupting force UK MPs are making it out to be?
Or are these grey, fun hating, zealots just completely out of touch with the actual populace?

I think we all know the answer. Had these fools spent a little more time observing and listening to the British people, rather than sitting at home, fiddling their parliamentary expense reports, they`d be a little more in tune with what truly outrages us....

phantom    [26163.   Posted 26-Oct-2009 Mon 08:44] View Near Messages
Tarkus    {26161.   Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 22:59}     


`You assert that you see no proof whatsoever that media has created a crisis of body and yet the facts clearly dispute that. `

I`m sorry, but I just don`t see the facts in your listing.
So model sizes have changed? Well, so too have model hair styles. You list some models as having had problems for being deemed too chunky. Yes? Doesn`t that mean previously some other models were being rejected for being too thin?

Aside from this, I fear your argument on size is beside the point.
The models you refer to are models catering to catwalk and fashion: i.e. they adhere to a female and gay male aesthetic.
Meanwhile lad`s mags adhere to a heterosexual male sexual aesthetic.

Trust me, there is a big difference between the two and it is widely recognised.

So please, think page 3 girl here. Sam Fox, not some size zero model. Thus your entire claim of girls being influenced to start dieting themselves down to a size zero due to these pics goes out of the window.

This is turning out to be some rather elusive `rhino` you spotted.


`Repeated studies have shown that 3 out of 4 US women indicate that they are overweight even though in fact only 1 out of 4 are. A study of 10 year old girls, (these are all US stats), showed that 80% of them listed being fat or becoming fat was one of their biggest fears.... Eating disorders are through the roof, teenage plastic surgery is increasing at alarming rates.`

First, quoting studies on this subject is usually fairly futile. There is no indisputable scientific proof of harm.

Moreover, you again refer to the supposed sizism. Now for one there are issues with size which are unrelated to pictures. So if a large proportion of women in the US believe themselves overweight, we also have to factor in that many of them, in the world`s most obese nation, actually are.
This reduces the supposed statistical impact the pictures are supposed to have quite significantly from the start. (I`m sorry. It needed to be said)

Next we also have to consider the psychology of being asked about one`s body image. Just about anyone will find fault in their body when asked to point out imperfection or weakness. This automatically weights these studies. After all, how many people will they find who reply, `No. I`m perfect!`

Also, consider the difference in the female aesthetic in appreciation of the female form from that of the male. i.e. The `does my bum look big in this` phenomenon.

Granted, it is true that most people (men and women) are not happy with their bodies. But to describe this as `damage` is a significant step. One for which I see no evidence whatsoever.

`These images are not real and in turn they do cause damage to young girls and at the same time almost certainly young boys who are provided specific and non-typical imagery.`

I`m sorry. But why would something that is not real cause damage per se? You simply make a statement here, as though it were self apparent fact. So pictures are airbrushed? So what? You do know that Michelangelo`s David was physically tweaked to give a more pleasing effect. As a man I feel not in the least bit threatened by this. Just as I remain indifferent when I see a professional footballer take off his shirt and waves it overhead. Nice abs, I`m sure. But damaging? No.

In any case, yours seems to be a strange view of photography. A picture must depict reality. This is not something you would ask of painting or sculpture.
The truth is that photography is a process. Not merely is it a matter of pointing a camera at a model and capturing `reality`. The quality of a photographer in this field is determined by his or her ability to capture and present beauty, not reality. Today this also applies to post production.

A cobbler will seek to make the best shoes he can. A photographer will seek to produce the best photographs he can.

Please also consider that the model too will want to work with photographers who are good at post production. She wishes to look her best. Not least as it will bring her more work. The creation of pictures to as high a standard as possible has thus as much to do with the interrelation between model and photographer as it has to do with societies fascination with the body beautiful.

In essence any image is `contrived`, as you would have it.
Take a look at a landscape calendar. Most sunsets will not look that perfect. Possibly even some power lines or an ugly fence will have been photoshopped away for aesthetic effect. There is nothing inherently `wrong` with that, nor does it `damage` our understanding of the countryside.


`So what damage occurs if a child starts seeing blatant sexual imagery at an early age? I think it is hard to say but something tells me that the social experiment isn`t worth the potential consequence. `

Isn`t this really just a `better safe than sorry` argument. In short, you suggest there could be a problem, thus you would like to see action taken. The problem with this very principle is that it could close down just about everything. Harm must be evident, not merely suspected...

Aside from this I`d once again point out that we are not talking hardcore porn here, but lads` mags. This is glamour girls in sexy settings, not explicit porn. There is a reason why they are termed `lads` mags` and that is because they are not straight porn mags.

`...that their motivations may not be entirely pure. They in fact may have some sort of agenda such as getting paid or promoting or pursuing a career and not just feeling the need to show us their tata`s. Say It Ain`t So!`

This point actually riles me a bit. Is the implication here that their agenda not `being pure` makes them some sort of whores?
I think you answer that for us a little further down.

`What is the difference or the issue? Maybe just semantics or maybe these are the events that make a life and I am not sure that some airbrushed boob trollop really adds to that.  `

The use of the the term `boob trollop` doesn`t seem to suggest a great deal of respect on your part. In fact it seems to suggest contempt. One thus wonders whether this colours your view entirely on this subject.

`As per the pursuit of beauty...... would you not agree to some extent that we have lost our way on this one? `

Are you familiar with the ancients? Or even the renaissance? (see Donatello`s David) Sure, our media is more ubiquitous. But prior to Christianisation, European civilisation was quite taken with the body. As you say, that didn`t mean they went about nude all day. But the frescoes at Pompeii or the myriad glazed Greek pottery discovered so far makes it quite clear that these ancient, secular societies were fascinated by the body beautiful. Thus we haven`t really lost our way. We are very much emulating in part what has already been here before, albeit by modern technological means.

`If you don`t "look like this" then how can you possibly think the sex you have will be good?`

I`m sorry. But who is saying this? So far mankind shows little sign of dying out. Procreation seems to be continuing despite the supposed pressures by the media or our `body image`. Clearly this hypothesis doesn`t hold water.

`...I recall seeing a magazine stand near Victoria Station that had magazines that displayed male nude punishment bondage...`

Not much I can say about that, other than that this was most likely a breach of current law. In any case, I very much doubt children will be growing up as broken individuals because of it.

I think you`ll find I`ve been fair with the above.
I simply cannot spot the smoking gun – or the rhino for that matter.

You are making assertions. That non-reality in pictures is harmful. That the sight of women as desirable is harmful to children, harmful to women.

To your mind the sight of something mildly sexual will damage children and the sight of attractive women will damage women.

I`m sorry. I don`t subscribe to that. There is no rhino.

phantom    [26157.   Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 10:23] View Near Messages
Tarkus    {26149.   Posted 24-Oct-2009 Sat 17:01}

I can`t say I agree with the existence of the supposed `body image problem` you suggest the `contrived` images on lads` mags front covers generate.

I accept that post modern Britain is indeed different from the ancient world. Whereas the ancients had completely different mores and thus had no problem with aspects of public sexuality, we as a whole at times do.

But I am afraid that I do not subscribe at all to the idea that seeing a `contrived` physical ideal is somehow psychologically damaging to the female. Nor do I believe that people can be conditioned to be sexually subservient merely by exposure to the front covers of magazines.

You state that it is evident how young girls` body image is driven entirely by the media. Sorry, but how is that so? I accept that their understanding of fashion stems from the media (where else would it come from?), but I fair to see how their `body image` has been conditioned by the media.
How would the levels of such things as vanity, modesty, deportment and grace be determined by the media?

If young girls grow up to realise that their bodies are sexual and sexually attractive then that is not due to the media, but because it is simply self-evident. If anything we might as well blame `stranger danger` campaigns and paedophile paranoia for the realisation of sexuality by young children.

I can not see how the depiction of adult females as sexually desirable ideals on the covers of lads` mags could in any way skew any aspect of a young human psyche, be it male or female.

Sure, I would not subscribe to exposing children to hardcore pornography, as I do believe it can lead to confusion in the young, unleashing powerful subconscious forces, before the person is really ready for it yet. That said, right now we are far too protective in that regard.

However, lads` mags are not really pornography per se, but a subset of sexual glamour. If women are not supposed to be glamorous, enticing and sexy to varying degrees in the media, then the question arises what role they are supposed to fulfil. Are they truly just to be depicted as wholesome mothers, wives, size zero models on catwalks – and politicians?

Now sure, the above question is a rhetorical exaggeration. But the allegation which is always made of the exploitation of the female body seems to have a hollow ring to it when, men advertising Gillette razors are always square jawed beefcakes with six packs and so too are all those oiled `firemen` on the calendars on sale at the same corner shop which sells the supposedly harmful lads` mags.

Mankind is a magpie and thus loves visual beauty. We also adore – and admire – the physical ideal.
It is true that the ideal is `contrived`, as it does not exist. But it nonetheless is seductive.
Just as the film world chooses to have Halley Berry rise out of the sea in James Bond, it chooses to have Brad Pitt flex his physique in Troy. It would simply not have the same power if either of the two had `a little extra padding` and bad acne.

Nothing is wrong with these `contrived` ideals per se and it is hard to see how they would be harmful to children.

Which brings us really to the element of sexual allure which the lads` mags front pages include.
There isn`t really anything hardcore about these images, safe to say that women are sexualised in the images. The picture are designed to show them as sexually desirable, even sexually willing.

Again, the question is why would that be wrong? The children are not really being confronted with anything explicit, but with the notion that some women are very attractive and might like the attention of others.

Allowing children to see such images is not the equivalent of exposing them to the sight of sadomasochistic practices or dogging parties. They merely see idealised images of young, attractive women not subscribing to the usual norms of modesty.

So yes, they might flaunt themselves on front covers, but is the fact that they do not adhere to a societal standard (a contrived one I might add) enough to ban the sight of them? If so, shouldn`t the same apply to the sight of drunks, the violent – or even dishonest politicians (who have expenses to repay – such as Menzies Campbell I believe)?

Yet, no one would object against the front pages of newspapers depicting UK soldiers in battle in Afghanistan (i.e. killing people), or even the police mugshots of murderers and child abusers being printed alongside large print headlines leaving little doubt as to what they`ve done.

We assume that children have a capacity to deal with said images and concepts. But when it comes to a sexualised image of a well endowed, young woman, this suddenly no longer applies.

It seems to me that it is of no harm to children – and to young girls in particular – to know that men desire women and that women enjoy being desired by men. I think if anything is likely to be damaging to young people it is to be told that sex is something shameful which is to be hidden away entirely.

We don`t need a `societal burkha` banning the sight of the female form in order to protect women and children. No one`s sexuality is going to be conditioned by seeing young women being sexy.

Yes, of course we need to live with the societal norms we happen to be in. But we are not talking about hardcore porn lying around in corner shops here. These are merely non-explicit front pages of lads` mags.

If - some – people are made to feel uncomfortable by their presence then it can`t be helped. Some people don`t like Marmite, yet supermarkets still stock it.

To my mind, there simply doesn`t seem to be a child protection argument here. Merely moral outrage by a group of elderly MPs, whose bodies don`t bear much resemblance either to Halley Berry or Brad Pitt....

phantom    [26125.   Posted 19-Oct-2009 Mon 14:45] View Near Messages
Winters22 [26123]
`My mind tells me that any guy who gets off on watching a 3 year old smoke ciggie after ciggie is probably either sick in the head or an evil bastard.`

Well, my position is this.
Do we as a society need protecting from this chap?
Whether he is `sick` or an `evil bastard` in the eyes of some or many is really neither here nor there.

In my view prison is for those who present a danger to us. Not for people of whose behaviour we disapprove.

This case seems self-evidently the case of a man doing something stupid, be it out of bravado or some misguided sense of entertainment.

The claim of child abuse seems preposterous to me.
This is not what the public envisage as child abuse. I am certain of that.

The simple fact is that when people do wrong - and at times some of us will - we may need reining in. But that reining in suffices in itself.

But 18 months? I do not see the need for this sort of punitive measure.

Law (and society for that matter) are currently way out of kilter, if the only response to any person who as gone astray is to punish.

Oftentimes it perfectly suffices if we enforce the boundaries, by hauling folks back who are frankly making fools of themselves.
Having been put through the police and possibly some of the legal machinery would have been well enough.
If need be give him some community service. But not hundreds of hours.

As I said, this man is not a serious criminal of any sorts. His is not a serious offence. He has overstepped a boundary. This should be made clear to him.
But people *will* overstep boundaries in any society.

What we need to realise is that it needn`t be punished every time.
Just because a child is involved is does not mean that an offender is some spawn of evil, etc. In this, the paedophile paranoia is doing us no favours at all.

We should realise that prisons are for the dangerous and persistent re-offenders. They are not meant as `correctional facilities` for any misstep anyone might take.

Nor are they meant as a means by which to vent public anger on any single individual for becoming trapped within the focus of media attention.

The law must not merely be fair in the procedures by which it reaches a verdict. It must also show fairness when meeting out punishment.

A society which lashes out arbitrary in law toward people for something rather minor is not fair by any means.

More so, it represents a Sword of Damocles toward all who reside in it.

For there are plenty of misdemeanors of which many of us fall foul; be it speeding tickets or parking fines.

Also, given that we now also have laws which are with the best will in the world hard to follow - such as the dreaded DPA - it would be nice to know that anyone who is found to have strayed over the line would be considered with a degree of civil restraint in punitive zeal.

Mercy need not be a sign of weakness, as so many would have it. And severity alone does a great society not make. Else those places where they still chop people`s limbs off would be lovely places to live.

phantom    [26077.   Posted 9-Oct-2009 Fri 07:07] View Near Messages
IanG [26076]

Excuse my ignorance here...
Nose pinching?

phantom    [26074.   Posted 8-Oct-2009 Thu 14:12] View Near Messages
Folks, on the issue of female ejaculation I would simply refuse to engage in the fake `debate` the BBFC seem to want to have on this subject.

For one, a scientific approach is doomed to fail. Not least because proving the existence of female ejaculation would prove nothing. i.e. who is to say that the pretence of a faked orgasm, and hence a faked ejaculation, wouldn`t be achieved by urination.

The simple fact remains that even trying to argue the existence of female ejaculation on this issue, seems only to confirm the right of the BBFC to curb the sight of urination.

The truth simply is that the BBFC chooses arbitrary things to ban. It is a corrupt, morally bankrupt and intellectually moribund institution.

The question thus is not one of whether their utterly irrelevant standards are technically attributable or not, but whether they in fact have any right to apply any such standards.

phantom    [26030.   Posted 2-Oct-2009 Fri 07:17] View Near Messages
tried to post this late last night, but accidentally killed it in when editing...

Regarding Harman`s comments on punternet:

There are two very interesting points here.
Notice how she refers to prostitutes having mental problems. Which prostitutes will she be meaning? those who do the job without being forced into it, or needing to fund an addiction per chance?

One cannot help but suspect an element of Soviet thinking here.
i.e. he or she who does not concur with the system is mentally ill, or in newspeak: `has problems`.

I find it all quite sinister.

The other point is again one of a strange verbal leap.
Harman claims that punternet encourages/promotes prostitution. It is hard to see how this could be. If I by a computer magazine which compares computers it is to decide which machine to buy, not whether to buy one or not. The magazine thus does not promote, it advises. Clearly this is the same with punternet.

However, the interesting bit is towards the end. For there Harman claims that punternet by default puts women in danger. Please notice the use of the word `women`, not `prostitutes`. The implication is clear. Harman is talking about rape.

To her mind punternet increases the likeliness of women being raped.

Now, of course there is no evidence for this. Of course there is not even any empirical perception of this. It is pure nonsense...

But, what is more important is the nature of the quandary.

A site which contains text (reviews are text) of which the government disapproves is being attacked by no lesser than the deputy prime minister for encouraging rape.

There is no accusation being made of this being porn. The charge is entirely made of it being unacceptable text. The newspeak word for it no doubt being `abhorrent`.

I need hardly tell people where we are headed with this. `Extreme text`.

phantom    [26016.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 13:24] View Near Messages
barriejohn [26013]

Well, you answered your own question, Barrie.
People are happier under an authoritarian regime - IF it goes hand in hand with paranoia being stoked up an up.

What surprise thus to see Brown address antisocial behaviour in his speech. Another `scourge` that will need quelling with lots and lots of legislation.

phantom    [26014.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 13:21] View Near Messages
pbr [26012]
yes, I to chuckled...

But I think his announcement of what are effectively detention centres for teenage single mothers will come to haunt him very quickly...

Once the general election gathers pace, this cherry atop the authoritarian blancmange will prove catastrophic for Labour. Remember, you read it hear first...

phantom    [26009.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 11:06] View Near Messages
Well the fear of what the right will do is quite justified.
The reemergence of `family values` as a political argument is not something I`m looking forward to.

However, only today we had some Labour apparatchick (Balls?) demand teachers who are a member of the BNP be banned from teaching.

The disease of banning unacceptable thought has now utterly taken over the current government, which is why it must be culled at all cost.

It is true that the Tories are equally censorious in spirit to the Labour party. However, they do seem to at least understand the principle that you do not - in a free society - ban thought or opinion.

Labour`s attitudes have over the years warped into a `you are free to think as you like, provided we haven`t banned it`.

It is thus I now back the Tories. not because I like them. Not because I don`t believe that they will do the country a great deal of harm.
But simply because another term for Labour would have them butchering the remaining civil rights in this country; all under the mantle of law and order, feminism, security.

I`m convinced the Tories will prove irrational and seek to ban what they deem `filth`. I suspect they`ll seek to move on music (rap lyrics), computer games (violence) and the internet (porn).

But I`m convinced that their approach will be against the material they dislike and not against the people who happen to to like said material.

phantom    [26005.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 05:15] View Near Messages
MichaelG [26001]
"I`d love to know how the `mediasavvy` Pattison is going to successfully repackage and popularise the same old hateful, repressive and reactionary bilge that define MediaWatch to make it more acceptable to the masses."

A question of tone and approach, Michael.
Beyer sounded very much like Mary Whitehouse. He used the same lingo. His was genuine moral outrage. Whether we agree with him or not, he was genuine.

What I expect now is a sort of Tony-Blair-approach. Much more atuned to second guessing the audience`s interpretation of statements.
Blair knew no one listened to a bigot. Campbell famously said `we don`t do god.` Why? Because else people at once begin to distrust and disbelieve you, because they believe you have a religious, moral agenda.

Did Blair have such an agenda. Looking back it appears obviously so. Yet still he denied it. Because he was media savvy. Had he not done so, he`d have sounded like John Beyer.

Thus I now see Mediawatch under their PR guru get very clever - and as a result - equally deceitful as Blair.

So they will be demanding cuts and bans (as usual), not due to genuine moral outrage, but due to phoney logic and snappy sound bites.

I`m sure that as we speak the new head of Mediawatch will be studying Labour`s smooth approach in introducing laws in the pornography area...

After all, PR is little more than skilled lying. So I think there will be plenty to come now...

phantom    [25997.   Posted 29-Sep-2009 Tue 11:27] View Near Messages
dano {259969}

Seems you`ve exposed some of the essence of our new Mediawatch supremo.
I`d say that was a very `political` answer.
After all, she hasn`t so much answered your question as having `dealt with it`.

In short, this seems to be a much more mediasavvy person.
I`d suspect she`s been a assistant spin doctor of some sorts somewhere and has some background in PR.

For regular people don`t really speak like that. In that respect at least, Beyer was a regular guy, insofar as he didn`t mince his words in order to disguise his intention.

Going to be interesting to watch Mediawatch now dealing in duplicitous `newspeak` when dealing with the press and the public.

As it stands, they`re behind the times as usual. Just as the public patience for spin has reached breaking point Mediawatch are embracing it.
Ah well....

phantom    [25994.   Posted 28-Sep-2009 Mon 16:26] View Near Messages
dano [25991]

`Apparently media trade unions are planning to protest and some are calling on their members not to work on the programme in an attempt to stop the broadcast.`

My old history teacher always used to say that nothing is new. History is always a repeat of a former version of itself.

Yet here the parallels are quite stunning. Some 25 years ago or so, the printing unions at The Sun/News of the World refused to print a paper with a picture which portrayed Scargill doing a quasi Nazi salute.

As it was they thereby inspired their own destruction as Rupert Murdoch decided to get rid of them altogether, if they thought they could tell him what to put in his newspaper.

But it was a clear case of the production unions feeling themselves entitled to veto editorial decisions on content.

It strains credulity to find that in 2009 there are unions at the BBC who think themselves entitled to attempt the same.
For in trying to boycott Nick Griffin they are doing precisely that.

No doubt they`d insist they were doing so for all the right reasons. But essentially they`re just refusing to grant someone they don`t agree with a hearing.

It`s the old "I`m not against freedom of speech, BUT..." argument.

Personally I just think they ought to grow up and realise that there are some nasty people out there who are entitled to speak, just as they are.

Frankly, I find Harriet Harman as hideous as I do Nick Griffin.
Thus, as long as the unions in question aren`t intending to silence Harman they`ll just be a bunch of self serving hypocrites.

I say let the man speak. Let him make an utter fool of himself, rather than turning him into a political martyr.

After all, Gordon Brown is not being censored. And he`s not passing up a single opportunity to make a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth.

phantom    [25975.   Posted 24-Sep-2009 Thu 16:51] View Near Messages
Possibly a little unfair, Sergio, as we haven`t even heard from her yet.
But then it is heard to defend the professionally prejudiced against prejudice...

I think however there are perfectly well established champions of intolerance without our needing to resort to pointing at people whose opinions we`ve not yet heard.

Every Home Secretary for the past 15 years would spring to mind. Anne Widdecombe. Wannabe liberal Simon `the straight choice` Hughes. Keith Vaz. Martin Salter. Tony `WMD` Blair. Gordon `Moral Compass` Brown. Vera Baird, Maria Eagle, Dianne Abbott. And of course, the UK`s current queen of hate, Harriet Harman.

With choices like that, I don`t think we need yet paint Hitler moustaches on pictures of people who haven`t even aggrieved us yet...

phantom    [25972.   Posted 24-Sep-2009 Thu 05:43] View Near Messages
re: Better Standards in Soundbiting...

"She will ensure that mediawatch-uk maintains its reputation for principled protest, informed comment and reliable research."

Informed Comment ? Reliable research?
Erm, if there are two things which Mediawatch commentary has so far definitely been utterly devoid of its, well, informed comment and reliable research. But there you go....

"Vivienne Pattison said mediawatch-uk performs a vital role in creating good media values and seeking to protect the young and vulnerable from offensive and harmful material."

Ah, didn`t I just mention our mutual friend, the `vulnerable` person, recently? Here he is again being assured protection.

And as for `offensive and harmful material`. Well, we know what offensive material is (i.e. anything they don`t like). But what precisely is harmful material? (anything they don`t like, perchance?)

Some will never learn.
It`s disheartening though to see that someone so young could be that backward as to take up the succession of Mr Beyer. After all, Mr Beyer looked the right age to be an apostle of Mrs Whitehouse.
Whereas Ms Pattinson looks as though she`s born after the invention of the steam engine.

That said, her association with Mediawatch tells me she`ll be a regular church goer and won`t possess and Eminem albums. Call me psychic if you will...

phantom    [25958.   Posted 21-Sep-2009 Mon 09:10] View Near Messages
DarkAngel5 [25957]

The beauty of the pro-censorship argument is that it is never supposed to affect you. But far more some hypothetical, `vulnerable mind`.

Given that logic, advertisements for sellotape or spacehoppers might be dangerous. After all, who`s to know what might spark off a `vulnerable mind`.

Thus they can make it suit any argument and use it to back up even the most ludicrous demand.

It`s a serpent swallowing its own tail, a never ending, self-perpetuating cycle, a proposition impossible to disprove, - a quasi religion.

Some believe in God. But it appears many more believe in the existence of the `vulnerable mind`.

phantom    [25956.   Posted 20-Sep-2009 Sun 15:14] View Near Messages
DoodleBug {25955}

"The Government has made clear to the BBFC that, once the process of re-enacting the VRA is complete, all video classification certificates issued by the BBFC since 1984 will be valid, and the legal consequences of non-compliance with the classification regime will be re-instated and enforced as vigorously as previously. Any video recording containing an unclassified video work which has been released in the interim period will need to be withdrawn from sale once the new Act is in force, unless the work can claim exemption."

Interesting lingual point here.
"the classification regime will be re-instated"

Actually, it won`t be `re-instated` at all. For that it would have to have been `instated` in the first place. Which it wasn`t.

But then the BBFC have never been good on matters of detail....

phantom    [25951.   Posted 18-Sep-2009 Fri 12:17] View Near Messages
MichaelG [25950]

Good to see that at time when the budget deficit is running at £16.1 billion for one month, unemployment figures are rising and the war in Afghanistan is going far from well our Labour government have got their priorities right.

After all, no one cares about money, jobs or the lives of our servicemen.

What we want is something done about the scourge of taxdeductable corporate visits to strip clubs!

Ye gods....

phantom    [25947.   Posted 17-Sep-2009 Thu 04:28] View Near Messages
IanG [25944]

How about `Hook` (Dustin Hofman, Robin Williams)
If I remember rightly a grown up Peter Pan`s kids are abducted by Captn
Hook. I`m sure there will have been some restraint of children in that. And it`s another kids movie.

In the Wizard of Oz, does the girl ever get restrained? i.e. Flying Monkeys.

I`m certain there must be no end of movies with kids restrained or tied up.
But I simply can`t think of any specifics.

In Mark Twain`s Huck Finn tale doesn`t he get taken to a cave by some villain?

In fact I`d suggest even the Milky Bar Kid did some lassoing and tying up of `bad kids` in adverts of days gone by.

phantom    [25943.   Posted 16-Sep-2009 Wed 06:00] View Near Messages
re: Showing Restraint...

Again it appears we`re on a slippery slope.
Well, let`s put our heads together.

Films with restrained kids in them.
Well, the picture illustrating the article already suggests

Citty Chitty Bang Bang.

at first thought I would add

The Adams Family Values
Home Alone

Don`t know what they`d be rated by the BBFC, but I doubt it would be very high.

phantom    [25933.   Posted 13-Sep-2009 Sun 09:43] View Near Messages
IanG {25932}

I`m not sure whether that last post was quite fair.

There are myriad reasons why someone may plead guilty, albeit that they feel they have done nothing wrong.

I understand the philosophical point that all accusations should be challenged, but people need to live in the real world.
The real world contains poisonous tabloids, judgemental neighbours, vigilantes and dependants.

Matters such as family, responsibilities, career or even health may well supersede the desire to be found innocent by some court in whose judgement was has no faith at all.

In essence we need to remember that by and large those found wanting under the DPA - and yes, the OPA too - are victims of an oppressive, unjust system.

How every individual deals with such oppression is for them to decide. But I think it is hardly something we can fairly criticise.
Not everyone is in a position to stand up and shout `I`m Spartacus!`

I think we should refrain from blaming the victims of oppression, but instead lay the blame fairly and squarely with the oppressors.

phantom    [25926.   Posted 12-Sep-2009 Sat 07:51] View Near Messages
Harvey {25916}

`If the barring was based only on "hard" intelligence - convictions for a relevant offence - it would not have barred Ian Huntley from getting his job as a school caretaker.
THE WHOLE POINT of the Bichard recommendations was to broaden the rules to include allegations and suspicions.
The vetting and barring scheme is now being portrayed as a disproportionate measure or an unwarranted intrusion, but it is EXACTLY what was being demanded in the aftermath of the Soham murder case. It`s conventional to blame the politicians, but on this issue at least they have acted to do precisely what was asked for.`

Well, you seem to read into my post that I`m somehow at odds with our politicos but would wholeheartedly subscribe to the findings of the report into the Soham murders.

Frankly, I feel the authors of that report may go take a running jump. Issuing a report by which you draw conclusions from one individual case, without any consideration of the wider world, would usually be considered harebrained.

As if to prove my very point yesterday a spokesman for the head teachers association pointed out the very problem on the BBC; namely that malicious allegations now suddenly represent some sort of truth.

People may be barred from professions without there being any evidence whatever - and without even being told why they are being barred!

The curtain twitcher at number nine ruining your life irreparably now becomes a real possibility.

We`ve seen the introduction of thought crime. We`ve seen the introduction of law which bans opinion. Now we`re seeing measures come to fruition by which rumour, gossip and slander will be taken as proof.

