See also Religious Watch Forum

Shaun    [27153.   Posted 23-Aug-2010 Mon 05:47] View Near Messages
Fourty five years ago when I was but seven, we used to play "Allies and Germans" in the school playground. I once even took the part of hitler.

These morons who whinge, moan and demand censorship and try to do "good" haven`t got a clue. Nor do they realise just how much HARM they are doing.


There may be less censorship in some spheres, but that`s only due to modern technology and the fact the politicians cannot control it.

In many ways we have lost LOADS of freedoms since I was a kid.

So much for that freedom site of the government`s. It is clear they don`t have any intention of even considering the MOST popular ideas.

Politicians in this country are not fit for purpose and should be treated with complete disdain like the charlatans they are. They prostitute their position, and abandon their former stated principles completely for a bit of extra time in power. It makes me sick.

Shaun    [27128.   Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39] View Near Messages
I wish someone would censor the Daily Mail. Better still close it down forever.

Shaun    [26998.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 02:04] View Near Messages
Thanks Dave for the clarification. Ten years is a long time to remember things so accurately.

One thing I`ve always wondered about, is why Customs were so adamant they didn`t want to change things ? They must have known that the game was up.

Did they get some kind of pleasure in this kind of repression I wonder ?

Was it religion or deep seated but unwarranted belief in the harm ?

Or was it that they didn`t want to admit that the time spent on seizing videos was disproportionate, repressive and a complete waste of public money ?

What happens nowadays, ten years on ? I`ve not heard of any seizures for some time. I presume the unjust "extreme porn" law has given their quest new impetus ? I suppose most stuff is downloaded rather than imported and is something they have no interest in, not being tangible.

Shaun    [26996.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 16:44] View Near Messages
Well dancing monkey - I won`t argue regarding the VRA as we both agree that the EU only needed to be informed in the mid eighties before the VRA game into force.

As regards customs, you were not the only one involved in discussions with them as long term readers of this site might testify.

I was involved in an argument with them back in 2000 after the high court BBFC decision regarding the importation of porn and the effect the decision would have. Well before then, after the seizure of my DVDs in 1998 or so, and my subsequent incessant complaints about it, I got to talk to some quite high ranking officials there. Probably you did as well. But I also had much discussion with them after the R18 decision, and was told because the BBFC had lost their judicial review, and the material was legal for sale, it could not be considered obscene. However they DID tell me that the reason for seizure of similar material in the future would be:

That the material imported was not the same as a BBFC classified version and/or did not have an certificate issued by the BBFC and it would still be subject to seizure. As far as they were concerned the situation had not changed, and they siezed material condemned as obscene by the magistrates court. Except it wasn`t so condemned which was the very reason the BBFC gave up and changed their policy according to someone inside the BBFC who I conversed with often.

In anycase the position was "likely to be obscene" as ultimately only the court could decide, and their decisions could be so challenged. Expensive though.

I was also told that any version with an R18 (or indeed any other) certificate or one identical to it, COULD be imported, but NOT if it was even slightly different or not classified at all.


Then it all changed, and one reason given was the HRA which was now law. Other reasoning was EU single market law and all that. However they said stronger material (which would not be allowed at r18) would continue to be seized as it would still be considered to be obscene. In other words they DID initially intend to seize material which was NOT obscene. IE material without classification but the same content as R18.

I think Dave and some others here might remember this issue. I am sure I would have mentioned it all at the time. It was very much ongoing. The seizure of my Vivid DVDs was also an ongoing issue and I had many discussions with customs about that, including one Mr. Field who was also present at the BBFC joint (two video companies) video appeal as was I. When Mr Field realised I was there at the appeal (as was he) then his attitude changed completely and we were really chatty.




When I went to the BBFC appeal, I was asked by Sue Clark if I was the Melon Farmer! "So you`re the Melon Farmer then!" she said.

Fond memories.


PS see:

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arne00c.htm
where my enquiries are documented.

Shaun    [26992.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 08:29] View Near Messages
dancing monkey

You wrote:
"Therefore, the VRA was unchanged, so why would the EU need to be informed? "


As far as I know no one said it or implied that it would need to be informed. The fact was that the VRA was never legal in the first place because the EU wasn`t informed when it should have been, all those years ago. If you did know it did not appear so from where I sit.

Customs were originally arguing that foreign porn wasn`t legally available in the UK because it had not been classified. But then they would have had to sieze EVERYTHING not just R18, and they`d never have got away with it.

Customs like any other "public authority" should PROPERLY PROVE their action is proportionate and necessary before seizing ANYTHING. The fact is that the never have done. But they cannot just seize something because they don`t like it or think it is immoral even though some of them might think just that.

Shaun    [26985.   Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 12:39] View Near Messages
dancing monkey - It was back in 1984-5 when the EU should have been informed, NOT when thr judicial review happened in 2000

Probably Jack-boots Straw would have changed the law IF he could. My guess is that he wouldn`t have been able to, without breaking the HRA.

They were complete TWATS and I am very glad they have gone.

PS: Customs law changed mainly because of the HRA but there were other trade issues. I complained to my MP at the time, about their refusal to allow import. I told him it was completely wrong and a HRA violation. Customs at first tried to say it was because they`d not been classified so I pointed out if that was the case, they`d have to ban import of ALL unclassified works not just adult movies.

Then things suddenly changed...

Shaun    [26970.   Posted 2-Jul-2010 Fri 12:33] View Near Messages
malcom,

One has to register and log in. Then some yellow stars appear near the top left above the comments list, and you can click the number of stars you want to apply to a suggestion (1 to 5) after you have logged in.

After you click and the page refreshes you can undo the vote if you wish.

Shaun    [26933.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 04:56] View Near Messages
To be honest, I reckon that what remains of Ofcom will be the TV censors, Glover and all :-(

Shaun    [26932.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 04:41] View Near Messages
OK, I got drawn into it:


Those self righteous folk at Ofcom,
Much beloved by the prudish mom,
complain their "accepted" standard,
(of Mediawatch to whom they`ve pandered)
was clearly broken by channels explicit.
Their films they state, are quite illicit!
Ofcom threatens them a heavy fine,
and loss of licence if they whine!
How can this be really right ?
Why don`t the broadcasters fight ?

They don`t ban stuff from overseas,
just our porn, the religious to please.
But when it`s proved, there is no harm,
they dismiss that, as a load of barm!
We can`t have that, this is BRITAIN,
Broadcast standards, are clearly written!
"Generally accepted" ? by General who ?
I really don`t think they have a clue!
Surely it isn`t you and it isn`t me ?
Standards set by royal decree!


Ofcom say it`s about child protection,
(And politicians seeking re-election!)
Who are these folk, our rights they take ?
Their evidence of harm, it`s clearly fake!
They bleat on and on about regulation,
restricting TV sex and masturbation!
But now they have new government bosses,
Who worry less, about prudes with crosses!
They say they`ll reduce Ofcom`s powers.
Uncensored telly in the smaller hours ?

Shaun    [26919.   Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 03:38] View Near Messages
I don`t know how they are making anything.

Who`d be daft enough to pay to watch such rubbish when there`s all that free stuff online ?

I wouldn`t even watch it if it was free.

Shaun    [26914.   Posted 15-Jun-2010 Tue 02:31] View Near Messages
Re: Simcha and Ofcom R18

It`s my view that this is a smokescreen. Ofcom wouldn`t accept any system which allowed such material, without a legal challenge because they seem to be (in my opinion) mostly religious busybody censors, who have no respect whatsoever for people`s rightful freedoms.

Someone from Ofcom can correct me if I am wrong, but when they do, I would ask that they explain exactly why they impose this CENSORSHIP whilst at the same time allow foreign broadcasters to transmit the same kind of material to viewers in this country with impunity. I know the answer. If they didn`t they would be legally challenged and then they`d really have problems with their censoring. There`s only been one channel proscribed since sexually explicit R18 became legally available, and that was for violent material which would still have been censored at R18. That must tell you something.

All Sky receivers I have seen have a second smart card socket. This could easily be used to allow a second removable smart card, and different pin without which the broadcast could not be viewed. The parent then just simply removes the card from the box. Or better still, the card is inserted, PIN entered, and THEN removed before access to the protected channels is allowed. IE to watch the channel, you put the card in the box, and then have to remove it again before access is allowed. The access will then last all evening or for 24 hours with only the seperate PIN required to access the relevant channel. This will ensure that the card is stored somewhere safe, because it cannot be left connected in the reciever if you want to use it.

But why bother ? The internet is awash with the stuff, which anyone with broadband could easily find for free if they wanted it. This has been the case now for some years, and there`s no evidence of any real problems, apart from most kids now know when they are being told lies, about how we all came to be here. Storks and all that! If such channels were available on Sky I don`t think I`d even bother nowadays. I also have a motorised system and an EchoStar digital box. It`s ages since I subscribe to anything.


No, this issue has NEVER been about protecting children. It has ALWAYS been about people in authority using their position and power to impose their narrow minded notion of so called "morality" on those who might, if they were free, make a different choice.

I am not advoctating that kids should watch hard core porn, however I am sure there would be an effective system out there, which could be deployed on a sky digital box and give the same protection as deemed satisfactory in most of Europe.

Personally I think the access to foreign channels is a complete shambles considering we live in a so called free (?) European market. It`s only free when it suits the politicians, not when it doesn`t. Booze and fag import rules are testament to that.

Sky should be required to make mediaguard boxes with CAM slots on them available as an extra cost option, and software to allow them to be used none Sky broadcasters on Astra 2

This is Ofcom`s job. If it isn`t their job, it jolly well should be. But no, they`d rather be censoring porn wouldn`t they ? A seperate CAM wouldn`t make that easier now would it ?

Shaun    [26897.   Posted 11-Jun-2010 Fri 04:47] View Near Messages
The problem is one of vicious labels such as prossy, loose, common, harlot, slut, fornicator, adulterer, slag and similar.

If women (or men for that matter) appear in porn films, and such films suffer the round disapproval of vocal mouthpieces, then those men (and especially the women) will be villified by those who want to censor and control.

They in fact need "protection" from this villification and condemnation which others might see as justification to treat them as somehow subhuman. The same applies (even moreso) to people working in the sex industry with people apparently believing that such folk are less than human.

WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN is a CHANGE OF ATTITUDE from the people who are trying to CENSOR AND CONTROL the sex industry. and for them to REALISE that the people involved in it, are simply supplying a paid-for service to fellow human beings which IS NOT going to go away. Any suffering by those involved in this industry is a RESULT (usually a direct one) of this condemnation and villification of these control freaks based on their prejudice, bigotry and religion of all kinds. Prostitution should be properly legalised along with pornography and the people in it left alone to get on with the job they`ve chosen to do. Any co-ercion or force should be strictly illegal of course.

But how can the people involved in sex work get protected, when the people who would protect them, virtually hate them because of bias and bigotry ? If people want to sell themselves as a porn star, sex worker, office cleanter, managing director, doctor, dentist, software developer taxi driver, or whatever it should be their RIGHT to do so.


So as said, the proection they need is actually from those who for reasons of stupid prejudice, bigotry and religion etc, would ostracise them. That is what is unnacceptable and the feminists simply have it all wrong.

I was once asked by a local (male) politician campaigning against prostitution if I would be happy if it was my daughter involved in this business. I retorted that I would be damn site happier that she had ME as a father, than if she had the poltitican in question as one, who sees fit to condemn her in such a mannter. I told him that the problems they faced were mainly caused by idiots like him who don`t really look at them as a human being at all.

Shaun    [26874.   Posted 2-Jun-2010 Wed 02:51] View Near Messages
Re: Joan Bakewell

Perhaps it`s the onset of senility ?

She`d have done far better if she`d censored herself. Now she`s lost the respect of just about everyone, and appears to be about the worst of it, a bloody hypocrite.

As for the Daily Mail, I wish it would go bust.

Shaun    [26862.   Posted 29-May-2010 Sat 02:52] View Near Messages
It was called "Sex Sense" ( memory suddenly started to work )
but I can`t remember what channel. Cheers anyway!

Shaun    [26860.   Posted 28-May-2010 Fri 17:17] View Near Messages
Can anyone remember the name of the sexual health/info/doc programme shown in the nineties with Dr Catherine Hood ? Not the one in 2006 on Channel 5, one shown quite a long time before that.

Shaun    [26851.   Posted 26-May-2010 Wed 02:17] View Near Messages
When I was eleven, some 42 years ago, and in my first year in secondary school, we had mandatory communial showers, after games and PE lessons, something which today`s youngsters rightly don`t have to put up with. There was always our pervy vicious games master, poking his head above the tiled shower barrier looking at everyone.. But that`s another story.

But sometimes we kids looked at each other out of curiosity, and at eleven I don`t remember anyone being hairy "down there" an indicator of sexual maturity. All that seemed to come a year or two later for most of us.

So how can the average 10 year old really rape anyone ?

How many males are sexualy mature at 10 and have urges leading to rape ?

The law seems to have been ridiculous, branding these kids for what seems to be a silly game gone wrong, where it seems the young girl might have been a willing participant. Is there anything to be gained by demonising these kids at such a young age ?

Seems to me like an extension of NL hatred of all things male including young kids.

Shaun    [26799.   Posted 7-May-2010 Fri 06:07] View Near Messages
It`s a pity Martin Salter (the architect of the DPA) actually stood down. He`d have got a right kicking in Reading West. The Tories took the supposedly safe seat with a 6000 majority!!

Perhaps the people of Reading didn`t like the DPA.

Shaun    [26770.   Posted 29-Apr-2010 Thu 07:02] View Near Messages
Dave,

On Melonfarmers.com there doesn`t seem to be any links to this forum or the religious one as there is on .co.uk. Is that deliberate ?

Cheers.

Shaun    [26766.   Posted 29-Apr-2010 Thu 01:53] View Near Messages
Re: Servage server -

Yesterday evening (UK time) I noticed an older version of the site (February news or so) but now it`s completely gone off again thursday morning.

Shaun    [26761.   Posted 28-Apr-2010 Wed 10:56] View Near Messages
www.melonfarmers.co.uk site seems to be broken.

error 404, the requested URL was not found on this server.

Servage.net

Shaun    [26743.   Posted 25-Apr-2010 Sun 06:20] View Near Messages
Actually MichaelG,

We all (the four of us) like watching BGT, even when the acts are bad or stupid. It`s better than the boring crap that`s usually on television these days. Indeed television is hardly on at all in our house these days.

Viv Pattison is being ridiculous. In anycase we`ve had all that kind of stuff on BGT before, suitably censored by British flags.

I don`t know whats up with people nowadays. Boobs can`t be bad, when they are about the first thing most babies see.

If she`d been a bare chested man doing something or other no one would have given a toss.

No doubt my mother-in-law would have been slightly offended, she usally is by this sort of thing, but why the hell should she, or Viv pattison sett the "standards" for the rest of us ?

Shaun    [26705.   Posted 8-Apr-2010 Thu 13:19] View Near Messages
Very ironic:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100004884/labour-and-conservative-parties-accused-of-copyright-infringement/


Why to they make laws and break them, themselves.

Shaun    [26704.   Posted 8-Apr-2010 Thu 13:16] View Near Messages
Disown your MP relative or friend until after the election!

If you have an MP in your family, or as a friend, threaten to disown them until after the election! Tell them you don`t want to be associated with such unscrupulous, unsavory people right now!

Politicial correctness (caused by MPs and the like) has given us no one to make jokes about. So make jokes about MPs!!!!

Anyone know any MP jokes ?

Shaun    [26695.   Posted 6-Apr-2010 Tue 02:01] View Near Messages
According to the page linked to below, they will be on channel 581 as from 1st April and a quick look on the iPhone, "Sky+" app (I am at the office) shows that this is indeed the case.