So please, Harvey, for all I care, Bichard may go live on Mars. The idea that - if only we follow enough report recommendations and take the measures suggested - we can prevent all crime is ludicrous.

Sure, as a society we should try our best to prevent crime.

But does this look right to you?

phantom    [25915.   Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 04:03] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm

Yes, interesting how were being railroaded into a society many once would have deemed a nightmare in order `to protect the children`.

What is interesting in the BBC link above is the use of the words `soft intelligence`.

I think we`re back to the case of even where there is hear say and rumour, or a previous allegation - you must be thus barred from being in contact with children.
I think many a teacher who`s faced malicious allegations by spiteful pupils might have something to say about that.

But there you go, rumour and hearsay or suspicion are perfectly sufficient to damn someone, unless of course it`s a matter of MP`s expenses....

phantom    [25911.   Posted 10-Sep-2009 Thu 18:52] View Near Messages
DoodleBug {259012}

"One cut was made to sight of man gripping woman`s throat, thereby potentially restricting her breathing, in line with the Video Recordings Act 1984 and BBFC policy and Guidelines."

"Yet another one cut using a non-existent law !"

Not just the use of a non existent statute, Doodle.
Also a very interesting use of the word `potentially`.
Many things could `potentially` be something.

Clearly the use of the word `potentially` indicates an element of doubt
on behalf of the censors themselves. It tells us everything about them one needs to know.

If in doubt, censor. If suspected, guilty.

phantom    [25888.   Posted 4-Sep-2009 Fri 07:40] View Near Messages
Well, it`s been a interesting time since I last wrote here.
I still haven`t really got over the fact that the VRA was illegally enforced and people were illegally fined and imprisoned for a quarter of a century.

But I think you`ll find the link I posted late last night regarding the nude guy on the plinth quite interesting if you read the fine print.

`Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it is not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales. It becomes an offence if it can be proved the person stripped off with the intention to cause distress, alarm or outrage.`

Who here believes that?

Is there anyone who believes that, should you wish to go shopping naked at Tesco`s that you`ll not be arrested?

Or is it not much more likely that that one simply didn`t want to arrest a guy who was part of an `artwork` (although it`s a stretch to call Gormley `art`) because they knew it would draw international attention?

Britain still banks heavily abroad on its standing as a open minded, tolerant, liberal democracy. Foreigners are often taken aback when they hear greater details of UK censorship and authoritarianism. We`re traditionally seen as the home of pop culture. Vibrant, exciting, inventive, creative and permissive. What is generally not understood overseas is the odds this highly prized UK cultural export faces with the puritan, all-forbidding stance of the nation`s moralist elements.

We have really not moved on that much from the day`s when people complained about the length of the Beatles` hair. True, the boundaries are different ones. But it is the same category of people bemoaning all that is new.

The thing is, Britain does not advertise this part of its culture abroad. The rest of the world does not know we have a BBFC and a shed load of other unaccountable quangos set up to police our morals.
No one knows of Mary Whitehouse beyond the confines of UK borders.

They see us as the nation which gave them the Beatles, James Bond, the Rolling Stones, Monty Python, Punk, Pink Floyd and Eddie Izzard.

Britain hides its hideous, stuffy underbelly away. Just as the French don`t like showing us the banlieue and the Americans hardly ever reveal their true blue collar heart, so the Brits like to be seen as liberal torch bearers on the international scene. After all, who could forget that cringe worthy scene of Cherie Blair singing a Beatles song?

Why was that? Ask yourself, what that symbolised. An international setting and the prime minister`s wife reminds the world of Britain`s standing as a cultural, liberal spearhead.

It is a prize Britain is unwilling to surrender on the international stage. However, at home it is a different issue. Here one has never cherished it much. It has always been seen as a shameful aspect of youthful excess and the depravity of the lower orders.

After all, are the numbers of politicians who would speak against the lyrics of rap music any smaller today than those who would once have condemned the Beatles?

We need to face the fact that Britain lives as charade. We pretend, for the purposes of our international standing, to be something which at home we openly denounce.

Thus if you really would try being nude in public without the intention of offending anyone, you would be at once arrested and would subsequently have the book thrown at you.
Unless, of course you are in a setting which might draw international attention. If that`s the case then – Yeah, baby! It`s our bag, man!

phantom    [25883.   Posted 3-Sep-2009 Thu 18:54] View Near Messages
How to split hairs, the British way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8235959.stm

phantom    [25852.   Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 18:36] View Near Messages
Regs VRA:

Got to finally see a BBC take on this today. On BBC News Channel, roughly seven o`clock. Of course it was viewed from the child protection angle. Nothing new there. I guess what was to be expected.

Children might be able to get their hands on horror movies like `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre` it was suggested. The fact that adults might be able to be sold films banned for adult consumption, got no mention at all.
As said, most likely that was to be expected.

But then my eyes goggled. They brought on a guest to interview. A spokesman for Mediawatch! Yes, they`re still alive and kicking.
This man was then permitted to present his own soliloquy on the failings of the VRA and the floods of filth and depravity.

The interview was as in-depth as simply asking him what he thought, before allowing him to go on a verbal bender.
Of course there was no opposing opinion, no balance, no nothing.
Simply a BBC angle on failed child protection, followed by the Mediawatch pulpit speech.

Frankly, the BBC is about as unbiased on this as Fox News is when talking about US politics.

phantom    [25851.   Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 18:24] View Near Messages
ftmsafc {25850}
`Dano, the women has a fuckin point mind in this day and age.`

Sorry? Are you saying the fruit is really pornographic?

phantom    [25838.   Posted 24-Aug-2009 Mon 16:34] View Near Messages
emark {25837}

Un-fucking-believable!

So the law was not in force, but the government`s legal advice is that all convictions stand? How so?
Convictions for what law? Whatever happened to `no punishment without law`?
If it wasn`t law, it wasn`t law. Period.

Once again, we see that mythical `legal advice` turn up to conveniently provide an answer suitable to government. This being the legal advice they never see fit to reveal. I wonder why that is...

Clearly anyone arrested, prosecuted and subsequently fined or imprisoned under this law now must have their penalty revoked.

Ignorance is no defence.
Well, that works both ways. If a defendant claims not to have known a law was in place, it is no defence.
Well, if the government thought it had a law in place, that is precisely the same. Believing something to be lawful or otherwise is not enough. Being lawful is what matters.

It seems to me they now intend to bluff it out. The emperor is wearing clothes and that`s that.

What will be interesting to see is whether the bullies currently ensconced in government will seek to re-enact it with a few tweaks.

More to the point. I`ve been watching the BBC news channel for some time and there was no word of this. Not a single word. And that during a very, very quiet news day. Go figure....

phantom    [25783.   Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 12:33] View Near Messages
sergio [25781. Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 10:16]
"Cuts were required to remove extensive sections of scenes featuring abusive or dangerous acts (asphyxia, gagging during fellatio, slapping and fish hooking) in accordance with BBFC policy, Guidelines and the Video Recordings Act 1984. A further cut was required to remove urination during masturbation, in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959."

Did I miss something? Where in the OPA does it say that `urination during masturbation` is banned?
Gagging during fellatio is banned in BBFC approved material?
Is it me, or is that somewhat odd, given that a huge amount of porn by now features the practice of `deepthroating` which almost inevitably features some gagging, chocking.

Asphyxia and fish hooking are very marginal practices. Then again I can`t see people doing it `because they saw it in a video`. I have seen it - and believe me folks - I have no intention. Ever. Once again, I thus fail to see the corrupting effect. They might as well ban the sight of medical operations on that logic.

And as for slapping. Slapping what? I assume it`s not spanking. Face slapping per chance? I remember a classic eighties music video in which characters face slapped each other to the beat of the music.
Why is it different in porn? Given that the BBFC these days will pass some mild BDSM on R18 I struggle to see why people should not be slapping each other - if they can whip one another with impunity.

Every time I hear about the reason for which these clip board holders cut stuff I just can`t help but wonder what has happened to the power of human reason.

If banning asphyxia has anything to do with the Longhurst case, dare I ask if the sight of springs might be prohibited also, given to what happened to Felipe Massa recently?

phantom    [25775.   Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 06:48] View Near Messages
MichaelG [25774]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204359/In-week-Harriet-Harman-takes-charge-feminist-initiative.html

Call me fixated if you will.
But ever since the DPA I am convinced that Labour have it in for sado masochists out there. That sexual fetish seems to be the new government defined abomination.

It is in that light that Harman`s latest idea of indoctrinating kids against domestic violence might prove very telling.

"The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in `educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships`."

I`m sorry but think about it for a moment or two. Do boys really need to be told that beating up girls might be a bad idea? More so do girls really require being taught not to choose boyfriends who kick the crap out of them?

Wouldn`t one think that abusive, violent relationships come about due to a multitude of complicated psychological factors? Teaching them about not choosing such battery is pointless, as it is not a conscious decision anyone takes, surely? (i.e. which girl really thinks: when I grow up I want to be a battered wife.)

However, let`s look at it through the prism of the people who declared `this sort of material is abhorrent and has no place in our society.`

Is this really meant as a policy to prevent violent battery in the home? If so, how? Or is this simply a plan by a few obsessive prudes in government to instigate a scheme by which children are taught that when grown up they should not enter into `certain relationships`.

After all, the quote speaks of:
...`educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships`...

Now true, perhaps I`m reading too much into this. But I think there would be gay groups who would be screaming murder if a scheme were introduced teaching kids that healthy relationships are between a man and a woman.
Thus, it is perhaps fair to wonder whether here there might be another agenda at work.

After all, I think the spectacle of the DPA`s progress from conception into law has caused many to believe - myself included - that the BDSM lot were being specifically targeted, due the personal dislikes from up on high.

I merely ask, if that was s, then why would it change now?

As the declared aim, namely preventing children from growing up into people who become wife beaters or battered wives, seems so utterly preposterous, is it really too much to think there might be another agenda here.

After all, the declared aim of the DPA was - at first - to protect the protagonists, then - later - to protect society at large.
Yet neither seemed to hold up to scrutiny, leading one to think it was driving purely by prejudice toward a sexual minority.

Given that we now pretty well know that this sexual prejudice exists in the government ranks we might wish to consider whether the lies about the reasons for the DPA were perhaps not the only ones they were telling to disguise their true feelings on this subject.

After all, this policy definitely has a whiff about it.

phantom    [25767.   Posted 3-Aug-2009 Mon 06:25] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181499.stm

Another reminder to those who believe the LibDems to be liberal at heart.
So here is a LibDem frontbencher (most likely a feminist in the Harman mould) declaring war on photoshop.
What for - to protect the children. How sweet.
But notice how she also wants its use flagged up for adults.

Could it be that it is her underlying hatred of good looking bikini clad beauties in adverts? Surely not...

phantom    [25762.   Posted 30-Jul-2009 Thu 12:41] View Near Messages
Interesting news on the right-to-die front.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8177343.stm

`Why post this hear?` I hear you all ask.
Well, just look at some of the things the law lords said.

Seems they thought that law which was ambiguous, vague and unclear wasn`t really up to the job.

Might it now be more clear what I`m getting to?

Does this argument sound familiar?
"Ms Purdy said she would like to see the policy distinguish between "what is acceptable and what isn`t" so people in situations like hers could make decisions about what to do."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8177246.stm

"In 2008, the High Court ruled that the current guidelines were adequate and did not require clarification, prompting Ms Purdy to take her case to the House of Lords.

Her legal team argued that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had acted illegally by not providing guidance on how decisions over prosecutions are made."

"The Law Lords agreed the law was not as clear and precise as it should be.

They said the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must prepare an "offence-specific policy" identifying facts and circumstances which he would take into account when deciding whether or not to prosecute in cases like Debbie Purdy`s."

You could pretty much cut and paste this into the DPA context and it would make perfect sense.

Not that this would ever happen. After all, just ask the Spanner folks...

phantom    [25761.   Posted 30-Jul-2009 Thu 12:32] View Near Messages
Thought there would be a piece on Cameron`s apology for using the T-word today. The man finally says something mildly entertaining and then immediately starts apologising for it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8176194.stm

phantom    [25758.   Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 12:28] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25754}

Well, I`m not sure if the police wearing Union Flags is really that ok.
We`re told it is a statement in support of our troops. Sounds ok.

But isn`t there an immediate conflict of interest, if they have to police an anti-war demonstration?
Clearly it`s unwise to allow the police to wear any additional signs, as it inevitably is going to place them in a position where their neutrality is compromised.
I would say they wear uniforms for a reason. If they`re allowed to customise them they`re hardly uniform, which sort of defeats the object.

I find it somewhat ironic that - at a time when police have been found not to be wearing their proper insignia and identification numbers at demonstrations - that we should have other officers complaining about being denied the wearing of additional badges.

phantom    [25744.   Posted 27-Jul-2009 Mon 16:46] View Near Messages
sergio [25743]

No, it isn`t.

phantom    [25742.   Posted 27-Jul-2009 Mon 11:08] View Near Messages
IanG    {25741}    

I`m sorry, but I do not see where my argument is wanting.
Not because I do not wish to see it, but because I just cannot see how any of what you just said directly contradicts my position.

Also, the `bogus bullshit` you refer to with religion is actually more strongly established on the continent than it is here in the UK.

Frankly, I`m really not sure if people are really grasping what I`m trying to explain.

There simply is no glut of pornography on the continent, whereby it is hawked at every possible commercial outlet.
This idea championed again and again that porn is merely viewed as a commodity over there, just like corn flakes or light bulbs, and that can be bought just about anywhere with no social prejudice or embarrassment is just not true.

Now sure, in an ideal world there would be no social difficulties regarding sexuality and pornography.
But we cannot discount the last 3,000 years of our societal development. The Europeans still have very much the same feelings toward sex and porn they always had; namely that it`s not something to talk about with your mother. ;)

Porn is legal. Much more so than over here. But the societies and cultures haven`t really changed.

The above is a powerful argument in favour of porn. I don`t really understand how people can not see that.

It demonstrates quite clearly that the introduction of liberal ideas into law and permissiveness on pornography have not really led to any significant shift in societal values.

The Dutch are perhaps the classic example, whereby their laws are permissive, but their society is actually quite conservative in its values.

However, this argument is often dispelled by those claiming that porn is everywhere in Europe, that people are buying it with their chips and that TV pumps out hardcore 24/7 with no problems at all.

To many here in the UK, that evokes a nightmare. This image creates an unholy union between those who are bent on censorship due to their moralistic prejudices - and a much broader base of people who are afraid of potential harm to their children.
Meanwhile it all feeds on their not really having any knowledge of contemporary Europe at all and thus being prone to believe whatever comes their way.

The truth however is as I have already described. European societies have proved very resilient toward pornography. By and large you can mail order it, or buy it in sex shops or most video stores. But generally it isn`t to be found in the bargain bucket of your local supermarket.

The same resistance toward porn in public exists over there as it does just about anywhere.

So, viewed from that perspective the pro-censorship lobby are disarmed. Their claims of corrupted societies swamped by porn, where mothers queue at the till in the Coop with their small children next to racks and racks of bestiality porn, are generally nonsense.

Societal values have remained in place. Myriad shop owners choose not to stock porn, for personal or religious reasons, or because they feel their customers might object.

Porn is available to those who wish to purchase it. Yet it is not ubiquitous.
This is the reality of Europe today.

Why my saying this is supposedly controversial I do not know.

People here know I am thoroughly opposed against censorship. My pointing out that across the water there is no porn nirvana to be found seems perfectly reasonable to me.

phantom    [25740.   Posted 27-Jul-2009 Mon 06:33] View Near Messages
sergio [25739]

The fear of porn by those who are pro-censorship is that it has an effect of society at large.
That it promotes a savage streak, which may lead individuals to debauchery, even rape and societies to excess. That it corrupts and depraves.

All this is of course nonsense, but it connects with various other common interests, not least those concerned with child welfare.
After all, we`ve all heard the wailing cry `think about the children!`.

Thus if people paint an image whereby Europeans live in a world in which porn is everywhere is does not serve as an example of their being a better, more relaxed world which is at ease with pornography.

It instead confirms their feeling that liberalisation will lead to Sodom and Gomorra. And it awakens feelings of fear among the child lobby.
They will thus see themselves confirmed in their views in the very things you are saying.

Now, if Europe were so, then it couldn`t be helped. But the truth is that the utter acceptance and ubiquity of porn on the continent is largely just wishful thinking on the part of the anti-censorship lobby who wish there to be a place where people don`t have `a problem`.

Truth be told, people are not entirely at ease with porn over there. It is not something entirely acceptable.

Rather than a bad thing, that is actually something to be welcomed by the anti-censorship lobby.
Because it proves that the fears expressed by the pro-censorship people are unfounded.

Society maintains its values in the face of porn. It does not `change` because of it.
Just as since the beginning of time, people have their problems and hang ups with the sexual world, this doesn`t change because they can now watch gang bangs.

The very fact that the Europeans with porn have remained a quite formal people with strong societal structures – and a very strong sense of family – seems to suggest that pornography holds no power over societies at all. It is a commodity which is sold. But it remains an awkward commodity and people wish not to have it in their face all the time.

So all I`m asking for is a reality check. Claims that you can go buy hardcore with your milk are generally not borne out on the continent.
True, there will be places where you can. But they are few and far between when compared to the whole.

This is something which should be welcomed by the anti-censorship lobby. It proves that the claims by the other side, that pornography will corrupt on a grand scale, rendering us all amoral libertines, are just nonsense.

People`s old, ingrained cultural and moral values remain intact. They may indeed accept the legality of porn and from time to time consume it themselves, but they`ll still keep their magazines under their mattress, because in the grand scheme of things they still believe porn to be `a bit dirty`.

phantom    [25738.   Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 13:53] View Near Messages
Shaun {25737}

Nobody is claiming that you`re imagining things.
But the idea of buying your hardcore porn with your morning paper is simply an overstatement.

I`m sure it may be possible.
But pick any town at random, let`s say - in Bavaria.

Now please take me to the place you can do that there, where you can get your eggs alongside your hardcore.
Simply put that equates to the majority of places.

If not Bavaria, let`s try anywhere in Greece - or Poland.
Or for a real surprise let`s try Holland. But not in the city centres, but in some small rural town somewhere out in the sticks.
I think you`ll suddenly find the Dutch to be socially quite conservative.

When I mentioned the absence of hard porn on the telly Shaun it was to make the point that it was not deemed `that normal` over there after all.

Liberalism is an intellectual insight, not a cultural driver.
People do not suddenly abandon their age old ways, because they can get porn.
So some of the natural reserve towards the subject remains.
This can really be observed throughout Europe.

Again, I feel the claim that porn is all pervading and available just about everywhere is just not backed by reality.
It`s true, people have much fewer hangups about it, not least as they are not confirmed by the government in any hangups they may have.

But the vast majority will still feel ill at ease to be confronted by matters sexual in front of their children, parents or peers.

In that regard Europeans are not so greatly different from us, or from previous of generations of theirs who lived under such prohibitions.
On the whole that is a good thing. It shows that porn has virtually no influence. Life goes on, societies do not drastically change because porn becomes available.

Just as Britain has not changed to any great effect, just because people can now access internet porn.

The great threats the pro-censorship lobby go on about simply do not exist.

But it is thus also important that the anti-censorship lobby avoids creating their own tale of massive changes to come, if only the stuff were legalised.

It is true, that Britain suffers from deep sexual repression. It is true that the continentals are much more relaxed about things than we are.

But it`s just not the case that you`ll find porn wherever you go. Social etiquette is something still largely prized in Europe. If you`d get onto public transport with a hardcore mag, someone would ask you to put it away.

phantom    [25736.   Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 07:31] View Near Messages
sergio [25734. Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 00:13]
`Let`s talk numbers.
If porn was 50% available on `the continent` then would it be `ubiquitous`?.... Is alcohol `ubiquitous`?`

I think by suggesting I put a precise number on things you are challenging me to provide something which is impossible.

Alcohol possibly is ubiquitous in my view. Yet we are in the area of opinion of gradation here.
If alcohol is not ubiquitous, then it is much, much closer to ubiquity in Europe than porn. Of that I am sure. So too is tobacco, albeit that the latter is changing.

Now it is true that porn will have been seen by a great percentage of the population at some point, here as there.
that is however not the same thing as stating that you`re hawked hardcore DVDs at every motorway service station.

Porn is available. It is much more demystified over there. No-one believes it possesses any `dark powers`, as apparently they do over here.

But it is not something you buy with your corn flakes in Europe at the supermarket. Not every kiosk, tobacconist or newsagent has got a wall full of porn.

The above is hardly of great importance. Porn is legal and available in Europe.
But the reason I raised the point is simply because it does the anti-censorship cause no favours over here to suggest that in Europe, due to liberalisation, porn is now everywhere.

Firstly, it is simply not true. Secondly, it plays into the hands of those dark forces who would argue that becoming more liberal will lead to the end of civilisation as we know it.

phantom    [25733.   Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 17:53] View Near Messages
sergio [25731]

Are you one of those `I don`t believe in censorship ... but ...`?`

Ubiquitous means all present, all pervading.
When I say that porn is not ubiquitous on the continent it means just that. You can go to your green grocer and he won`t be selling you porn. When you switch on mainstream terrestrial television, you will not immediately be met with porn.
Porn is available. But it is not ubiquitous, not everywhere, not universal.

As for my possibly being a person who hypocritically claims to be liberal while championing censorial views, I`m not really sure how you arrive at that view.

What I am saying is that creating the impression that porn is everywhere on the continent, that it`s effectively next to the cheese counter, is utterly counter productive. For it plays to the very fears those who oppose liberalisation hold over here.

Their view is that if we allow for greater freedom towards pornography that the flood gates will open. That we will have Sodom and Gomorra.

Yet the truth is that in Europe, where porn is much more liberalised, there is no orgy going on 24/7. Life is normal. There has not been a descent into decadence and depravity, as the likes of Anne Widdecombe and Harriet Harman would have us believe.

Human societies can co-exist with porn and be culturally vibrant places to be.

Pornography is not heroin. Once people get a taste, they will not immediately turn into addicts bent on their next fix. Thus, an entire society does not descend into Bedlam, no matter how much pro-censorship lobby warn us about.

But neither does a liberal society suddenly turn into a world where all previous notions of traditional decency are abandoned.
In 99% of all shops on the continent you will not be able to buy porn.
99% of all TV viewed and broadcast is not porn.

Society is very resilient. It doesn`t change just because their are tits on TV.

So just as I think the pro-censorship lobby talk bollocks, when they issue their warnings and paint their imagery of doom and gloom if any further easing occurs, so do I think that many in the anti-censorship lobby are talking nonsense when they try to make out that in Europe buying a hardcore porn DVD is as normal as buying a sandwich at the supermarket, and can in fact be done simultaneously anywhere on the high street.

The fact is, this view seems divorced from reality. And when people make such claims they unwittingly undermine the credibility of the wider anti-censorship argument.

phantom    [25729.   Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 15:05] View Near Messages
 Shaun    {25728} 

I`m hardly an advocate, either of censorship, nor of such quangos as Ofcom.

However, here is where I have a problem with it being made out that porn is available everywhere in Europe.

We often hear women`s organisations come out with the most preposterous statistics, whereby one in four women in this country is the victim of sexual abuse, etc.

Fact is, all of us immediately roll our eyes in disbelief at such statements. We might not have any specific numbers to hand. But we simply know that such statements are exaggerations.
The cause which such organisations wish to champion is thus damaged by their overstating their case.

I think the anti-censorship camp needs to be careful that it doesn`t fall into the same trap.
Yes, censorship is nonsense. Yes, there is no coherent argument in denying adults the sight of what is adult activity.

But it is simply wrong to make out, as some do, that hardcore pornography is ubiquitous on the continent. It is not.

You may be able to subscribe to adult channels. But if you happen to turn on the French or German equivalent of the BBC you are not met by a broadcast of `Deep Throat`.

Societies over there also have boundaries. They also have notions of public decency.
However, such curbs on what is publicly acceptable are not extended into the private sphere, as in the UK. (i.e. there is no `this has no place in society` argument)

There is an understanding in Europe that for a cultured society it is undesirable to have people shagging in the street. Hardcore pornography is hence not thrust in your face at every turn. Yet it is fully understood that, in the privacy of their own homes, people are to be free to live their lives as they see fit.
Those who seek out porn have no problem at all in finding it, as it does not live a pond life of semi-legality, as it does here.

I just find it important to draw the distinction between ease of access and ubiquity.
Pornography is not available like candy on the continent. You can get it. And people don`t make a fuss about it existing.

If it were utterly ubiquitous then it would strengthen the hand of the naysayers over here who always claim that if you were to permit something, the floodgates would open.

The very fact that the European continent is not drowning in porn proves them wrong. You can go to the supermarket and do your shopping without ever being confronted by hardcore porn.

Society is capable of refraining from viewing sex, even when it is permitted to do so.
Europe is living proof of how wrong the UK censors are.

We ought not give them the false feeling of being right, by confirming that old those `forinners` live in a deluge of porn, which is passed on in free coupons on the back of cereal packets.

Culture and civilisation can flourish in countries in which porn is available. Religious life too can go on undeterred.

Life can go on if the state nanny does not make decisions for you. It doesn`t mean that you suddenly give in to your base urges and consume porn all day. Europe knows porn, so does the US.

But when given the right to make their own decisions many people will decide to refrain.
A legalisation of such material creates only greater liberty, not a addicted nation gorging itself on whatever sexual depictions it can lay its hands on, while buying a pint of milk at the corner shop...

phantom    [25727.   Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 07:57] View Near Messages
 IanG    {25724}  

`Is "protecting the under 18s" necessary? Protecting those under 15 is the norm across most of Europe - and across Europe R18 equivalent material (and beyond) is most certainly allowed to be broadcast without fear of what it CANNOT be PROVEN to `do` to real CHILDREN under 15!`

I would like to – just to be my contrary self – to object to that point.
A lot is made of the greater permissiveness on the continent – by both camps of the censorship debate.

The pro-censorship lobby would have us believe that the continent is infested by greasy, godless foreigners who possess neither morals nor self-control when it comes to matters carnal.

Meanwhile some in the anti-censorship lobby would have us believe that on the continent you can buy hardcore porn next to the yoghurt at your local Coop, that Kindergardners can watch `Debbie does Dallas` on national TV and that everyone is utterly relaxed about sex.

Now I lived on the continent for some time.
Sure, the pro-censorship lobby tend to dress outright xenophobia up as an argument against porn. It is ludicrous that the great cultures of Europe should have been eroded away by the advent of naked people on film.

However, the world described by some who might have us believe that porn is as uncontroversial as sliced bread over there are also really painting an image of cloud cuckoo land.

Lest not forget that Europe is as much a product of religious wars as anything else. The Catholics still are a potent force. The puritan reformed churches also still hold sway over lots of the continent. Finally, the orthodox church has also undergone somewhat of a revival in the east.

Aside from that, the Dutch and the Danes also do not bring up their kids on a diet of porn, as though to prove that `it doesn`t do any harm`.

Now, true I have never been to Denmark. I cannot know if the tales of absolute normality of porn in everyday life are true or not. But, even if they were – which I doubt, Denmark is only one country.

Even the Dutch, always held up as the stalwarts of liberal permissiveness, are actually fairly conservative when it comes to values.

So the lesson to be learned from the rest of Europe is not that you can turn on any TV over there and surf the terrestrial channels for no end of porn. But that society has evolved to accept the existence of a separate, adult world in which things are permitted.

There are still very strong moral, social boundaries towards minors. Who knows, there may be the odd utopian commune of Bohemians here or there, where porn is on telly where family`s kids are playing with their lego in front of it. But I very much doubt it.

The overwhelming majority of people keep things well separate and private.

The European achievement is not to have rendered porn a product like any other, over which nobody raises an eyebrow. Far more it is the realisation of societies entire that sexual fantasy, which is really the essence of porn, is perfectly acceptable to adults, albeit only to adults.

I assure you Europe is no great libertarian utopia where hardcore porn is pumped out of terrestrial channels 24/7. The continentals are a more formal people than the British.

The difference in attitudes to porn is thus not one of indifference toward porn, but of one intellectual insight regarding its role and effect.

phantom    [25721.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 18:37] View Near Messages
Wonderful.
So the DPA had cross party support? Lol.
And this is the first guy charged? Lol.

But at least they got one thing right. Just feast your eyes on this sentence.
`Anyone with sexually violent images could be jailed for up to three years.`

Perfectly correct. They could. `Could` indicating a possibility, yet not a definite one. One might, or one might not. Depending on which way the wind blows that day...