It seems therefore that Sky HAVE allowed this channel on their platform which has decided to circumvent ofcom regulations, by seeking a licence elsewhere.

What WOULD happen if one of the porn channels decided to do this I wonder ? Is Sky not bothered about homophobic religious zealotry but worried about explicit porn being broadcast ? Or is it simply they`ve never been approached on this ?

Shaun    [26692.   Posted 5-Apr-2010 Mon 06:13] View Near Messages
Sent to the BBS/BLOG of revelation TV:

http://www.revelationtv.com/news.php?newsid=573c9cde-7da0-102d-bde7-00219bfb

"
It`s a shame that a Christian service targetted broadly at the UK has to circument this country`s broadcasting regulations by seeking a Spanish broadcasting licence.

I also hope the channels who broadcastring so called "Adult" material under the auspices of Ofcom (which I`ve no doubt this Christian Broadcaster would vehmently oppose and wish to see CENSORED) follow suit, the Spanish authorities also being extremely liberal in this area, and Ofcom has long pesecuted broadcasters of that genre, by over zealous regulation and overly strict CENSORSHIP.

Given that Christians ALWAYS want to censor other people, I find it extremely ironic that they are one of the first to break with Ofcom, because of such over-regulation.

I hope now the broadcaster will SUPPORT the right to free expression of OTHERS similarly restricted by the censorious Ofcom.

Censorship (excepting the very special case of child abuse) is WRONG regardless of who, or what is being censored.

Has the Christian broadcaster learned that truth I wonder ? Or does it simply believe that ONLY its own (sometimes offensive in themselves) ideals should not be censored ?
"

I don`t suppose they`ll put it up it though.

Shaun    [26691.   Posted 5-Apr-2010 Mon 05:56] View Near Messages

How ironic that the first broadcaster to fuck off Ofcom and seek a broadcasting licence from another country is a Christian one.

Perhaps the porn broadcasters might catch on and also do this.

The question then remains if $ky will allow none Ofcom "approved" porn on "their" subscription platform as they ($ky) have always appeared to me, as if they were cow-towing to the Ofcom censors and the ITC before them.

Shaun    [26688.   Posted 4-Apr-2010 Sun 03:48] View Near Messages
MichaelG: How wonderful.

Congratulations on the happy event!

Before you know it, she`ll be sixteen years old (like my daughter) with her own opinion on just about everything. In our case we broadly agree on subjects such as censorship. But then it also seems that she`s been brainwashed into the "objectification of women" argument. At school no doubt, having being indocrintated with NL propaganda. I can`t see where else she could have learned such a notion. Such a concept was unheard of in my youth, and it was certainly not discussed in this house. I think we need a little restriction against the promotion of such damaging ideas in "our" schools and the associated villification of male humans. ;)

Reasoned argument and discussion has now brought her away from that position somewhat I think.

Shaun    [26665.   Posted 29-Mar-2010 Mon 08:57] View Near Messages
Re: Passwords for iPlayer etc.

Dunno. Used properly Windows offers quite a lot of possibilities.

The main iPlayer password could be set by parents themselves when iPlayer is first installed, which could/should be made to require adminstrator access..

Parents aren`t letting their kids have admin access to the computer are they ? ;-)

Or perhaps:

First create multiple Windows accounts on the machine, with a password protected one for the parents. Hopefully they won`t grant admin rights to the kids, so they can`t install anything.

The parent then installs iPlayer in their (hopefully password protected) Windows account and sets a management password for it. iPlayer "knows" the initial account and if Windows is password protected, then iPlayer need not require its own password for that account for post watershed content. If the original iPlayer windows account IS NOT currently password protected then it should ask for the iPlayer password as the kids could also go there too otherwise.

When iPlayer is run in windows another account (the child`s account), it would realise there is no iPlayer password set for that Windows account and could then simply refuse to allow post watershed content. Also the parent/original iPlayer installer can set optionally a password for this user account to override that requirement in some setup screen if appropriate.

It ISN`T rocket science, and the BBC could have some pages showing step by step how this can be done.


However I agree with others that it isn`t really necessary:

Firstly demonstrate a problem really exists and THEN show how it can be dealt with. Is there really a problem or is it in the minds of the likes of pattison and her ilk ?

Shaun    [26660.   Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 12:54] View Near Messages
PS:

In anycase future versions of the iPlayer could optionally only play the stuff after 9.00 PM unless a parental password is entered.

It`s perfectly possible to do this, and perhaps even get the current time from the network if its available.

Shaun    [26659.   Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 12:48] View Near Messages
Re: Pattison&Co

If they (18 rated online programmes) are banned then someone should demonstate properly the harm being caused to justify the prohibition.

Also are they going to ban video as well as they can record them at home and watch them the next morning too ?

Parental controls do exist on this software anyway.

What about watching what kids do with their computers etc ?

I am sick to death of people trying to undermine my freedom and using other people`s kids as an excuse do do it. Mine are just about grown up now. We can censor OURSELVES and don`t need Ms Pattison to do it. Ten years ago when R18 videos were allowed, my lad was 8. Now he`s 18 and can watch the things himself. During that time I`ve had little concern about anything they`ve seen. Indeed some of the stuff Pattison wants to censor, would have held little interest for them anyway. But now both my kids are well behaved well balanced adults, and NO THANKS to Pattison, Beyer, Mary Whitehouse, the government or anybody else, but their mother and me, and the people at their schools.

Beyer AFAIK never had any children himself. I don`t know about Pattison but I don`t think she has any. So it`s other people`s children they are bothered about.. Personally I think my kids needed more protection from the likes of censors and all religious people who would want to indocrinate then with their various brands of complete nonesense.

BTW: I can`t find this article online in the Sunday Express. Anyone got a link please ?

Shaun    [26646.   Posted 24-Mar-2010 Wed 08:41] View Near Messages
The gall of the Christian Institute to state:

"
Whether you agree with the Wilkinsons` beliefs or not, a diverse society is one that respects diversity of opinion. Surely the world is big enough to let people disagree. Suing someone because you don`t like their beliefs is illiberal, undemocratic and has no place in a free society.
"

Does that mean they are finally going to stop objecting to reduction of censorship of the media including the end of them demanding more restriction of R18 videos ?

No I didn`t think so. Free expression and liberalism is all very well when it suits THEM but not when it doesn`t. Are they going to respect my view that we should be like most other free countries and not have such strict censorship of our media (especially that restricted to adults) and be more tolerant of contentious material ? Nope. Of course not.

I am sure all their religious crap is far more damaging than r18 porn and the like. Indeed IT TOO should be strictly censored from children, as it IS harmful, and I think it is visibly so.

Of course the same "institute" appears to believe that parents should have a right to beat up their kids as well...

Shaun    [26565.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 10:50] View Near Messages
if they can revoke them they`d better have a bloody good reason.

More NL control freakery. I hope they get kicked out soon.

Shaun    [26557.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 04:57] View Near Messages
Well I got a comment up on that Daily Mail page, even if I said I couldn`t be bothered...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255856/Teenage-boys-watching-hours-internet-pornography-week-treating-girlfriends-like-sex-objects.html

A lot of negative comments on there though. I think MF people should go and look. One women (a Mrs, IIRC) said it might be better to be a lesbian. Well if that`s the case why doesn`t she just go right ahead and be one if she thinks men are that bad. Perhaps some men these days might think (or even say) it`s better to be gay than be subject to the daily whims of a hideous frigid, prudish controlling harridan, or failing that just remain single.

In my (almost) 53 years of existence, 95% of the females I`ve known both intimately and as close friends say they want men to act like men. But what the heck does that mean ? One thing I am sure of though, is that from what they told me, they rarely want any nancy boy who acts like a woman but has a penis. But if they don`t like the fellow they are going out with, they should simply dump him and find another.

But nowadays they mostly seem to think they can impose control freakery on him instead, (ispired by the likes of Harm-man and that fearer beard), and somehow turn him into what they *think* he should be. I`ve seen this happen in the past, and I`ve ironically also seen the arguments and the divorces that result from it.

When I was in my own teens starting in March 1970, the impression seemed to be, (due to the HEAVY strict censorship of the time) that decent women didn`t really like sex at all, and they "did it" just to bear children and/or to please their husbands, and for little other reason. What of the "objectification" there ?

There certainly wasn`t the impression given that they might just have **enjoyed** it for its own sake. I found great harm in this. It gave just as FALSE an impression about women, as todays porn is accused of doing by this article.

The way boys usually learn about girls, is NOT from porn or the lack of it, but from the girls themselves when they eventually go out with them. Censorship or not, the impression can often be incorrect until then. Perhaps males with older or slightly younger female siblings do better, but my sister was ten years younger than I was.

As for male attitudes, back "in my day" I think we were just about as bad. Lads back then used to talk to their mates about what they did... Often a pack of lies I think.

People are all to ready to say censorship is the answer when in fact it is likely to make it worse rather than better. Over the years they`ve been sold a lie, and know it is virtually impossible for them to recognise the truth of it.

Shaun    [26553.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 05:21] View Near Messages
Well, at one time many parents of post pubescent teenage males would have been concerned if they WEREN`T curious about the anatomy of females and all the rest of it.

Somone should present that recent study to the Daily Mail.

I am getting to the point where I simply can`t be bothered anymore.

Shaun    [26551.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 18:09] View Near Messages
"artistic crap" ?

Do you know FOR SURE it`s crap ? Did you watch it yourself ? Or are you just as predjudiced, as biased, as ignorant, as stupid, and just as downright bigoted as the people who want to censor such "crap" by banning it or making it uneconomical due to unfair rules and CENSORSHIP COSTS, whilst firmly believing at the same time that THEY should be the judge of what other FREEBORN (?) people get to see ?

Sheesh! I really don`t believe what I am reading. Especially on here.

You know, I am a bit of an "artistic" theatre luvvie myself. I`ve been involved with drama since I appeared in quite a fair sized child part when I was only just eleven, some 42 years ago (42 years next week in fact), something I remember as if it was yesterday. This week that same local amateur theatre company were peforming 12th night by William Shakespeare and I was simply doing offstage duty... Unfortunately some similar kind of predjudices were at work in effecting a reduction of the audience from normal levels, in this case because of the reputation of the playwright. But in fact the play really was quite hilarious. Those who would have enjoyed a good laugh, but pandered to their anti-Shakespeare predudices simply missed out.


Keep an open mind folks.

Even if it really IS crap, pornographic or otherwise, adult grown up people SHOULD be free to buy it, watch it, and then DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

It`s called freedom, and I wish people would have more DUE respect for it.

Are we free, or are we not I humbly desire to know ?

Shaun    [26547.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 07:34] View Near Messages
well, dancing monkey I would respectfully but vehemently have to disagree with you.

In todays commercial climate the cost of classification, could well make the difference between a low budget film being released or not.

If freedom of expression really IS to be properly respected, and the governemt STILL want to censor our videos then THEY should pay the BBFC for it, or allow uncensored videos to be released to adults.

You know - It`s called freedom, and we are at least SUPPOSED to be a free country, but at times, especially more recent times, you could have fooled me.

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


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

Honestly!

So I just thought I`d share that one.

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

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

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

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

Otherwise freeborn adults should be exactly that. Free.

Shaun    [26470.   Posted 14-Feb-2010 Sun 06:22] View Near Messages
So, Harridan Harman, and Fear-her Beard are at it again ?

Censorship of newspapers is the order of the day if New Labour get elected. I pray to a god I don`t believe in that they don`t.

I want some of our former freedoms restored URGENTLY.

Shaun    [26453.   Posted 5-Feb-2010 Fri 13:03] View Near Messages
Churches always try and stop this sort of thing because they don`t like sex and they think other people shouldn`t like it either. They believe sex is something dirty so that any girl involved in it, is automatically dirty as well. This kind of villification won`t do much for her self esteem will it ?

The church, and the people in it, are complete fucking hypocrites to the point that they make my blood boil.


Religion is the cause of 99% of the misery on this planet if you disregard starvation and disease.


If we ARE going to have censorship they should start with the Bible amd the Koran because those books really are causing some trouble aren`t they ?

Shaun    [26451.   Posted 5-Feb-2010 Fri 12:47] View Near Messages
Martin Salter was one of those turncoat MPs that supported Gary McKinnon in his fight against extradition to the US, and then changed his mind, voting with the government on the issue and against Gary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199980/BETRAYED-Spineless-Labour-MPs-backed-Aspergers-victims-bid-beat-extradition-desert-him.html

This country (or those that rule it) STINKS to high heaven.

But it seems that the forthcoming election isn`t going to solve anything.

Labour won`t understand why they got kicked out (if indeed that happens), and the tories won`t understand why WE kicked Labour out. That`s the sad part really, because it will just be business as usual.

Are the tories going to restore our freedoms ?

Unlikely. They`ll probably take away the few we gained recently.

They`ll not bother reading the countless comments in newspapers including the Daily Mail about how we have been robbed of our freedoms by the socialist bully boys at Westminster. They should. If they really want to form a government, they ought to learn how sick of control freaks we are, and of politicians that blame the media and video films/games, instead of their OWN incompetence in solving issues properly.

I think nearly all MPs stink to high heaven.

Pathetic lazy ignorant self serving hypocrites, nearly all of them.

It seems the only sensible thing to do is to leave this wretched island and watch it fester in its own misery from abroad.

Shaun    [26424.   Posted 21-Jan-2010 Thu 04:01] View Near Messages
Harvey:
From quite a few places on the web including http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

"
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you`ve got to prove it!
"

AIUI it seems you can write anything about anyone. However if they take offence and decide sue you, then *you* (rather than they) have to prove the truth of it in order to defend yourself.

IE - they don`t have to prove the allegations you made public were FALSE, (or that their reputation really was WAS demonstrably damaged as the courts do that) you have to show that what you had written was true or was made as fair comment of opinion in good faith.

It seems to me they can just haul you into court, state the facts as they exist, that they believe their reputation has been/will now be damaged etc. and you have to try to defend youself, and other than declaring the visible facts they have to prove nothing. This is the impression I get at least. I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

Drinks:

I agree. This country has had the strictest most repressive restrictions of all nearly EU countries during my lifetime and the worst repution for excessive drinking. A bit like the porn issue really. The problem with our politicians is that they want to put changes in and see the effect immediately. The relatively recent changes to drinking hours for example will not change people`s behavior until a new generation grows up. My own kids don`t seem to want to drink at all. Unlike yours truly at their ages. They are 16 and 18, and have no interest at all in boozing. I get the impression from their peers that this is not that unusual. Those that do drink don`t go out every night and drink moderately, they binge at weekends when they don`t have to work the next day...The rest of the week they stay in and go on Facebook etc.



I have come to the conclusion that there will ALWAYS be the Dr Gilmours and the Mary Whitehouses. It is their job to prove that the changes they propose will actually work for the greater good, and our job to defend against this incessant assaut on our freedom. We should "send a message" to our politicians that we are sick of the incessant nannying and quick fixes and will no longer tolerate them at least for the purposes of political expendiency. Usually it solves nothing at all and people shoud get wise to the fact that people who have caused no trouble to anyone, suffer disproportionately. As for the cost, we already have very high taxes on booze. Those taxes are supposed to cover the cost of the problems caused.