Of course bestiality ain`t mentioned, nor is necrophilia.
I guess in their briefing, the prosecutors were interested in evoking a `violence-against-women` sentiment.

I however have doubts that this will indeed be a case in which `violent extreme porn` features. So far, in the case of the 20 year old, convicted of curiosity and of the more hazy case mentioned by John Ozimek (a Chinese guy selling DVDs) the material in question was bestiality.

As I have pointed out before, bestiality is the only clear cut possession offence in the DPA. The others are as precise as the length of the proverbial piece of string.

I feel the legal controversy will only ever arise, once they try to apply any part of the law beyond bestiality.

Whether this is the case here still remains very much to be seen.

phantom    [25707.   Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 13:55] View Near Messages
Re: Sausage Head Advert Censors...

I see, we have finally regulated Britishness out of existence. Huzzah!

So innuendo is now no longer tolerable?
Dare I suggest that innuendo is about as British as it gets.
I refer to things such as `Carry On` films. Or even James Bond.

Is everything hence forth really to be humourless and tongue-firmly-out-of-cheek?

Please someone remind me again why it was we actually bothered fighting a war back in the forties. I`m beginning to think it was sort of a futile struggle....

I guess next they`ll start locking up people who draw saucy post cards. Oh, but I forgot - they did that already....

phantom    [25705.   Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 06:37] View Near Messages
Dare I ask, did Scottish Womens Aid submit an opinion on the DPA?

I can`t help but suspect they will have done. By now we can tell how well grounded their opinions are.
However for campaigners against the Scottish DPA, this might be valuable ammunition; to show just what complete idiots inhabit the pro camp.

phantom    [25696.   Posted 22-Jul-2009 Wed 04:11] View Near Messages
Re: Global Regulation

Ooh, UnderSecretary Sion Simon is likely to be in trouble.

`...Adults should be allowed to access adult content; children most certainly should not...`

Surely that is a breach of current government doctrine.
Adults permitted to view adult content? As a matter of principle?
I think Harriet Harman will be having a quiet word with him.

phantom    [25685.   Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 04:25] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25683}

Let`s extrapolate.
If a minor anywhere in society may gain access, then absolute ban must be enforced.

May a minor get hold of alcohol in the home?
May a minor get hold of his parent`s viagra or contraception pills?
May a minor get hold of car keys?
May a minor get hold of cigarettes?

Ah well....

I fact you needn`t go as far as `Antichrist`. Christopher Hart`s argument applies to everything. The tv series `Rome` was sold as 18 certificate. I believe so were `The Sopranos`. Both had been on telly previously.
But according to Hart`s thinking neither should ever have been on television, nor should they be allowed to be sold on DVD, lest a child sees them.

Both are clearly two of the best dramas conceived recently. Yet that would not matter as the world, according to Christopher Hart, is to be regulated as though only inhabited by children.

Antichrist may be extreme. I don`t know. I haven`t seen it. Yet according to the world of Christopher Hart I`d never get to chance to form an opinion anyway.

phantom    [25676.   Posted 16-Jul-2009 Thu 05:46] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153251.stm

phantom    [25673.   Posted 12-Jul-2009 Sun 13:01] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8146782.stm

phantom    [25672.   Posted 12-Jul-2009 Sun 07:02] View Near Messages
sergio [25671]

I`m hardly ever surprised at the stupidity of the extreme right,
but did the BNP character actually say that?

You see the other day I heard BBC five live go on about this at length, but when confronted on air, the BNP person said that nobody had proposed `murdering people at sea`, far more towing them back whence they came in lifeboats, but sinking the ships in order to deter ship owners from accepting commissions to transport illegal immigrants.

Now sure, the practicalities of convincing immigrants to tell you which harbour they`d set off at would quickly defeat this idea. As for sure they`d all be struck by amnesia that very moment, just as they`ve learned to lose their passports too.

But if the plan is workable or not, doesn`t really matter. What is significant however is that what the BNP seems to have said doesn`t really seem to be what the media made of it.
If what the BNP spokesman said was true then the plan may be harebrained, but far from what the media was trying to make it out to be.

I can`t stand the BNP as they`re just plain atrocious. However I`m not a big fan of how the establishment appears to be addressing the BNP.

I think the true lunacy of BNP thinking perfectly suffices in making them unelectable. I really don`t think it is necessary to overstate the issue.
But perhaps current political mainstream lunacy is approaching similar levels to that of the BNP, that it finds the need get an edge by over interpreting what the extreme right is up to...

phantom    [25670.   Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 17:45] View Near Messages
Harvey {25669}

`I think the BBC are being slapdash with the detail and the detail is important. It was a different bunch in 1986 and AFIK the pair were convicted under the 1986 Act for publishing written material with the intention of stiring up racial hatred and NOT for incitment to racial hatred.`

Ok, hang on. You`ve lost me here...

There is a 1986 law against `stirring up racial hatred` and a New Labour law against `inciting racial hatred`?

Oh, heavens above! And the difference between these two brilliant pieces of legislative insanity? Let me guess. If law A does not apply, use law B, or vice versa.

I really do despair. Really, I do.

I think it`s beyond doubt that these two Jew hating individuals are each a waste of space. It is hard to feel much sympathy for them. But, essentially their crime is to voice the wrong opinion, one which is currently contrary to approved doctrine.

Something has gone seriously awry in this country.
During the cold war we had a communist party in this country. You were free to join. You were free to distribute pamphlets. All this while while a communist regime was pointing enough nuclear warheads at the country to vapourise us all. There was a basic respect for the principle of freedom, which allowed for this to be so.

Now however, we have a war on terror in which glorifying terrorism (or writing poetry for that matter) is illegal. Odd that glorifying communism was ok for some of the cabinet members in their younger years who`d now outlaw glorifying something of which they disapprove.

But better yet, now we have standards of what is essentially political correctness being enforced upon us with hideous law - be it a new interpretation of a load of Tory bollocks from 1986 or the flying of a more recent legal kite.

As I have already said, to me this looks like a outlawing of holocaust denial via the back door.

It also is a tightening up on existing standards of freedom of expression. The moment you voice anything `abusive or insulting` you`re taking a step closer to jail.

Billy Connelly, Frankie Boyle and Roy Chubby Brown better take note. They are inches away from being outlawed.

I`m sorry, but in my mind`s eye, we`re hitting a serious wall here.

Just recently we`ve had a guy sentenced to one and a half years of supervision and re-education meetings for being curious about an aspect of bizarre adult sexuality.

Now we`ve just had a guy sentenced to four and a half years in jail for not liking Jews and saying as much.

I have at times myself been the man with the wrong face and name in the wrong place, so I`m no friend to prejudice and xenophobia of any kind.

But I`ve always understood that the price of freedom is to let those of an opposing opinion speak. This includes narrow-minded people with little more than hate between their ears.

I loathe from the bottom of my heart people such as Anne Widdecombe. It would never occur to me to think she ought to be forbidden to speak.

Argument and persuasion should be the way we `protect` people from extremism.

Yet it seems these days - especially with this government - argument is being closed down (just look what they allow for debate in the commons!) and instead bans and prohibitions are the preferred norm.

Who needs Perikles or Cicero if you can just ban anyone from making wrong choices?

I really think we are witnesses to something very bad happening here, people.

phantom    [25668.   Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 09:53] View Near Messages
Seems that holocaust denial now has just been made illegal via the back door; by calling it incitement to racial hatred. Some difference.

phantom    [25666.   Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 07:31] View Near Messages
 Harvey    {25663}  
Well, I`ve now been on the website. I`ve also visited that specific link of the Holohoax cartoon.
I`m sorry, I still don`t get it.
So, they don`t like Jews. In fact, they hate them. So what?

`It is not the expressing of offensive opinions which got them convicted. It`s that they were found guilty of doing so with either the intention to stir up racial hatred or that it was likely racial hatred would be stirred up.`

Frankly, I think that`s semantics. We`re once again in the land of intention and thought, rather than deed.
It`s law introduced by the same brilliant minds which invented the DPA, view us all as terrorist suspects and who have lost control of their own police force...

Really, a cursory glance on that site reveals a thoroughly unpleasant mindset, but I`m sorry, I cannot see anything that I would deem an offence. Again, in my view all they`re doing is saying that they can`t stand minorities, Jews in particular.

The holohoax comic may be hateful. But when does hatefulness become incitement to hatred? How long is a piece of string?
In my view these guys have just been done for holding the wrong opinion.

I say this as someone who loathes racism.
But loathe it or not, I see this as grossly unfair.

The sentence is hideously out of proportion for the supposed offence – an offence I see as nigh on risible.

Now sure, I`ve not viewed every page of that site. But the overall impression I`ve gathered is that it`s just a collection of invective and bile. So what? I would never lock anyone up for that.
Why is being insulting now to be illegal?

I think with this law – most of all with this verdict – we`ve taken a giant leap toward no longer being a free society.

phantom    [25661.   Posted 10-Jul-2009 Fri 12:21] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8144366.stm

Very, very worrying.

Now indeed, this article doesn`t reveal all details regarding this cause.
And sure, the five year sentence for one of them seems to reflect their absconding to the US after being found guilty, unlike what has been reported on BBC news on TV.

However, this is really cause for concern.

`The published material included images of murdered Jews alongside cartoons and articles ridiculing ethnic groups.`

I`m sorry, but the above doesn`t sound all too severe to me.
What are `murdered Jews`? Pictures of victims of the holocaust per chance?
Is the context in which they are to be used henceforth to be prescribed by law?
Better yet, what is `ridiculing ethnic groups`? This doesn`t sound like something I think we ought to be sending people to prison for.

`Judge Rodney Grant told the men their material was "abusive and insulting" and had the potential to cause "grave social harm".
He added: "Such offences as these have, by their very nature, the potential to cause grave social harm, particularly in a society such as ours which has, for a number of years now, been multi-racial.`

Now of course I could be wrong. But the above merely sounds like the description of something offensive. After all, the words `abusive and insulting` are quite plain.
The very fact that ridiculing cartoons are mentioned in the BBC`s description is reminiscent of to the global Mohammed cartoons debacle.

Again, I know that the article doesn`t disclose precise details. Yet we can only form opinions on the basis of what we are given. Sure, these people do not seem to be the kind of people I`d want to share any amount of time with. But I really can`t quite comprehend what they are supposed to have done, other than express offensive opinions.

For one, there doesn`t seem to be any indication of any incitement to violence.

This case seems to me a very bad development indeed when it comes to free speech. Again of course it is going to prove very helpful to the politically correct thought police of this country as it features defendants for which it is hard to have much sympathy.

But I have always felt that every person ought to be at liberty to be an arsehole. Apparently now though it`s against the law.

phantom    [25658.   Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 19:04] View Near Messages
IanG {25657}
I don`t really think, Cameron intends to create another regulatory body, Ian.
By the sound of it he doesn`t intend to substitute the old quango with a new one. Thus it means ministerial oversight, which in turn means that the culture committee gets to grill the minister about it.... and that backbenchers start pressuring the minister regarding their pet hates.
As we speak Brazier must be licking his lips, but so too Keith Vaz and Co...

As for the wire tapping. The tabloids are above the law. If anything, they write law, rather than obey it.

But the biscuit was clearly taken by Prescott in his statement. It was all disgust and abhorrence at being tapped by the journos. It was outrageous, we were told, and criminal.
Couldn`t have happened to a nicer man, ey?

It may have escaped Mr Prescott`s attention that he belonged to the most surveillance mad, wire tapping, phone bugging and CCTVing government this country has ever witnessed. But the moment it emerges that someone has been listening to HIS ramblings on the phone, it`s supposedly a disgrace.

Join the club Prezza, your lot have been allowed to check our communications for years now... terrorism, we were told. Security.
Who knows, perhaps the Sun simply wanted to make sure, you weren`t a terrorist. That would make it ok then, wouldn`t it?

Simply put, Ian, newsprint is dying. They`re getting ever more desperate to survive. This is merely the latest demonstration of that very fact.
Personally, I wasn`t that surprised.

phantom    [25655.   Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 07:11] View Near Messages
re: Cameron to Ban TV Censor

Well, one wonders what it is to mean.
I for one would not shed a tear to see Ofcom, the organisation who granted the likes Jonathan Edwards a role in adjudicating content, fall by the wayside.

However, knowing the psyche of UK politicos I somehow doubt that this would mean the end of regulation and censorship.
Now I agree that in principle it is better to see censorship not being farmed out to `independent organisations`, but for there to be real accountability.

However, I can`t help but see Mr Brazier licking his lips in foresight of getting onto whatever committee necessary in order to have a say in this matter.

The question we need to ask ourselves when cheering the demise of the Sauron`s great Ofcom tower is whether what follows in its wake is going to be more or less harsh.

As I have said before, the Tories worry me.
Is Ofcom being abolished to cut costs, or is it being abolished to allow for direct intervention?
i.e. every time the Daily Mail objects to a program, will we see a ministerial edict issuing forth?

Having heard Cameron pontificating on song lyrics I am more than a little concerned regarding what he will be willing to tolerate.
How many here remember Howard`s nonsensical definition of rave music in law, as part of the ban of illegal raves? It`s that sort of thing one has to be worried about.

Ofcom is a media regulation giant. If it is scrapped and regulation is thereafter directly controlled by government on what sort of instincts are the politicians most likely to act?

If right now we are having the half baked feminist ideas of the 1970s stuffed down out gullets, then the Tories tend to reside more in the 1950s with their ideas.
The fact is that neither party really lives in the present, which doesn`t bode well when media is trying to be contemporary.

I fear that politicians who in private might listen to `Christian Rock` may be making judgements about the rights and wrongs of rap music. Westminster may be issuing regulations akin to a `dangerous songs act` to the media, indicating what `standards` it wishes to see implemented.

In that environment I can`t see the UK version of Howard Stern emerging anytime soon... nor could I see the likes of Michael Jackson`s video `Thriller` getting too much air time were it to be new...

phantom    [25652.   Posted 7-Jul-2009 Tue 11:59] View Near Messages
IanG [25651]

`Fascism is probably best described as pure unadulterated hate and intolerance given the force of law by the ignorant, beligerent and fearful majority.`

Actually, no.
Fascism is much closer to mainstream politics than many people like to think.
Fascism these days tends to be wrongly identified with racism, ideas of racial supremacy and gassing of Jews, etc.

Whereas at its core fascism is about law and order.
We need only look at where the word originates from. The fasces is the bundle of scourging rods holding in their midst an axe. It was an ancient Roman symbol of the power of the state, of law and order.

This symbol can be found emblazoned on the walls of the US congress.

Fascism is thus when the state erodes all freedoms in the name of law and order, in the name of security.

Everything is made subservient to the state and any challenge to the state is effectively deemed a challenge to security. Thus tyranny is always inevitable with fascist thinking. Democracy depends on the ability to challenge the order, to hold it to account. Fascism is based on maintaining the order of things at all costs.

It is easy to dismiss fascism as the doctrine of `the extreme right`. But actually it is not that far removed from mainstream centre right thinking.

I think one would also need to be blind not to see the obvious pointers toward our current government.

Expressions like `if only one life is saved` and `if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear` are classic fascist arguments.

We must however always beware not to see the excesses of past fascism (such as pogroms, etc) as fascism per se. Else we`ll fail to spot it when it invariably rears its head in another form.

Clearly the 9/11 reaction has seen a startling revival of fascist ideas. We`ve even seen the torture of inmates `for the common good` (i.e. `to help protect the public`).

Albeit that the most publicised cases are American, Britain has perhaps been worst affected by this security backlash.

Of all European countries it today is perhaps the one most closely threatened by fascism.
Its population is kept in constant fear of terrorists, paedophiles, hoodies and myriad other `threats` in a clear attempt to bring the people to the point of being willing to sacrifice their freedoms in exchange for security.

Should this be achieved Britain will be a fascist state.

phantom    [25646.   Posted 6-Jul-2009 Mon 07:53] View Near Messages
Shaun [25644]

`As for UK sites, if they have only R18 standard material, then they are perfectly legal....`

Actual legality extends far beyond R18.
There are many UK sites out there producing material which would never achieve an R18 certificate, yet which are perfectly legal.

This just shows how risible the arrangements with the BBFC quango are.

Many things which are as such not illegal are just banned arbitrarily by them.

Just look at the latest article about their cuts on this very site.

`unsafe usage of an electrical stimulation device`

What is that supposed to mean? What is unsafe? Who adjudicates that? Please note, we are not talking about something that would `corrupt and deprave` as the phrase has it, but something which someone with a clip board has deemed an `unsafe practice`.

However, there is nothing to say that publication of this `unsafe practice` is actually illegal. In fact, I`d hazard a guess that it is not.

So there is no correlation between illegality per se and R18. Legality regarding R18 only applies to DVD and video sales, due to frankly silly distribution laws designed to maintain the licensing of sex shops.

As a measure of legality of the material per se R18 however is a purely artificial standard of virtually no meaning.

Most UK fetish would be in breach of R18 to some extent. Yet this is of no consequence as long as their material remains within the bounds of legality laid down by the OPA.

So please, the mistake is often made claiming that R18 is the only legal pornography in the UK. That is not so. It really just applies to video distribution in form of tangible media.
The key aspect of legal concern to R18 is the distribution, not the material.

But as for how the BBFC arrives at its R18 cuts. Well, that is utterly arbitrary and completely divorced from the law.

phantom    [25640.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 11:35] View Near Messages
emark {25630}

I have to disagree to an extent here.
Now sure, stopping bullying is not censorship. I`d agree on that.

However, this is far from being purely a policy to stamp out bullying.
People get bullied for myriad reasons. For being called Balls for example... ;)

But here Balls is specifically singling out homosexual bullying. Why?
To say that this is not done as part of this love-in with the gay vote Labour is so desperate to hold on to seems foolhardy to me.

Now, I have no doubt that the Tories still at heart have profound private prejudices against gays. But I don`t think they would act on them. Moving against gays is seen as an anachronism these days. They know that clause 28 was a disaster and acted as a Labour recruiting sergeant.

But why would Balls not simply have an anti-bullying policy? Why would he think anti-gay-bullying particularly worthy of public mention?
Clearly there is a political agenda here.

Aside from that the notion of `insults based on sexuality` being banned seems indeed to hint at something like censorship. `Insults` are not necessarily bullying. Insults may be used in a quarrel. Insults may even be used in playful banter.
Is this to be banned?

Note how Balls speaks of such insults being `the forerunner to bullying`. So it`s not bullying per se he`s attacking but a culture in which homophobic comments outside of bullying set a tone.
So once again we`er back to the concept of something supposedly having no place in civilised society.... because they happen to disapprove of it - or wish to be seen to be disapproving.

Now I have always believed that homophobic attitudes of most men are actually quite natural. That is not to say they should act on them. But I think just about all heterosexual men feel it a slight to be thought of as gay.

The male of the species especially derives a lot of pride and self-worth from his physical and sexual prowess. To call him gay thus is at a par with calling him cowardly or perhaps the equivalent of calling a woman ugly.

Most men will therefore always see `gay` as an insult. That is not necessarily something to do with bullying. I would say it has its source at such a basic level that artificial rules on the subject are useless and will perhaps only serve to make the insult more potent.

Alike with prostitution, Labour`s policies seem to be targeting principles which are as old as mankind. Was is not the case that Caesar was always accused of having a gay dalliance? His soldiers are said even to have sung dirty songs about him on campaign. Caesar is not said to have stopped them. Which is more than could be said for Mr Balls.

On the other hand, this attempt of sweetening the gay vote seems to be a very cynical ploy indeed. And I believe it`s also utterly futile.

With the autocratic moralism issuing forth from Westminster, I cannot see the gay community being overly enamoured with Labour these days. Not least as the DPA also affected them, as Peter Tatchell pointed out.
The very fact that the government championed the Spanner case in support of the DPA will not have gone unnoticed among the gay fraternity.
After all, many suspect that the Spanner case and verdict had as much to do with homophobia as it had to do with BDSM.

Nowadays it is perhaps the Tories who are better placed on the subject. Everyone knows they feel awkward about it, yet rests assured that they will leave well alone on the subject of homosexuality. Labour`s claims of liberalism meanwhile seem an artifice, as everyone by now knows them to be far from it.

The above is perhaps the reason Labour are now so desperately courting the gay vote.

In summary Labour`s claims on gay bullying at schools seem insincere and contrived, not to mention cynical. Contrary to their belief I don`t think it will win them any friends.

phantom    [25627.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 21:03] View Near Messages
There are some people out there who seem to agree with the likes of us.
Please worship at the altar of Steve Hughes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg

phantom    [25623.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 07:19] View Near Messages
Regarding Baroness O`Cathain Dangerous Text Act proposal.

Baroness O`Cathain is a Tory. According to Wikipedia she is Irish born convent educated Catholic.

`She is known for her socially conservative views, in particular her efforts to retain the ban on same-sex couples from adopting, and has taken on a leadership role in the movement after the death of Lady Young.`

`In 2004, Lady O`Cathain denied that her decision to step down from the board of British Airways was connected with a threatened boycott of the airline by gay rights group Stonewall. Campaigners against homophobia took exception to what was described as her attempted "wrecking" amendment of the civil partnerships bill. She responded that her amendment was "nothing to do with homosexuals at all."`

So yes, a real libertarian, this one. Seems to indicate that the Tories have indeed got ample bigots within their ranks to continue piling on the oppressive outrageous once this bankrupt government disappears down the drain of history....

phantom    [25622.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 04:34] View Near Messages
MichaelG [25620]

`What`s next? Dangerous Music?`

Sorry, but we`re already there. Rappers are one of the favourite people for the government to declare persona non grata and deny entry into the country.

But let`s not just let this set of clowns have all the glory.

After all, Cameron set aside a special place in his heart in one of his more right wing speeches (during the `Brown bounce`) for music lyrics.
Just as Jack Straw he seems to think that musicians have `responsibilities` these days.

So music has long since been in a firing line, especially rap, which is the young generation`s art form. One which older generations - including politicians - neither understand nor like.

phantom    [25607.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 06:53] View Near Messages
Spider,
why abolish R18?
After all, isn`t it a helpful denominator of what`s porn?
Sure, I know, defining porn is like debating the length of a piece of string.
But I`m not sure if I`d get rid of it if I were King of BBFC for a day, as it could be a helpful marker for people.
Then again I`v hardly strong views in that respect.

As long as adults would be free to make up their own minds, I`d be more than happy.

There would however be one additional point I`d address. Namely that of the BBFC finding new work for itself. I would abolish any recent new criteria which require higher age certificates for things such as `animal cruelty`, etc.

The mere idea that John Wayne films are being butchered in order to comply with such new demands for DVD release seems ludicrous.

phantom    [25600.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 06:46] View Near Messages
Beyer`s Board of Film Classification:
`It is also expected that the public will be given new rights to appeal against the rulings of the BBFC.`

Fine. Two can play that game. I suggest we put our heads together and design a template letter or two. Then put it up in easy access on this site for people to simply cut and paste.
Finally, I suggest we all fire off such letters of complaint for - every BBFC decision! - insisting that it was too harsh, too censorial and that the artistic merit has been utterly destroyed by prudish vandalism.

Let`s see how they like Gordon`s appeal procedure then...;)

phantom    [25597.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 13:10] View Near Messages
dano {25596}

I cold not disagree more, Dano.
Sure, there might be some left wing professional demonstrators out there, who - if they are not tunnelling in a field to prevent a bypass - are always at some sort of a demo.
Sure, they might wind up police.

But so what? If I wind you up in the street, does this give you license to assault me, preferably with a club (i.e. a baton)?

I have a friend who is a police man.
I could never do his job. Not least as I could not take the hassle and stick these guys get. But then that is their job.

I am against prosecuting individual officers for what happened at the G20 demonstrations. I think that amounts only to scapegoating.

The actual fact is that these officers are essentially acting in accordance with what is expected from their superiors.
The entire institution of the police is currently out of control.

The whole 9/11 aftermath has led to a bad mix of authoritarianism and heavyhandedness which is utterly unacceptable.

Current police behaviour is a prime reason for why we should not have ID cards in this country. Imagine the consequences.

Personally I do blame the current political climate created by the Labour government for the policing crisis. It`s not about crime levels, not about laws. But about the forces acting as though there were no rules of proportionality by which they needed to abide.

Anyone read Clarkson`s column in the Sunday Times? After all, just why did they deploy spy drones against the revellers at Stone Henge? It`s a bunch of hippies, not the Taliban...

And who could forget the recently released footage of two female campaigners clearly being `roughed up` and kept in prison for 4 days by police for daring to photograph them and question them regarding their numbers and insignia.

Being awkward and difficult is a right, Dano. That applies to loony lefties as much as it does to guys wanting to view porn without Gordon Brown`s approval.

But this whole institution seems rotten. If they`re not shooting Brazilians they`re beating up on demonstrators, or forcing tourists to delete pictures of London buses, - or they`re defying High Court orders whilst pretending to be martyrs in the tabloids...

There is simply no argument for what the police have been up to as of late. Their victims being lefty vegetarians with purple hair makes no difference at all. They are becoming a law onto themselves and the next government is going to have a hell of a challenge in reining them in again.

phantom    [25587.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 06:04] View Near Messages
sergio [25586]

`So, when any charity gets asked what their views are they are campaigning.`

Well, I`d disagree about answering a question being campaigning.
However, I find Leather`s statement nonetheless bizarre.
So for example what about all those feminist bodies? They are not primarily political in nature?
Anti-racism, or homosexual campaign groups? Again, is their primary concern not political?

Dare I say it? Liberty? Aren`t they inherently a political organisation?

I`m beginning to wonder what the Dame had to drink that day...

phantom    [25582.   Posted 26-Jun-2009 Fri 11:24] View Near Messages
pbr [25581]

Well, who ever said bigots would be good losers?
Just consider for a moment that entire western culture is evolving away from dear Miranda Suit. People like her have been ranting about `the end of civilisation as we know it` for decades. Yet still mankind marches on, further and further away from Ms Suit & Co.

Let`s take recent death of Jackson. Would Ms Suit have had anything to say about him in her day? Of course.
After all, would she be able to live silently in a world in which the leading pop idol frequently grabbed his crotch on stage?
But why stop there? Were not Elvis` pelvic gyrations the height of obscenity in their day? Of course they were.

So you see, Gordon, Harriet and Widdi may be `onside` with Ms Suit, but the rest of the world doesn`t give a toss.

That`s before you even begin asking what `the mainstreaming of pornography` is to be? My guess is, Ms Suit would start banning the likes of Britney, Pink and Aguilera. Not least, of course, because they happen to look much better in a bikini than she does...

But then `morality` has always been a fickle thing. Lol.

phantom    [25573.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 11:41] View Near Messages
freeworld {25571}

Not been following this too closely.
Is that line still in there; `by exploiting a vulnerability`?

Because to me that is a panacea of reasons for the prosecution attack dogs.

After all, anything can be `a vulnerability`. Drug addiction for example.
Or how about debt, lack of other income, student loans?

phantom    [25570.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 07:55] View Near Messages
`BBFC.online has been developed over the last 18 months, in close partnership with the video and new media industries and the British Video Association. There are already some 700 videos with ‘online certificates’ and this is likely to rise to about 1000 by the end of the month.`

Wow! 1000 videos. Brilliant. At that rate it will be only about three to five hundred more years before you`ve rated all the films and clips on the internet.
(Dear BBFC, Might I ask whether the certificated videos were such you`d already certified on dvd and could so just wave through? I would think it likely.)

Given that at this snails pace it is proven utterly impractical to really provide a serious service for the net, why not just do us all a favour and give up?

`We have always said that film classification is not a science and that it is impossible to satisfy everyone.`

It is not a science? Err... Hang on. You`ve always been telling us that yo`re all trained `experts` with degrees who are `expert` at this.
Unlike us, you can watch porn `expertly` and thus see what we might not spot that is bad for us.

If it`s not a science, what is it then?
What is your `expertise` based on?
If you tell us it`s down to your degrees in psychology and sociology etc, then it`s a science.

If it`s not a science, then it`s an opinion. Plain and simple.
So please, make up your mind. Is it a science - then please be exact in applying your standards and don`t make excuses, or is it an opinion - in which case, who they hell are you to set your opinion up as a legal standard?

I think some of you might have noticed by now that the BBFC, with their everlastingly shifting justifications, wind me up no end.

As of today: `it`s not a science`, so no exact measure is possible.
And yet they know exactly where they `must` intervene. Odd that, no?

phantom    [25558.   Posted 22-Jun-2009 Mon 18:40] View Near Messages
re: Antichrist

Well, my problem with all this claim of offence - be it felt by the majority or not - is that I don`t understand where this divine right to have one`s offence represented actually comes from.
Here`s my conundrum.

Salman Rushdie wrote `The Satanic Verses` and the world`s Muslim community went berserk. Frankly, they were offended.
Yet, if they demanded that view enjoy supremacy in this what would our reply be?
Well, we know what Thatcher`s was - much to the woman`s credit.

However, we are entering into an age of offence it seems. Not merely have you the right to be offended, but also to see something done about it.

Anyone here remember the Sikh attack of a theatre surrounding the play Beshti?
What happened there? The theatre found itself pretty much abandoned by the authorities. It was `free` to stage what it wanted, of course, but would have to ride out the consequences on its own. If you say something in Britain nowadays which makes someone else want to lynch you, then it`s your own fault. Nobody will protect your free speech. Least of all the government. After all, where were eh Home Secretary and the Culture Secretary at the time? Gone fishing? To busy filling out there expense claims?

Next came the Muhammed cartoons. Did any UK newspaper print them? Do we really think that was purely down to their `showing restraint`? (Do our tabloids even know how to spell that word?) Or were they far more being actively encouraged not to do anything? By whom?

It seems that the climate of `thou-shalt-not-say` has been growing.
This not least because we are governed by an administration which is wholly subscribed to that idea.

Their laws see to it now that we have to hold our tongue, lest we cause offence to, say, homosexuals.

That said, I still cannot see where the right not to be offended is to be found. These days it appears the government believes that people have an inherent right to live without offence.

To pick up on something mentioned regarding the recent DPA conviction, I personally would find seeing bestiality offensive. Perhaps I`m not as broadminded as some here.

That said, I don`t attribute any inherent importance to my being offended.
The sight might offend my sensibilities, but that`s that.

My conscious reasoning overrides my feeling of offence. I know that it is more important that people be free than that I live in a world free of offence.
Thus, I myself do not even hold my offence as important enough to warrant consideration. I cannot begin to imagine how risible my offence therefore must appear to others.

It`s just that. Sticks and stones. If something is said or seen I don`t like, I do not believe that I`m somehow sacrosanct.

I cannot always buy what I like. I cannot always do what I like. Sometimes I need to do things I don`t like. - Sometimes I may have to hear something I don`t like.
In short: I`m an adult.

Little kids may throw tantrums and run to mummy screaming that `he said that she said`. But as an adult, least of all a man, I`m expected to deal with the world as it is.
More so, as an adult I take pride in my ability to deal with the world around me. I do in fact take offence at someone seeking to deal with the world `on my behalf`, in order to `protect` me from assumed offence.

I do not want it. I find it insulting.

But when I speak of my reasoning that my offence doesn`t matter, we touch on that holy grail: `community`.

I find my stance inherently altruistic. I set aside my offence at things as to allow freedom within the wider community.
In return I receive the same freedom from the community, whether I choose to make use of it or not.

It is because of this that I grow so darn irritated when I hear the Widdecombes, Braziers and Vazs of this world speak of their seeking to protect the community.

I find it utterly hypocritical, because to me the desire to censor, to see one`s feeling of offence overrule someone else`s right to express something, is to me selfish per se. It is egotistical, possibly even the mark of an egomaniac.
`You will say as I say, or you will be punished,` cannot be the motto of a benign person.

The highest reaches of altruism are scaled only by tolerance. Charity for example is to be given without condition. You do not only feed the starving child in Africa - if it subscribes to your religion, your world view, your mores. You feed it. Period.
The red cross were set up to treat all wounded on the battle field, independent of who they were, what they believed in, had said or done.
Justice too is supposed to be equal to all, irrespective of what views they hold or tastes they have.

Thus in my view the claims of protecting the community by those who demand censorship are inherently hypocritical. They actually wish to protect only themselves from offence, as they prize their sensibility above the welfare of others.

phantom    [25555.   Posted 22-Jun-2009 Mon 10:28] View Near Messages
One can`t help but wonder what role the DPA played in the BBFC`s decision to grant a certificate to `Antichrist`.
After all, what position does it put the BBFC in if they deny it certification and, thus, render it pretty much illegal?
That being that this is not a porn film per se and therefore has to somehow be found a home here.

I think the sheer existence of the DPA might suddenly throw up rather strange decisions while authorities like the BBFC seek to reposition themselves.

Porn will remain a no go area, due to inherent bigotry within the institution. But the need to survive may indeed force them to let through non-pornographic titles due to the consequences that would arise should they deny it a certificate.

Because we all know that the likes of Beyer and Brazier would be champing at the bit to cause distributors no end of legal trouble - if they could.

phantom    [25541.   Posted 20-Jun-2009 Sat 06:48] View Near Messages
re: Censorship Creep

Oh, Freeworld, where aret though?

The Tories thinking about extending the IWF? Maybe...
I`ll take that as a `yes, if we come under pressure in the polls
while in office, then we will`.

All governments come under pressure at some point. So, I think we can take it as read that they will.

Then it will only be one more small step to ban `other illegal material` and we`re essentially embracing the Chinese/Iranian model.

It seems the internet dream is coming to an end in the UK. The powers that be will strangle it, garrotte it, rather than allow their people freedom.
They`ll do it under the pretence of merely upholding the law.

phantom    [25538.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 15:08] View Near Messages
See you about.
And remember not to upset the Bishop. Lol.

phantom    [25535.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 14:49] View Near Messages
hgorrill [25534]
ok, so post feminism is a viewpoint which strictly speaking operates from a position of feminist goals having really been achieved and that one can now get on with life? especially in the field of sexual fulfilment, which is I guess where your point that female domination can be seen as post feminist comes in...

I can live with that. :)

though I still have a bit of a problem with the religious juxtaposition.

On a lighter note, as for art not looking as hard to make as it might be. Well, I remember an unmade bed being art, don`t you? Lol.
And then there`s always the pissoir which started it all...

phantom    [25531.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 14:30] View Near Messages
hgorrill [25529]
`If you knew me personally you would know that I`m not that kind of person, at all.`

Who knows, that might still happen.... :)

`And I meant to say that probably `post` feminist is more where I`m coming from (sorry if that sounds pretentious bollocks, sure it does actually). And from that point of view there is (to me) something inherently post- feminist in the S&M female domination of the men...ok.`

Ok, ok... now you`ve got to tell me what is feminist and post-feminist in your views. Generally I just see feminists as Germaine Greer style burn-your-bra types who wail at everything being the fault of men, no matter what. Thus I`m somewhat stuck at what to make a post-feminist to be...

Once you tell me, I might stand a chance of rationalising female domination being `post feminist`, albeit given that it`s age seems timeless (I believe there is a fresco in Pompeii of a lady wielding what seems to be a cane) I`m not sure...

phantom    [25527.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 13:54] View Near Messages
Hgorrill    {25521}

First off, I`m in the same county. ;)

Ok, I`m pleased to hear that `appropriation` is not part of your work. I hate it. I know Warhol did it. But I still think in most cases it`s simply stealing...

As for art not having to a precise representation. I completely agree. Frankly, if you take Rodin`s John the Baptist, which is painfully correct, it has very little weight in comparison to his much more famous works such a The Thinker and The Kiss.

However, I`m still somewhat foxed by the supposed gender reversal theme and the question of Christianity.
I understand that it refers to a pamphlet you received. But then to extrapolate onto entire Christianity from one pamphlet, produced most likely by a more loony sector of the faith, seems a little harsh. (And that`s me talking as an atheist.)

Again, when you speak of your research, you talk of meeting dominatrices, visiting burlesque clubs, etc. All very interesting, but doesn`t that just go to illustrate an interest in what you`ve actually represented; namely S & M imagery?
Were your interest to have been in religion, wouldn`t the Bishop of Carlisle have been a more apt source of inspiration.... ;)

Don`t get me wrong. There`s nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from dominatrices at all. In fact it`s perhaps about time there was such moves in art. But again, depicting Miss Whiplash isn`t really an essay on feminism or religion. Its just that: a piece on Miss Whiplash. :)

If rural areas still have somewhat to catch up with such notions as Izzard and Von Teese or Mapplethorpe then the more cosmopolitan areas are hardly going to be very shocked at the concept of S & M. So is your art meant only to work in a rural setting, where it possesses the power the shock?

As said my problem is simply with the blurb I`ve read. That is unless that you see something artistic in S & M per se. Or something inherently feminist in the female domination you depict...

phantom    [25519.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 12:46] View Near Messages
hgorrill {25501}

First off, I`d like to point out that anatomy being `crap` doesn`t necessarily mean too much. Even Michelangelo is known to have consciously `improved` natural anatomy in order to create a higher degree of grace (as in his famous David).

That said, I can`t really see that much wrong with the anatomy on display. Perhaps sergio can explain what he means there.

I do generally have a problem with conceptual art, which yours appears to be.
I remember very well scoffing at my television once when the head of the Royal College of Art and Design sent in an interview that `art was now in post skill era`.

It is attitudes like those emanating from within the art world (i.e. Royal College of Art and Design) which lead people to conclude that it`s `pretentious bollocks`.

I would add a tale by which a professional photographer I happen to know had pictures of his ripped off his website by a `leading artist` who simply ran them through photoshop and manipulated them slightly to then sell them as his own. His pictures sell for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The legal loophole he used is called `appropriation`. Save to say, my friend is not very happy.
Incidentally, the thief was a former professor of photography. Now there`s irony.

I mention the above to explain why I`m not too keen on all things modern art.

But yours is an illustrative work, which (I hope) has at least called on you to create imagery of your own, as opposed simply manipulating pre-existing pictures. Am I right in saying this, or are they simply painted scaled up from pre-existing erotic photography?

As for the argument `don`t knock it until you`ve tried it`. Well, that hardly works in art, does it? Else only artists can have opinions on art and all art is only made for fellow artists. Clearly that is not the meaning of art. Thus, everyone can have their opinion, even if they choose to knock it.

However, where you lose me is in your claim that this art contains some sort of feminist notion; a challenge of the role of women within the Christian faith. Firstly, history teaches us that the role of women tends to have very little to do with religion but more with predominant cultures which usurp religion to claim divine backing for what are essentially local customs.

But apart from this, your imagery seems merely to show dominatrices and subservient male submissives. The latter in a variant of pretty much the same pose. Nothing wrong with that. I have a long record (not least on this site) of arguing that people should be at liberty to do and depict as they please when it comes to sexual mores.

What however takes me aback is that this should somehow be either about women, or about the Christian faith.

If it were to be seen as a exploration of the erotic, or about sexual role reversal, perhaps there might be something to it. But I cannot see any religious connotation whatsoever. In the pictures I have seen there is no discernible allegory or allusion to matters religious. Other than a written quote from the Bible.
Would there be, I wouldn`t mind. I`m liberal, me. But there isn`t. Which thus leads to the question where the religious comment is supposed to reside?

Why is it specifically a comment on Christian sexual mores? Why not - dare I say it? - also on that of other Abrahamic religions? Or would that be too dangerous a terrain?
What specifically targets Christianity in these images? The written quote? Is a picture, the meaning of which needs to be contained in writing, not flawed by default as a work of art?

To what extent the role of women is challenged here I cannot tell. They`re all depicted as leggy, erotic nymphs in sexy underwear, which is hardly a great break with the mainstream depiction of women. Sure, it`s all femdom gear etc, but again, so what?

As for the subservient males, I`m still not clear where we`re going. The pictures may shock some, especially older folk. But the more internet savvy adults will have seen it all before and then some.

So some men are subservient? The point being?

This is where so many people simply give up and dismiss it all as `pretentious bollocks`. In essence it seems that we have pictures which are somehow purported to have some deeper meaning which on viewing of the pictures the eye simply doesn`t confirm.

I have always been at great pains not to be a stuffy, old bigot who simply dismisses modern art out of intellectual laziness. But I do find myself time and time rebuffed by claims of great depth and meaning, which on observance of the work seem hard to discern.

This is why I struggle with the blurb here. Mapplethorpe has been mentioned. But those images were openly erotic. They laid no claim to being a challenge to notion of gender roles or religion, or other concepts of equivalent scale.

So my chief worry is that this this might be material originally appropriated from the net and then re-worked and scaled up.

Following on from that, I just don`t get it.

phantom    [25499.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 06:02] View Near Messages
IanG [25498]

Well, not all that is found illegal to publish may be `not as bad` as something found illegal under the DPA...

The reason for the upping of the maximum tariff for publication from three to five years is more than likely the fault of people like myself. I readily hold my hand up there.

At the time of the introduction of the DPA some of us pointed out that the proposed maximum term for possession was the same as the maximum term for publication and that thus there was no proportionality.

Obviously we did so believing that this argument might help reduce the proposed tariff for possession. But we hadn`t reckoned with the demented nature of this administration.

Finding themselves cornered by pure logic, they chose the only option open to them without having to change their proposal. It wasn`t they who were wrong at setting the tariff for `their law` too high, but it was previous governments who had been wrong at setting the tariff for publication to low. Therefore they now decided to up it.

What can I say, it takes a special kind of perversion of the mind to think that way. None of us had envisaged that happening, but inadvertantly we caused the government to set about upping the tariff for publication, rather than to see sense on the DPA and reduce the maximum sentence they desired.

Mea culpa.

As such though I think it is fair to say that the courts will have a greater sense of proportionality than government. Aware of the tariff on possession for supposedly `extreme` material, they are not likely to issue higher tariffs for publication of lesser material but use the higher tariffs only for material of a similar nature to that which would be found wanting under the DPA. Admittedly though that will be a purely subjective judgement by a port fuelled octogenarian in an eighteenth century wig...

phantom    [25496.   Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 13:48] View Near Messages
IanG    {25495}        
"The VSC, as statutory authority, will take account of UK sensibilities, and will have the power to ban games that are inappropriate for release in the UK."

Oh, you`ve got to love these guys.
The bullshit just keeps on coming. There just seems to be myriad ways of arguing why the world is balanced on an infinite stack of giant turtles.

So, it`s `UK sensibilities` now?
UK people being more sensitive than other members of the species homo sapiens, of course.

It`s a now twist on the essential premise that we need protecting especially. Now though, apparently not for our being somehow innately more corruptible than foreigners, but now because we are more easily offended than the French, the Spanish or the Dutch.

In short, censorship is necessary in order to prevent us being so outraged by what we see that we might otherwise take to the streets and run riot.

Well, thank God for censorship then. Otherwise this place would be like down town Teheran! :)

Of course what makes this (desperate) approach so interesting is that it is utterly counter intuitive. Anyone who knows the continentals, knows that they generally tend to be more formal and are much more attentive to the social graces than the Brits.

Our entire modern cultural renown is based on our being rule breakers. It isn`t for nothing that punk was a British invention. I`d challenge you to go to the continent and find stand up comics like ours. Where is the Dutch Frankie Boyle, or the French Billy Connelly?

Our UK sensitivities are not at all what these people claim them to be. If anything we are a much more tolerant, forgiving race of people then almost any other nation.

But we all know how polls and inquiries into `what the British people want` can be skewed. You can indeed hold a poll in northern Ireland, where they like bashing Romanians, and you`ll get the desired result. Alternatively you can ask Radio Times viewers, or take your clip board to a church faire.

But ultimately if you refuse to include football fans, known for their `UK sensitivities` when chanting in the terraces, Nottingham`s binge drinkers on a Saturday night, audiences at trash metal concerts enamoured with devil worshipping lyrics, or visitors of London rubber fetish events, I fear you`re never likely to get a real flavour of what the other end of the spectrum of `UK sensitivities` is...

phantom    [25493.   Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 07:34] View Near Messages
Harvey [25491]

So I`m fine to announce that I`ll shoot Harriet Harman then, as long as I don`t specify a date?

Incitement to violence anyone? Just don`t specify a date!

Ah, English law! A sewer of random intellectual detritus by octogenarian old Etonians in fancy dress....

phantom    [25480.   Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 07:15] View Near Messages
sergio {25479}
`Who is this `government`? I think you mean people through taxes should pay for it. Actually, I don`t want to pay for some unelected idiots to butcher any films just because they can.`

Well, ask yourself this. Why ain`t the government paying for it? Precisely because of what you say. The moment people realise what they are paying for they demand accountability.

i.e. `I`m paying for this! Now tell me what you are doing. Why? How? Due to what? Are you efficient? Can you be more efficient? Can we fire some of you? Do we want this at all?`

Public indifference can only be sustained if the public aren`t being charged. Maintaining public indifference on this issue is government`s primary aim in this area.

Widespread public interest and scrutiny is precisely what the government does not want to happen. Hence the financing of this is presented as a merely commercial transaction between a producer and a regulator.

Yet the regulator is in fact a quasi governmental agency. Meanwhile the producer is effectively blackmailed into a position whereby he is punished twice; he is made to pay for someone to make his product less attractive.
Worst, he might be paying to be told he cannot sell at all.

This is the equivalent of paying for parking at the booth to be told, `It`s full up. Move on.`

If the BBFC which is always claiming merely to be upholding very selective interpretations of prior legal precedents is in essence `policing` this issue, then perhaps it ought to be funded like the police.

But then of course the pretence that the BBFC are an independent non-governmental entity would no longer be sustainable.

So, for the sake of appearances, better to rob the producers and distributors twice.

In essence it`s all shadow and mirrors. The BBFC are not a fully independent agency, no matter what they claim. The BBFC are censors not certificators. The BBFC are a self-selecting group of individuals inherently in favour of censorship, not `experts` somehow trained to know what `absolutely must be cut`.

Given thus that it`s entire existence is based on lies, the BBFC represents one of the biggest lies in contemporary politics.

But then given that no reform-minded backbencher had the balls to speak out against the expenses before the Telegraph did us all a favour, just what chance is there that anyone in the corridors of power will dare point out that the imperial BBFC isn`t wearing any clothes?

No doubt, should a scandal ever break, then they all will have known about it and will feel free to tell us that the system was rotten.

Cowards to a man...

phantom    [25476.   Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 13:54] View Near Messages
Shaun {25475}
More strength to your elbow, friend... :)

We are indeed looking at purely arbitrary decisions made by people watching films with clip boards, dressed up to look like professional judgements reached by experts. (experts in what?)

Who could remember Ozimek`s recent quip that BBFC `experts` were objecting to the proposal of viewing porn on their own for fear of becoming aroused. People getting aroused by porn, what is the world coming to?

But research into matters S&M for the DPA did reveal an interesting snippet. Namely that the BBFC don`t allow ball gags (so I am told). Interesting that. Why do nun-chacks spring to mind?
Do we remember, boys and girls, the idiocy of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles getting into trouble for their use of nun-chaks?

Well, now the gimp is not allowed to wear a ball gag. Why? Because. Period.

It is supposedly because the protagonist - may - not be able to voice his or her objection if he or she is gagged. Lol.
Video being audiovisual in nature, there really wouldn`t be any other means by which to establish that?

Once again, we`re simply looking at an arbitrary line being drawn due to someone`s personal quirk at the BBFC. Just as with the old nun-chaks.

Incidentally, you can gag someone in a mainstream film - eve with a ball gag. (`Pulp Fiction` anyone?), you just can`t use it in an `adult feature`.

So, if nun-chaks may have been able to be used as salad spoons in the days of old, just not for their intended use, then the same applies for the dear old ball gag today.

It can be its own spoof, but not itself. Why, because it somehow offends the sensibility of someone at the BBFC. Given the S&M already is supposed to be about submission and dominance and folks whipping each other, one struggles to see why the sight of a ball gag is deemed a threat to law and order in the UK today. But there you have it. The `experts` have spoken.

Now I would forward that it`s essentially just a rubber ball. But apparently it`s not. It is the dividing line between where we stand today - and the end of civilisation as we know it.

So holds Ayatollah Khameney...er... sorry, I meant the BBFC.

phantom    [25474.   Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 07:14] View Near Messages
ste [25471]
Regarding the decisions on homosexuality in Scotland.
Big surprise. Currently prevailing political correctness these days insists that gays are taboo to prohibitions. To speak out or act against is akin to political suicide.

So having a go at gays is left to Roy Chubby Brown and the BNP.

No harm in that, say I. Gays are doing no one else any harm, so I don`t care. Not that I`d necessarily want to take a cubicle in a public toilet in which just before two blokes have been poking each other silly. If only for matters of hygiene...

But the acquiescence toward homosexuality by our political class is merely down to their not wanting to offend political correctness and their wishing to appear liberal and open minded.

Yet, look at their other policies – on drugs, foxhunting, smoking and censorship for example – and you are seeing a prescriptive, authoritarian elite telling us what to do.

It is this latter stance which makes them so desperate to appear more liberal, to soften their edges in the public`s view. But the gay issue is merely a token, taken up to deceive.

Nobody can claim that they are liberal and easy going at heart if they`re prepared to corrupt parliamentary procedures in order to get a law passed by which they can lock people up for owning consensually made pictures of adults.

So do not fall for the charade of supposed liberalism. I was taken in by it once, thinking their stance on gays meant they`d seen the light.

Simply put, it was a lie and they betrayed the nation.

Where the hell is Guy Fawkes when you need him?

phantom    [25473.   Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 07:03] View Near Messages
ste {25472}

Ooooh, a red rag to a bull...

The BBFC are effectively a government quango.

This distinction between `it`s better than government censorship` is utterly false.

If government were to censor it would be held accountable. But having someone else do the censoring for them - claiming they`re wholly independent – allows the government to have its cake and eat it; namely to get its censorship but deflect public anger toward someone else.

Claiming the BBFC are `not that bad` is plainly ridiculous.
If their self-imposed remit were merely to provide age certification then your views would be valid.
They`d sometimes get it wrong, providing an 18 sticker for a 16 movie... So what?

But the BBFC go far beyond that, refusing certificates outright, thus banning adults from being able to see something they – the BBFC – deem should not be watched.

This is not a question of a mere hiccup or minor mistake. The belief that they are entitled to overrule free will is unbelievable, nay, unforgivable.

The fact remains that the staff of the BBFC are not better than you or I. They are not born superior beings able to make more insightful decisions, thus acting on our behalf in a superior manner. Once we reach adulthood we decide for ourselves. End of.

This is being denied us by the BBFC who collude with their masters, the government, to prevent people the right to see what they want.

I can understand that what various age ranges watch, may need to be pre-screened and certified. There is material unsuitable for, say, ten year olds.

But to insist that adults be nannied in the same way is frankly an outrageous insult to the entire adult population of this island.

So there you go. Age certification: yes. Outright banning: no.

As long as the BBFC are not able to comprehend said concept, they are nothing but totalitarian apparatchiks abusing a government backed monopoly and knowingly dealing in false science to excuse their high handed edicts.

phantom    [25469.   Posted 14-Jun-2009 Sun 08:06] View Near Messages
I wonder if the `Men`s Health` cover was also covered up at the newsagent.
You know, that mag which always sports the perfect naked male torso with an incredible six pack...

(please play in violin music...)

I feel so used as a man to have to see that every time I enter a newsagent. Makes me feel so inadequate and worthless. I feel I ought to be protected form this and other outrages, such as calendars sporting oiled beefcakes in firemen`s uniforms.
Even football matches now descend into sexist displays, players pulling off their teeshirts to flaunt their rippling assets, brain washed no doubt by a sexist anti-male society...

It all soooo horrid. Then again, I could just get a life.

phantom    [25456.   Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 12:09] View Near Messages
By the way, folks.
Has there been any developments on the `Screams Aloud` front yet?
I thought the trial had been set for somewhen in June.

Any news?

phantom    [25438.   Posted 10-Jun-2009 Wed 05:55] View Near Messages
`It is thought more likely that Labour`s next manifesto will include a pledge to shift to the other system, a move that would be supported by the LibDems.`

So if they win the election they know they will lose they will reform the voting system. Er, yes.
Folks, I think we can ignore this one....

phantom    [25432.   Posted 9-Jun-2009 Tue 05:07] View Near Messages
re: Flailed

There was cuts to `Big Trouble in Little China`?
It`s hardly `The Texas Chainsaw Massacre`, is it?

If anything shows the ludicrousness of censorship then it`s decisions like those. So, they`re now no longer insisting on those cuts? Good.

But are they thus admitting that their original decision was wrong?
Clearly they must have been wrong, if we now no longer need protecting from the sight of comedy kung fu protagonists in action.

This invariably raises the question how we can have any faith in the supposed urgent need to cut things in more contemporary pieces.

After all, which of the cuts which are only made because `they absolutely must` be, will emerge as mere `Big Trouble in Little China` cuts in the future?

I would hazard a guess that it would be all of them. A bold statement, I know. But think about it.

How much of the stuff hacked out of 1970s films is still deemed unsuitable for human consumption? Just about - nothing.
How much of the `disgusting` material made in the 1960s which had to be removed is still deemed too degrading to the human spirit to be seen? Er, that again would be nothing.

From the eighties just about everything is permitted nowadays too.

So, invariably, all the cuts eventually end up being wrong. Or as the BBFC would put it, societal standards change. The latter is a wonderful piece of spin. After all, standards only ever seem to change in one direction; namely to the point at which is deemed that BBFC cuts are no longer defensible.
(So much to that `absolute must` then.)

Next, let`s turn the entire idea on its head and ask whether anyone would actually film anything that is `unseeable`?
Leaving aside the question whether there is such a thing, what would be the motivation of the person trying to produce something so horrid that people could simply not endure watching it?

Now sure, creating a scandal would make good publicity. So shocking members of the WI into fainting might cause teenagers to go and watch the movie. But the teenagers would still need to be able to bear seeing it, else what would be the point?

Rumour has it film producers wish to make money. This in turn requires an audience. Is there something to be gained from making your audience ill or actively seeking to drive it away?

More to the point there seems to be indications that there have been scenes shot for the censors to remove in order to leave the intended film unscathed. If that is true, then censorship is actually causing the production of what it seeks to deter.

In the end censorship is all about the belief that there is such a thing as Monty Python`s deadly joke. There is something which you can hear or see which can harm you just by its inherent intellectual concept.

The whole notion is utterly flawed. How are we to believe that a soldier can kill in war, yet a man may be harmed seeing a film in which said soldier kills?

Ah, but we are told it`s all about motivations and destructive sentiments being fostered, etc, whereby we (or someone of weak mental state) are encouraged to become sadists, rapists or murderers.

It`s a big, bold claim. But it`s one which somehow always ends up in cuts to films like `Big Trouble in Little China`. How this movie, which clearly is family entertainment, should induce slaughter in the suburbs is beyond me.

Which clearly proves the point: censorship is not only always wrong, it inevitably always is proven to be so. Censors eventually always retract past bans, yet - never learning - always insist on new ones for future censors to retract....

phantom    [25430.   Posted 8-Jun-2009 Mon 17:45] View Near Messages
Spiderschwein [25429]

Got it in one!

phantom    [25428.   Posted 8-Jun-2009 Mon 12:25] View Near Messages
Freeworld,
Our exchanges on this I think are legend by now. :)

Yes, I voted Labour in 97. But I`m still not sure that was all that wrong.

Now I know we all agree by now that it`s turned into a monster which is showing more than a few similarities to the very party it purports to hate (i.e. the BNP).

But there is a fairly wide consensus out there that in its initial three or four years, Labour were a breath of fresh air. The latter years of the Tory government had been a disaster and they were by then totally discredited.

We remember the pretty embarrassing, rushed privatisation of rail. We all remember the vast percentage of schools who`d had to abandon some part of their buildings by that time due to lack of maintenance. There was a catalogue of crap. This wasn`t Labour propaganda. These things were happening.

When Labour set to work setting these things right, I think by and large the nation approved.
I do hear you. I know that – unbeknownst to the like of me at the time Straw was trying to have R18 shelved and the likes. And yes, that was a disgrace.

But it wasn`t really as if they entered Downing Street like Bodicea on her chariot...

I guess the decisive year was 2001. When the terror thingy started the whole principle of pre-emptive action seemed to have sprung to life.
Once government decided it needn`t play by rules any more, `because the rule book had been re-written at 9/11`, then we were in hot water.

As is always the case once rules go out the window, the contagion soon spread to just about every other area of policy. `Better safe than sorry` was now the motto, which invariably meant erring on the side of every jumped up worry, fear, jealousy or panic that ministers chose to entertain.