Shaun    [26420.   Posted 20-Jan-2010 Wed 03:21] View Near Messages
Sergio IANAL but libel usually requires more than an opinion, it requires an accusation or assertion to be made to a third party in writing. So if you and I met and I wrote a note that you *were* a theif and gave it you then that wouldn`t be libel. I would have at least had to state that in writing to a third party, for example readers of a newspaper. If I *said it verbally* it wouldn`t be slander either, as I would have had to have said it about you, to a third party. (Slander is the term used when the assertion is verbal rather than written)

Also your assertion that the BBFC "are not worth the money" is in this case an opinion which you expressly made clear with the statement "I think". However a statement like that implies an opinion in any case.
However even an opinion has to be an honestly stated one. IE it is something you have good reason to believe, rather than have said maliciously, such as writing: "I think Fred Smith down the road is a pedophile" with no good reason for that other than to maliciously cause trouble and try and damage Mr Smith`s reputaton. Mr Smith, not being so disposed would have a good case against you, even though it was an opinion only. IE "Fair comment" has to be involved, and this would be unfair to Mr. Smith.


Defences:
The assertion was true, is in the public interest, and you can prove it so.

The assertion was an honestly held opinion, involving fair comment and it was clear that it was an opinion only, and was stated in the public interest.

The assertion was made in court, tribunal, government enquiry or other official forum.

But it is a minefield really as the onus is on the accused to prove their case, not on the person libeled to show they really have suffered damages. IMHO this aspect needs urgent revision.

Shaun    [26410.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 18:23] View Near Messages
Michael,

It IS censorship in the sense that certain new, possibly low volume DVD material would have to be submitted to the unlected and unaccountable, and often unreasonable stooges at the BBFC, and the cost of that might make the difference between the material being available or not available due to its classifiction being uneconomical.


I differ from your view I`m afraid. If the classification of such material really was necessary we`d know it by now for sure, and the criteria for exemption is VERY clear as IanG here implied. If there is certain material which has claimed exemption but actually does not fit into such criteria, then THAT PARTICLAR material should be properly dealt with, rather than the regime modified.

If I had my way I would scrap the lot of it, and go for a voluntary system anyway. The main source of video entertainment for youngsters these days (and I DO have a teenage son and daughter and I am fully aware of things they watch) seems to be sites such as YouTube. Which of course DON`T have to be classified at all, nor should they be.

Of course rather than looking at the whole issue of video CENSORSHIP with modern, intelligent and informed eyes, we can rely on our politicians to act like the complete idiots and control freaks that many of them sadly seem to be.

The fact is that the work of the BBFC hasn`t really stopped anyone from seeing whatever they want, now has it ? Especially so in recent time when decent broadband connections can download a WHOLE FILM (of any sort) in about 15 minutes or so from anywhere in the world with decent internet connectivity.

Personally I consider the BBFC somewhat of an irrelevance nowadays, alongside the broadcasters and the "C U Next Tuesday" s skulking around at Ofcom.

I`d like to see some solid evidence that video recordings harm (rather than temporarily disturb or upset) anyone.

It is a wise precaution to decide that some video material isn`t suitable for young people under eighteen or so. That shouldn`t extend to the draconian albeit generally ineffective regime we now have.

It is said that DVDs themselves are now old fashioned, and will be replaced. Some say downloads will replace them, perhaps from anywhere in the world. The government should get "with it" and the BBFC staff should be largely made redundant, and the classification made voluntary.

It`s all stuff which BELONGS TO LAST CENTURY like the censorship of plays and books and the like. Here we are, already 1% towards the next millenium still having to bother about such lunacy.

PS: The politicans and others might _want_ to use any lever they can to impose more censorship on us. Polticians do so at their peril IMHO. Many folk are completely sick of it, and if the ruling classes think they can impose this kind of restriction on our younger media savvy citizens of this country then I think they are mistaken. One has only got to read the feedback from the public on the Daily Mail web site to see what so many people think about such things. It is now often recognised that media censorship is a convenient scapegoat for polticians to blame when something nasty happens.
The problem for them, is that people are ever more wise to such deception, especially the younger ones.

Shaun    [26408.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 10:32] View Near Messages
For some reason I had assumed he was a tory. He isn`t. He`s part of the ban it and criminalise everything brigade.

Shaun    [26405.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 05:31] View Near Messages
Michael wrote:
"Certainly I feel that UFC material should be age rated, especially "

Oh come on. Let `em censor that, and then they`ll just look for something else to have a go at.

If after 25 bloody years of the Video Recordings Act, they don`t know UNEQUIVOCALLY that this previously exempt material they NOW want to censor, really is HARMFUL then they`ve got no fucking right even to BEGIN to think about it.

If this extra censorship really was MORE THAN NECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY then they`d have all the justification to hand by now wouldn`t they ?

Basically it is just some tory twat trying to make a name for himself in the easiest way possible. It really makes me puke.

What these tory people want to do if they get elected, (and what the UK people WANT them to do) is start to restore our freedoms where possible, and COME DOWN HARD on those such as Islamic extremists who would undermine those freedoms, along with REAL criminals who do people REAL harm.

The "video recordings act" crap should be made optional for videos for adults (default rating 18 therefore) and mandatory for underage viewing, except educational videos. In this last case, if necessary, classification should be provided free of charge. In fact I think it all should. If the fucking twats in the government want to censor our videos THEY should pay for it not those who want to express themselves with low volume video sales. This is simply a restriction on free expression. As the law stands if I sell ONE video it has to be classified and that is unfair.

Also ALL the staff at the BBFC should be sacked every five years to prevent vested interests setting in and influencing their decisions.

Censorship should NOT be a lifetime career option.

<I am swearing because this makes my blood boil>

Shaun    [26402.   Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 17:21] View Near Messages
Doesn`t that Andrew Dismore tory fellow look rather like somone from the other side, during the conflict of 1939-1945 ? At least to me he seems to.

Just to think, they were going to get my vote too.

Five years on and all we are going to get, is more of the same. Don`t these morons know that we`re all COMPLETELY SICK TO DEATH of it all ?

Our next election is Hobson`s choice.

What a complete shithole.

Shaun    [26399.   Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 04:49] View Near Messages
"We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal.”


Dunno why they are going to bother. By the time this appeal comes around I hope NL have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Having said that, their likely replacements don`t seem to be any better.

What we need is a proper bill of rights to protect us against the excesses of the bully boys in government.

Shaun    [26353.   Posted 23-Dec-2009 Wed 05:55] View Near Messages
sergio asked:
"What`s the problem with being silly?"


Well you know, Dave (the webmaster) wants to maintain a civil atmosphere here, without it degenerating into chaos or farce.

"But who am I being aggressive to? Mr Average? But there is no `Mr Average`."

Well someone posted here under that username. So there is some person who took the handle of Mr. Average. I`d like to think we can engage in a rational debate with this person, without any form of abuse. Being abusive would simply lend credibility to his position, at the expense of ours, now wouldn`t it ? Think rationaly. It is all that is required.

My issue with Mr. Average is that he condemned us for undermining various standards and morality "in our society". Quite whose morality and standards remain unclear.

I do not know if the person will return to debate our response to his comments. Perhaps he is convinced by our arguments and has gone off to sulk a little!

Shaun    [26349.   Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 06:40] View Near Messages
Sergio
You are being really silly. I really think you should review that post or risk having it censored by the webmasters.

Shaun    [26343.   Posted 20-Dec-2009 Sun 12:53] View Near Messages
Dear Mr. Average,

Thank you for posting here. We always welcome debate, but we put our views in a straightforward and forthright manner. Some here swear. Some don`t swear. I do swear now and then but not often.

Perhaps if you had taken the trouble to read some of the articles on this site for a little longer, you might realise we have no intention whatsoever of destroying ANYONES morality. Also exactly whose "standards" are you referring to ? Those of the child abusing catholic priest ? Or the vicar hell bent in frightening everyone witless that they`ll go to hell to suffer for all eternity for the least misdemeaner ? Or people who still vehemently oppose contraception when the planet`s human population has increased SIXFOLD in two hundred years ? If that happens again there`d be 36 BILLION people in the world and no real means to support them. Suffering and misery would then know no bounds. I don`t believe their parents will be typical wealthy professionals or hardworking down to earth folk either. Ignorance not knowledge is the main cause of the forthcoming population problem and that ignorance is generally caused by CENSORSHIP. Indeed Ignorance is the cause of 99% of the present problems of humanity.

We don`t...
(and I believe I can speak for everyone who contributes to this site)
...Mr. Average, believe in censorship for the simple sake of someone`s offence. Especially nowadays with digital televsion and information and rating screens which WILL TELL you if there is any swearing in the programmes scheduled on television. Nor do we believe that the media should be dumbed down to the level of the smallest child, or its severest critic or to prevent religious offence. Imagine what could never be shown if the media was dumbed down so followers of Islam could never be offended, for example by women not wearing the hijab or similar ?

Instead we believe in concepts such as the 9.00PM water shed, on screen information and ratings, and encrypted channels for the most explict material so that people can AVOID the most offending material if they do not like it. We believe that informed freeborn(?) adults can make their OWN decisions about their viewing choices, and should not have them imposed on them by the state. Are you aware that we are one of the MOST censored countries in Europe already ? Southern Ireland being another.

We certainly DO NOT believe in censorship just to make people like you feel better. We do not believe in censorship because something in the media offends someone`s sense of propriety. We do not even believe in the censorship of ANY material which would be legal to own other than reasonable restriction. We DO believe in censorship and prohibition of sexually explicit material involving kids. We do not however believe that consensual sexually explict material depicting adults should ever be prohibited from sale in special shops, or areas where only adults may enter, and on encrypted satellite and cable television channels. This is because despite the belief of some, it CANNOT be shown to be harmful to the adult audience or indeed anyone. If it was so harmful, then the debate would be over LONG before now wouldn`t it ? However it is sensible to try to protect children from seeing it, but the main part of that job should fall to the parents. We also are quite certain that the well being of children is used as an excuse by people who have NO INTEREST in children except to further their own censorious aims. In other words it isn`t the children they want to censor, it is the adults.

In short we TRY to take the reasonable view that only material which would cause REAL and MANIFEST harm to individuals (NOT offence) should be prohibited or have the severest restrictions imposed upon it.

Note that those countries in the world who censor their media the most, are the ones with the WORST human rights record. In short the censorship imposed on the citizens of a country is an inverse measure of how free those people are.

If you don`t like swearing, then fair enough for you. There`s plenty of programmes and channels were swearing is seldom or never heard.

As for blasphemey that is no longer illegal and rightfully so. Why should the tenets of people who believe in a man in the sky with a grey beard not be subject to scrutiny and perhaps even ridicule ? Shall we apply the same principle to believers of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy ? If there was a diety, he/she/it would be completely detached from humanity, not even caring what happened to the most helpless unfortunate child, whose life was smitten with some horrendous malady. I believe as Richard Dawkins does, that those who believe in the kind of God worshipped by Christians are simply delusional. If that makes them feel better, fair enough. But it certainly doesn`t give them the right to try and dictate how the rest of us choose to live our lives, including the programmes we are free to watch on television.

We don`t "tear down" anyone. Indeed we would actively SUPPORT and even DEFEND your right to your opinions, which it seems, by your comments, does not apply in reverse does it ? Do you know that if someone was abusive or seriously impolite to you PERSONALLY here on this board, THEY would be chastised by the webmaster ? We believe all individuals (but not necessarily their expressed beliefs which is something different) should be treated with proper respect and dignity. If people come here, they can EXPECT to have some of their BELIEFS challenged with few restrictions.

In short who are the really moral "moral" ones ?

Those who would defend peoples rights to free expression, including the right to express views like yours which we don`t agree with, and people`s right to hear/read/watch whatever they wish in the media, unless the material is unequivocally shown to cause REAL and MANIFEST harm ?

Or those who would censor, restrict and even deny others the right to free speech, often with the threat of imprisonment simply because those people take a different view, or wish to express themselves differently ?

I know where I stand. It is on the side of reason, logic and rational examination of all the facts to hand to determine what restriction really IS necessary. I wish all humanity took that approach. Not to do so ? Well there`s certainly real harm there.

Shaun    [26331.   Posted 15-Dec-2009 Tue 05:24] View Near Messages
Dano,

In my discussions with Mr. Beyer (before i refused to talk to him because of his support for criminalisation of the possession of R18 material) I suggested that there should be enough "room" in our system of modern media for people who wanted to see more explict material to do so, whilst at the same time allowing a good degree of proction for children and others who simply didn`t want it. For example having more explicit stuff on specific satellite and freeview channels.

He totally refused to accept there was a case of such freedoms.

But he is wrong. We are approaching TEN YEARS of availibilty of so called legal "hard core" porn and its presence hasn`t caused any problems at all.
Every instance of known problems would have been cited on MW site of that I`m sure.

Not to mention the explict online "adult" material, which is available regardless of what the government, the BBFC, or Mr. Beyer wants.


The porn and violence debate seems to be about the offence caused to religious values than any REAL and MANIFEST harm ensuing. Children are used as an EXCUSE IMHO by those who want to restrict our (and indeed THEIR future) freedoms as freeborn (?) adults.


Strange that the government doesn`t mind allowing EIGHTEEN YEAR OLDS to be sent to their PATHETIC wars to see people having their heads blown off and little kids KILLED. Well if it is harmful in the media, it is a DAMN WELL MORE harmful seeing such things in REAL life especially when you are not yet over 21 and have had little experience of life`s worst aspects.

Shaun    [26319.   Posted 10-Dec-2009 Thu 03:15] View Near Messages
"Shaun, I applaud your attempts at communicating with these people but..."

Nevertheless it is important that as many people as possible let them know that their actions are not wanted, and are unacceptable. Political crusading with the help of private resources is one thing, and people ARE entitled to their opinions, but this is an appalling waste and abuse of council tax-payer`s money and if I lived in Glasgow I would be completely livid if I thought I had contributed in any way to this crusade for repression.

Most people still believe that prostitution should be fully legalised and properly regulated. Messages from such people will help those idiots at Glasgow Councol to realise this at least to some degree. They should also be told that this is NOT a purpose to which council tax payer`s money should be put.

So please folks send your message even if you DO think it is pointless.

Shaun    [26317.   Posted 9-Dec-2009 Wed 12:55] View Near Messages

I just sent that Scottish web site this:

You SHOULD be providing your COUNCIL TAX PAYERS with the services they desire, not pushing for this repressive regulation imposed on FREEBORN men and women who wish to make FREE choices about sex matters in a FREE (?) country. What people do, consensually should have NOTHING to do with you even if one chooses to pay the other it is NONE of your business. Myths lies ? Yes the amount of people trafficked for this purposes is one great myth isn`t it ? How many people have been prosecuted ? Some poeple have no choice other than to use the services of a sex worker. For example a badly disfigured person or one with personality problems. They still have their urges. What do they do ? Your stupid Scottish prudery makes NO PROVISION for them does it ? Disablity discrimination ?

You pathetic narrow minded people make me utterly sick I`ll tell you.

So what if someone goes back to their wife or husband for that matter. Perhaps they do it with the AGREEMENT of their wife. Perhaps for whatever reason she cannot fulfil the marital role any more, and this is a solution for the couple concerned. What really has it to do with you ?

Shaun    [26301.   Posted 30-Nov-2009 Mon 03:41] View Near Messages
Hmmm...

Is that really the same Camilla who had an adulterous relationship with the Prince of Wales ? One who, had this been an Islamic country, would have been stoned to death ?



"Without sin" morals, and "alley-cat" all spring to mind right now.

Shaun    [26283.   Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 08:59] View Near Messages
[Edit]

I should have read the article. It was (nowadays) illegal bestiality wasn`t it ?


----

"Downloaded automatically by the machine ?" Perhaps if there was some kind of virus involved, but most unlikely otherwise.

Why should he get "done" anyway ? Was the porn illegal to possess ?

If the porn **wasn`t** illegal to possess then what offence was committed ?

Oh dear, he used the machine to download some porn rather than a recording of a football match or the ballet ?