I remain convinced that – having exhausted their originally intended program – and the impact of 9/11 did for this lot.

With no more prepared policies to fall back on one simply reverted to type. So no longer the promised `New Labour` but the old ideologies, acquired in one`s student days.

Meanwhile the 9/11 contagion made them feel entitled to overrule any objections. Everything suddenly had supposed urgency, and need for imminent action.
Thought, scrutiny and consideration went out the window.

Policies were now being designed on the back of a beer mat in the Commons pub and contained more than a hint of militant activism of yesteryear.

This is all still the case now. It is as though we`re governed by sociology students with a chip on their collective shoulder.

The Tories however are only a solution insofar as they will rid us of Labour. I still cannot see them as a much reformed body since their defeat back in 1997. Alike Blair Cameron is an imagine politician, keen to portray an outward appearance of tolerance, evenhandedness and fairness. But his instincts seem indeed to be grounded in the censorious and the prude.

Would I wish it to be different? Yes. I wish Labour would garrotte Harriet Harman. I wish the Liberals would divorce the pointless SocDems. I wish the Tories would recall Portillo and make him leader. I wish, I wish...

But dealing in reality, I only hope that the Tories win, but that their majority is not too large. Else we simply will exchange one bunch of unaccountable dictators for another.

Will they be any good? Perhaps for the first term. Then hopefully we can get rid of `em again, before they simply become what Labour are now in reverse...

phantom    [25419.   Posted 7-Jun-2009 Sun 07:39] View Near Messages
Shaun [25418`]
`Unless they are very stupid...`

Shaun, they are very stupid. They are politicians.
The Tories I believe have learned nothing from their ousting in `97.

Just as now Labuor are touring the interview rooms declaring that their unpopularity is down to the `unprecedented economic downturn`, the Tories have blamed their landslide defeat in 97 on just about everything but themselves. So they`ve got a new leader? Big deal.

Politicians are inherently prone not to see themselves as in any way fallible (except if they made `minor mistakes` on their expenses claims).

Politicians are also keen to harness and concentrate power. So any claims of the centralising trend suddenly coming to a halt with Cameron`s election are nonsense. After all, giving up on the security state would mean `letting terrorists have a free rein in Britain`. Can`t have that.

Tough on crime. Tough on everybody.

The prison population will continue to expand. The amount of offences will continue to mount. The tariffs for offences will continue to get longer.
After all, every Home Secretary must prove he or she has bigger bollocks than his predecessor.

The areas targeted by the Tories may differ, but essentially it will be the same unnecessary, authoritarian nonsense. Politics a la TalkSport.

Yes, Britain is sick to death of all this.
But it is not sick to death of particular symptoms to `politician`s disease` but sick of the disease itself.

Most constitutions are a sequence of checks and balances. The executives are both empowered and restrained simultaneously by these measures.
Britain however has a flawed constitution, whereby the checks and balances are utterly inadequate. Thus we are at the mercy of every whim of our supposed rulers. Our second chamber is a joke, our first chamber is little more than a careerist brown-nosers convention.

and the `traditionalist` Tories will change all of the above? I don`t think so.

As voters we have no power of recall and no means by which to facilitate referenda.
Our only power is that of choosing which set of autocrats we wish to allow to hold sway for the next few years.

Meanwhile the media are part of a everlasting merry-go-round and will never really tackle the issues and the protagonists in the way they ought to be tackled. (e.g. bar any politician who fails to answer satisfactorily an important question from any further appearances in that respective media outlet, until he has finally done so.
i.e. Don`t allow Howard back on Newsnight until he has answered whether he sacked the head of the prison service or not. Simple. Thus no more free publicity for slithering liars.)

So there will be no `making absolutely clear to them` why they got elected. They will choose the reasons to believe in which brought about their victory. These will be reasons to suit them and their agenda.

Just as Labour pretends to have a mandate for what they`ve been forcing down our gullet, so will the Tories pretend to have been elected to do whatever it is they will chose to do.

All we`ll be able to do is fume with impotent rage.

phantom    [25406.   Posted 4-Jun-2009 Thu 06:34] View Near Messages
MichaelG [254051]

`I`m unconvinced that Cameron would back them to the hilt over issues of unjustified or unnecessary censorship.`

Well, that`s where I really worry. Remember the Brown bounce? Cameron was in trouble, waning in the polls... Immediately there was a lurch to `good old fashioned values` in order to shore up support.
Speeches were held on media, criticising rap lyrics and computer games.

That inherently worries me.
It suggests that censorship is seen as a piece of sugar to be fed to the backbench equines when necessary.

Remember the fox hunting ban? Came right in the depths of Blair`s Iraq disaster. Coincidence? Hardly. As said, lumps of sugar...
It looks much the same with Cameron.

Now sure, my priority too will be to get Labour out. But the shape of things to come worries me. The Tories are becoming enamoured with some of the Labour principles of social engineering (i.e. `broken society, etc) and they have a tradition of the Christian malarky.

It is depressing to see that nobody has actually grasped the concept of intellectual liberalism yet in politics, not even the LibDems.

Instead we get political correctness which purports to be liberal but is actually the polar opposite...

phantom    [25404.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 18:11] View Near Messages
Street voted strongly for the Iraq War?

LMAO!

Well, there you have it. So for example any computer games simulating the Gulf War should be banned as they might make us more violent. How ironic!

You could not make it up, could you?

Meanwhile, I hate to point out the obvious, Freeworld. But didn`t we have conversations in the past whether there was such `traditional Christians` still merrily bottom-feeding within the ranks of the Conservative Party?

As said, I`d happily see our current government thrown off Beachy Head (as a kind of English version of the Tarpeian Rock). But I don`t hold out much hope of liberal values and a disdain for censorship getting hold of the next set of incumbents just because they wear blue rosettes.

Not least as, given Cameron`s speeches on the subject, he seems to share some of the views of Mr Streeter...

phantom    [25402.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 12:53] View Near Messages
MichaelG [25401]

I normally don`t tend to subscribe to views describing people as cunts and fuckpuppets. But for one I think I simply have to concur.

What a delicate flower Mr Streeter appears to be. He simply can`t watch those video games, as they unnerve him too much.

That said, I wonder what Mr Streeter`s voting record is on the Iraq War.
But I`m sure, he`d assure us that that was utterly different...

phantom    [25397.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 05:39] View Near Messages
First off, I think that in principle we both see to believe that liberty eventually always wins out. Individual governments or their proxies may throw up artificial barriers, but sooner or later the rest of the world comes knocking.

But I`m not sure that a `little while longer` really will do for the BBFC. Past form has shown that the BBFC needs to be forced on matters sexual. i.e. in the courts.
There seems little willingness to give of one`s own accord.

The problem is two fold.
First, I ask again, who would be a censor? The people who join the BBFC are a self-selecting group of individuals who naturally believe in not only the need for censorship but also its righteousness.

Second, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. If the BBFC were ever to accept a reduced need for its services, it would invariably have to shrink, - in power and in staffing levels.
Just what censor will put up his hand and argue that he`d wish to be fired?

And so, for all the changes toward more lenient standards which you believe to detect, there have also been hardening of other, new lines.
Who for example could forget the cuts to DVD re-releases of old John Wayne movies? Had these been asked for in the original? No. They were for `animal cruelty`.

So their ludicrous `standards` don`t seem to lessen, they just migrate.
And in porn I remember they announced some time back that they now would also consider the legality of production of UK titles. i.e. a flashing video from US might be passed, but one from the UK may be rejected (or cuts demanded) if it were deemed by the BBFC (not a court) that the public nudity involved was (possibly) illegal.

Again, the above is an example of how they are continuing to find work for themselves. It is also a method by which they seek to continue to justify their cause.
They`d say they`re still needed because they are reflecting and enforcing societies changing standards.

This however merely means a change in what one discriminates against, not an end to discrimination per se. They still are unwilling to accept that their entire approach is flawed.

So far I`m still to meet someone who thinks that an institution in Britain should have the right to decide that adult citizens should not be free to watch what adults in the rest of the western world are free to view.

I fully accept the practice of age restriction. I think so does just about everybody. What may be right for a sixteen year old may well be wrong for a six year old. This is where the BBFC ought to be at home.

But sadly this institution, that appears a law unto itself simply by claiming expertise it need never prove, insists on knowing also where the limits of adult viewing ought to be - and what are bad, unwelcome influences on viewers of all ages.
It is then that they emerge with statements claiming only to cut what they `absolutely must`.

So, yes, societies inevitably fall in with the global trend. The global standards are ubiquitous and clear. Yet as long as they believe that they `must` resist them, the BBFC are out of step with just about every perceivable trend. To all intents and purposes they will remain so.
They have no possible incentive to change.

Thus, like in the past, with politicians too worried of a tabloid backlash, the only thing likely to change the BBFC`s position is another drubbing or two in the courts.

That said, there are great dangers to the contrary. The CEOs of the BBFC, like those of any company, will seek any chance to expand. So the BBFCification of the internet is a real and present danger.

So, thus, rather than better, the BBFC may actually become much worse.
Societal standards will continue to change in line with the global trend. But sadly as the BBFC is utterly deaf to such trends it will be the courts we`ll have to wait for and who knows how long that may take....

phantom    [25391.   Posted 2-Jun-2009 Tue 11:11] View Near Messages
Yes, Jacqui Smith to leave the Home Office.

Some say, it will be Ed Balls Balls at the Home Office.
But I say he`ll get Chancellor for being Brown`s favourite poodle.
My guess would hence be that it will be that lickspittle Coaker who`ll get the Home Secretary job.

So prepare for the word `abhorrent` to be used to the same degree as some well known windbag once used the adjective `prudent` until it finally shrivelled up and died.

Where`s Guy Fawkes when you need him...

phantom    [25388.   Posted 1-Jun-2009 Mon 17:16] View Near Messages
Freeworld:
You missed the obvious open goal.
Here`s the phantom`s spin on the whole thing:

The changes to the rules which brought about this mire were introduced in 2001. Now sure there were expenses prior to that, but their useage and scale were liberalised at that point.
Sure, it was a free vote.
But who controls the agenda in parliament? Yes, the government.
Had they wanted this dead, they could have killed it.
So, why didn`t they?
Simple. Everyone is saying that the scrutiny afforded to bills going through the house is less than it has ever been. The quality of the debates and the quality of the bills is lower than ever.
How so? We have the most obedient obsequious backbenchers we have ever had. They also happen to be the best paid, best fed backbenchers we`ve ever had.
In short; it was a bribe.
Take the money and shut the fuck up.
They did and, yes, they did.
The changes were meant for the Labour back bench. Naturally they also had to be changed for everyone else. But that was a mere side effect.
The Labour government bought off their backbenchers by providing a panacea of possibilities for corruption and fiddling.
This is entirely a Labour animal. Sure, Tories got stuck in too. As well as everyone else who could. But the creators of this were Labour.

Were I king for a day, I would suspend all law introduced by parliament since 2001, pending review by a newly elected parliament. All law since 2001 is tainted by this money. It has been voted through by bribed parliamentarians and thus should be viewed as suspect until a new parliament with a new mandate confirms it.

Will it ever happen? Will it hell.

phantom    [25383.   Posted 1-Jun-2009 Mon 05:54] View Near Messages
Please take a moment to check out this list.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8039273.stm

Notice anything among the names listed caught in the expenses mire?
Well, let me direct your attention to a particular group of people.

Gordon Brown
Jack Straw
Andy Burnham
Paul Goggins
Keith Vaz
Vera Baird
Tony Blair
Ruth Kelly
Jacqui Smith
Harriet Harman
Maria Eagle

The above all are of that ilk which everlastingly warns of of the dangers to our morality posed by computer games, prostitution, pornography, the internet entire, or who wear their religiosity on their sleeve to such degree that you come to feel the urge to slap them.
Isn`t it interesting to see these martyrs to a cause now all lined up for what amounts to benefit fraud?

Unlike the above I would not know which of the ten commandments states that one ought not steal, but I for one do know that there is such a thing.

The people listed love to pontificate and castigate, for evermore expressing their disgust about someone or something. (Their favourite buzz word is `abhorrent`.)
Yet now, with their fingers caught in the communal till suddenly they ask for people to stay calm, not to overreact, they call for reasonableness, understanding for their point of view and leniency.

After all, it was all `within the rules` they keep telling us.
Strangely for them, the word `morality` is suddenly rarely used.

When it comes to plain hypocrisy these people set new records.
It appears we need to be protected from the internet, but not necessarily from corruption.

One wonders when next Harriet Harman for example is going to use the words `the court of public opinion`...

phantom    [25376.   Posted 29-May-2009 Fri 02:48] View Near Messages
Will21st,
So it is understandable to you that the supposedly more lenient standard has more cuts enforced on it?
Seems illogical to me.

As for them giving up on cutting 18 rated films. Well, I laughed when I read it. I`m not trying to offend. I really did.

These are people who at heart believe it perfectly reasonable to decide for everyone one else what they be permitted to see. And they are to have given up on cutting films suitable for adults (accept for pornographic films)?

Er... I don`t believe it.
I repeat it`s just spin. One is trying to sound as though one is only cutting what one absolutely `must`. Whereas there is never a must. It is always their free choice, based entirely on their opinion and taste.

phantom    [25373.   Posted 28-May-2009 Thu 06:51] View Near Messages
re: BBFC complete their latest public consultation

`The BBFC have just-finished their latest public consultation on their classification guidelines.... 18 rated films will remain untouched unless we absolutely must intervene.`

Unless we absolutely must intervene? Must?
Since when is censorship an imperative and not a conscious choice?
Have I so far failed to spot the man holding a gun to their heads?
Should that not read, `unless we think/feel/believe that we absolutely must intervene`?

And from the regular glimpses we receive into their statistics which someone posts here regularly, there are about 20-25% of 18 or R18 films in which they believe that they `absolutely must intervene`.

For something which they make sound like a last ditch measure, it`s something they seem happy to use fairly frequently.

This could of course mean that the world (or at least about one quarter of it!) is full of vile producers of filth whose products `must` be kept from these shores.

Or of course it means that in about 20 to 25% of all matters of sex our dear censors find at least something unacceptable, which makes you feel a pang of sympathy for their spouses.

The latter possibility of course contains two further options:
Either indeed that great a percentage of videos contains indeed something so vile that it cannot be permitted to be seen by independent, sane adults.
Or our censors are that out of touch with current standards of sexuality and obscenity that they see that much as unacceptable.

Which brings us smoothly to the question, who would be a censor?
Take a moment`s pause to consider just what type of person would even apply for the job of deciding what others may be permitted to see and you very quickly arrive at the answer to the above conundrums.

After all, who else would dress up their subjective choice as an `absolute must`?

phantom    [25360.   Posted 24-May-2009 Sun 18:40] View Near Messages
sergio {25357}
`Andy Burnpork - tax dodger`

Totally unfair, Sergio!

Why, don`t you see that it will surely emerge that the right honourable Mr Burnham only was corrupted into expenses fiddling by seeing such things on the internet?

I`m certain that a youtube video will emerge that was to blame.
After all, the right honourable Mr Burnhim (oops, typo!) has pointed out repeatedly how there is content on the net which should not rightly be allowed.
If people would have bowed to the greater wisdom of his words and began
censoring the net, surely this would not have happened.

It makes no difference of course that there is behaviour among parliament, among right honourable Mr Burnham`s party, in fact by the person of the right honourable Mr Burnham which should not rightly be allowed. That is totally different and `was within the rules`.

So, shame on you, Sergio!
I`m sure it`s someone else`s fault. Not the right honourable Mr Burnham`s. David Cameron`s most likely...

I thus contend that the recent parliamentary troubles are entirely the fault of the Telegraph Newspaper for publishing this `private` information about our right honourable MPs - and the internet for its corrupting influence on our right honourable MPs.

Oh, and I`m sure lap dancing is to blame also! And foul language! And nipples!!!

Anyhow, now that I have but you right on this issue, may I please ask for three cheers for the right honourable Mr Burnham.

Hip, Hip! Huzaaahhhh!


p.s. Don`t you just love what is happening! Best line I`ve heard so far was the quote on the BBC of a lady at a town hall meeting of David Cameron`s. According to her, `these MPs ought to be swinging from lamp posts`. Well, there`s time yet!

phantom    [25329.   Posted 19-May-2009 Tue 05:57] View Near Messages
Just when you thought it was safe to go out....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8055451.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8057479.stm

Esther Rantzen in parliament?
Is she to be the de facto replacement for Anne Widdecombe?

I can already hear her now wailing from the back benches:
`The children! Won`t anyone think about the children!`

Should Esther `Hack-Slash-Censor` Rantzen be elected (which looks inevitable, should she stand as the celeb alternative to a corrupt MP) then I really think we ain`t seen nothing yet in matters of prudishness masquerading as child protection.

Oh, ye gods, why can`t these old dodderers just realise that they`ve had their time, the world has moved on and others want a life too?

Esther, you`ve had the 60s! But others are young now and they are as unwelcoming to your enforcing your `standards` as you would have been if some old fogey would have tried to have you live according to his pre-first world war standards, back when the Beatles were hip.
Yes, it would be that big a time difference, Esther. It`s 2009!

Anyway, I think I better calm down now...

phantom    [25312.   Posted 16-May-2009 Sat 07:03] View Near Messages
Actually, I think the dropping of the plans for secret inquests has nothing to do with the expenses scandal, folks.

It`s to do with another area in which our beloved government is seeking to perform the splits.

You see secret inquests have something of a Bush/Cheney ring to them, no?
Military tribunals, anyone? Guantanamo Bay? Abu Ghraib?
i.e. don`t let anyone know what it is your doing, because `they would not understand`. If in doubt say it`s about national security.

That has been the approach so far, both in the UK and the US. The UK still has the same government, but in the US a significant shift has occurred with the former lecturer on constitutional law, Barack Obama, coming to power.

Labour is at odds with itself about Obama. It strictly disagrees with all he says because he contradicts their entire last ten years, yet at the same time UK governments always like to bask in the warm glow of an American presidency, especially a popular one.

I thus do imagine that Labour are now gradually going to climb down from their attach-his-nuts-to-the-car-battery position. Not because they have suddenly undergone some intellectual road to Damascus moment. No, they are still very much the same nasty bunch they always were. Their instincts remain the same.

But with the changes in the US - the west`s unrivalled trend setter, politically and culturally - the wind is blowing from another direction now.

Civil liberties suddenly mean something and are afforded a much higher profile, in politics and the media, now that the US administration has changed.

Labour of course hasn`t the luxury of being a new administration. Thus it is much harder to now suddenly change track. Therefore we now are witnessing these embarrassing climb downs, albeit that they are published on days which are - to use the Labour jargon - good for burying bad news, as the public are occupied with great scandals.

So we`ve seen the end to titan prisons, the end of the centralised communications database (albeit that their still trying) and the end to secret inquests.

Were we in any other time, this would be highlighted by the media as a massive swing in policy. As it stands, the media are, rightly, occupied with other matters.

But for now at least, things are actually improving.
However, I am in no doubt that this government are no doubt devising no end of plans in order to get away with as much of a big brother state as they possibly can, despite the `Obama effect`.

So no reason to cheer just yet.

phantom    [25303.   Posted 13-May-2009 Wed 16:21] View Near Messages
axis45 {25302}

I think what sticks in people`s craw with this expenses fiasco is simply the audacious hypocrisy these people show.
Remember the parliamentary committee lambasting bankers?
was it really that there were `outraged` at these bankers helping themselves to those bonuses? Or was it simply envy that the bankers were at liberty to help themselves to so much more than MPs?

Meanwhile we heard MPs in the DPA `debate` telling us about rights and wrongs. It was all a matter of proper decency and morals.
Yet, while they were pontificating in this manner they were collectively committing what amounts to little more than benefit fraud.

Next think of their arms race on trying to be tougher on crime than the other party. Lock `em up and throw away the key, is the motto. Tougher sentences, longer tariffs, more offences. Hard. Tough. Grrrrrr.

But then we come to this awful mess and they tell us it`s `within the rules`. Now suddenly the way to deal with miscreants is to the softly softly approach. Now even Anne Widdcombe is suddenly a liberal advising all and sundry not to throw out the baby with the bath water.

It`s plainly sickening to listen to them. Why don`t we build one of their beloved titan prisons and stick `e all in there? Or better, in order to `deter crime` why don`t we adorn the interior of the house of commons with cctv to watch their every move? Oh, and screen all their calls, emails, etc! After all, if they`ve nothing to hide...

They`re scum. Worse they`re the slime at the bottom of the sewer the scum complains about.

phantom    [25293.   Posted 9-May-2009 Sat 06:31] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25288. Posted 8-May-2009 Fri 22:37}
re: paintball

We can only sit back and wait until Harriet Harman or some other such intellectual giant spots an opening to propose the `German model` and seek to ape it over here.
After all, given that we`re told that if a bunch of Muslims go paintballing it`s a `terrorist training camp`, I`m sure they`re going to find ample reason to protect us from this deadly paintball scourge.

Don`t I recall some utterly overhyped moral panic story some years back of a nude girls being `hunted` in paint balling events in Vegas somewhere?
Well, just dear Harriet enough time to knit these things together somehow and I`m sure she`s going to find a way of `protecting wimmin` with life sentences for paint ball offences.

phantom    [25292.   Posted 9-May-2009 Sat 06:24] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25289. Posted 8-May-2009 Fri 22:57}

LMAO!
Yes, `Blue Steel` it is. Or perhaps in his case it ought to be `No Steel`,
given that Corus are about to close their plant on Tyneside....
No doubt, as his next trick he`s going to try taking off his underpants without removing his trousers at Prime Minister`s Question Time.

I wonder, does that mean Cameron is Haensel?

phantom    [25287.   Posted 8-May-2009 Fri 21:47] View Near Messages
Brilliant news!
Nobody is ever going to be killed or otherwise hurt in Germany - ever again!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8041320.stm

phantom    [25267.   Posted 4-May-2009 Mon 09:08] View Near Messages
So yet another billion or two, aside from those 2 billion already frittered away in preparation of their big snooping scheme, on building a live black box scheme instead.

Now from what I understand, much of the black box scheme already exists. We all read on melonfarmers how one by one the isps got bullied by the police into complying with their `voluntary` scheme.
So I guess now they`re just spending money on installing to technology to browse these blackboxes from afar.

This supposedly `cheap` scheme may no be as eye-wateringly expensive as the last proposal, but it will achieve much the same thing.

But all the while you have to wonder what it is that makes them so keen to get all these people are so keen to check on all we view and say online?

Terrorism seems a very unlikely target, no matter how often they quote it as their main reason. It is highly unlikely that – especially, given that the authorities tell us about their watching the net – that a wanna be bomber will be debating about his plans with his friends online.

In any case t seems that any terror cells tend to be local affairs, where people live and prepare close by. So Ahmed in Brighton doesn`t need to email Yussef in Aberdeen about when they are to go and bomb Manchester. If they wish to do so they would simply meet at Ahmed`s place and talk.

What good the multi-billion pound eavesdropping infrastructure is to be in that case is beyond me.
So much to terrorism.

And as for crime; again what crime? `Serious crime` we are told.
So we`re going to prevent bank robberies and protection money racketeering and drug deals by snooping on the net? How?
Or is it more likely to be a breach of the DPA which features as `serious crime`?

Time and time again we come back to the same thing. Namely that the main problems on the net are spam (which is threatening to overwhelm the infrastructure) and phishing (which is largely an overseas exercise and thus evades UK jurisdiction).
Now aside from the fact that there appears to be no political will at all in dealing with these issues, just imagine what fantastic protection software might be developed if the government had ploughed this billions into a software solution, perhaps even as part of a multi-lateral effort at controlling this problem.

In light of all the above it seems fairly clear that the snooping system has nothing to do with preventing `serious crime` or terrorism. It is simply the wrong tool for such. Like buying a hammer to drill holes.

Yet much can be read into the name they have granted their scheme: MTI, `mastering the internet`.
It`s about mastery. It`s about dominance. It`s about power.
This scheme is a instrument of power. They seek to know, for knowledge is power.

It matters not if they have an immediate use for this power. But this tool will grant them the potential. That is simply what they wish to possess. The potential to know. The potential to control. The potential to harm.

It is not the scheme itself. But it is the desire which is driving it which is one of the most terrifying developments in modern day UK politics, most likely eve in UK history per se.

phantom    [25257.   Posted 2-May-2009 Sat 08:24] View Near Messages
pbr {25252}
Don`t get me started on the Gurkhas !
Nowhere is it better demonstrated that these people have little to no understanding of what the population at large think.
In their pea brained minds, the way to counter the BNP is to show that you, too, don`t like foreigners. The Gurkhas are foreigners, ergo....
It would never have dawned on them that the Gurkhas are enormously popular and enjoy a very high standing in the British people`s esteem.
A much higher standing in fact than that of expenses swindling MPs.

phantom    [25251.   Posted 1-May-2009 Fri 05:40] View Near Messages
Yesterday, Ms Harman got a mention on the `This Week` for her drive to put equality at the forefront of politics.
Sadly they missed the opportunity and took it at face value. (Perhaps in order to avoid another deranged rant by Dianne Abbott.)

Equality of what, Ms Harman? Surely your judgemental, divisive discriminatory views on - say, various sexual interests - show you to be anything but a champion of equality.

But then you wouldn`t be the first politician talking utter bollocks in the hope of securing the leadership, would you?

phantom    [25250.   Posted 1-May-2009 Fri 05:33] View Near Messages
re: receptionist

This fine sounds very high.
So she got ten pounds a booking and £100 a shift.
But she only worked there from April to July.

Is it me or does it sound as though she is expected to pay back every penny she received?

Yet the text says she is to pay back her `profits`.

I wonder whether the courts are not aware of the difference between gross and net. Or should say, whether they want to be aware of it or not.

Also shouldn`t they at least accept that she should be able to keep what would amount to the minimum wage? Else, what exactly do we expect the woman do have lived on in that time?

The irony of it all is that she is now most likely to end up on benefits, whereby her proceeds will be entirely provided by the state. I guess it won`t take long for them to top the £10000 the courts fined her. So a great step forward then...

phantom    [25247.   Posted 29-Apr-2009 Wed 13:36] View Near Messages
axis45 [25246]

Well, just look at today`s article on this site `Blame Alert`.
According to the quoted Daily Mail article the clip from the movie `Severance` has been shown in court, apparently as evidence.

Er, is it me? Did his honour have a liquid lunch that day?
I only just saw the film in question this weekend. It was - you wouldn`t believe this - on BBC1. So according to this prosecutor there would now have to be people being torched all over the country, given the BBC`s large audience.

The fact that someone would whether it would be nice to be able to torch people for real is hardly evidence of any sort.
After all, how often has on this forum someone wished that Ms Harman came to a sticky end?
Yet I believe no melonfarmers have yet made an attempt on Harman`s life.

There is plenty of bullshit that goes to court without any useful evidence. Craig Charles springs to mind. Or Colin Stagg.
Or what about Barry George, one microscopic speck of a chemical compound which `might have been` gunpowder found in his pocket. The rest of the evidence was basically that the man was `weird`.

Once again the whole thing collapsed.

One is pretty gob-smacked by those cases. But they present nothing that out of the ordinary, so it seems.

As said, if a `learned` lawyer can get up in court and start making hay out of a spoof horror movie, then just about anything is possible in UK kangaroo courts.

phantom    [25245.   Posted 28-Apr-2009 Tue 11:48] View Near Messages
axis45 {25244}

We only need to look at the various miscarriages of justice and wrongful prosecutions of the past years to realise that the CPS are not at all the detached, reasoned body they would claim themselves to be.

There is plenty of agenda or even political brinkmanship going on.
Is it right? No of course it isn`t.
But does it happen? Hell, yes.

Was the lad who dared read the names of the fallen in Iraq at the Cenotaph charged and prosecuted? Yes she was. Was any of that in the public interest? Was it a political prosecution?

Is there likely to be individual prosecutions of officers for the attacks during the G20 protests? Will this prove helpful in deflecting public gaze from the police in general, its orders for that day and the political question whether its masters are requiring it to suppress protest?

Let`s take the upcoming case in Newcastle where a man is being prosecuted under the OPA for `publishing` a story. Please, why would anyone seek to press such a prosecution if there wasn`t some agenda to it?

Has this prosecution really just been brought because, in the cold light of day, there seemed sufficient evidence for conviction?
Or is there more to it? You tell me.