If that porn wasn`t illegal then why don`t they leave the poor sod alone ?

Having said that, if he did download it and didn`t argue his case for being at "liberty" to do so whilst living in a so called "free" (?) country, then he`s a complete fucking hypocrite and doesn`t deserve to be a politician of any kind, and is a disgrace to the notion of liberty.

As for being shown on the telly, why not ? Why should he decide what should and should not be shown on the television.

These kind of ostensibly "liberal" people make me want to puke. I am completely sick of them. Worst of all, they usually ALWAYS get shown to be completely wrong, and they never, ever learn ANYTHING.

Shaun    [26166.   Posted 27-Oct-2009 Tue 05:01] View Near Messages
Tarkus wrote:
"
And Phantom, for God`s sake man loosen up. This is just a friendly discourse and not something to take too seriously.
"

Tarkus, the problem is that some of the subject matter under discussion, is taken VERY seriously by long standing contributers on this site. Please kindly respect and understand that if you would please.

Many of us are well aware that for FAR too long, overly strict censorship has been imposed upon us, the British people often without a shred of evidence that it is at all necessary. Often because of those who would use any excuse they can to impose their narrowmindedness on the rest of us, using children as an excuse. They are iften the same folk who would happily see kids caned and smacked at school and brutalised by parents as punishment for minor wrongdoing. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" and all that. What hurts them more ? Seeing some boobs or being beaten sensless with a cane ?

As I have said time and time again, in Europe and many places elsewhere in the world they are far more easy going about nudity and sex. There`s no evidence to show that their kids are any the worse for it. In fact there`s quite a lot to indicate the contrary. Go take a look.

I guess that all this is enough to make some people here passionate when laying out their arguments in response to those who might take a different view.

In any case I fail to see what Phantom should "lighten up" about. Here we are engaged in serious debate, not mere flippancy.

Shaun    [26162.   Posted 26-Oct-2009 Mon 06:16] View Near Messages
The argument that children need to be protected from images currently found on the front page of magazines such as Loaded, is quite frankly risible, and I question the intelligence and ability of anyone who thinks this should be the case.

Let us not forget, that the main proponents of restriction here, aren`t really all that interested in the welfare of children. What they ARE interested in, is imposing their own narrow minded feminazi repressive censorship on the rest of us and they use the welfare of children as a false argument to try and get what they want. Their deception is shameful.

There`s pleny of evidence from around the world to show that children are generally unfazed by such imagery beyond being mildly curious about it.

As far as being overweight, or in other words FAT, one of the MAIN causes of misery to such folk is the government`s very own health facists who clearely define how much a person of a certain height and gender should weigh. Indeed they seem to have created a licence for more fortunate people to poke fun and ridicule heavier people, or to accuse them of being slovenly and lazy and a future burden to the country`s health service.

Girls who look at ultra slender women in fashion mags should be taught that not everyone is the same, or is lucky enough to be so. The idea that magazines should be censored in some way, or it be illegal to artificially enhance the image to remove blemishes borders on pathetic. All that would happen is that the fashion mags would try harder to find girls without the need of such enhancements to their images and other would be models would be left out.

I wasn`t born handsome. Nor (although quite musical in my piano playing ) can I sing very well. Indeed at junior school our teacher (a musical man himself) used to split up his pupils into "Blackbirds" and "Crows", and I found myself in the latter group. Branded for all time by Mr. Hodk... not daring to sing another note. Ever. Even when we had a band (in which I played keyboards) when I was a teenager, I would never sing a note.

So should we ban images of handsome male singers, and/or their music because they make me green with envy and remind me that I am but a mere vocally challenged crow and not even a good looking one to boot ? Is the answer always to be censorship ? It should be accepted that censorship and prohibition should be tools of LAST resort not the first resource available to lazy, ignorant and unintelligent politicians and government officials.

No. We have to live with our limitations and try and overcome them if possible.

Shaun    [26056.   Posted 6-Oct-2009 Tue 06:54] View Near Messages
According to "the powers that be", the new prohibition on possession on "extreme" porn is there to restrict that which obscenity failed to do in this new age of the internet, and the restrictions imposed by it, do not include urolagnia (even if the BBFC did classify this as such) or even scat material. Surely if they had wanted such material restricted they would have specified it ?

Therefore anything which ISN`T covered by this new law, ought to be classified regardless of how distasteful it is.

Such material isn`t illegal to possess, or do in real life, and therefore they should not refuse it classification.

Shaun    [25989.   Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 16:19] View Near Messages
sergio -

Get a full body shot of (or add one to) the lady, remove the `tash and put a bra with some suspenders and black stockings on it, and it would be much funnier and more relevant I think!


BTW if you show a swastika on a picture of someone, I think it`s likely people will infer that you are suggesting they are nazi.

Shaun    [25987.   Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 07:34] View Near Messages
@Charles Darwin

He might not have been 100% correct, but for sure he`s the nearest we have to the truth. However as explained on the BBC`s recent documentary programmes "The Cell", all life currently on the planet apparently eminated from one single cell. Its fingerprint is still carried by nearly all living things, and is known as "The Genetic Code". It used to be considered universal, but minor deviations have been discovered in some exotic species only in recent years. Some have suggested that the initial chemical configurations which brought about the first life based on the genetic code, did not survive the changes on the planet which evolution brought about. No one is really sure.

However nearly all the attacks on Darwinism, simply try to replace theory based on observation, logic and sound reasoning with much less plausible theological explanation based on an invisible bearded man in the sky seated somewhere with a drawing board designing everything and then making it all happen in a few days. The creator of all named God.

Now I know which theory I would believe!

If the other option is to be consdered, then if everything really does require a creator, then that creator must also have needed one of their own mustn`t they ? If that really isn`t the case, then life as we know it doesn`t need one either does it ? Even children can see the logic in this when they ask "Did God have a mother ?"

It seems we have to spend a good deal of our time, being restricted by, and being told we will answer to, something that simply does not exist. If he does, and he is the all powerful omnipotent entity that many in the religious fraternity claim he is, then surely he can do his OWN dirty work. He doesn`t need men sporting long beards or funny hats, armed with machine guns pointed at innocent people to do HIS dirty work and to enforce HIS law.

If anyone is offended by such a statement then TOUGH!

Shaun    [25986.   Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 07:06] View Near Messages
Well she might be an infiltrator, an anti-censorship crusader intent on complete destruction of the organisation from within, but somehow I very much doubt it.

My money is on more of the same. Some things never change really.

I wonder why Mr. Beyer retired ? He isn`t 65 yet.

Shaun    [25983.   Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 04:04] View Near Messages
@dano wrote:
"
Wouldn`t go as far as calling her a Nazi.

We don`t even know her views yet, particularly on the throwing people in prison for looking at R18 material.
"

Would you presume to know the views of someone who joined the BNP ? Especially someone taking high office within it ?

It`s a safe bet that she supports the vast majority of MediaWatch`s current policies, otherwise she wouldn`t have got the job.

"Nazi" is probably wrong; personally I don`t care what she was shown as but I think it was created to cause MW some offence, because we are offended by their constant attempts to restrict our freedon, quite unnecessarily as it happens.

Shaun    [25976.   Posted 25-Sep-2009 Fri 04:50] View Near Messages
Unfair ?

Anyone who aligns themselves with that bunch of repressive whingers deserves all the fun poking at them that they get.

Especially if they put themselves up for director.

Remember, it isn`t us wanting to take away HER rights and freedoms.
But the reverse isn`t true is it ?

Shaun    [25962.   Posted 22-Sep-2009 Tue 16:26] View Near Messages
@dano
"
I can see her point. Isn`t the Melon Farmers on the pro file sharing camp?
"

My opinion is that Lily Allen is one of those almost talentless people who could soon disappear into complete obscurity which worries her. She`ll be someone who "used to be famous" and people sharing her records, will be soon just as irrelevant to this issue, as those who share "Have I the Right" by the Honeycombs.. Though I have no doubt she`ll blame them, instead of the executives of her record company who simply won`t move with the times...

Talented people will always make it, despite what their "avocates" in the music industry would have then believe if the status quo is allowed to remain. Especially those "music moguls"who wouldn`t recognise talent if it stood nude in their face.

I think someone like Susan Boyle is an interesting example of this. She might not be 100% acceptable to some of the pretentious singing critics who have reviewed her vocal offerings. Perhaps not the best vocalist ever for sure, but good enough to make me pre-order her CD, so I can help someone like her get rich from what she has done amd for her bravery. Now, had I not been able to listen to her stuff so many times on YouTube, I probably wouldn`t have bothered.

Sometimes online availability of music helps SELL it. Perhaps if Lilly Allen had some good stuff online, then I might buy some of it...

But there used to be complaints about home taping off the radio. But how many of those people who liked what they heard, went and bought LP records etc ?

Lots and lots is the answer.

The Melon Farmers site ISN`T particulary "pro file sharing"...
The owner of this site, (Dave) as far as I know, spent a lot of time working in the software industry as I did, and in my case still do. Piracy has plagued us, and our customers (because of the anti-piracy measures we`ve taken, against my wishes in fact) but at the end of the day, it is all about what is reasonable, and what isn`t.

The problem with music moguls is that they are quite content to use the new media when it suits them, and condemn it when it does not. They seem to think they have a right to it all. Well, sorry it simply ain`t so.

Shaun    [25952.   Posted 18-Sep-2009 Fri 15:41] View Near Messages
Ms Harman ought to be sacked promptly. She is, in my opinion a complete liability to what little (if any at all) prospects the so called New (now very old, tedious and pathetic) Labour party has.

When one makes a statement such as this, one really should know what one is talking about.

The fact is, that such forms of entertainment as this, are NOT in any way deductable, unless the visitors are from "overseas", and it does not matter if one ventures out to the local lap dancing club, or to an appearance of the Bolshoi Ballet in London.

In short, it seems to me that the stupid harridan has absolutely NO idea what she is talking about, so why on earth is she in the position she is in ? Why ? Because NL seem to be on a death wish, and actually don`t want to win the next election.

If you`d had made such a complete mess of things, would you ?

Shaun    [25935.   Posted 14-Sep-2009 Mon 05:28] View Near Messages
Re Darkangel5

These people should consider that they aren`t doing themselves OR their fellow citizens any good at all.

By blaming censorship for all society`s ills all they are doing is giving people an excuse for their wrong doings, and politicians a cheap "get out" where all they have to do is impose increased censorship on FREE people and hope that the issue goes away. Of course it won`t, and thankfully people seem to be becoming increasingly wise to this.

The truth of course is that censorship actually makes LITTLE difference to the behavior of society, and this has been proven by differing levels of censorship around the world. Their tiresome mantra is well worn, well tested and well proven to be a load of old tosh.

So these bastards should be told to unequivocally PROVE their case, and JUSTIFY it, or leave the rest of us (ostensibly ?) FREE people to be just that.

Of course they cannot prove it. If their case really was that strong they would have been able to do so, long before now, and I resent their attempts to impose this FAKE SCIENCE on the rest of us and ROB us of our freedoms.

To the politicians I say: STOP USING THIS CHEAP GETOUT. WE ARE WISE TO YOU NOW. DEAL WITH THE ISSUES PROPERLY PLEASE.

Shaun    [25868.   Posted 30-Aug-2009 Sun 03:42] View Near Messages
I tried to subnit somethign to the DM article.

It seems their site is severely broken for feedback at the moment...

At least you got yours published MichaelG

Shaun    [25863.   Posted 27-Aug-2009 Thu 03:07] View Near Messages
RE: MichaelG and the page below:

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209320/Football-riot-YouTube--Hollywood.html"

One day the journos behind this paper will get the message. Those who contribute to their forums, seem to be getting less and less tolerant of the D.M.s scapegoatism.

I have made my views known on that page, and though it is moderated, they have printed them! This makes a refreshing changes because they have so often ignored my submissions in the past.

My argument today was simply this:
"
Here we go again. The Daily Mail our wannabe film and video censors want to maintain the fallacy that our modern media is the cause of all our ills, rather than accept the fact that some people are simply complete morons choose what they watch.

Look at your comments elsewhere, and you will find that an ever increasing number of people disagree with that position.

Don`t give these idiots any excuse for their appalling behaviour, by being able to blame it on the influence of the media including films and television programmes. Many people who watch all manner of things, behave absolutely impeccably. It is the rights of those LAW ABIDING people the Daily Mail should be supporting, not running a campaign to curtail and CENSOR THEIR right in our (onstensibly) free (?) country to watch whatever they wish, within the legal framework of their right to possess the material at all.

People are now wise to this media scapegoatism, and many are completely sick of it. I know I am.
"

Shaun    [25856.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 05:44] View Near Messages
PS:

The media companies are obviously losing revenue. But they need to be careful exactly what they are blaming for this. It isn`t all about P2P. Much of it is because people are doing less listening to music, and more online game playing, arguing in forums such as this one, reading various web pages, and all manner of things. If the value of an activity is measured by the amount of time an average person spends involved with it, then perhaps music and films are now worth significantly less, and those media providers really need to accept this fact and cut their cloth accordingly.


Just over 100 years ago there were no commercial films, radio or gramaphone records. The main form of entertainment was a trip to the theatre or music hall now and then. Otherwise one could perhaps read a book or two.

Then came the gramaphone and the cinema. Content providers, appeared to service the new technology.

Then came the radio in 1920 funded by a licence fee which we are still stuck with, except BBC radio listeners now legally freeload on licence paying television viewers.

Home audio tape recorders got popular in the 50s and home piracy was born in the form of home taping of music from the wireless.

There followed television in the early 50s, and colour television in 1967. Then in the mid seventies the first home video recorder appeared (Philips N1500) followed by N1700, betamax, VHS and the Video Recordings Act and the first instances of video piracy!

All through this time the media companies adapted, fought against commercial piracy, and made more and more money, with musicians and filmstars becoming increasingly wealthy. They came to believe that this was to be theirs by right, for all time. Become a famous actor, or musician, and untold wealth would always be yours

Then along came broadband internet and started to change everything.

People started to do other things, with different kinds of content, often perfectly legal, and often created by perfectly ordinary average people. Other high quality content was legally freely available too. See how many interactive games can be played on FaceBook for example.

Result: Less videos and DVDs bought, and less music bought as well. Less television watched. In our house it is hardly ever on at all these days.

My favourite online pastime apart from arguing agaist unfair censorship is watching gifted amateurs play some of my favourite piano pieces much better than I can and watching other amateurs !

Then of course there`s all the free porn for those that want that...

Shaun    [25855.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 02:37] View Near Messages
They`ll pay the price at the next election of that I`m sure. To be honest, I don`t think they WANT to win the next election with proposals such as this.

The ISPs will put up a fight. They don`t want to be the netcops. There is at least one influential tech savvy MP, who seems to understand the issues. He says he is "dissapointed"

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2009/08/filesharing-revised-consultation/

So will ordinary folk too. For my part I have already written to my MP wanting to know how this unlected, intensely disliked, disgraced former MP is being allowed to try to wield such power over the rest of us ? I also told him to be aware what my MP`s own teenage son was up to on the internet, in case he too, was landed with a 50,000 pound fine, and that he, along with his fellow MPs should be careful what he wished for. I also pointed out that the government should not be proposing legislation to support greedy luddites with completely outdated business models.

Shaun    [25803.   Posted 12-Aug-2009 Wed 02:01] View Near Messages
"An erect phallus in a non-R18 magazine has apparentely never been done before in the UK, according to..."

This is complete bullshit. I don`t know what the status quo is right at this moment, but the porno mags in newsagents were full of shots of such and penises inside vaginas etc. and all kinds of things. This all came after R18 material was considered not obscene, and magazines are not subject to any form of other control. Is that still the status quo with mags in newsagents ?

I am surprised that a small firm of printers can afford to turn any work down, in these difficult times. IMHO they deserve to go bust after this.

Having said all this, such magazines (not necessarily with erections) have been published before, and have met with limited success.

Nevertheless I hope they are successful.

Shaun    [25765.   Posted 2-Aug-2009 Sun 02:34] View Near Messages
From the BBC news site:

One of Labour`s top two posts should always be held by a woman, Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has told a paper.
She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.
`
Sexist or what ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8180195.stm

Posted from my iPhone.

Shaun    [25757.   Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 09:05] View Near Messages
re daily mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1202605/Its-addictive-cocaine-just-damaging-So-YOUR-husband-hooked-internet-porn.html
it`s interesting to see that the vast majority of respondents disagree
with the article. This is like all recent Mail articles of this kind but
unlike similar articles of the past. It makes me wonder when the
paper itself will change it`s opinions so they are more in agreement
with it`s readers!
Posted from my iPhone from holiday in Cornwall where it`s been
chucking it down...

Shaun    [25737.   Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 12:00] View Near Messages
Phantom -

I am not speculating or imagining things. I am relating what I have seen with my own eyes, and that is, that you can by a hardcore porn video with your morning paper, and some sliced bacon in many places in Europe.

Indeed you can do that HERE too provided that it is in magazines not on film, because here magazines are not regulated. It would in fact be little different here nowadays if it wasn`t for our overly strict video censors. Some of the material on sale in mags nowadays in newsagents would probably have the police raiding sex shops not all that long ago.

You are correct that you don`t see hard porn on the equivalent of the BBC, but nor would I really expect to. But I remember watching a documentary on TV3 Sweden ( a general entertainment channel) about the making of porn films, and erect penises and explicit shots of wide open vaginas were all over the place.

So there is, a different more relaxed attitude. Of that I am sure. In Benidorm I saw a couple of shops even selling bestiality videos. "Dreaming of a Dog" was one of the titles I saw. Here of course you would go to prison, for simple possession. I have to wonder why.

I think the continentals simply realise it is WRONG to ban something on the grounds of distaste, rather than properly proven harm.

Shaun    [25728.   Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 10:24] View Near Messages
Phantom

In most places I`ve visited in Europe you can buy HC porn DVDs in local shops. This applies to Spain and Majorca, Greece, and to a lesser extent Italy and France.

I don`t know about Sweden, Denmark or Holland etc. What I can say that it was (and probably still is) available on their normal film subscription channels such as TV1000 and Canal+ Formerly known as FilmNet, once quite infamous in this country because in the analogue days pirate decoders were easy to get, and later when they went to d2Mac, pirate cards were easy to get too.

In some countries they are allowed to watch such things from being 15 years old rather than 18.

I have long been irritated with the attitude of the British Authorities regarding this issue SINCE I got access via satellite to the likes of TV1000 and Filmnet, on analogue, D2Mac and digital platforms, and realised exactly how censored we were, and indeed still are. Furthermore this censhorship has NEVER been justified. If the material broadcast harms US it would have also HARMED THEM, and Ofcom would have all the facts and figures at their disposal to JUSTIFY their position. They don`t and they haven`t.

I would assert that Ofcom and censorship does more HARM than good.

The main issue here, is that THOSE WHO WISH TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOMS OF OTHERS, really should PROVE their case, and that PROOF should be beyond dispute, and unequivocal. Do we have that kind of proof which justifies the position of the government and its censorious quangos ?

The answer to that, is a resounding NO in my opinion.


Even now Ofcom are hypocritical. They ban British broadcasters from showing explicit porn, by BULLYING them with over zealous regulation and the threat of very heavy fines, yet allow British people unfettered access to any foreign broadcaster who will supply smartcards to the UK because they no longer recommend proscription, because THEY KNOW they are on a hiding to nothing, if they were ever to be challenged.

Shaun    [25694.   Posted 21-Jul-2009 Tue 01:56] View Near Messages
Re:Christopher Hart

It`s interesting to note that most of the people who responded to the article disagreed with him.

Perhaps the Daily Mail should reconsider their belief that they represent public opinion.. It is quite clear that they simply don`t, and neither does any institution which is in favour of this kind of repression.

As usual the Daily Mail, didn`t publish my own response to this on the responses.

I hope Hart has egg all over his face. What a complete fool.

Shaun    [25656.   Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 08:56] View Near Messages
Cameron to Ban TV Censor

Anyone really bothered either way ? <earlier swearing censored by me>

TV is old fashioned. It`s hardly watched in our house any more.
Hardly surprising with the rubbish that`s on the thing.

They can switch it off completely for all I care.

Shaun    [25644.   Posted 6-Jul-2009 Mon 07:23] View Near Messages
Re Ray Fitzgerald (or is it Gerald FitzRay ?)

Dunno if he would actually have got these sites shut down, or they would have been shut down anyway. They do come, and they go I guess.

Perhaps some would have been shut down, if they had been operating illegally in their jurisdiction.

I wonder if Mr Fitzgerald worries at all about violence being seen by children, or is he another one far too preoccupied with the process which brings about the continuance of our existence ?

Mr Fitzgerald is more than an order of magnitude out, if he thinks there are only hundreds of these sites...

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

Shaun    [25639.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 11:24] View Near Messages
emark -
Bullying, is a form of co-ercion.

Putting people in prison simply for looking at things the government don`t like, is a form of co-ercion.

This government are bullies. More so than any other in my lifetime,

Shaun    [25635.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 09:20] View Near Messages

Very few kids got called a "puff", much more than I did. I had the misfortune to go to two of the roughest schools in our town, and I was a well spoken, gentle soul who lived in York for a few years previously, and my peers at school mistook the York dialect for a "posh" accent and accused me of being gay and all that.

I wouldn`t say I was happy about it, but still, I have spend a large proportion of my adult live defending such free speech.

As for me, I got over it the calling. In adult life I even got quite friendly with some of my young tormentors!

The worst kind of people, aren`t those who tormented me when I was a child. They were just children too. No, the worst are those who want to torment me and others,as adults, by trying to dictate what we can, and cannot view, and what we can and cannot say.

These people are A THOUSAND time WORSE than ANY of the kids who abused me and beat me up so often, when I was at school until the secondary school third year when we moved to a better location and I changed schools.

They don`t just harm me. They cause harm to the very notion of freedom itself, and what that really means for all of us. They are the true tormentors often advocating draconian and repressive laws to bolster their position.

Shaun    [25608.   Posted 2-Jul-2009 Thu 09:32] View Near Messages
phantom wrote:

"
Spider,
why abolish R18?
"

It would remove the requirement to have to go personally to a licenced sex shop, and at the same time perhaps remove the need for sex shop licences, though I think they`d still need one if most of their other trade was also sex related.

Fining and threatening people with JAIL for selling R18 material elsewhere, when now the SAME material can be freely downloaded on the internet certified by BBFCOnline, subject to a few extra restricitons is simply plain barmy.

It seems that our politicians are interested in little else but pandering to "moral" mouthpeices...

(is it moral for someone to go to jail when it cannot be shown that they`ve caused anyone any harm, or were likely to do so ?)

...rather than being rational, fair and reasonable. These qualities, sorely needed in people who put themselves forward to run the country and decide what our laws should be, seem to be sadly lacking in the current brigade of MPs who only seem to be interested in lining their own pockets, and trying to maintain a position where they can continue to do so.

Shaun    [25604.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 14:47] View Near Messages
So what is supposed to happen ?

The video is passed, distributed, and then that twat Beyer objects ? Or some other freedom robber objects. Do the distributers have to recall all the unsold videos and shred them ?

Or are the films to be delayed for a month or so in case someone objects to videos they HAVE NOT seen..

I`ve Already complained bitterly to John Healey MP.

FREEBORN ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO WATCH WHAT THE BLOODY HELL THEY WANT TO, the only exception being material PROVEN TO HARM. IE REAL CHILD ABUSE.


Mandatory classification should be ended for adults.




PS: I might not be quite as irritated, but the truth is, that the criteria the BBFC do work to, has been determined after very heavy and diligent public consultation. You know, kind of democratically and in the spirit of human rights law.

WHICH IS MORE THAN I CAN SAY FOR OUR APPARENTLY IGNORANT OBTUSE POLITICIANS who are getting involved in this.

Shaun    [25593.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 03:30] View Near Messages
Just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm

"
Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog

A former civil servant who wrote an internet blog imagining the kidnap and murder of the pop group Girls Aloud has been cleared of obscenity.

Darryn Walker, 35, of South Shields, South Tyneside, was charged under the Obscene Publications Act after the blog appeared on a fantasy pornography site.

He appeared at Newcastle Crown Court, but was cleared on Monday.

His defence argued that the article was not accessible, and could only be found by those looking for specific material.

"

Shaun    [25580.   Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 02:41] View Near Messages
Looking at the BBFC online rules, well it seems official:

BBFC R18 works are legally available online, provided that there is an approved gatekeeper system on the relevabt web site, and this includes online schemes targetted at set top boxes as well. Why then cannot such material be sent via mail order (not necessarily through the post, but by courier) after some initial age verification of the customer, and also shown on subscription television services ?

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/downloads/pub/BBFConline/BBFC.online_Scheme_Rules%20Edition_1.1.pdf

Shaun    [25579.   Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 02:36] View Near Messages
The council have to work with the owners first, to see what steps they are prepared to take to put the property back into use.

There are many steps before the council can "take possession" of the property, and even then they do not possess it in the ownership sense.

The inital scheme last for one year to start with, and then a maximum of seven years.

If it is shown that the property is the "main residence" of the owner, and they are staying elsewhere, for example to work, it is exempt.

See:
http://www.cih.org/display.php?db=policies&id=590

Shaun    [25544.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 03:57] View Near Messages
re: "Beware of computer repairers"


Bestiality pictures:

Let`s look at this issue honestly and rationally for a moment. No hysterial reactions please!


You`d be surprised who has these kind of pictures on their hardware. I remember one otherwise self rightous prig I worked with, having some on his computer, you know, "for a laugh" I think. Now I don`t normally go looking for pictures on other people`s computers. But this bloke really was so self righteous, so when he had trouble with his machine and asked me for help I couldn`t resist the chance to find out what he was REALLY like. (For the same reason, I`d love a scan round John Beyer`s computer too!) I didn`t tell another soul what I`d seen I must add. Not even him.

I would be, nowadays particularly interested in the contents of the machines of politicians, censors, and so called "deeply religious" people, for there the most hypocrisy will be found.

While we continue to eat animals for Sunday Lunch, prohibiting possession pictures of them having sexual encounters with human beings, regardless of how distasteful depictions of that might seem, simply isn`t right. It certainly isn`t just is it ? What is this prohibition ACTUALLY FOR I ask ? What is it going to acheive ? To protect our fellow creatures ? Would they have been harmed ? To protect the humans willingly involving themselves in the creation of these admittedely disgusting pictures ? Yes disgusting they are, but that is NO REASON to impose a prohibition of possession is it ?

Is it to protect the viewer ? Or the underage viewer ? Such rationale has been used before but has found to be wanting.

One can buy videos of such things on street corners in Benidorm, or at least one could last time I was there.

Exactly WHAT is the JUSTIFICATION for such a prohibition on simple possession ?

Human rights anyone ?

Shaun    [25475.   Posted 15-Jun-2009 Mon 09:56] View Near Messages
ste

Mandatory classification simply should not be necessary in a free country. Let those people who do think otherwise, prove their case. Since 1984 when the VRA first came about they have singularly FAILED to do this. This is clear by the fact that most of the videos which brought about BBFC video censorship in the first place, have now been passed uncut.

The BBFC prevent material being tested in court. We still have censorship of some types of sex material which is clearly allowed on the continent. It is immaterial if YOU or ANYONE ELSE believes the material is distasteful and therefore shouldn`t be allowed. People should be free to make their own choice, except in very special circumstances, for example sex material with real children featured in it. The case for restriction should be overwhelming, and this is the only justified case I know of.

If there was no necessity to classify material at 18 or R18 and it assumed an 18 rating, if unclassified, then some of the more extreme material might well be put before a court, or better still, simply left alone. If it was put before a court, as IANG has often pointed out, it is likely that much of it, might be found "not obscene", because the last time some of this material was tested, that was the case and the BBFC know this I am sure. But still they act as censors for adults, ban that material and it is NOT put before a court. Therefore its legal status remains unclear, and the BBFC apply 20 or even 30 year old standards when CENSORING the material. Regardless of their own apparent disdain for the "censor" word, that IS what they still do.

There is also the issue, that the amount the BBFC charge for classification, can make the difference between a small profit and a loss for a very small distributor, and in that case, our chance to see such video work, at least is being stymied by the requirement to classify, and the cost of that.

If the government insists on classification, then THEY should pay for it, so our choices are not limited. In a free country such a thing as the current status quo, simply should not be acceptable.

The BBFC should be required to classify all films and videos intended for juveniles, and classificaiton for adults should be optional. It`s part of the ideology known as "Freedom Of Expression" which we all have a right to.

Shaun    [25451.   Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 05:31] View Near Messages
Though I don`t agree with the sort of material SasaMisa seems to be discussing, in a free democratic country, the output of someone`s imagination, expressed visually by drawing or art, or by the written word should NEVER be subject to criminal sanctions because of simple possession by others.

In a few extreme cases it might be a good idea to check if the author is sane and behaving themselves, but I`d end it right there.

Shaun    [25449.   Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 04:03] View Near Messages
Hi Ben,

I`ve contributed bits and pieces here for many years. Not so many nowadays however, being bogged down with work. I wrote a popular piece here, when I attended attended a famous appeal regarding BBFC R18 videos back in 2000

However the Melonfarmers are simply a group of individuals rather than a formal organisation. Dave is the only person who runs the site, but many people contribute by sending him articles and ideas.

He lives abroad, so I don`t know exactly when he will read this message.

I`ve send you an email.

Cheers,
Shaun.

Shaun    [25446.   Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 03:23] View Near Messages
Ben,

What does the Guardian think the future of UK censorship will be ?

There should be NO censorship of adults, save for the criminal law which needs revision.

Material subject to censorship by agencies of the state, from the eyes of adults should be regularly reviewed in court too. It is totally wrong that the BBFC should be able to refuse 18 or R18 classification of material because of questionable content which hasn`t been tested in court for many years.

The censorship standards should be the same throughout Europe, and politicians should realise that in a free country, censorship is a tool of absolutely LAST resort, not one to be deployed due to the rantings of hysterical people who believe in fake science.

The ONLY visual media which should be subject to adult censorship is material which contains illegal images of children, in order to protect them from abuse. This material is the ONLY material which has properly been shown to be harmful.

Otherwise adults should be free to make up their own mind.

Shaun    [25445.   Posted 12-Jun-2009 Fri 03:14] View Near Messages
I`ve got a good idea for a symbol for the RedCross RedCrescent -

How`s about a red triangle ?


Lol

Shaun    [25418.   Posted 7-Jun-2009 Sun 04:17] View Near Messages
Unless they are very stupid, the Conservatives will be fully aware that the British people are SICK TO DEATH of the incessant nannying of recent governments of both political persuasions, and their repressive acts of ignoring or skewing the results of their bogus consultations to restrict us even more.

People generally DON`T want ID cards, they DON`T want surveillance, they DON`T want more censorship of the media and internet (various consultations and surveys have made this quite clear) and they want the SAME rules to apply to MPs etc., as they do to everyone else.

Basically we are sick to death of "do as I say, not as I do", authoritarian hypocritical wankers running our lives.