To test the supposed non-political nature of the judiciary to breaking point, ask yourself this. Were it to emerge that the war on Iraq was illegal would you expect Tony Blair to be prosecuted?

I rest my case.

phantom    [25243.   Posted 28-Apr-2009 Tue 06:31] View Near Messages
axis45 {252421}

Chances are the constant charging of such folk is about perpetuating fear among the general populace. When they are found not guilty one then simply argues that they `got off` because of overly liberal laws which protect the terrorists rather than their intended victims. (Laws which one shoudl change, no doubt.)

The important thing to the authorities is that the image of a constant, omnipresent threat is maintained.

We only need to look at the recent arrests in the north west to see the same pattern.
The Prime Minister even told the public that a large plot had been uncovered. Not an `alleged plot` or any of that fine political talk by which they usually split hairs. No, a real, large plot.
The evidence found thereafter? Zilch.

But we`re throwing them out of the country anyhow. Why is that? Because we really think these Pakistani students are a danger? Or because the authorities wish to imply that, albeit that they couldn`t find any evidence which would satisfy sickly liberal, tree hugging judges, they nonetheless know (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) that these guys were up to no good and hence will `protect` us from them.

I have began long ago to disbelieve most of the nonsense they issue on terrorism and terrorists.

I do believe there is a threat. but I don`t think it`s anything like on the scale they`re making out. In fact I believe their exaggerations have more to do with their unquenchable thirst for ever greater powers than it ever had to do with our safety.

phantom    [25237.   Posted 27-Apr-2009 Mon 13:48] View Near Messages
I.D.I.O.T {25236}
Yes, ISPs and mobile phone providers are indeed keeping records already.
But the communications database was designed to be a `live` giant tracking centre which brought everything together on a massive database, which of course would be cross referenced at a drop of a hat.

So please do not be taken in by the spin which claimed that they were not intending to do anything that wasn`t already being done. One doesn`t budget for close to £20 billion if one isn`t intending to do something new.

Consider also that there are already enormous numbers of requests for the mobile phone and internet history of individuals annually. Now consider how many there would be if we made it any easier for them. With greater convenience invariably follows greater use.

It wouldn`t be long before folks being harassed for making tourist photographs in central London would be routinely checked for their internet history...

Been caught speeding? Better check his internet history. After all, better safe than sorry and there`s targets to match...

It`s also worth mentioning that before this was ever announced, government had spent already £2 billion on preparatory measures in advance of the scheme. Water down the drain, in preparation for something that had no parliamentary approval... Hm. Shows really, what they think of parliamentary government, doesn`t it?

`It`s all right. Start spending. We`ll tell the whips to threaten the back benchers with their dogging party photographs and they`ll back it. But no need to wait until then.`

Now that they`ve run out of money though £20 billion suddenly seems a lot of money. Interesting though that it was an `essential tool against crime and terrorism` only a few weeks ago. Whereas now it`s something we can do without...

I think it`s only beginning to dawn on some that totalitarianism is actually quite expensive. Just as the Russians...

phantom    [25235.   Posted 27-Apr-2009 Mon 07:28] View Near Messages
It appears one is realising that the Home Office that one is running out of money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8020039.stm

phantom    [25222.   Posted 21-Apr-2009 Tue 01:48] View Near Messages
Dear Mr Vaz...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-10206764-235.html

Sure, hardly fresh news, being from the end of March, but it`s kind of interesting that the `gaming-is-bad-for-you` people have not at all mentioned this one.

Now this is merely one isolated obscure study. But the questionable findings of one isolated, obscure study are usually deemed sufficient basis for calls for legislation...

phantom    [25216.   Posted 17-Apr-2009 Fri 06:33] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25214}

`I do wish the people who blame games, movies and music for everything would just grow up...`

Either that, or that they would accept that we have their `implied consent`, ey? :)

phantom    [25215.   Posted 17-Apr-2009 Fri 06:22] View Near Messages
Just seen the piece on the Swedish Pirate Bay verdict on the BBC.

Now I`m fairly ignorant of all things bit torrent. But from what I understand, Pirate Bay are merely the search engine enabling you to find what it is you want to download. The crime is then still yours to commit (i.e. to knowingly breach copyright).

The BBC were positively gushing about the verdict, describing it as a landmark case to which international legislators and the judiciary will look as an example. (that said, the BBC of course have their own interest in this, being a content provider)

But personally, I gazed upon all this with a growing sense of horror. I think another Pandora`s Box is about to be opened in international publishing law. (The previous one having been every nation`s claim that material is `published` everywhere as it can be downloaded everywhere.)

I can see the dilemma the judges were facing. Here were four guys who were effectively facilitating copyright breaches on a massive scale. Surely it had to be punished, no?

Well, here`s where I think the court screwed up.
Pirate Bay seems to be guilty of facilitating access to material illegally provided by a third party.
It all looks neat when looked at purely from the perspective of this case.

But once we extrapolate it to the wider world, then what?
For example, can Melonfarmers be found guilty regarding a link to another site which somewhere on its pages may have illegal content, of which Melonfarmers may not even know?

Is the management of Google in danger of imprisonment, like the Pirate Bay crew, for providing searches to material which is illegal (in a variable number of countries, according to their domestic law – why does the DPA spring to mind?)

Much as I sympathise with the wish to shut down Pirate Bay, I see the problem such verdicts create as larger than the one it solves. Is now everyone to be culpable for content to which they they link? What if the content has changed? What if the site one links to has a link which links to something else? How long need a chain be before culpability ceases?

The Pirate Bay people never copied any content illegally. Their crime is merely one of providing links to other people`s files, some of which may in fact have been legal copies of their own original product (admittedly though it sounds as though it was largely illegally copied content).

Better yet, the Pirate Bay crew were sentenced to a year in prison and a fine of several million pounds. Clearly this is a worse punishment than anyone could expect for downloading something from their site, or even making available copyrighted material thereon. Yet, I think to just about everyone those are the people who are clearly and knowingly breaching the law.

Yet the Pirate Bay people seem to be treated as though they were in fact the publishers.
Thus, linking to a illegal publication equals publishing illegally.

So providing searches and providing links to something illegal can land you in jail in this landmark case `of international significance`. We thus now may suddenly all be culpable for the content of other people, if our site has a link to something which may be or become illegal.

Vaclav Havel springs to mind. I paraphrase, `We all live in a prison. But we are not merely the prisoners. We are also the guards, expected to tell on fellow prisoners if they break the warden`s rules.`

phantom    [25211.   Posted 16-Apr-2009 Thu 16:31] View Near Messages
 pbr    {25208} 

`Implied consent is a legal concept that means we can get on with our lives, say if someone steps on your foot (without causing much damage) in the street or brushes against you those are batteries, but by being out on the street you accept some risk of being brushed against or accidentally trodden on... or if you`re unconscious in an ER and need some immediate surgery your consent to that surgery will probably be implied... it wouldn`t do that we should be clogging up the courts with such trivial or even beneficial matters... there are perverts to be locked up ;) `

Nice definition.
But may I be mischievous for a moment? Forgive me, it`s in my nature...

If one is to assume my implied consent to be brushed against or trodden on in public, erm, couldn`t we then please argue implied consent on television, pay tv and – the internet (!).

So, next time John Beyer reaches a state of apoplexy by seeing a commercial of which he doesn`t approve, would someone point out to him that the broadcasters are operating with his implied consent?

After all, it would be nice if the principle of implied consent would cut both ways. Not merely to screw us, but also to screw them...

Thus, if you venture out into the street, you consent to the risk of being bumped. If you turn on your tv, visit a cinema or go online, you consent to the risk of seeing something you don`t like. Item. QED. And all that malarky.... Case closed. No more law, no more censorship, no more bull or any other faeces, governmental or otherwise.

Implied consent. Brilliant!

But let me guess. It`s a rather `flexible` term, yes? Lol!

phantom    [25205.   Posted 16-Apr-2009 Thu 03:24] View Near Messages

 MichaelG    {25204}

`Implied consent`?
Interesting. But then the lawyers have been playing games with the ideas of consent for some time.
Best of all among these are of course the government hatchet men.

Both on rape law and on the the DPA they like to speak of `notional consent`.
From what understand that means either, that someone said yes but means no, or that someone says yes but has no legally acknowledged power to do so (e.g. Spanner).
In either case the idea of consent not being such seems to strike at the very heart of our being independent adult individuals possessed of a free will.

I guess to this wondrous lingual idiocy of notional consent we can now add implied consent. How precisely any BT customer would imply his or her consent is beyond me. But it sure sounds good, ey?

Regarding the arrest of climate protesters:

I found that worrying the moment I heard of it. Frankly, I`ve never been a fan of those with green fluorescent hair and eye brow piercings who feel they have the right to bring airports and power stations to a halt.

But again it`s a question of someone being innocent until proven guilty. If the powers that be like it or not, we do need to let wrong doers do some actual wrong before we act against them.

Once again it seems that some anti-terrorism thinking seems to be infesting Britain`s civil life.
Once more we`re seeing a pre-emptive strike to `take out` a supposed threat.

But once again we`re left wondering if the disruption of this action by environmentalists doesn`t owe more to the desire to stop them from protesting altogether, as opposed to just wishing to prevent illegality from taking place.

Meanwhile, I just don`t think preventing half a dozen people from pinning a bed sheet with a sprayed on slogan to a cooling tower really warrants pre-emptive action.

phantom    [25200.   Posted 13-Apr-2009 Mon 06:47] View Near Messages
actually, that picture looks doctored...

phantom    [25197.   Posted 12-Apr-2009 Sun 08:06] View Near Messages
Re: Eve Salomon appointed as Chair of the Board at the IWF

Er, call me superficial and judgemental if you like. But doesn`t Eve Salomon just look the part to be a censor? The age, the short cropped hair and just the general aura.

It`s odd how it`s never the buxom blondes who end up being enamoured with censorship, isn`t it?

Just looking at Ms Salomon, would I be right in placing her left of centre? Went to uni in the 70s, etc, etc...

I know I`m hardly being professional here, but could we imagine this lady sitting down for dinner with Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith?

Personally, I`d not even be surprised to hear that they`d been cloned in the same laboratory....

phantom    [25196.   Posted 12-Apr-2009 Sun 07:57] View Near Messages
MichaelG    {25195} 
Well, I`m not sure how `leftist` Stalin actually ever was, but I do see what you mean. Eventually extremism of any kind tends to end up in the same sink hole, no matter what.

But I do think that Labour`s authoritarianism is helping to set a tone in which the BNP with its totalitarian attitude doesn`t appear that extreme any more.

Essentially Labour are making authoritarianism a possibility again for mainstream parties. In doing so they are indeed opening the door for others.

But again we are faced with their self-delusion. They – currently the chief reason for this trend – think themselves the only ones who can save us from the BNP.

Yet if we look at their politics things are quite telling. Buddying up to neo-cons in the US went far beyond sharing one`s toothpaste with George W Bush. The laws and measures attempted by either side on either terrorism or morality are startlingly similar.
Yet ask Dianne Abbott about George Bush and she`ll start foaming at the mouth, before falling into raptures over Obama.

Yet listen to Obama`s inauguration speech and he talks of how freedom is not divisible how we cannot sacrifice civil liberties in defence of freedom and how it is supposed to be difficult and challenging to stand fr freedom.

To illustrate the divide between Obama`s democrat politics and Labour we only need to look at the reception Jesse Jackson received by Keith Vaz and Martin Salter in parliamentary committee...

Labour without a shadow of a doubt are now a party of authoritarianism and enforcement of approved uniformity. Their targets may differ from that of the BNP, but their methods – `Do as we say – or else!` - are the same.

My prediction is that the longer Labour stay in power, the more mainstream the BNP will appear.

phantom    [25194.   Posted 11-Apr-2009 Sat 14:08] View Near Messages
Well, I do think the BNP is benefiting from Labour`s incumbency.

I think it`s actually the cumulative effect of what they think is egalitarian thinking as well as outright right wing mania which Labour are portraying which is acting as a recruiting sergeant for the BNP.

So for example, who – if not Labour – is stoking up fear of Muslims with their constant Star Trek `red alert` warnings of how imminent an attack by extremists is?

Will this possibly engender good race relations? Is the above more or less likely to make John Bull think all Muslims are crazed jihadists foaming at the mouth?
Is it thus more or less likely to encourage people to vote BNP?

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the scale, Labour are introducing their imbecilic anti-hate-speech legislation. Once more, is being told that you are not permitted to say something nasty about people of other faiths more or less likely to generate resentment among those so censored of their opinions?

So first, Labour purposely create an atmosphere wherein the general population is to suspect enemies within. Next, they tell the people that – by law – they are not permitted to say anything bad about these possible enemies.

It is an ideal mix to create paranoia and xenophobia, which invariably benefits the BNP.

Finally, take the general sentiment broadcast by the Labour government that authoritarianism, surveillance and control are good things. Leeway, discretion and toleration are apparently bad things, supposedly signs of weak governments, etc.

In that way Labour are actively engaged in making the BNP look reasonable. Why, because in several ways their political ideas are very similar.

The latter would no doubt be vehemently denied by Labour. They would prefer to see themselves as the antithesis to the BNP. But that is merely a delusion they have fallen prey to. They insist on seeing themselves as the anti-Thatcherite and thus anti-authoritarian and anti-establishment party. However, to be in government for over ten years and to still believe oneself to be anti-establishment is quite a give-away in that regard.

Labour are completely detached from the perception the public have of them, viewing themselves instead in some strange parallel universe.

In no way is that better demonstrated than in their utter adoration of Barack Obama. Here is a man who represents just about every polar opposite of their approach to things and they think he shares their values.

But there you go, there is nothing like self-delusion when it comes to politics.
After all, remember, the emperor wears clothes. Now say after me, the emperor wears clothes...

phantom    [25185.   Posted 9-Apr-2009 Thu 13:27] View Near Messages
 Spiderschwein    {25183}        

Great minds think alike. :)
I too can`t help wonder whenever they start rounding up `terrorists`.
It`s a measure of just how badly trust has broken down by now.

Who`d forget the tanks at Heathrow?

But when it comes to fox hunting, I see it differently.
That in my mind had something to do with us having invaded the wrong country and not found any weapons which could obliterate the western world in 45 minutes....
It was the sacrificial lamb Blair provided the left who were rebellious about having gone to war with a bunch of neo-cons. (that`s because they still live under the delusion that they are not neo-cons themselves)

phantom    [25184.   Posted 9-Apr-2009 Thu 13:22] View Near Messages
IanG    {25181} 

Nikki Flynn is protected by being a protagonist, as I understand.

However, does this for example also apply to a production company? After all, a company hardly is a protagonist...

Am I saying this will happen? No.
But there are possibilities to play with here.
Would something happen under the OPA? No. People wouldn`t convict. But then under the OPA their judgement is sought. Under the DPA they merely are there to confirm that certain parameters are met. After all, we`ve all heard the one that the DPA is to close loopholes in the OPA.

Can the BBFC decide to prosecute? No.
But does the BBFC pretend to be expert in this matter. Would they facilitate a prosecution?
Why not? After all, they`re keen to extend their grip on the world of publishing. They`d have an interest in seeing UK internet publishers humbled.

Largely we are dealing with a law of fear here. One wonders if this was not its principle purpose. Fear to view, but also fear to publish. - The tariff of publication was extended simultaneously.

But it is worth considering that even the proposal of publication might now get you in trouble. If the BBFC`s self-appointed arbiters of taste decide to deny your right to publish on dvd, they now also have the clout to pass on your details to the police.

Why would they wish to do so? Why not? Just read their judgement on `I am not a number`. The tone of is is crushing. It sounds as though it has been written by Martin Salter.

All that`s missing are the words `abhorrent` and `no place in our society`....

Now I know I can be accused of paranoia here. But given the nature of the `enemy` here, it`s hard not to see possibilities everywhere. These people are not rational. Thus how do we apply a rule to irrationality? Clearly we can`t and therefore there actions are unforeseeable.

The judgement regarding `I am not a number` talks solely in terms of this being abuse. As I said in the previous post. There is no acknowledgement of the existence of sado-masochism by the BBFC at all in all of its material.
Some years ago I spoke to a BBFC spokesman about adult material and was dumbfounded by the tone when he hit on matters fetish. There was no understanding of the differences of fetishes at all. They were all lumped together and were effectively all `abusive` in nature.

Just as hardcore seems to represent barely disguised rape in their view, so anything fetish is merely of interest to people with psychological `issues`.

That is the world in which the BBFC live. Is it thus such a surprise I`d think them capable of inciting a prosecution against someone whose application for a certificate they`d declined?

phantom    [25180.   Posted 8-Apr-2009 Wed 18:09] View Near Messages
Spiderschwein [25179]

Not sure if we`re not at crossed purposes here.
The LadyGaGa post was merely about music video content.
As for my reference to the DPA, that concerned the `I am not a Number`, which has not got the excuse of being `artistic` as it seems to have been submitted as a possible R18.

That has been one of my suspicions. That porn which is rejected by the BBFC may almost automatically become a possible subject to prosecution if the applicant is situated within this country.

So fetish producers may be deterred from even submitting any material to the BBFC for fear of being prosecuted once the `experts` have deemed them perverts.

It would be one of those indirect ways of `cleansing` UK publication which the government would no doubt deny, yet which make perfect sense in consideration of the puritan streak that runs through their policies...

phantom    [25178.   Posted 8-Apr-2009 Wed 06:56] View Near Messages
Just watched that Lady GaGa video on youtube over which the ozzies have got their knickers in a twist.

Excuse me, but where is the problem. Fetish clothing of the males? Do leather jackets constitute fetish wear? As for people grabbing their crotch. Er, Jackson`s been doing that since the 80s.

There is nothing in that video which you wouldn`t see watching, say, Britney Spears` `Toxic` or Christina Aguilera`s `Dirty`.

Complaints against this are frankly laughable. It`s utterly mainstream.
George Michael and Madonna have done more `fetishy` videos and there`s certainly been more suggestive stuff...

phantom    [25177.   Posted 8-Apr-2009 Wed 06:51] View Near Messages
spoonbender {25176}
Don`t expect `joined up thinking` on any such matter, Spoonbender. The powers that be will always ban stuff which, if only it wore their colour rosette, they`d condone.

But yes, I too was taken aback by the language. The BBFC for all its self-proclaimed expertise is inherently incapable of understanding sadomasochism. Simply put, it ticks boxes.
If a certain box is ticked, it must be cut or else it is banned.
Thus certain violence, torture, non-consent is all off limits.

That however brings us back to the age old question: is there such a thing as masochism? If there is then the box ticking doesn`t work. Because it means that `violence` can have an alternative context.

The BBFC simply insists on stating that violence will beget further violence. Thus insisting that any arousal by `violence` is bad. By definition they are thus defining sado-masochists as `bad`.
Of course they will deny this. But it is a logical conclusion.

Unable to differentiate, between Hannibal Lecter violence and sado-masochistic fantasy, they are clearly discriminating against a sexual grouping.

But then they are little more than parking attendants ticking boxes. Their expertise is about as deep as my knowledge of rocket science.
For all their claims of insight, I`d doubt their quality of work would differ much from the box ticking by a person employed as a supermarket cashier.

However, if the above merely seems to point to a discrimination based on a box-ticking then I must say that the language of the BBFC judgement reveals much more.

I very much doubt the material amounts to anything like the language makes it sound like. The verbiage drips with contempt, thereby clearly indicating a deep held bias.

What adds further to the whole unease is the question whether the BBFC have got in touch with the CPS regarding prosecution. I get the impression that there are UK persons involved here, which would possibly call the DPA onto the scene...

phantom    [25173.   Posted 7-Apr-2009 Tue 07:31] View Near Messages
Well, I`m not sure activism as such has gone away.
But I think it has moved on.

The macro-political experiments of the 20t century are over.
Socialism died. It went the way of communism and fascism.
If some of those once subscribed to those beliefs now announce the
death of capitalism in the credit crunch it is merely due to tribalism,
as the argument possesses no merit at all.

Global capitalism has won the contest of ideas. What we are witnessing
is a failure of oversight and governance.
No doubt eventually lessons will be learned. Not by politicians such as
Brown (who never make mistakes!) but on a systemic level.

All that said though, the radicals with purple hair and rings through their
noses have migrated away from saving the workers of the world, to vague
notions of anti-globalism and – of course – environmentalism, in the latter
I would also include the radical forms of animal rights activism and terrorism.

If we come to the notions of communal projects such as welfare and health
services then utterly deregulated countries such as the US look likely to emulate
European standards in time. Such institutions are thus hardly socialist by default,
but societal cooperatives, like education, policing or defence.

So I think there is plenty of radicalism about today. Hell, there are thousands
possessed by what seem pretty Luddite notions of ditching technology altogether
and going back to living supposedly eco-friendly lives by candle light.

But the battles of previous generations seem to have faded. It`s impossible to
argue for socialism, when large parts of the world are still recovering from its
dreadful legacy.

Meanwhile feminism has largely collapsed under its own weight. Women are
realising that pursuing careers whilst raising kids is not as `liberating` as
it was once cracked up to be. Exhausting more like.

Even Germaine Greer needed to concede that women playing rugby, trying to drink
men under the table and joining the army, had never been what she envisaged.

It is however true that we are seeing the generation of 70s students reach the highest
echelons of power now. As is always the case the powerful are usually outdated and obsolete
by the time they take office.

Thus they spend their days fighting innovations which are unacceptable to them, yet become
mainstays to future generations; be it rock n`roll or the internet.

So what we`re seeing is quite poisonous stuff. But I fear it might be the inevitable fate that we must digest the ideological mistakes of three to four decades ago within government at any given time. No doubt when the time comes we are going to environmentalled to death, by people who were brought up to think the whales will go extinct if we `waste resources` by flushing used loo paper down the toilet.


Right now seems to be the time of the feminist bra-burner. There seems little we can do about it. It is simply their turn to embarrass themselves at what incorrect conclusions they drew from the past.

What worries me is more the notion that such mistakes may be set in stone. For if this set of loons had the courage to undo the moral strictures of yesteryear brought in by their predecessors (clause 28), I doubt the current opposition in waiting will have the moral courage to undo the outmoded nonsense introduced by this lot.

Regurgitating the bad ideas of thirty years ago is hideous enough, but it is truly frightening if they are thereafter not undone.

phantom    [25167.   Posted 6-Apr-2009 Mon 16:42] View Near Messages
Wow, is that a `wall of silence` I`m facing, Freeworld, or just an edit that went wrong? :)

As for the piece regs xenophobia directed at Dano. I agree that not everyone who necessarily disagrees with immigration policy need be a xenophobe. Alternately you will have to concede that many claiming to merely be opposed to the policy are actually xenophobes unwilling to declare it.

As such I don`t think we`re anywhere near as overpopulated as you claim. Nor do I think that there is such cast iron evidence that it doesn`t work, as you seem to argue. The existence of the US seems to show that people can stem from various disparate part s of the world and still get along, even under a president who`s father was a Kenyan.

Now sure, integration is the key. But that seems a different matter than immigration itself.

As for `absurd asylum policies`, I`m not sure where you`re going there. As such we`ve still not been overcome by asylum seekers quite yet. I`d add that not all asylum seekers are hook wielding one-eyed mullahs in Finnsbury.

As an aside, I`d mention that your position on immigration and asylum seems certainly right of centre. I say this, as you always insist on not being conservative....

Regarding Brand being hubristic; I`m not sure that such a tag isn`t a little melodramatic. Being a cocky, big headed comedian isn`t really anything akin to a challenge to the gods just yet.
Frankly, I still remain utterly indifferent towards the Brand/Ross affair.
I tend to reserve the twisting of my knickers for matters such as the benefit fraud which the parliamentary expenses milking amounts to. What a few celebs might have got up to on the radio just doesn`t seem to compare in my estimation.

I could well imagine that you`re right though in thinking that Straw and Blears are merely flying that kite in order to distract from the expenses fiasco.
Although I think the prize for best bit of disinformation on that front must go to Mr Bell and his claim regarding the supposed £300,000 sale of MPs` expenses details.
If that is not an attempt at diverting a runaway train onto a different track, then nothing ever was...

phantom    [25160.   Posted 6-Apr-2009 Mon 08:21] View Near Messages
Aren`t we overstating matters a little here?

Yes, we have seen a phalanx of feminists indoctrinated by 70s-bra-burning ideology come to reach powerful positions.
But surely this is merely the result of individuals having deceived the public regarding their political ideas.

This hardly constitutes a conspiracy of people who twenty years ago got together in some devious plot to take over the country.

Now I know, some will say the result is the same. That`s true enough.
But isn`t it merely the case that some seriously dogmatic people simply pretended to be mainstream in order to achieve public acceptance, only to thereafter revert back to type?

In any case, I`m not even so sure about the dogma.
Is it that this is really an imperative for them, or is it simply that - alike Mr Hacker in Yes, Minister - they are pathological about being seen to be active? `Action now!` as Hacker says.

It is quite clear that Labour have run out of any coherent policy ideas. There is no agenda left, accept for tired old phrases and security driven paranoia.

When thus looking for something to do, is it really surprising that these people are reverting back to utopias of yesteryear? These are the ideas which informed their peers of their generation.
They - much like all generations - do not really comprehend those generations who came before or after them.

When it comes to political correctness, again I`m not sure if we`re talking about dogma. More so it may be the imposition of their world upon ours by means of extrapolation. What do I mean?
Well, celebrities and politicians live in goldfish bowls where every word they utter is painstakingly examined. They are thus all totally pc, lest they get anything even tangentially wrong.

Again, it is perhaps inevitable that a group of politicians, once devoid of any idea what new policy to introduce, start enforcing upon us the dos-and-donts which affect them. i.e. They are not permitted to say anything bold, lest they offend some minority group. Ergo, this is the only acceptable behaviour. Society forces them to behave so, thus they understand it as the societal standard and end up forcing society.

This is not to say that any of it is excusable. But I think people have to start worrying a little abut sounding like the BNP wing of those declaring that alien Lizard-men are secretly taking over the earth.

What is happening is thoroughly rotten. But I doubt it`s part of a conspiracy. It may merely be the result of the nature of those among any population who tend to seek power and the consequences of an administration being in government for too long, not least due to an ineffective opposition.

So, yes, I do condemn what they`re doing. But I refuse that it`s some sort of dark covenant sealed in blood in a cave in Cornwall, involving dead chickens....

phantom    [25140.   Posted 2-Apr-2009 Thu 17:38] View Near Messages
Ian,
yes, the hypocrisy was of biblical proportion, wasn`t it?

After all, we know there are people who take offence at `bad language`, don`t we? We are not among them, but we know they exist.

Something tells me, Dianne Abbott also knows.
But if she wants to say `wank` (in the most disdainful tone imaginable) several times, that`s ok.
After all, it`s her morality which matters, not somebody else`s.

Does the idea of pontificating on morality in a manner which morally offends someone else not strike anyone at the BBC slightly odd?

Oh, and before I forget it`s only `men` who `wank`. Wimmin it appears don`t do that sort of lurid thing. They were merely mentioned as victims, not as `wankers`.

Did I mention that Dianne Abbott is a woman? Lol.

phantom    [25138.   Posted 2-Apr-2009 Thu 16:40] View Near Messages
Ah, the joys of politics on the BBC!

Just watched `This Week` presented by Andrew Neil on BBC1.
As many of you will know the regular pundits on that show are Michael Portillo and Dianne Abbott.

Well, on this episode the question was raised (no doubt inspired by the recent Daily Mail article highlighted by Freeworld) whether we ought to grow up about porn.

I don`t know how many of you know that Dianne Abbott is a died-in-the-wool anti-page-three apparatchik, but hell, it all came out....

Please take note:
Most women in porn are trafficked.
Most women in porn are also addicted to crack or other substances.
It`s a fact. Dianne said so and she wouldn`t lie. After all, she`s a Labour MP and they never lie.

And of course the line was that `if men want to wank over this stuff`...

Andrew Neil tried in vain to control her vocabulary, but eventually conceded defeat and congratulated her on her hat-trick of `wanks` during her rants.

Oh, and did I mention that porn `dehumanises women`? In her constituency there was a case where some youngsters apparently poured acid over their rape victim. This was dropped in as supposed substantiation of the supposed dehumanisation.

The physically unattractive, grossly overweight Valkyrie (of course, that`s nothing to do with her dislike of material full of attractive, lithe nubiles, no?) brooked no opposition. When the guest introducing the piece tried to oppose on one or two points she was put into place by the `clunking fist` of Dianne. i.e. shouted down.
At one point Andrew Neil even told her outright to stop heckling.