If the Conservatives start this game, assuming they won power in the next general election, it should be made absolutely clear to them, why the last lot got decimated to the point that they hopefully remain in the political wilderness for a very long time, hopefully for ever.

Remember too, it was the Conservatives, who started the ball rolling on R18 liberalisation all those years ago, and Labour who tried to stop it.
I think that Conservatives will be less likely to interfere in people`s lives unless they have to. England seems to be more liberal a place, when it comes to censorship issues than is Scotland, or Northen Ireland. Wales I am unsure about. However, England if politically isolated would have been conservative for all the past 12 years. It is only because of the other countries, that these bastards have been able to rule us. There will be those clamoring for a return to stricter standards. We must firmly remind those sort of people why their party was elected.


New political competition, assuming it is properly organised, WILL evolve to fill the gap I am sure, if Labour are completely decimated.

I am glad NL have had a good kicking by the electorate. It is what they deserve. What they should now do, is call a general election and sort out a new leader.

Shaun    [25407.   Posted 4-Jun-2009 Thu 06:58] View Near Messages
Censorship is scapegoatism. It seldom solves the problems purported to be caused by not imposing it. It often makes things worse rather than better. It is an easy "something is being done" solution for lazy politicians who don`t give a stuff about robbing people of their freedoms.

It is imposed due to fake science and hysteria rather than rational analysis of the facts at hand. It is a tool generaly used by, and for, complete idiots.

The message should be sent that modern media literate British citizens will no longer tolerate this overused political chicanery any longer and will demand instead, that the real root causes of difficulties be properly addressed.

Shaun    [25351.   Posted 22-May-2009 Fri 13:03] View Near Messages
I think the very existence of television as we know it today is under serious threat.

As soon as everyone has access to cheap, virtually unlimited wideband networks over 10mbs and more, people will simply download what they want, and play the stuff back on ever more popular media players, and giant LCD television screens.

Like video, computer technology is really starting to take off these days, and television is starting to fade, simply because of the spoon fed drip drip aspect of it. Even with so many channels nowadays, its COMPLETELY boring and full of stuff you`ve seen time and time again. As said, ten years ago, it would be on all evening. Now it is hardly on at all...

When the bastards of MediaWatch realise this they will start to demand increasing censorship of the internet, without knowing, or caring how this might be achieved. They need to be vigorously opposed. In anycase are the british who use such material, really prepared to give up their online r18 standard porn, which is the standard setting the limit of totally legal online adult material ?

Shaun    [25349.   Posted 22-May-2009 Fri 08:05] View Near Messages
I`d like to know who these morons are, that subscribe to the Sky platform`s "porn" channels (if you can call them that) and then complain about the fact that what they see on the screen is pornographic...

To be honest I care very little about the issue these days. The broadcasters are pandering to Ofcom instead of fighting their cause. Their subscribers are gullible into paying for such rubbish when there`s more adult material than ever available from all kind of sources online, and other satellites...

Ofcom, the adult broadcasters and the gullible subscribers all deserve each other really.

I can just see these complainers too. Having a wank over the material on the telly that they are about to complain about as they make strange grunting and humming noises to themselves... Bloody morons.


The truth is that neither Ofcom, (the tellyban) nor MediaWatch, nor the government, have ulimately stopped people from watching anything they want to watch. Sure they might make it very very slightly more of a pain, but for legal (to possess) material their work is completely fruitless, irrelevant and a complete waste of their time.

At home I can download (with ADSL2) complete DVDs in minutes should I want to.

No one watches telly much anymore. In our house it`s hardly ever on. Everyone spends more time online, including the wife, with Facebook and all that stuff.

Shaun    [25347.   Posted 22-May-2009 Fri 07:32] View Near Messages
I doubt that they`d be able to do that.

Perhaps their subscribers should complain to force the issue, one way or another....

Shaun    [25345.   Posted 22-May-2009 Fri 03:18] View Near Messages
Speculation but some possibilities are:

1: They don`t intend to pay the fine, and will simply close down, when their licence is revoked because of that ?

2: They have obtained a broadcasting licence from another EU country and Sky have permitted them to continue broadcasting on their platform ?

3: Ofcom are back tracking because they release they are human rights abusing twats after all ?

4: They have put two fingers up to Ofcom, and don`t give a shit ?

5: It`s simply a mistake or down to stupidity ?

Shaun    [25324.   Posted 18-May-2009 Mon 11:10] View Near Messages
Those channels should tell ofcom to go fuck themselves and try to get a licence to broadcast from Europe.

In Italy Sky apparently broadcast hardcore films there.

Why can`t people broadcast them on the platform here, using a European licence ?


Why should we put up with this CENSORSHIP anyway ?

Perhaps they should take the tellyban to court like Sheptonhurst et al did with the BBFC back in 2000

Shaun    [25317.   Posted 17-May-2009 Sun 08:49] View Near Messages
Yes I`ve seen it...

Hall Grove, which is the location of the garage, and a mere 4 or so miles from my house, is a street full of 1960`s style private semi detached "Wimpey" houses, in a what was once a reasonable part of town Not nowadays though IMHO.

In fact I was born less than half a mile from where McShane`s house is, so I know the area well.

I wonder if he has applied for (or needs) change of use planning permission to employ people there full time, doing jobs not related to the upkeep of the property ?

Perhaps I shall ring our local council and ask their advice about such matters as this given that McShane`s council and my own, are one and the same...

PS: MichaelG`s office:

I know you won`t be able to claim that much for your home office. I worked at home on my own for six years, in a dedicated computer room with THREE machines running nearly all the time, (test servers and the like) and was told I could claim next to bugger all, and in the hundreds with a seperate claim for "heat and light". They wouldn`t even allow me to claim all my broadband costs. (essential for what I was doing) because they knew my familiy also used it, even though the connection was completely unlimited. I even had to switch to a business connection to be able to claim anything at all!

Years ago, I was a director and parner of a quite successful games development company employing over 50 people, (with a second company in london with another twenty people, and no I couldn`t claim for a second home) the inland revenue often made our lives a misery. They would scrutinise EVERYTHING and allow us very little. Indeed usually we were on the wrong side, having to spend money on essentials which we couldn`t offset against taxation.

These blokes should be subject to the same regime as the rest of us. How can they make fair and just rules if they aren`t ?

I utterly hate them nowadays. In particular I despise their hypocrisy.

Shaun    [25315.   Posted 17-May-2009 Sun 05:44] View Near Messages
McShane`s office @ Ł20,000 per year.

If he`s claimed this purely for his "office" every year then it is a complete disgrace.

I work in a building, converted to offices near Rotherham town centre, ironically right in the heart of Denis McShane`s consituency.

Our rent including energy bills, council tax, weekly cleaning, and everything else is Ł5000 per year, and has enough space to confortably accomodate 5 people. Currently four people work there, three full time. Our only other expense apart from salaries is communications (broadband/telephone) and insurance.


I hope the tax people are watching him.

Shaun    [25270.   Posted 5-May-2009 Tue 08:28] View Near Messages
What a hypcrite McShane seems to be. He`s one of the MPs of my town, but not the area where I live.

He`s been in the local paper recently complaining bitterly about UK police forces buying European cars, saying we should only buy ones made in Britain!

He may have a point there but it doesn`t sound like someone who is at all staunchly pro Europe to me, does it ?

More like a xenophobe in fact..... Or a hypocrite playing to the gallery...

Shaun    [25189.   Posted 11-Apr-2009 Sat 02:59] View Near Messages
@dave:

The newest religiouswatch pages are broken. Blank pages only.

Shaun    [25170.   Posted 7-Apr-2009 Tue 02:59] View Near Messages
Freeworld stated:

"I`m stopping posting-and will keep away from the board so I won`t get tempted!"


Please don`t.

I enjoy reading your usually rational and well reasoned submissions here, and agree with much of it.

Develop a thicker skin my friend, (I did, some time ago) and let the strengths of your argument alone bring round others to your way of thinking.

If you must go (I hope you don`t), I would like thank you for some enlightening contributions.

Shaun    [25155.   Posted 5-Apr-2009 Sun 05:10] View Near Messages
All this rubbish about TV making children badly behaved in the Daily Mail is exactly that. Complete bunkum.

I say this as a parent of two youngsters, the oldest now seventeen.

We`ve never particularly censored our kids viewing, except of material considered much too old for them.

What we did do is correct them, when they were naughty or bad mannered, and tried to guide thier behavoior. We weren`t strict, we were open and would discuss things with them, and reason with them. Seldom was anything more required. Rarely were there any kind of sanctions.

Now I have two brilliant teenagers who, I am proud to say, I can take awaywhere, confident that they will treat others with respect and good manners, just as they would wish to be treated themselves.

Blaming the television, will simply deflect from the real main cause of misbehavior.

Bad, uninterested, and uncaring parents.

Shaun    [25148.   Posted 4-Apr-2009 Sat 08:33] View Near Messages
See too, the responses to the daily Mail Articles recently publicised on this site. In both cases the majority appear to think that consensual adult porn is ok, if that`s what people want. I have maintained for years that this is the TRUE opinion of people. I wonder if the Daily Mail will realise this and cease their incessant calls for censorship of a free people ?

Oh and it`s about time Ofcom allowed R18 to be shown on Subscription and pay per view not just the stuff watched by the Home Secretary`s husband.

The fining of the BBFC is appalling. This is LICENCE PAYER`S money. IE OUR MONEY. Typical Ofcom BULLY BOY tactics again. They differ to the Chinese censors in my opinion, only in degree, nothing else.

Shaun    [25144.   Posted 4-Apr-2009 Sat 05:15] View Near Messages
Re 16 and 17 year olds in explicit images.

Not much really apart from it is very BAD law.

This is because it makes a picture of something which is LEGAL to do, ILLEGAL to own. There are some getouts which allow the participants themseleves to own such pictures, if they are in a releationship. What happens if they still have them years later after splitting up ? Another stupid law from a stupid sex obsessed government.

I did hear though that this somehow got forced on them by the EU. But I don`t really know if this is correct or not.

Shaun    [25131.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 17:32] View Near Messages
Re [25128] (IanG)

The thing that grinds at me in these programmes is that she tries to blame the porn industry for everything bad regarding sex and attitudes in the UK. There was mention of the statistic that we have the most teenage pregnancies in Europe. There was an implication that this must be the porn industry`s fault. In fact it is down to high levels of British prudery. The Europeans have been awash with porn for years, and never had those high levels of pregnancies.

Conclusion: It`s definately NOT the porn missus.

Shaun    [25130.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 17:25] View Near Messages
Re: [25127]

It seems we aren`t going to get that rational reasoned debate from the opposite camp, that I was hoping for, after all.

<Sigh>

Shaun    [25124.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 11:49] View Near Messages
Draw your own conclusions, but the kids on that programme were more well balanced than the adults. It seems to me, it`s the adults who should do some growing up.

Shaun    [25122.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 06:58] View Near Messages
Not much porn these days in fact. I think that this shaving is a probably a fairly recent development.

Shaun    [25120.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 03:50] View Near Messages
Most guys in porn, don`t shave their pubes anyway. Not that which I`ve seen at least.

I would say, that the students shown in this programme, appear to be far more sane and rational than the presenters or producers are. So much for the bad effects that porn has had on them. If anything it`s made them more reasonable and coherent, not less so. Probably the effect is quite neutral in reality.

Some of the things shown last night (midnight episode) were utterly stupid.

For example asking a lad to pick which penis he would like to have, from a load of them pictured. Of COURSE he`s going to pick the biggest one. He`d pick that even if he`d NEVER watched a pornograpic film in his life. To suggest otherwise, is completely misleading and specious. He`s hardly going to say "I`ll have that very tiny teeny weeby, fussy one because it`s so cute and dinky" is he ?

Porn viewing would have NO effect on such a choice whatsoever.

During the midnight versions, Channel4 are showing "Dial A Girlfriend" adverts.

What do these girlfriends look like ?

Well, they don`t have big warts on the end of their noses like the wicked witch of the west, that`s for sure.

Hypocrisy or what ?

Are the lonely viewers being exploited with these adverts ?

Should their girlfriend be as pretty as the ones shown on this advert ?

Shaun    [25117.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 02:24] View Near Messages
Channel 4:

More claptrap last night.

I think they`ve missed the point really. The point is that pornographic material ISN`T created to teach people what various attributes of the human body look like, or how people "do it".

It isn`t created with any educational purpose at all.

It is created, and bought to sexually arouse and get people off!

For that purpose, (for most people anyway) you need sexually arousing human beings whose attribites are appealing to the majority of viewers.

Shaun    [25116.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 01:36] View Near Messages
Hello Tubeforreason,

What is it you disagree with ? We here, are always interested in a cool, rational debate, rather than the usual hysteria that comes from the "other side".

Sometimes even the posters here don`t always agree on everything.

But the agenda of this site, is not necessarily that there should be NO censorship. For example I don`t know anyone here, who really believes that child abuse pictures should ever be permitted in any context.

The general opinion of contributers here, is that any outright censorship to be imposed by authorities upon citizens of any (ostensible ?) free country, should be an absolute LAST resort, used only with the strictest of justification, not as a tool to be employed willy nilly as a solution to the idiotic and irrational hysteria of the likes of the Daily Mail, MediaWatch members and some political mouthpieces etc.

Yes, the focus is often on pornographic material, because frankly whether you agree with it or not, the restrictions imposed on it, are often quite unjustified. Indeed that was the prime reason why explicit "R18" material was first allowed back in 2000, when the outright prohibition on so called "hardcore porn" became completely untenable.

Even if you don`t agree with it, isn`t it fair to ask that any choice not to view such material should be a personal one that one can make FOR ONES SELF, rather than it to be legally imposed upon you by the state, unless the justification for such a imposition, (in terms of REAL and MANIFEST harm), is unequivocal ?

When considering legal material currently legal, at BBFC R18 classification, it is clear that a heated debate still continues about what its status should be. However the point here is that IF this material really was SO harmful and caustic as to justify the kind of prohibition some people would like to see, the debate would have ended long ago, as it did when considering REAL child abuse material. No one but the insane would argue that this too, should be as available as R18 material, or indeed available at all. The harm to the young participants in this (IMO exclusive and special) case is beyond question, and unequivocal.

However this is not the case regarding other "adult" material people want to see prohibited, and it is my opinion at least, that if censorship is imposed UNFAIRLY there will be an eventual backlash against ALL censorship, simply because the governments will no longer be trusted to be reasonable in imposing it on their citizens.

I think this is a not an unreasonable position to take!

I worry that we are already heading in such a direction.

Shaun    [25111.   Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 08:22] View Near Messages
Yes please. Send your complaints in.

I just had a standard reply from Ofcom. Whether they will investigate remains to be seen. My bet is that NO ONE will like this programme. People like me wont like it for the support for censorship which it implies.

People like John Beyer probably won`t like it, because of explicit giant close ups of open fannies, and clitorises which filled up the whole screen being shown. That of course would currently never be allowed in any other context, and could be regarded as pornographic in itself. Putting the censor`s hat on for a moment, why would an accurate drawing not have sufficed here rather than an exhibition of most interest to gynocologists ?

What a strange country we are. Why don`t we just grow up a bit ?

People do like pornoraphic material, and that`s a fact. There must be some evolutionary reason for it. Ah yes, the mating instinct of course, without which there`d be no porn, because there`d be no people either.

Send those compaints to Channel 4 and Ofcom, about bias, fake science, bigotry and all the rest of it.

Shaun    [25108.   Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 02:47] View Near Messages
Sent to Ofcom. My very FIRST complaint about any TV programme:


"
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to complain about the clearly biased and hysterical reporting used in these programmes. It seems as if Channel 4 have adopted an agenda to impose censorship of the internet on everyone in this country. Is that because of their failing viewing figures ?