We were told in no uncertain terms that women (nay, mothers!) were writing to her (one would think in droves) about their poor kiddies being exposed `at kids eye level!` to `things that once would have belonged on the top shelf!` (I think they`re called lads mags, my dear.)

Portillo said nothing. He sat shtum and kept out of the way of the feminist brawler, rolling his eyes at the disdainful `wanks` pouring fourth.

But did this darling bud of May actually say she was against porn? No. After all, one wouldnt` want to appear a puritan. After all, if men want to wank over such things.....

Ye Gods!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/default.stm

phantom    [25134.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 18:44] View Near Messages
Actually, folks. I think you`re falling for quite a cynical ploy by Channel 4 here. They`re effectively doing what tabloids do. They`re playing both sides at once.

They get their audience, by promising tits on TV. But they`re also playing the card of moral outrage. In doing so, casting themselves as the pillars of moral probity.

It`s a game the tabloids have been playing for years.
`Shock! Horror! Filth and nudity on TV! By the way, check out Stacey`s knockers on page 3!`

Channel 4 have of course frequently been attacked for their rather voyeuristic approach. e.g. Eurotrash et alia.

But now put yourself in the shoes of Mr Beyer. Quite hard to attack a program which is showing nudity, yet actually largely represents your moral outlook. i.e. sex=bad (unless in the biblical sense)

As for Tubeforreason; I`m not sure if you`re just here to stir, mate. But that was quite unreal what you said there. What the hell is a `white school` and why wouldn`t they fall for this stuff?

Dare I counter your argument? Gordon Brown (white), Tony Blair (white), Harriet Harman (white), Jacqui Smith (white), David Blunkett (white), Charles Clarke (white), John Beyer (white), Jack Straw (white), Paul Goggins (white), Vernon Coaker (white).

So please, that comment of yours was not `non-pc`. Frankly, it was just bullshit.

phantom    [25125.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 13:23] View Near Messages
Regarding, the Scottish DPA:

`Harvie made his plea when the justice committee scrutinised the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. If passed, the bill will radically overhaul existing law on rape and other sex crimes, and will redefine consent as free agreement.`

Can anyone tell me why, given that everyone knows what consent is to mean, we now need a new term; `free agreement`?
One can`t help but think that someone is trying to reinvent the wheel, no?

I mean, is there any form of consent which would not be `free agreement`?

I suspect we are entering into the perilous territory of `notional consent` again. Else I can not see why this distinction would be drawn.

phantom    [25080.   Posted 26-Mar-2009 Thu 07:02] View Near Messages
 freeworld    {25079} 
I`m not really sure how important it is to the point I made whether Labour or the Monster Raving Loonies banned pirate radio. But if it was Labour who stopped pirate radio, then so be it. I`m neither surprised nor confirmed in any opinion.

However, my point was much more concerned with the present. Curtis has made his fortune being finely attuned to public sentiment. If he`s bringing out a hit comedy lampooning a government keen to torpedo freedom out to sea, then it signals a groundswell. Curtis is not one to espouse notions which would be unpopular with the public. He generally tends to know where they`re going before they do.

The groundswell of opinion is what the likes of us have really been waiting for. So far people have tended to be against all this control and surveillance, but were largely apathetic. Which is why government could get away with it time and again.
This may however mark the beginning of the end. People may indeed be at the point where they`ve had enough.

Now sure, one film does not a revolution make. But Curtis is a significant voice. Most of all, because he is not a campaigner for our sort of view. He is as mainstream as they come.
Government cannot no longer claim ours to be a marginal view if people like Curtis are getting aboard.

You need only watch the trailers to see the sentiment of the film. As Nighy says in it: `Governments loathe people being free.`

As you know I`ve always had the view that popular culture eventually always defeats any government attempts at engineering our behaviour.
Well, once people like Curtis are getting their act into gear, then the behemoth that is popular culture is possibly clearing for action.

If the general national mood is turning toward sticking two fingers up to censorial and overbearing governmental bullies, then things indeed may be a-changing.

phantom    [25078.   Posted 25-Mar-2009 Wed 15:24] View Near Messages
freeworld [25075]

Trust you to see the party-political angle in this. :)
I`d not be the least surprised if it was a Labour government who declared war on pirate radio.

But I`d still say that Curtis` portrayal of the issue will have more than a little symbolism in it regarding our burgeoning big brother state which is declaring more and more `verboten`. I doubt his having chosen this subject is mere coincidence.

I saw a clip of the film on the BBC, where minister Kenneth Branagh speaks to his advisors. I couldn`t help but feel that Mr Curtis, like us, had been listening to some of the twisted reasoning of these people as of late. The minister effectively stated that it was one of the benefits of being in government that one could pass laws to prohibit things of which one did not approve.

To claim that Curtis is merely a Labour luvvy is perhaps a little rash. He seems possessed of a pretty sharp mind. sure he was on Labour`s side in `97. I doubt he likes what he sees now.

But as said, I rate Curtis for his ability to reflect opinions and social attitudes long before the rest of the media – least of all the politicians - really cotton on.

He made Dawn French a vicar before the Church of England actually began to ordain women. In Four Weddings and a Funeral he already featured a gay couple in a mainstream comedy, etc, etc.

Already at `Love, actually` I`d say Curtis was signalling his disapproval, dreaming up a PM who told the US president to get lost. The public seemed to agree. After all, the film was a massive hit. Meanwhile the whole political legacy of that unfortunate union seems to be thoroughly discredited by now.

Not to see the obvious parallels of an Ueber-government wanting to ban, hack and slash something it doesn`t like with what`s going on today is pretty difficult.
It seems that, if government is trying to `send a message to society`, then Curtis is trying to send one back.

I doubt for one moment that the likes of Coaker and Goggins will realise that Kenneth Branagh`s character represents their kind. But I trust plenty in the public will.

phantom    [25070.   Posted 24-Mar-2009 Tue 18:35] View Near Messages
Is it me or has Richard Curtis done it again?

He tends to have his finger on the pulse of public sentiment pretty well.
His films, scripts and tv series tend to clearly reflect what folks think of their government of the day. Who could forget Hugh Grant effectively telling the US president to get lost in 2003? Or anyone remember the Tory stalwart David Horton in the Vicar of Dibley?

Now Curtis` latest product is `The Boat that rocked`.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb0LX7BrbBQ

Kenneth Branagh is the minister determined on shutting down the `sewer of dirty, low morals`.

I think Curtis seems to be bang on the button again.

No idea what the film is going to be like, but the analogy to our `no-place-in-our-society` government which has no understanding of the nation`s youth seems fairly clear.

I think dear Richard is predicting that they are on the utterly wrong track.
Given that this comes from the man whose Vicar of Dibley was an avid Labourite, I think they can`t claim this to be coming from a hostile quarter. Though no doubt they will....

phantom    [25066.   Posted 24-Mar-2009 Tue 04:52] View Near Messages
Rights and Responsibilities:

It beggars belief, doesn`t it?
So Jack Straw is going to `enshrine` our social and economic rights, except that the won`t make them enforceable by law.
Er, dare I ask what is being `enshrined` then? An aspiration? Spin?

Interesting also how there appears to be a `duty to vote`. Are we going Australian? If I`m to be duty bound to vote, I`d like politicians to be duty-bound to be electable, thank you very much.

We`re also to be duty bound to live within our environmental limits. Can I sense a regime of limitations and fines coming along in order to keep our respective carbon footprints within the limits set by Hiyawoffa and his friends?

Next, have you all spotted the cop-out, boys and girls?
I mean, Melonfarmers are particularly interested in freedom of expression regarding adult material. Yet, UK governments always make strenuous efforts to have an opt-out (to protect public morals) if they enter into any agreements.

In this case the magic line is `to promote the wellbeing of children`.
With this they can override anything they don`t like. So if you thought you may have a right to equality (as in equality of sexual orientation or interest), think again. Anything that offends Jacqui and Harriet can be prohibited because they are duty bound to promote the wellbeing of children.

Will they have a duty to prove that something they disapprove of stifles the wellbeing of children? I very much doubt so.

But imagine the sheer panacea. Keith Vaz (yes, him again) will be licking his lips at the thought of a new weapon with which to clobber computer games. After all, he`ll be duty bound to `promote the wellbeing of children`.

So there you go. Even if the whole thing were `enshrined in law` (And I have a feeling that the responsibilities will be, unlike the rights.), then they`ve already secured themselves a get-out-of-jail-free-card against folks like us.

Now if only they would half that deviousness and cleverness to do something about the banks....

phantom    [25064.   Posted 23-Mar-2009 Mon 11:54] View Near Messages
pbr    {25062} 

Mr Dominic Grieve of the despicable Conservative Party (insert spitting sound here) has obviously bowed to the greater wisdom of those more learned than himself (New Labour) and has finally come to understand the greater wisdom of those who would otherwise call him names, if he disagreed.

After all, if he expressed an opinion not shared by government someone might say something nasty about him and thus his political career would be ruined, irrespective of whether he was right or not.

Mr Dominic Grieve has hence undergone the necessary procedure and is now Ms Dominic Grieve. He has left a deposit in a jar with Ms Harman.
His political future is hence guaranteed.

Shall I stop now, Freeworld? Do you get my point? Lol.

phantom    [25061.   Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 11:55] View Near Messages
freeworld [25060]

`Thanks to NuLabour`s wide ranging legislation, one now even fears to write down what the consequences are of the closing off of democratic options when people are discontented and angry with their ruling elite.`

Piffle!
You`re only saying that because you would go soft on organised criminals, terrorists and paedophiles. If we leave the country to irresponsible appeasers (that was the word, freeworld!) like you, then we might as well vote for Osama.
Thank God for sensible people like Blunkett and Jackie Smith!

Now of course, since I`ve said this, you will now slither away, Freeworld. Cowed, realising it unwise ever to speak up again, lest my scorn singe you again.
Just like Garnier you will silence your forked tongue and hide under a rock, hoping the voices of righteousness will not reach you there. The clarion voices of living legends such as the mighty Howarth.

So, that`s Freeworld sorted.
Is there anyone else willing to be accused of being a toe-rag? Or are you all going to be good little boys (or should I say committee members?) now and stop criticising government edicts (er, I meant policies, honest)?
Or else I`ll accuse you of being paedophile-philes. Really, I will. Then, where will you be?

After all, remember! If you criticise you might be attacked and thus lose your ability to criticise.

phantom    [25059.   Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 10:30] View Near Messages
Freeworld,
How did that happen? I did a double take there...
Did you just move your whole post up the listing by deleting the original and re-posting?

I see we both totally agree (gushingly) with Labour`s approach then.
After all, that`s their motto in debate, isn`t it: If in doubt, just restate what you`ve already said. :)

phantom    [25057.   Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 09:53] View Near Messages
 freeworld    {25054}   

`What would happen to you if you opposed the Nazis in power (not before they were not in power)?`

So, I guess the answer to my question is yes. One should not oppose Goebbels. Else one will be deemed a pro-Jew. Remind me again what not opposing fascists is called again...

In any case, I`m glad that`s sorted then. I wholeheartedly henceforth will agree wholeheartedly with New Labour.

For if I say anything against their policies they`ll find something to say against me.

Thus I guess I might as well put my nuts in a jar and post them to Harriet Harman.
Meanwhile, I`ll say nothing lest they say something utterly untrue which people might believe.

Thanks for that, Freeworld. It all makes sense now. ;)

Prohibiting drawings to protect non-existent imaginary characters in law from fictitious harm?
Brilliant idea! You go, girl!
But Harriet, couldn`t we lock them up for longer? Surely children are better protected then?

And should anyone disagree with my agreeing with them. Well, you won`t want to do that, or I`ll accuse you of being Nigger-lov..., sorry, Paedophile apologists. So, go on. Agree with `us` – or we`ll say something nasty...

Politique a l`anglais. Or `Pie eating surrender monkeys, part II`.

phantom    [25051.   Posted 22-Mar-2009 Sun 08:14] View Near Messages
Freeworld    {25049}
 
`Phantom-see how Garnier`s mere questioning of the dangerous drawings law in committee caused Howarth (ever see a picture of Howarth?) to sneer at him in his question on the proposed law to the minister in the commons. As I said, opposing such things as this provides a gift for smearing political opponents as "aiding child abuse"... whatever ( such a charge is probably even more politically damaging than "pro terrorist"-when such opposition is really just being against stupid dangerously vague disproportionate laws, the need for which has never been established-the opposite of "evidence led legislation). As politically such things are hard to openly resist once they are rolled out, far better have politicians in power who don`t introduce them in the first place.`

Freeworld, so what if they sneer?
Is your argument that one better not oppose Goebbels as one else might be portrayed as pro-Jewish?
The argument is `difficult to oppose` only because there is a conspiracy of silence around this issue. The emperor is wearing no clothes. Yet still people are too afraid to say so.
But frankly, Freeworld, bullshit is bullshit.

When you in conversation mention to people that owning a topless picture of a 17 year old is illegal they can scarcely believe you. The unanimous reaction is that it`s idiotic. Nonetheless the law stands. More so, nobody dares stand up in parliament and point out the bleeding obvious because they`re too afraid of the might Mr Howarth sneering at them. Eunuchs, each and every one of them, it appears.

When David Davis actually did something principled they all sought to distance themselves from his `folly`.
Yet here we are seeing a situation where a stand might in fact bring the whole edifice crashing down.

I was vehemently opposed to the DPA. But nothing – absolutely nothing – seems to equate with the stupidity of this. We are now protecting imaginary children of ambiguous age from supposed abuse.

We have entered cloud cuckoo land. Literally.
We are legislating what is aloud to be imagined in fiction.

Yet still, the fear of what Mr Howarth might sneer is just too great. I`m sorry, but it is quite pathetic.

Where`s Guy Falkes when you need him?

phantom    [25045.   Posted 21-Mar-2009 Sat 19:05] View Near Messages
MichaelG    {25041} 
You`re right it isn`t islamophobic to say that there is much more evidence of the damage that Muslims extremists can do than, say, folks who look at pictures.

But I have always had some grave doubts about the claims by government, which the media swallow hook, line and sinker, that there is some organised foe out there.
If anything the evidence regarding the folks who blow themselves up is that they cut a rather pathetic figure. Several seem to have mental shortcomings (well, to put it politely).

But the government and media are always telling us of a `sophisticated foe`. If some nuts in India or Iraq detonate two or three suicide bombs simultaneously it`s a `sophisticated attack`.
Why is wearing a watch sophisticated?

Society is being paralysed by fear of a foe whose existence we have to take on the word of those who wish to increase their powers.

Is there some loons who can`t think of anything better to do with their lives than to blow themselves up? Yes.
But is there a sophisticated network of command and control where great complex schemes are being masterminded? We are told there is. But we`re to take their word on that.
Frankly, I don`t believe them. They have a self-evident conflict of interest in telling us these supposed grave threats which require these extraordinary powers.

The same for me is the case with the internet. I cannot say that I ever have seen a dangerous site where oft-quoted `internet chatter` warns of imminent martyrdom operations. I doubt anyone here has. But no doubt we`ve all heard of them and been force-fed reams of column inches on brainwashing sites inciting people to blow themselves up.

Now I don`t believe in the possibility of brainwashing folks into launching terror attacks via a website. I don`t believe that the morons who run neo-nazi sites can turn anyone into a fascist with a site. Why should I thus believe in the supposed danger of sites by Muslim extremists?

We are once again in the land of corruption.
Just as showing someone a picture of a women being flogged can supposedly induce foaming at the mouth, followed by running amok in the street on a rape frenzy, so can seeing a preacher spout nonsense about the glory of semtex induce people to wish for nothing more than to obliterate themselves as a human firework.
I`m sorry, I don`t by it.

I believe the entire `threat` to be phoney. It is merely conceived as a means by which to exploit the national fear, created by militant nuts, to extort ever more powers from us.
The very fact that no sites appear to be being closed down using these powers seems clearly to suggest that the powers are utterly superfluous.

We are in essence being told to be frightened in order to justify their grab for ever more power.
I cannot see the threat from some man with a hook on a website being real. Yet the powers which are being amassed are very real indeed.

This is not to say that I do not believe there to be potential nuts out there. The bombings have more than proved there are some.

But do I believe people can be `corrupted` to being terrorists by viewing websites? No.
Do I believe in `sophisticated` terror networks operating on the net? No.
Do I believe the government have ulterior motives for wanting us to believe the above? Oh, yes.

phantom    [25040.   Posted 20-Mar-2009 Fri 12:18] View Near Messages
MichaelG {25039}

I`d go one further, MichaelG.
If they`re not closing any down, what chance that the danger from these sites ain`t that great?
What are the odds that a `danger` was hyped up in order to get themselves further exceptional powers?
What chance that now - that it is clear that they`re not using this power - it will thus be handed back?

Remember how all who are interested in pictures covered under the DPA are paedophiles-in-development?
That`s the depth of reasoned argument we`re facing here. Who`s to say it`s any deeper when talking about men with beards?

After consider where you`d heard about these dangerous sites. From the press. Then consider who briefed them...
All the while, the `grave threat` most likely never existed.

The powers however remain.

phantom    [25032.   Posted 18-Mar-2009 Wed 08:36] View Near Messages
freeworld [25031]
Freeworld, You seem to misunderstand my use of the word `elite`.
I am not at all pointing to an aristocracy, yet toward an establishment.
My mistake for not making that sufficiently clear, I guess.

If you deny the Labour hierarchy being an elite, you are effectively buying into their lie, whereby they are all salt-of-the-earth working class heroes.
Most are in fact moneyed lawyers.
They are as much part of the establishment as are the Tories and just about everyone else in parliament.

As for Potemkin. It was cleared for exhibitions in salons, i.e. private film clubs, but was prohibited from being screened in cinemas. It was a clear move whereby the elite was permitted to see it (as they deemed they could handle it), yet the common people were denied the right to see it (because the elite feared they`d be `corrupted`).

Eisenstein may indeed have been a `Stalinist stooge` but his films are deemed of film historical significance. It needn`t always be the `good guys` who take the medium forward, as Riefenstahl proved later.
So, Eisensteins `Battlecruiser Potemkin` was the `Citizen Kane` of its day.
In fact it`s often paid tribute to in modern films; for example, the staircase scene in `The Untouchables` starring Costner and Connery.

Due to its outstanding qualities there was a demand to see it. The elite did not want to deny itself this treat. But the people were not to be so lucky. After all, they were corruptible. The elite wasn`t.

This view continues to this day.
Again, `elite` is not to mean Bertie Wooster and friends. It is those who enjoy power and status within a society. (They may not be there on merit, but they all think they are.)

We are hence indeed looking at a top down society, where those at the top are somehow of the opinion that they are superior in their capacity to deal with certain challenges, whereas the great unwashed consist of headless chickens who get in a flap over no end of things.

As said the young gentlemen of their day were not to be denied seeing the pictures of Pompeii. It was not their nobility which entitled them to it, but their money, their ability to travel and see for themselves. Yet the people were to be denied sight of any reproductions.
They were not of the `quality` which could deal with such matter.

Now fast forward to today. Backbenchers, judges and bishops can still go and whip, clamp and cane to their heart`s content. Mr Salter went out of his way to assure them of that.
After all, he had to sure up support. If the elite turned against him, his attempt would be doomed.
So, if your a friend of Moseley`s, fear not. You`ve got the money to indulge your cravings in the very flesh. (i.e. you can travel to Pompeii.)

But if you`re merely a common mug and want to partake by viewing it. Sorry, you`re corruptible.

I guess it`s no wonder why the `proletarian` Labour government wasn`t too keen on too much scrutiny regarding their motives.... Lol.

phantom    [25026.   Posted 17-Mar-2009 Tue 07:53] View Near Messages
The problem is, Shaun, that we have a very limited choice of parties. In theory three, in practice two.
They in turn choose their manifesto from the entire spectrum of political concerns.
The political favourites like NHS, crime and order, defence, etc.
Aside such concerns vast amount of policy areas travel along, without ever getting a fair hearing.

As long as people vote Labour to `save the NHS`, or vote Tory to `save the pound`, are things like missing creep of CCTV cameras, arbitrary bans on trainspotters and illegal police actions against photographers really ever going to stand a chance?

Meanwhile of course, the leadership of both parties effectively represent the nation`s social elite.
The elite in turn has had a long standing distrust of the common classes and their ability to contend with liberties.

Censorship has a very murky past. Early black and white movies such a `Battlecruiser Potemkin` were banned from cinemas (where the common people might have seen it and be `corrupted` to its communist views) but permitted for the private film salons (where the upper classes could appreciate its artistry).

There has thus always been the idea that there are the `vulnerable people` who cannot cope with the sight of some things. This however never applied to the elite.

The actual origins of our pictorial censorship lie in the discovery of the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum, where lots of frescoes sprung to light of people shagging, with graffiti of phalluses everywhere and just about everything present to give your average corseted English damsel palpitations.

Again, it was perfectly acceptable for English gentlemen to view these `historical artefacts` on their Grand Tour of Italy.
But it was unthinkable what the great unwashed would have made of it, should reproductions have become available. So banned it had to be.

The elite are unanimous in the need for this paternal protection. It matters not whether they are Labour or Tory. The issue is never debated. The public are offered no choice in the matter.

In order to allay the charge of upper class domination, we are now subjected to the spectacle of supposed experts viewing the material `professionally` at the BBFC. It provides the whole edifice the figment of scientific rigour, albeit that it`s all really a pretence. One still really just bans that of which one doesn`t approve or which one fear the commoners will `misunderstand`.

The DPA, when viewed from an angle of class is quite telling. After all, Mr Salter went out of his way to tell the Members of the House that they could still do it, just not view it.

So, your backbencher who gets the itch can still pay a high class lady of the night £2000 for a night of professional, deviant fornication. But his lowly constituent is barred from paying £20 online to view such activity.

The very way in which the Coutts case was used, highlighted their feelings that in the underbelly of the British populace lurks a danger which needs to be curtailed. It doesn`t apply to them of course. After all, they`re the elite. But the plebeian masses cannot deal with some matters and must thus be prevented from accessing the same liberties which they enjoy. In short: we are but brute beasts to be harnessed as a `human resource` to aid progress and further enrich the nation. We cannot be trusted to act sensibly if exposed to temptation.

Invariably it will fall to the rest of the world to move on and gradually, by the process of erosion, to force our little Napoleons to take their foot of the brake eventually.

Ah well....

phantom    [25022.   Posted 15-Mar-2009 Sun 14:48] View Near Messages
freeworld    {25021.   Posted 15-Mar-2009 Sun 08:37}    

`There is nothing wrong with favouring "decent" values, but bullying people over their private taste and jailing them because of what they say or write are not being decent..these represent evil, totalitarian and fascistic "values". `

I`m sorry, Freeworld, but aren`t we indulging in a bit of spin here?
If one side censors and punishes, it`s `decent values`. If the other side does it, it`s `fascistic values`.

As for IDS`s `broken society` the term is being so widely used by the Tories that it is obvious tat it will also be applied to computer games, tv, video, internet and so on... Everywhere in fact where their `decent values` (as opposed to `fascistic values` of course) are seen to be under threat.

Isn`t it simply the case that `decent values` per se are at the heart of all this trouble? One man`s decency is another man`s oppression? It doesn`t matter if it`s a feminist, fascistic or family friendly decency. It simply overrides another`s free will.

The Tories have made quite clear that they are as intent on overriding other people`s free will.
It was true until now that they didn`t follow a notion of `improving` us, as Labour have. However, the notion of `mending a broken society` doesn`t bode well. It suggests indeed intervention for purposes of social engineering.

That frankly frightens me. As it sounds very much like what we`ve got. Sure, their motivation is different. Sure, the victims of this policy might be different ones as those which Labour habitually targets. But the concept sounds very familiar.

Also the moment Cameron is under pressure he will sure up his right wing support. He did so under the Brown bounce. And yes, the speech was on music lyrics and video games. When in government he is bound to come under pressure. The conclusion is fairly obvious.

Telling us that the Tories don`t have any more firebrands of the kind of Widdecombe or other purse lipped naysayers seems a bit complacent. I`m sure they`re there. But with nigh on 12 years in opposition they`ve not been sufficiently prominent in order to apply the thumb screws to us all.
Had anyone heard of Messrs Goggins and Coaker prior to 1997? I sure hadn`t. Can we really say that they`re ilk don`t lurk on the Tory benches?

I would once again simply point to David Davis. He`s not a man I share many views with. But I applauded his stance when he chucked it all in and stood for a by-election. Just how overwhelming was his support from the Tories on that note.

When recently the Binyam Mohammed situation hit the fan and judges were calling for papers to be published. Labour weaseled and squirmed. The Tories? They supported the government position. Yes, it`s hard to comprehend.

Simply dismissing Clause 28 as something minor doesn`t cut it, Freeworld. It was big. It was symbolic. It was nasty. Like the DPA it was a piece of official legislation which said `we loathe these people`.
Just as with the DPA, it is not for the state to make moral judgements regarding its own population. Frankly, they can stick their `decent values` where the sun don`t shine. All of them.
What we need is governance, not moral guidance. For that we can go to church.

Saying that the Tories didn`t support the government`s drive on the DPA seems weak. They didn`t have to support it. It would get through without their support and they knew it. They could have opposed. They chose not to.
In fact, when the government lacked the numbers in the Lords on the day of the vote, the LibDems called on the Tories to take a stand and defeat the bill. They abstained.
It was in their gift. They did nothing.

What can I say? It`s depressing.
As Shaun put, it`s Hobson`s Choice. The devil and the deep blue sea. Quite literally.

phantom    [25019.   Posted 14-Mar-2009 Sat 13:51] View Near Messages
 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {25015}  
I hear you loud and clear on the health care issue. I know this has been brandished time and again.

But I`m not sure the behemoth which is the NHS will ever be in a state of sufficient efficacy to implement any curbs on health care tourism.

However, there are other ideas which are developing in western law which I find this will lend itself to much more readily.

Forget terrorism and serious crime. They`re generally just fronts for any new draconian measure.

But western countries have begun seeking to enforce their sovereign law beyond their borders, at least with their own nationals.

The stalking horse, as usual, was child abuse. i.e. you shag a child in Thailand, we can convict you in Norway, no matter what.

As usual, all and sundry applauded breathlessly. I didn`t like the idea one bit.
I am adamant that crimes should be specific to location. Local law and law enforcement should be the only authority. No third party should be allowed to meddle.

Now sure, I hear the child protection lobbyists wailing to the sound of violins, but I believe that the disregarding of national sovereignty in law is a major mistake and will lead to serious problems.

Not least as the idea is expanding. Not sure which, but wasn`t some Scandinavian country en route to banning P4P for its nationals, even when abroad?

That said, the situation in internet publishing is depressing. `Published where downloadable` is patently idiotic, as it put us all in peril, should we ever travel to Saudi Arabia....

It is however, in this area of cross border application of UK law that knowing where we`ve travelled could be helpful to them, for purposes of evidence gathering. So if a `P4P-abroad` law were to be introduced here, things such as these travel controls could become ever more sinister.

Or how about banning us from smoking a joint in Amsterdam under UK law?
This is far from fanciful, I`m afraid...

phantom    [25016.   Posted 14-Mar-2009 Sat 12:00] View Near Messages
Freeworld    {25013}

Doesn`t your post somewhat fly I the face of the fact that the 1996 government was already bullying ISPs, threatening them with universal internet legislation?

As for broader subject like detention without charge, etc, we shouldn`t forget that the Tories were behind internment, the Paras in Belfast, Howard`s boot camps and other such gems, video nasties, clause 28, etc, etc
I think it would be a mistake to portray them as principled defenders of civil rights.

It is true that the Tories have no tradition of militant feminism. But their legacy on censorship is plain for all to see.
More to the point, how much of Labour`s illiberal legislation have they actually committed themselves to rescind?

Again, the talk – which is getting louder – which emanates from the Tories on the `broken society` is worrying for those who have liberal values at heart.

Honestly, Freeworld, what do you think people like Ian Duncan Smith have in mind to mend this supposedly broken society and restore within it proper values?

It`s true that Keith Vaz always bangs on about computer games. But then a certain party leader also made a big noise about that when he had his wobble (the initial Brown bounce) and needed to sure up his vote on the right.

Are you really telling me there are no more moral guardians left within the ranks of the Conservative party who will be willing to take up the torch and restore proper taste and decency, when the chance arises?