In the first programme, the female presenter went online searching for pornographic material. According to her, she was taken to a site featuring a SIX year old within a matter of minutes! This was with a well known online search engine clearly visible. After FIFTEEN YEARS of online experience, I can assure you that this SIMPLY DOES NOT HAPPEN. It has NEVER happened to me, and I hope it NEVER does! As Ofcom and the ITC before it, might be aware, I have been involved in this debate for some years. I therefore suggest the following possibilities regarding the six year old :

1: The woman was very unlucky, which is extremeley unlikely, especially given the time she was shown surfing.

2: The woman was in fact lying, and there was no such explicit image of a six year old girl. For obvious reasons the image wasn`t shown on our screens so we could not in anyway know.

3: The woman knew EXACTLY where to look for such a video, and used the images in the video to try and shock the rest of the team, and the TV audience, instilling fear and doubt into many I`ve no doubt.
Whatever the circumstances it DID NOT represent what happens in the real world.

On the second programme broadcast at midnight she hysterically approached Sony, and PC World asking them why they didn`t always have enabled child filters installed on the PCs they sell, and accused them of not caring about children. PC world and Sony are not in a position to judge what filtering software might be suitable for a potential purchaser. The onus should be on the parent to arrange protection, as I did for MY children, now aged 15 and 17 year old.

So far the programme has been a shocking, biased and completely hysterical slant on what can be a difficult issue. I am not saying there isn`t justification for a debate, but please, let it be a rational and honest one.

As for censorship, Ofcom will be aware that the Europeans have had explicit material available on Cable and Satellite for years, without evidence of harm to the Europeans. The BBFC have concluded the same, regarding R18 films in this country. Why therefore, is this ridiculous hysterical programme being broadcast in its current form ?

Have you seen channel 4s main web page, and their Crusade against such material at www.channel4.com ?

Many thanks for your time.




"

Shaun    [25097.   Posted 30-Mar-2009 Mon 16:31] View Near Messages
BTW the Channel 4 rubbish is on every night this week.

Shaun    [25096.   Posted 30-Mar-2009 Mon 16:00] View Near Messages
Submitted to Channel 4 contact, via the web, with FULL personal details:

Start Channel 4 pasted here verbatim:
Program:
The Sex Education Show Vs Pornography
(Other details also entered)
"
I watched this program with increasing ANGER. I am ALSO angry about your BIASED AND BIGOTED channel 4 web front page, which is currently devoted to this program.

Yes. perhaps an HONEST debate regarding the web, is a good idea, but this is FAR from honest don`t you agree ?

The woman said she was looking at ADULT sites, and within a minute or two, found a site showing am explicit video of a SIX year old girl ? Well, I have been on the web for FIFTEEN years and more, and never seen anything like that and hope I never do. It seems to me, that she was either VERY unlucky, (unlikely) a COMPLETE LIAR, or knew EXACTLY where to look for the material she wanted to be shocking to everyone to promote her (censorship) agenda. Which it was I don`t know, but my years online tell me, which would be the most likely, and it WASN`T the first possibility.

I am SURPRISED and ANNOYED at channel 4 leading this CENSORSHIP agenda. Are you SO SHORT OF viewers, and SO THREATENED by the internet you have to start acting like the DAILT MAIL for goodness sake ?

I have two children, now fifteen and seventeen, and I have never had to worry about what they`ve seen. I have monitored their online use by using tools which allow me to remotely view their screens. I have never had much cause for concern.

I shall be forwading my concerns to Ofcom as well. Not that that will do any good either.

Shame on you Channel 4 for dishonesty.
"
End Channel 4

I suggest others who saw this bullshit do the same as I just did. Ironically I agreed with some of it. The fact that most REAL women don`t have perfect breasts or bodies IS a valid point, and perhaps something that teens need to understand. However then came the BULLSHIT AND what seems to me to be COMPLETE lies and hysteria.

For the girls who watch such stuff, most blokes don`t have enormous willies or 6 pack chests either. But we can ALL fantasize a little, male or female can`t we ?

Of course channel 4 are having a go at the ISPs as usual. Trying to make them responsible. Channel Daily Mail more like.

One of my hobbies is music, and has been since I was about seven. I play the piano, mostly. I can master some of the easier classical works. However there are people MUCH younger than me, who are technically more BRILLIANT than I can EVER be. Am I to be CENSORED from watching these people, because I might be offended by their musical brilliance, or misled about what ORDINARY people who play the piano can realistically achieve ? I know an older friend, who has been a drummer for years, but plays a bit of piano too, and he tells me he regularly gets sickened off by some eight year old vietnamese virtuoso on YouTube who effortlessly plays some very difficult musical works ?

Shall we censor all this TOO, because it does not represent the abilities of "ordinary" people ?

What`s the difference between fantasizing about being with a stunningly beautiful girl, with perfect breasts and body or the male equivalent, or being able to play all the works of Beethoven and Chopin effortlessly ?

Both are completely unachievable for most folk. As is being a brilliant athlete, sportsman or actor.

Yet we are bombarded with images of brilliant musicians, athletes, actprs and and sportsman all the time. The better looking the human, the better it is. But no one suggests that these should be censored in any way, do they ?

But when it comes to the human body, and sex, we seem to have a problem Houston.

Well, in fact I don`t have one. I KNOW the people in porn and modelling are better looking than I EVER was. The reason for this is because I am rational and sane, rather than hysterical and STUPID like some people are in the media seem to be.

It`s just like I don`t have a problem with brilliant musicans or brilliant sportsmen and women, or famous actors. I know I can NEVER achieve their excellence and brilliance. But I sure as hell like to dream on about the possibility of it even at 52 years of age!

Most people can`t be brilliant footballers, atheletes or other sporting personalities.

Most people can`t be brilliant musicians or actors in films

Most people can`t even be good looking ordinary folk and don`t have that special magic which makes the opposite sex swoon at the sight of them.

Similarly most people can`t be good porn stars, because we simply don`t have the biological arrangements (or perhaps human modifications) which would keep the viewer interested.

But what`s the difference between ANY of these things ? 99.9% or more of us, have little option but to fantasize about being exceptional in some way or other.

Oh, er it`s sex isn`t it. Simple bloody British prudery which Channel 4 now seems to subscribe to.

Grow up Channel 4 for goodness sake. You`re not currently fit to be on the air IMHO.

Shaun    [25095.   Posted 30-Mar-2009 Mon 15:40] View Near Messages
Has anyone watched Channel 4`s "The Sex Education Show Vs Pornography" tonight ?

This made me REALLY angry. It is full of biased BULLSHIT in my opinion.

The woman searched for porn and found a film featuring a SEX YEAR OLD child within a matter of a minute or so ?

IN TEN YEARS I never saw anything like that. This woman was either very UNLUCKY, was LYING about what she saw, or she KNEW EXACTLY where to look, and I know what I believe.

Are Channel 4 so worried about their viewing figures they have to resort to this ?

See the main page at:
http://www.channel4.com/

It`s enough to make your BLOOD BOIL I`ll tell you.

Shaun    [25025.   Posted 17-Mar-2009 Tue 02:07] View Near Messages
I think MPs of all persuasion would do well to look at a few online blogs and forums containing contributions from the public which clearly reflect the REAL mood and opinion of the British people.

From reading the comments on the BBC Web site and many places elsewhere, (even the Daily Mail`s site) it is clear that they are SICK TO DEATH of being nannied. They are SICK TO DEATH of being censored. They are SICK TO DEATH of being watched all the time with cameras. They are SICK TO DEATH of being told what to do and what to think.

What they really want is a return to police on the streets who will deal with them fairly. IE if they do anything wrong, they want a "fair cop guvnor". They want REAL freedom of speech, not all the "politically correct" verbose bullshit. They want honesty in debates, and they want honest politics, and honest polticians. They want these politicians to represent THIER views and aspirations not those of the disconnected grandioise ruling classes.

Regarding censorship in particular, it is clear hardly anyone wants it in the form it is being imposed now. The online evidence is clear for all to see. Years ago (because the internet has always had a culture of anti-censorship) I pointed this out to the ITC. In those days they replied that internet users were a small minority, and did not represent the British people in general. Now, of course the majority go online. Even my parents now in their mid seventies spend an awful lot of time online. So do my parents in law, of similar age. Regardless of all that, the expressed opinion is one clearly indicating that (within reason) people don`t want to be told what they can, and cannot watch. Yes there has been a bit of a backlash against swearing on telly, that is true. But what this means, is that they want to be able to CONTROL their viewing so they can perhaps avoid it, not that it should be CENSORED so they cannot make their own choice at all. Even then, most are not that concerned. But it is a pity that on digital channels the broadcasters don`t simply add another sound track (easy to do, on digital) where the swearing is generally muted. Swearing is just one example where the issue is one of choice rather than outright censorship. Pornographic material is another. Most will agree that it is not for everyone, but they also agree (if they are sane and rational) that people should be free to choose to watch explicit consensual adult material if they wish to. They want to be able to make that choice THEMSELVES, even if it would always be in the negative. NOT to have it imposed on them, and there lies the real issue.
Exceptions of course are the religious right (and not all of them either) and the mouths at mediawatch and their ilk who are completely irrational.
Most would also agree that as far as possession is concerned, only real child abuse justifies draconian penalties for ownership.

But the politicians simply take no notice of the evidence in front of them, which they can easily see. Sometimes I wonder if they live in the same world as I do. Sometimes I even wonder if they are human.

Shaun    [25018.   Posted 14-Mar-2009 Sat 12:48] View Near Messages
phantom wrote:
"
It is true that the Tories have no tradition of militant feminism. But their legacy on censorship is plain for all to see.
"

Indeed. What we have in this stupid cuntry is Hobson`s Choice. IE no choice at all. Remember though, the tories DID quietly start the revolution regarding R18 content. Just what would have been permitted had they remained in power is debatable. It may even be, that the guidelines originally set up, for such as "Makin` Whopee" would have still been in force. Perhaps that also might be the case if the BBFC had not been told to backtrack.

But I have no love for Labour and their creeping censorship, and idiotic handling of economic problems. Certainly the Dangerous Pictures Act is completely and utterly unnecessary. Therefore it is a breach of human rights.

I hope they get a right good kicking at the election and remain out in the wilderness forever.

I hope that a moderate party with respect for freedom of speech and civil rights comes to the fore. All governments rather than trying to censor and restrict would do well, to foster a culture of free expression. People are sick to death of being told what they can, and cannot say, and even what they have to think. The problem is, that they have brought it upon themselves, pure and simple, because most of them who moan about having their right to speak freely restricted, are also those who were happy enough to see other people`s freedom restricted, for example with TV and video censorship.

Well, you can`t be half pregnant, and if there is ANY restriction on what you can say, then you don`t have free speech. If there`s any restriction on the media, then you don`t have free expression.

Using the example of saying "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is specious. However if it meant we could claim true free speech then I would even defend someone`s right to do that, along with the right of the theatre manager to ban that person forever!

Simply, ALL censorship should be made illegal under a new constituion, because MPs, the Police and other officials are NOT to be trusted censor fairly and only restrict that which can be shown to be "more than necessary", a requirement under Human Rights law. Instead they censor to impose their own narrow minded sense of morality on those who, for whatever reason, simply do not want it, and they are happy to use sanctions such as loss of liberty to do it. This is criminal if you ask me, because the justification as to necessity simply IS NOT there.

The restriction of possession of REAL child abuse images is a fair and justified restriction, to protect those who do not, and cannot legally participate in such images, or indeed understand them. IT IS THE ONLY JUSTIFIED RESTRCTION IN MY OPINION. But now we have "mission creep" of the possession aspect of images.

BUT cartoons and drawings of any kind created wholly from the imagination (however distasteful), "violent" adult porn, and even bestiality images, do NOT justify the same treatment as child abuse. Their right to impose restrictions such as these, emanates from the British people. The politicians should use that right fairly, but they do anything but this. Perhaps one day people moaning about free speech, whilst at the same time saying this and that should be censored, might realise that THEY are part of the problem, as are those who lament the erosion of freedom, but never do anything about it.

Shaun    [24897.   Posted 27-Feb-2009 Fri 06:45] View Near Messages
Harvey wrote:

"Bear in mind there was consultation on the need for a cartoon porn law."

These consultations are a complete waste of time. The government take hardly any notice of them, unless of course, the results reflect what repression they want to impose on the rest of us. Democracy ? What democracy.

On a different subject:
Regarding all these pathetic politcians who are baying for the pension of Fred Goodwin -

Are the ministers responsible for completly fucking up this country also going to give up their inflated and fat pensions, because of their particular brand of complete incompetence ? Starting With Mr. G. Brown Esq ?

No I didn`t think so.

Pigs, snout, trough are all words which come to mind when thinking about ALL these twats, not just Mr. Goodwin.

Shaun    [24831.   Posted 19-Feb-2009 Thu 14:03] View Near Messages

Well, the phelp`s have been banned from coming here now too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/antigay-preachers-banned-from-uk-1626487.html


Do we defend their right to speak freely, or do we say good job Jaqui ?

Personally I think they should have come here, so we can tell them how pathetic they really are.

I don`t like the way things are going just now. Ever increasing repression it seems.

Shaun    [24804.   Posted 16-Feb-2009 Mon 17:30] View Near Messages
Yes, but dano, I`ve yet to meet ANY deeply religious person, extreme or otherwise who wasn`t on some kind of mission to try and dictate how other people should live their lives including what they should (not) be free to do and see etc.

I am sick to death of the lot of `em.

Even most of the so called moderates would be happy to see a few folk banged up in jail, and their families devasted because of the extreme porn laws and other restrictions they`d like to see imposed on free people.

Proportionate or what ?

Shaun    [24802.   Posted 16-Feb-2009 Mon 13:59] View Near Messages
My own opinion is that they (Muslims and Christians) are just about as bad as each other, and I`ve little time for any of them.


Religion is for simpletons who cannot rationally analyse the facts which are all around us. The fact is that they want to control and condemn others, to imprison people for owning material they don`t agree with, and to coerce others into following their narrow minded stupidity with threats of death and eternal damnation. This is cleary nasty and immoral and offensive in itself. They demand something called "respect" for their religion but they give little of that to people with different views and beliefs. Respect something which is earned, not demanded, and automatic respect for idiotic beliefs is simply not justified.

They should follow their ridiculous paths themselves if they want, but should leave their fellow humans free to live, within reason, as they please.

More that that, they should practise what they preach. Religion is overflowing with hypocrites. They can start by leaving OTHER people ALONE.


If something really is that bad that it justifies prohibition from simple possession, (IE: REAL child abuse images), then it should be plainly obvious that that really is necessary, to anyone but a complete madman. That should be the standard where such sanctions are concerned, and only such material would fit such a criteria IMHO.

Shaun    [24800.   Posted 16-Feb-2009 Mon 13:01] View Near Messages
phantom [24795]
"
Now it is true that the Conservatives seem not to be driven by a utopian urge to `improve` society. However, they are possessed of a will to preserve standards
"

Don`t forget it was the Tories who started the R18 ball rolling, when Tom Sackville said that the workings of the OPA were in disarray, and people weren`t buying `official` sex films, because "they didn`t contain anything that the punters wanted to see". Thus "Making Whoopee", utterly tame by today`s standards was duly classified, and was, at the time, the most explicit film legally available, from British sex shops. No Labour MP I can think of, around at that time, would have done this.

Remember too, that by this time the Conservatives had been thrown out, and New Labour came to power. Jack Straw immediately told the BBFC to stop classifying such material, which he said was "nasty, degenerate, and worthless", but the vendors appealed. Straw&Co of course weren`t happy.