I think it would be a mistake to allocate bigotry only to feminists and Labour totalitarians. We know that the Tories have always possessed a large number among their ranks.
There has been nothing to indicate that this has changed.

As I have said repeatedly. It is indeed very important that we rid ourselves of Labour. Another term would be catastrophic as they would feel confirmed in their ways and press for ever more radical restrictions of individual liberty.

However, to trust that the Conservatives will emerge a government unlike any government Britain has hitherto endured and that they will suddenly become politicians at ease with anything than the mere mainstream seems folly.

I still see them all foaming at the mouth, calling for a ban, the next time a movie like `Crash` is released, don`t you?

phantom    [25011.   Posted 13-Mar-2009 Fri 08:13] View Near Messages
At the danger of sounding as though I had an agenda, I find this paragraph of Julian Petley`s superb article `Web Control` very telling.

`The Conservative Science and Industry Minister at the time, Ian
Taylor, underlined the explicit threat to ISPs if they did not close
down the newsgroups in question. He warned that the police would
act against any company that provided their users with pornographic
or violent material. He went on to make it clear that there would be
calls for legislation to regulate all aspects of the Internet unless
service providers were seen wholeheartedly to embrace responsible
self-regulation.`

The above appeared to have happened in 1996.
Again I take this as a warning from history for those who would contend that under the Tories everything will change, once New Labour are ousted from power.

I do intend to vote Tory, if only to mark my intense dissatisfaction with the butchery of civil rights which we`ve had to witness under Labour.
However, I do very much fear that we`ll be leaping from the frying pan into the fire.

Britain has a censorial tradition. A tradition which has been happily maintained by the Conservatives whenever in power.

It is true that Conservative instincts do not lean toward `improving` society by means of interventionism as Labour`s do.
But it seems quite clear that they are indeed willing to act to maintain and preserve existing `moral standards` where they deem necessary.

The necessity would be wherever a threat to standards arises. It seems quite clear that, already in 1996 in fact, a significant enough a `threat` to standards was being identified to threaten ISPs with universal internet legislation.

I think we`re in for a brace of negative surprises, once Cameron and Co march into Downing Street.

Sure, it`s arguable whether they could possible do any worse than the current incumbents. But Nirvana it surely will not be...

phantom    [25006.   Posted 12-Mar-2009 Thu 11:57] View Near Messages
freeworld [25005]

Let`s hope you`re right with Huey, Dewey and Louie.
It would at least let the likes of Beatrix Potter off...

Actually like the title `Sexsmeller Pursuivant`.
Has something about it. A bit like the famous child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

And as for a prohibition on Gollies. I think we are much closer to that than most would think. The dyke has been breached and now I fear no end of law intended to `send a message` will be introduced.

I would not at all be surprised if the prohibition of racist material is next.
Just as the man said in `Yes, Minister`: Salami Tactics....

phantom    [25004.   Posted 12-Mar-2009 Thu 08:46] View Near Messages
Spiderschwein [25003]
Saw a interview with what I think was the police officer leading the investigation yesterday.

When asked about possible motive he commented it was too soon to comment. His answer was some such thing that one would obviously have to investigate what films he watched, what types of music he listened to and what places he visited on the net before one could draw conclusions.

So I think you`ll get your wish...

As such the media has already latched onto the `internet warning` he gave. So obviously `it`s the internet what made him do it`.

The fact that the guy had already been in psychiatric care and failed to keep up his treatment will obviously be totally disregarded.

I`m sure Keith Vaz will be popping up pretty soon with a list of the computer guys Kretschmer owned...

phantom    [25001.   Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 18:34] View Near Messages
 freeworld    {24997}        

`Not sure what you mean here, Phantom. Huey and co are ducks..well ducklings. Ducklings are not children. When did you last hear of a duckling, kitten or puppy referred to as a child? Bart Simpson images maybe, this law is mad enough to possibly include him.. but not Donald`s nephews...surely?` 

Can`t say I recall the legal text precisely.
But doesn`t it also feature the mention of animals or imaginary animals?
As for Huey & co, I think there is a strong likeliness they would be deemed to be anthropomorphized `persons` of some sort anyhow.

In any case, whether Huey and siblings are ducks or humans really wasn`t the point of the post I made.

Far more it was about forcing us to consider every drawing, no matter how innocent, from a sexual angle.

I don`t think I want to see everything in sexual terms. The government is leaving me no choice. I must see every picture as a possible `turn on` and act accordingly.

Naivety will now be illegal.

phantom    [25000.   Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 17:46] View Near Messages
 sergio    {24993}        

`Everything can be seen to have a percentage of greenness, from 0 - 100% green.
But I don`t want to see everything in green terms?
What`s wrong with seeing everything in `sexual terms`?
`It is the rape of innocence` - what?`


Sure, everything can be seen as green to a degree. Or any other adjective for that matter.
But my argument is that this is forcing us to see it in such terms. (sexual)
We must evaluate every drawing. It is not a question whether a picture can be placed on a scale of sexuality from 0-100%. Yes, every picture can. Just as with your `greenness` test.
But there is no law forcing you to evaluate every picture for its greenness.

This law will however force you to view every picture in sexual terms.

This however from a government which doesn`t want things sexualised.

I don`t want to have consider whether Tintin changing his clothes is `sexual`, or could be seen as being so by some obscure legal test. Yet I will have to do so.

I will not be left the opportunity to simply just read a comic. No, I will have to `evaluate` it first.

Most drawings, illustrations and comics are perfectly innocent.
Yet we all will now be forced to view these innocent depictions with the cynical, jaded eyes of the self-censor evaluating their appeal their potential paedophile allure.

That is what I mean by the rape of innocence.

Rather than protecting us from sleaze, they will make us see everything as potentially sleazy.
Their warped world view is effectively being forced upon us.

phantom    [24991.   Posted 10-Mar-2009 Tue 19:43] View Near Messages
Here`s a thought....

Corruption, they say it`s all about corruption.
For us to see things which can corrupt us. So our access, our right of possession must be denied, for us not to be corrupted.

But here`s one of those awkward consequences:
Huey, Dewey, and Louie
They`re just three comic book figures, right?
Well, yes, accept this law will force me to evaluate them on the grounds of their sexual potential to corrupt me.
The law makes me see them in a sexual context, in order to permit me to censor myself.

I have previously never given these characters a second thought, yet I will henceforth have to consider their possible `sexual allure`, given that they are semi nude minors.

I know people don`t like the philosophical view here. We ought to rant about Labour communists or else only debate the cold, hard facts of legal text.

But personally, I feel corrupted by this notion that I ought to evaluate some possible dormant sexual paedophile impact upon my person by innocent cartoon characters. I feel slightly sullied.

Yet I don`t have a say. In order to be safe under law I will have to judge all drawings as potential threats to my liberty and thus I must consider them potentially sexual.
I must see them as sexual beings.

It is the rape of innocence. By making us our own censors, we are having to sexualize all and sundry in our minds.

Unable to see past their own noses, they are sullying the most innocent things, creating them as sexual entities.

As self-censorship is now to become our duty, we must all see pictures in a sexual context, if we wish to or not.

They claim to be protecting us.
In fact they are corrupting us by forcing us to think their way, making us see filth in the most anodyne and innocent.

Whitehouse saw filth in Andy Pandy. Henceforth we will all have to do so - by law.

phantom    [24984.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 21:04] View Near Messages
IanG    {24980}
Leda and the Swan? Don`t get me started!

Didn`t you know that all ancient Greeks and Romans were demented perverts.
After all, who would invent and proliferate tales of incest, bestiality and murder, other than perverts? And if it`s not about perverted sex it`s about normal sex! I mean, pulllease.

It`s disgusting, surely?
Children all around the world are subject to these supposed `works`.

I think I`ll start writing right now.
Anyone got Harman, Eagle and Smith`s joint email? (Surely the `sisters` have a joint one, no?)

I`ll get in touch with John Beyer to see what can be done.
We`ll start with asking for a ban on the Iliad, the Odyssee and the Aeneid. But I guess we`ll also need to include the tales of Hercules, Perseus, Theseus (!) and Oedipus (!!!!!!).

Then while we`re at it, given that the Tales of Sindbad are largely derivative of Greek mythology, why allow for such a loophole? After all, some decent upstanding Islamic countries have already banned this harmful `tale` for being depraved. (I`d call that the Swedish gambit.)

It`s time we cleaned up literature, no?

After all, who – other than a pervert – would want to read such disgusting filth? Sons killing fathers and shagging mothers? Women shagging bulls? Virgins being sacrificed to a Bull-man? Half-man half-horse creatures shagging gad knows what?

Surely this has to stop! If we don`t act now, what might future tabloids say about our inaction?

Perhaps Harvey can help....
Harvey, is there to your knowledge any means by which the Home Office can issue a fatwa?

Sorry, I`m feeling a little silly tonight. But it`s pretty clear really, isn`t it?

As IanG put it, if you only want to see filth and depravity that`s precisely what you see...

phantom    [24983.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 20:38] View Near Messages
Harvey [24981]

`That would be an extreme view.`

You not been told? Nobody has any extreme views in Britain any more.
They`ve banned that, so it no longer exists.

Ever since the respective laws were introduced, racism, homophobia and hatred of anything other than those who deserve to be hated (perverts, terrorist suspects, asylum seekers, paedophiles and fans of the `wrong` Glaswegian football club, still to stipulated by the PM) has been utterly liberated from all bad thoughts towards them.

The UK is now a harmonious, idyllic society, where harp music emanates from the loudspeakers attached to the ubiquitous cctv cameras (known as societal beautification devices) and people dance around maypoles all year round.

Extremism no longer exists, except in Islamist poetry and in porn.

It`s lovely here.
Surely, you should have noticed that by now....

phantom    [24979.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 19:03] View Near Messages
Harvey,
Let`s gas some Jews. There. My policy.

Now go on. Reason with me. I dare you. But don`t be confrontational and categoric because you`re unlikely to achieve any minor amendments that way...

Unless of course the idea is so outlandish that it only deserves categoric refusal.

Or, if anything tinted Nazi is too convoluted, let`s hark back to the other example.

Let`s ban moonwalking for people with a lisp. (It`s to protect accidental viewers from moral corruption, reduce the promotion of domestic violence and protect minors from flatulence - and is meant to send a message to society, of course.)
Discuss. Or is the idea simply beyond the pale? You tell me.

Were you to be on that committee when Minister Phantom dropped that proposal in your lap, what would your position be? Would you seriously withdraw amendments in the hope of maintaining some theoretical leverage?

You and I, we both know that we are not speaking about a incremental change in the fishing quota here.

This proposal is plain dumb. It deals with the utterly fictional. Hell, the word `imaginary` even features in the legal text.

Anyone who proposes it is irrational by default.

I know what you`re trying to say. Frankly, I don`t believe it will work that way. (For one, I recall the Cohen saga somewhat differently.)

In any case, this is a watershed. There can be no fence sitting by politicians on this one.
The case is unambiguous. Any law which places the drawings of Beatrix Potter or cartoons like the Peanuts within the scope of even potential illegality is not something which I believe can be seriously debated. It`s an Izzard clause, if you follow my meaning. Law a la Dali.

Anything other than a position of opposition is utterly insane.
We`re talking of a law where the sexual message sent be Huey, Dewey and Lewy will henceforth be deemed of significance. After all, the lads are minors and are wearing no pants!

Call me block headed, but I refuse to even consider anyone who would champion this proposed law to be in possession of their faculties.

Anyway, I`ll now go and smoke my CD player, whilst splicing my bob sleigh at full volume and talking to the magnolia moon base on my retinal hair piece.

All the while I`ll just hope that none of the above had been banned yet.

phantom    [24976.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 14:36] View Near Messages
If, like me, you like listening to music on youtube, think again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7933565.stm

phantom    [24975.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 14:33] View Near Messages
 freeworld    {24973}   

`Certainly an outright fight against any law "supposedly" to protect children, would be a gift to the NL propaganda machine. And you, as will as I, know how the situation would be "twisted", misrepresented.` 

At some point they have to make a stand if they wish to be worth the term `opposition`. I could not see a more open goal then a law to legislate Neverland if I tried.

Even kiddy porn outrage can only be stretched so and so far. This clearly is utter overreach. As said, the idea is absurd. Yet nonetheless the opposition are playing ball so far. We are introducing comedy law and not even the opposition dare say that the emperor is wearing no clothes.
Better yet, we all know that - once it`s on the books - it`ll be there forever.

I still maintain, that if this is the best the opposition can do on a subject as ludicrous as this, they needn`t turn up.

Let`s start a new campaign! Let`s ban moonwalking by people with a lisp.
Or prohibit reading Lord of the Rings backwards. Better yet, let`s put out an international arrest warrant for the Wily Coyote!
(Yes folks, this is the level at which this is at.)

`I`m not saying this will happen with "dangerous drawings" too, but it might, and practically it can only be done in the Lords. Willott and Garnier know this full well.`

I see it much the same it that respect regarding where amendments will be possible, if at all, Freeworld.
If anything will happen it will happen in the Lords. But that ain`t made easier by creating the impression of unanimity in the Commons.
With the DPA they needed to deceive in order to achieve that.
With this so far however the opposition itself proved `helpful` enough.

phantom    [24972.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 12:17] View Near Messages
 freeworld    {24968}    

`Now, unless we say that not taking the amendments to a vote = tacit acceptance of thew MOJ line, then neither the Lib Dems or Tories are happy with this as it is, certainly on the basis of what they have said it seems doubtful either of them would have introduced such badly drafted and probably quite unnecessary legislation.`

But you may recall the argument was that one wishes not to have it on the record for fear of the tabloids. Thus, one is not wanting a record of it. One is hence not wanting one`s supposed unhappiness to be recorded for fear that it might come to haunt one somewhen in the distant future.

`Garnier alludes in his final paragraph on the clause to the political knife edge an MP walks when questioning the validity of a law like this. We must recall that Harry Cohen also withdrew his excellent amendments to the DPA, having been supposedly given assurances there would be a "rethink" of the legislation (something Garnier also asked for at the time). `

Yes indeed, Cohen withdrew his amendments. But he needed to be lied to first and later he fell into line once the whips got to him.

As for Garnier alluding to knife edges. The challenge remains quite blunt for him and Willott. Do you wish to take a position or not?

If you are not taking a position, then what is the basis for your amendment? Yet if your amendment is indeed sincere why are you not maintaining the position you claim to hold?

Were we not marching of into legislative la la land here, it might be politic to play these sort of games.
But given that we`re talking about a law which concerns itself with the legality of sex by flying pigs and pink elephants I really think that outright refusal can be the only credible approach.

phantom    [24969.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 11:58] View Near Messages
 Harvey    {24967}        

`What would you rather have, an awful law which a few members of the opposition had formally voted against, or a slightly less awful law which they`d achieved through debate and discussion?`

Frankly, I can`t see any concessions having been wrung out of the government in this case, can you? They tabled amendments in order to mention their concerns, which they then withdrew straight away. Given the manner in which it happened it appeared entirely foreseeable to the government side.

So they let the dear old Duke of York march his troops up the hill, knowing he`ll have back down again by the time the debate finishes. Knowing they are not facing any substantive opposition, they effectively dismiss it as waffle and move on.

I perfectly well appreciate your point of hostile opposition merely causing greater intransigence. But the approach we just saw demonstrated appears useless. Not least because the government is being dogmatic and impervious to reason on this subject anyhow.

a) I`m afraid the tabloids might call me a paedophile-phile.
b) I would like to mention something, which I know you`ll disagree with. Don`t worry I`ll withdraw it in time, not to be awkward, and also because you all know I`m terrified.
c) Thank you. I`ll withdraw it now.

The above process seems pointless.
Were it to be on a matter of traffic regulations, we`d look at it as their merely adhering to conventions.

But this is about extending English legislation into absolute absurdity.
We are now to protect the imaginary. Clearly the government have taken leave of any senses they still possessed.

I`m sorry. Niceties be damned. Any opposition worth its salt would be as awkward as possible on this one. Least of all, as the government are keen to keep this as quiet and low key as they can.

We all know this law is a creature of the dark. Expose it to the light of day and people will laugh so hard, they`ll suffer serious incontinence.

Which is why I`d it`s cowardice or collusion. The latter is the worse and it`s the one I fear most.

phantom    [24966.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 07:01] View Near Messages
freeworld {24964}

`As to Jaqui-in-office`s "violent partner databases...here we go again. Nothing will stop these manic goofs apart from getting them out. How about seeing to enforcing existing sane laws on violence properly.`

I think we`ve got a perfect demonstration of the slippery slope here.

This sort of thing was introduced to allow mothers of children to receive information from the database, should their new boyfriends have a history of paedophilia.

That was to be the end of it, of course. Not that I believed them.

It`s not taken them long and here we are: an expansion of the idea.
Something else has been found to be `just as bad`.
Now there`s a surprise.

But hey, why end it there?
After all, if the bloke`s violent, shouldn`t the neighbours know too?
Surely they must be protected. And on and on it churns....

phantom    [24965.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 06:54] View Near Messages
Harvey {24961}
`Maybe you think they`d be a better representative if they took opposition to the cartoon porn law to a formal vote on every possible occasion, including in committee, but that`s to ignore the way in which discussion and debate works in Parliament.`

We can indeed claim that their backing down is a mere matter of parliamentary convention.

But it remains that there is now no record of opposition on principle. What has been stated effectively stands as a mere querying of technicality. After all, else your argument that they might be attacked by the tabloids holds no water.
Thus, they do not disagree with the government position. There is no record of their opposition. (i.e. Nothing the tabloids could pick up on.)

Yet the only means of acknowledging substantial disagreement by the minority is by having a vote. If outlawing `wrong` drawings of Bart Simpson doesn`t call for substantial disagreement, what does?

To answer your point, no, I don`t assume forcing a vote will change the majority position at all. But at least it marks out a position, whereas the withdrawal of an amendment in order to avoid being picked up in the tabloids, indicates the polar opposite. i.e. not wanting any record of one`s position.

Forcing a vote also lays the moral responsibility on the shoulders of the majority, stating clearly, `Not in our name.`
As of now the government can claim there is a consensus on this issue. After all, that`s what the record states.

The committee is to advise the house. The committee`s advice will be unanimous. After all, the naysayers were sufficiently swayed by Ms Eagle`s profound arguments in order to see the error of their ways and change their minds. That`s what the record says.
Some convention....

As for the `stand for election then, if you think you can do better` I would still point out that this applies as much to government as to opposition. You don`t like what they`re doing? They`re elected, you`re not. Stand for election, if you think....
It`s simply an argument which can be used in any case, no matter what the standpoint.

After all, Salter is elected, no? Who among us is in a position to criticise him? Who among us could win his seat?

I still would say that if the government know right from the start that you will withdraw, it changes entirely the way they can deal with your amendment in committee. They are unlikely to change their position either way, I agree.
But the sort of amendment that is bound to be withdrawn can be readily dismissed in the complacent fashion we have seen here. For the very notion that it will be withdrawn makes it an irrelevance, as it carries no force of conviction from the outset.

phantom    [24960.   Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 20:36] View Near Messages
Harvey {24951.}

`Stand for Parliament then, if you can do better.
Put your case and see how many votes you get.`

Not sure what the point of that comment was. After all, I could say: ditto.
I do not believe to be the only one of the two of us who believes in the stupidity of some law being introduced.
If `shut up or stand for election` is the position, I don`t know where that would leave either of us.

In any case, the position being criticised is not one of the futility of opposition. After all, we know who holds the majority.
But an opposition which retreats in order to provide convenience for the government machine seems utterly pointless.

Why make a point of opposition, only to withdraw, thus creating the impression of having been convinced by Mr Eagle`s force of argument?

If the idea that - following the Harman example - a newspaper article 31 years later may be negative due to what one might say today, then why oppose anything at all? After all, who knows what the Telegraph might print about this committee in 2040?

Surely opposition by the minority seeks to be on the record, or it serves no point. `Not in my name` does have a moral force beyond mere rhetoric.

To make an argument, only to withdraw it so one`s position is not recorded, begs the question why it was made. Hence the claim of cowardice.

As of now, the points which were withdrawn were effectively dismissed unanimously by the committee. The Tory and the LibDem speakers thus, as far as the record is concerned, conceded that their points raised were wrong and the government position is the correct one. So a 180 degree turn. All for fear of otherwise getting an unfavourable newspaper response?

It therefore appears a pointless exercise on their part, whether you invite me to stand for election or not. After all, why turn up at all if you are not intent on even registering your opposition?

More to the point, with the government aware that you will fold anyway, unwilling even to commit your position to record, for fear of a tabloid backlash some when in the next four decades, what chance their ever considering anything you say?

phantom    [24948.   Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 08:10] View Near Messages
Harvey [249470]

`...or just pragmatism?
You never know when these things will come back to bite you. As Ms Harman discovered when she read today`s Telegraph.`

Isn`t that position really one of defending any stance devoid of principle?
After all, anything categoric could one day come to `haunt you`, hence best not to believe in anything and go along with the flow.
Like that you can`t be accused of holding the wrong views later and can explain any failure to speak out against what later turns out to be oppression as `pragmatism`.

Surely, with your being an elected representative at some point also comes the responsibility of actually standing up to the oppression and unfair criminalisation of your constituents.

Just standing idly by when the whole nation is being shafted, unwilling to make a stand for fear that somewhen, thirty one years later, some tabloid may run a bad article about you, seems indeed like impressive political cowardice.

The question is quite simple, Harvey.
If in the face of unmitigated stupidity they always meekly back down, then what precisely is their purpose?
They might as well not be there.

If this is their view of being an opposition, then they might as well stay at home until they win an election. After all, like that they`re unlikely to rock the boat and won`t upset Ms Eagle with any amendments.
Also they`ll avoid the Telegraph printed anything un-nice about them in 2040....

phantom    [24940.   Posted 6-Mar-2009 Fri 07:16] View Near Messages
freeworld [24939]

`You can see the headline in the Mirror if a concerted rebellion was launched by the opposition parties-
"SHAME OF THE TORIES-Cameron MPs attempt to stop law to protect children from paedos".`

Can that argument not be used against in favour of not opposing any measure?

The question is hardly what those who wish to see this through will be saying about you in the tabloids.
The question is whether you wish to be complicit in seeing something like this go through onto the statutes.

If with the DPA they poo-pooed the idea of thought crime, here it seems hard to imagine how the law could be seen as anything else. As you say yourself, there is not even the veneer of a true justification.

There are just some drawings which people shouldn`t be looking at according to ministerial edict.

I`m sorry, but this law is toxic. Any MP who doesn`t stand up to this wouldn`t stand up to anything.

The very fact that the opposition parties are not making a bally-hoo over this is allowing the government to get this through quietly. If this was to be explained in detail in the media this law wouldn`t stand a cat in hell`s chance in public opinion.

But the argument needs to be made. It needs to be explained. Garnier should be on Newsnight making clear why this law is an outrage. Willott should be giving press conferences with Shami Chakrabarti.

These morons should be making some noise. Cause a stink, then explain why.

The worm is definitely turning in Britain. The populace are having enough of the ever increasing encroachment of the state.
There is genuine heartfelt concern among the population.

The government are worried about it. Hell, even that arch-autocrat Blunkett is now suddenly issuing statements whereby he is worried about the `big brother state`. (Hypocrisy, or what!)

Labour have good reason in wanting to do this cartoon nonsense quietly. They do not wish to expose it to the light of day. Any public scrutiny and they`ll be a laughing stock.

The government which outlawed doodles. The prime minister who passed a law banning Bart Simpson from wagging his bottom whilst saying `Eat my shorts!`
Can legislation become any more risible than that?

But here we are. Instead of exploiting this idiocy and making the government look bad beyond repair the opposition is playing along, wanting to be `good chaps` in committee and not be awkward.

Clearly they should be shouting this from the rooftops.

The government who are claiming to be spending every waking minute fighting the economic crisis (the origins of which of course has nothing to do with them!) are wasting their time trying to instate ludicrous laws on cartoons. This would make the Tories look bad, would it?

It is fine to speak of the potential dangers faced by an opposition if tabloid headlines are written against them. But has anyone ever considered if the opposite happened?

`Flash Gordon Bans Comics.` `Mr Bean bans the Beano.` Nuff said, really.

Again, if they won`t even stand up to a government when they`re introducing legislation which is clearly mentally unhinged, then when exactly will they stand up to them?

When Harriet Harman decides to introduce a measure declaring herself Queen of Atlantis? Or when Ed Balls declares on the Moon?

Folks, once again, we are apparently protecting the imaginary here from, well, something....

If the Tories and the LibDems think this is something they can live with, then I struggle to see a difference between them and the morons who are currently in charge.

phantom    [24933.   Posted 5-Mar-2009 Thu 20:12] View Near Messages
Harvey [24931]

`...or whether it simply wants to be able to say; "Well, you can`t blame me, I voted against it".`

Well, isn`t that the very point?

We have long since entered la la land.
We are now witnessing a debate on the outlawing of drawings and the `protection` of the imaginary.
I can think of no better place to throw down the gauntlet and say,
`Not in my name.`

I cannot see how any sane person, who hasn`t even the burden of having to toe the government line to contend with, would not obstruct this nonsense at every step of the way.

Yet not even here will they do it. They will even acquiesce and `play the game` when we are quite literally in legislative Alice-in-Wonderland.

We are entering an area where Bart Simpson`s mooning at the crowd could be considered child porn if possessed by the wrong person.

If ever there was an example of utterly preposterous law, this is it.
Yet, even here they continue to play ball and be good sports.

There is nothing to be civil about on this subject. They`re making an ass of the law - with bells on!
And the opposition parties are going along as they don`t want to rock the boat. They are not making the government force this through all the way. Thus they are concurring.

In my mind that`s tantamount to collaboration on the issue.

The fact is that parliament is not supposed to be a social club where they make sure they`re not too awkward toward one another. If something is plain awful then the opposition ought to be belligerent, Harvey.

Fine, Labour have the majority. They would win. We all know.
But the pox on any MP who has helped ease this idiotic legislation`s transition through the house by `playing ball`.

This ain`t a game. People are going to go to prison for owning a bloody drawing.

It`s all fine and well grandstanding about ID cards, pretending to be Cicero, while you`re facilitating the stealthy implementation of horrendous oppression by not making dear Ms Eagle`s life too difficult in committee.

I`m afraid I`m not willing to be half as understanding toward them as you are, Harvey.

I think it`s just shameful.

phantom    [24929.   Posted 5-Mar-2009 Thu 15:24] View Near Messages
freeworld    {24925}

`Both are saying...produce evidence of harm to children and we will wholly concur.`

No, they are not.
Sorry to be categoric about this. But they are not.
By withdrawing their amendments they are concurring.

Only if they leave an amendment to be voted on are they essentially making it a point worth fighting (and losing) over.
But in doing so, they would at least force the hand of the majority to `force it upon us`.

By withdrawing they are concurring.
At best they`re deeming the matter not worth a fight. Or as Harvey puts it, not worth a stake of their political capital. Thus they simply acquiesce.

This is what I mean by calling it a game.
Not agreeing, yet concurring is ridiculous. It is some sort of dead man`s poker played for fun.
With our lives as the chips being tossed about, whilst they keep their `political capital` dry.

If you oppose, then you oppose. If the committee passes something without a vote, it effectively passes unanimously. It passes in their collective names, that includes Garnier`s and Willott`s.
Thus they do concur. It is that simple.

I`m sorry to sound a trifle angry here, but this stuff makes my blood boil.

To hear people oppose for opposition`s sake is heartening, if they are fighting on principle (!) and if they don`t simply withdraw meekly. But to speak on wobbly principle, - worst of all to do a Duke of York – and then head for another glass of claret in the pub is pretty disgusting.

As Harvey put it: One doesn`t want to be earmarked as the guy who opposed a law on kiddy porn. Principled opposition thus there is none, merely a tool on which to hang a little debate. As though this were small talk at a picnic in the park.

Surely, the positions should be clear. One should oppose and let them know that it is on their heads, should they force it through. Instead they`re suddenly all collegial and wave it through together like one happy family....

So yes, Freeworld, political opposition `can bear fruit against bad laws`, but only if it is actually brought to bare. If however, it consists of a few `I would have thougths` and then is withdrawn congenially I dare say no government has anything to fear.

Political capital be damned.
The government is acting arbitrarily. The opposition should be opposing it properly, most of all - sincerely.