Jackboots Straw to Lord Birkett:

"Do you really mean that you know you are going to allow oral sex and buggery and I don’t know what else, that you are actually passing this, you’re giving a certificate to it ?"


NEW LABOUR did NOTHING to reduce censorship really. What freedoms we now have, are in spite of them.

The story is told in this transcript of a BBC panarama program from just over ten years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_02_11_98.txt

Only public opinion, some underhand moves by the last Tory government, juries in court cases (who where no longer finding r18 standard material obscene) and the Video Appeals Committee, changed the rules, NOT the Labour government.

I`d like to see New Labour out of power, NEVER TO RETURN, at least not in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children. It is my opinion that they are a bunch of complete hypocrites and are rotten to the core. They ought to be ruling over the Chinese, not the people of this supposedly free and fair land of ours.

Yes the Conservatives banned a few porn channels, but so did New Nanny too. Remember Chris Smith and RDV Eurotica ?

Not to mention the renamed "Satisfaction television" which is still being considered by the idiots at the Department of Culture Media and Sport, after EIGHT YEARS.

I wonder what would happen if they suddently decided to ban it now ? I think that potential british broadcasters, who might want to show similar material, now have a very good case against Ofcon, given the government`s very long delay in acting. EIGHT YEARS is a very long time, even for governments!

Shaun    [24762.   Posted 12-Feb-2009 Thu 12:38] View Near Messages
Spoonbender [24752]

Do they still use assembler in embedded stuff ? I thought even that was mainly C or C++ nowadays.

As for my assembler skills I have worked a bit with 6809, and heavily with Z80, 6502, 80x86/Pentium, 68000, and my favourite the 32 bit Arm chip which I know is still popular in many devices. I ported many games to the Acorn RiscOS platform too, including some of the Lemmings games, which was real fun to do.

Shaun    [24749.   Posted 12-Feb-2009 Thu 03:45] View Near Messages
I should have left this country years ago too..


Not that I do games programming anymore nowadays. My present colleagues, who both who worked as developers in the games industry, will tell you it is a rat race, with long hours for no extra pay, with over optomistic deadlines, and unrealistic expectations of what can be done with the hardware.

But this leaving the country business has been going on for years and years. I have loads of former game programming workmates who now live in the USA, and have done very well there. None of them would even begin to consider coming back here to this dump of a place.

Had I known what this Stasi government were going to do with our country, I certainly would have left long ago as well.

Now I am too old, at nearly 52.. to go back to game software development, which I first entered back in 1984, when the Spectrum, Commodore 64 and Amstrad ruled the home market.

There were calls for game censorship back then too. I remember meeting a bloke from the Video Standards Council at a games exhibition at Olympia, who said he was appalled that there was no content regulation of games. This was back in the middle eighties...

Shaun    [24649.   Posted 5-Feb-2009 Thu 03:31] View Near Messages
Perhaps they`d do well to look at the strength of opposition to filtering in Australia. They should consider the responses on Tom Watson`s web site which were OPPOSED almost unanimously.

They should also think about their election prospects as the British people are getting SICK AND TIRED of such nannying.

If they bleat on about all this censorship, they`ll just be puttin another nail in the coffin of this government which simply ISN`T "fit for purpose"

A repressive government like this, "has no place in our society" and should be removed as soon as possible.


What stupidity, even thinking that Chinese style censorship could be considered. Are these people REAL ?

Shaun    [24626.   Posted 3-Feb-2009 Tue 08:48] View Near Messages
"This government are scum. They are using tactics here which are better suited to brown shirts. Fear and intimidation..."

Now there`s a strong statement. What is the difference between such human rights violations (if they are indeed violations) and the activities of such brownshirts in the past ? Tom Watson MP was utterly horrified that someone dared compare his beloved party to Nazis. The very mention of the word was enough to send him completely on the defensive and to attack the poster on his blog site.

In my mind the differences are simply of degree. To threaten to put someone in jail for an activity which HAS HARMED NO ONE, is surely a human rights abuse, whether it is photographic staged but explicit "extreme" porn, to record oneself having sexual activity with ones dog (regardless of how horrible and distasteful that might be), or to paint a picture of child abuse, simply from ones imagination.

Some of these are doubtless and understandably distasteful but surely it is AN ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS to send someone to jail for THREE YEARS merely for creating a work of such distaste ? Especially so, if the person concerned did not attempt to show or distribute the images to anyone or try to cause any offence with them.

Personally I think anyone who believes that such an action is justified, and then brings about laws to that effect, really ought to be in prison themselves. What should their penalty be ?

Politicians campaign against hate, violence and coercion, yet they are only too willing to employ such tools themselves for the flimsiest of reasons, when it suits them.

Consider the statement "xxxxx has no place in our society". If one applied that to Jewish people, then there would rightly be outrage. Yet they are quite happy to make such statments about individuals, who have in fact, harmed no one, and take them out of society by putting them in jail for no other reason, than they don`t like what pictures they like to keep in a private place, which harmed no one in the creation. What really is the difference ?

Shaun    [24586.   Posted 30-Jan-2009 Fri 03:10] View Near Messages
I just had a thought:

If the politicians of this country believe it is apposite to pander to the fears and ignorance of the likes of KingBilly and the moronic "ExtremePorn.org.uk", not to metion the John Beyer types, no wonder this country is in a mess...

I guess people like KingBilly believe everyone else is as stupid as they are. So stupid in fact, that they cannot make their own mind up about what they should look at. Policians love this stupidity. They don`t like it when people are informed enough to be able to strongly refute their assertions. I guess that most people who support this new kind of censorship being imposed on us, are either stupid, religious, or political. Most other sane, rational, intelligent, well informed people believe they are wrong, and KingBilly certainly isn`t one of those.

Shaun    [24585.   Posted 30-Jan-2009 Fri 02:03] View Near Messages
http://www.extremeporn.org.uk/

How ironic that morons creating sites such as the above can use the freedom of the Web to promote their repressive garbage. Nevertheless I must support their right to free expression, albeit utter drivel, even if they would not ultimately support mine. Otherwise you see, I would be a hypocrite wouldn`t I ?

If these folk do "report" people, perhaps the law would quickly be recognised by sane and rational people in court, for the unjust bag of shite it really is, and these pathetic wankers including the likes of the inane "KingBilly" would have shot themselves in the foot and confirmed themselves as the complete ignorant MORONS and tossers that they seem to be.

I REALLY DO hope it is a daughter/mother/sister/brother/father/son of one of these imbeciles who gets done FIRST, and helps ensure the restoration of freedom for others to make their own choices. Mind you this lot, by the sound of it, really would "report" their own kin. Pathetic if you think about it.

There, that`s a bit of MY right to free expression aired too.

One thing they should realise though:
More censorship = MORE RAPE and assault, with MORE "perverts" on the rampage, not less. Which means they would be doing society a disservice in fact.

Now, "KingBilly" - Refute that statement, which is based on scientific fact!

Oh, er you`re incapable of refuting anything aren`t you ? Being such an irrational creature with minimal levels of intelligence I would imagine such a response would probably be completely beyond you. I suggest you get a dictionary to look up certain word meanings before making an attempt though.

Shaun    [24546.   Posted 28-Jan-2009 Wed 08:14] View Near Messages
Hm...Ms Smith,

She`s no twiggy either is she.

Shaun    [24527.   Posted 27-Jan-2009 Tue 06:55] View Near Messages
What we really want is independence from Scotland, and all their bloody stupid prudery. What we have now is two consecutive Labour leaders, both Scottish twits consumed with religion who have crapped all over us freedom wise.

Englander`s are traditionally more respecting of people`s freedom. Futhermore if it wasn`t for the Scotts, we`d have a Conservative government here, and none of this crap they are imposing on us.

Aplogies to any Scottish readers here, but the truth is the truth. I love Scotland, it is a breathtakingly beautiful country. I don`t however care for their political classes though.

Shaun    [24435.   Posted 20-Jan-2009 Tue 07:13] View Near Messages
I now think politicians are completely stupid. They don`t seem to have the brains they were born with most of them. What we seem to see here, is who amongst them can be the nastiest, with the most repressive politics, starting the most unpopular wars. Nastier and nastier laws they continue impose, despite comments on the Internet, in newspapers, and in response to consultations that people don`t want it. They do want really bad people sorting out but the DON`T want everyone turning into a criminal.

1993: 40000 in jail.
2009: 80000+ in jail and rising. 100,000+ expected before that long.

What happens in the USA ? The rat Bush has to go because his time is up. They don`t replace him with a Bush clone, but instead choose someone who seems to be a thoroughly nice guy. Well, we will see about that I suppose.


That Labour party YouTube video was hilarious. I sent the link to it, to my MP. You know, just to cheer him up a bit in these troubled times. LOL.

Shaun    [24399.   Posted 16-Jan-2009 Fri 09:08] View Near Messages

The passing of another champion of free speech:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7833156.stm


There aren`t many legal eagles like him nowadays.

Shaun    [24338.   Posted 10-Jan-2009 Sat 05:07] View Near Messages
See what people think of Mr. Burnham`s web censorship crusade here:

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2008/12/andy-burnham-and-internet-site-classification/


The answer is not much.

I hope that Mr. Watson kept his promise and sent copies of all the comments to Mr. Burnham.

But the question remains: Why couldn`t he just send the above link ? Doesn`t Mr. Burnham know how to use the internet ?

Shaun    [24230.   Posted 28-Dec-2008 Sun 06:38] View Near Messages
"
Hitchens rarely touches our main Melonfarmers topics, as evidenced by the lack of Hitchens articles posted on here.
"

Many years ago, in an email exchange I had with Mr. Peter Hitchens (the fellow was good enough to answer), I asked him about porn, and how it fitted in with his ideas about freedom, liberty and religion, and his surprise answer was "Well I suppose I really should defend your right to destroy your immortal soul if that`s what you really want to do!" It was obvious however that he didn`t think pornography was good for people!

His other approach to censorship of certain programmes and videos were not that they should be censored at all, but that he simply wished that they weren`t made, and that the humans involved would find more worthy subjects for their films and videos etc.

Mr Hitchens talks of liberty quite a lot. Is he a libertarian ? Or is he one of those who wants to specify the liberties others might have ?

Shaun    [24223.   Posted 27-Dec-2008 Sat 10:55] View Near Messages
So Mr. Burnham knows the Americans will tell him to get lost then ?

This means he is trying to hoodwink the public therefore. If that is true he is not "honourable" and not fit to do the job and should resign. It seems that he is treating the electorate as being completely stupid. Well, some of us aren`t and some of us are onto him.

Mr Burnham needs "educating"

He needs to be taught that there is no need of a "solution" because there is no problem.

People DON`T WANT HIS sort of censorship.

Get the bastards out. They should call an election. Indeed there should already have been one by the time he has time to try and impose this crap on free people.

Shaun    [24219.   Posted 27-Dec-2008 Sat 08:27] View Near Messages
So you can see a beheading online can you ? This worries Mr. Burnham it seems.

If one goes on holiday to stay with New Labour`s friends the Saudi Arabians, one can go see A REAL one in the city square now and then. Even the children can go and watch if they want to. Perhaps they`ll even start to relay them live on the internet for the benefit of U.K. Muslims. Then the UK and Saudi can be busy censoring each others web sites. <LOL>

The censorious Mr Burnham, riding into the U.S.A. mounted on his white horse, shining armour gleaming, with steed firmly at hand. A man who is going to do what no censorious U.S. politician ever managed to do before, and undermine the protections of the U.S. constitition.

If it wasn`t real, it would be completely hilarious and farcical.

Mr Burnham needs to do his homework and sack his advisors.

Shaun    [24217.   Posted 27-Dec-2008 Sat 07:35] View Near Messages
The only thing that NL should do now, is to call a general election.

How on earth would Mr Burnham enforce a content watershed on a foreign site. Whose 21:00 hours would he use ? Australias ? Californias ? The bloke is talking out of his bottom, and appearing to be a complete ignoramus. Not only ignorant about the internet and the way it works but about American Law too. Their OWN politicians have tried to get extra restrictions imposed on the internet. The Communications Decency Act was one of them. It got struck down by their Supreme Court. The best they got was Children`s Internet Protection Act in 2000 which requires libraries and schools to operatre filtered access and even that has been subject to vigorous legal challenges. Also libraries are now required to UNBLOCK the filter, if an adult requires it. Libraries can also operate unlocked access if they forgo certain government "Erate" funds.

So after ALL THIS legal wrangling, does the apparently uninformed Mr. Burnham really think that he is going to persuade the Americans to censor the internet further ? They have already tried all that. It seems to me that Mr Burnham simply hasn`t been doing his homework.







They should butt out. Hopefully for ever, and ever Amen.

Shaun    [24207.   Posted 24-Dec-2008 Wed 12:39] View Near Messages
Nothing in writing. It was during a phone call. However I know who said it.

Shaun    [24202.   Posted 24-Dec-2008 Wed 08:45] View Near Messages
I once asked someone in the home office about the question of various "lavatorial practices" and they confirmed that this wasn`t going to be illegal.

Shaun    [24198.   Posted 24-Dec-2008 Wed 06:17] View Near Messages
Idiot/Bod

For one thing scat ISN`T going to be illegal to possess; not for that aspect of a sex film anyway. This, I guess as much as anything is because the activities depicted are not illegal in themselves. Notice how bestiality in reality became a crime before any prohibition of videos showing it. Exactly the same applies to necrophillia. As for going out on a limb and potentially breaking the law, not all of us are in a position to. Some have wives and children to worry about; that doesn`t mean one should not express ones views on things to the powers that be, if one feels strongly enough though. Five knuckle shuffle ? I am sure that some wives would watch these satellite broadcasts, and sometimes even provide the knuckles. I am also certain that occasionally the wife might be grateful for her husband using his knuckles rather than insisting on using her! In any case these satellite broadcasts only show material that the government permit at R18; anything else becomes the subject of a UK proscription order as well you know.


There is obvious disagreement between what you BOD, believe should be restricted and what other people believe. This is to be expected. Human beings are entitled to their opinions (or at least always should be) and those opinions will differ. I do have to say however that you`ve been drawn into support of censorship on the grounds of distaste, rather than harm, and I differ to you on that aspect.

Finally, videos showing sex with any animal (and indeed the act itself) are to be illegal to possess.

This surely means that it is illegal to have sex with ANYONE, or own ANY porn video, even at R18 because there is no exception for the "human" animal made in the law, and human beings whether you like the idea or not ARE animals. They sure ain`t vegetable or mineral!

Well done new Labour. You`ve actually done what you`ve obviously always wanted to do. Made all sex, and depecitions of sex illegal!


Sexual Offences Act 2003 secion 69:

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally performs an act of penetration with his penis,
(b) what is penetrated is the vagina or anus of a living animal, and
(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what is penetrated.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally causes, or allows, A’s vagina or anus to be penetrated,
(b) the penetration is by the penis of a living animal, and
(c) A knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that is what A is being penetrated by.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

Shaun    [24197.   Posted 24-Dec-2008 Wed 05:40] View Near Messages
I too believe it is a grave and erroneous mistake to equate bestiality with child porn in anyway whatsover. The two aren`t even remotely comparable. Furthermore doing so, might only undermine the support there is for censorship of the uniquely awful material which is child abuse. When the government start censoring everything, there will be demands that they censor NOTHING.

Bestiality, though grossly distasteful, might not involve any cruelty whatsoever, or lack of consent. If people want to have a grown up discussion on that aspect, please feel free. Though I have not seen much of this kind of thing, I can imagine that in some cases, the animals don`t run away; on the contrary they could even involve themselves willingly. Such material is often subject to censorship merely on the grounds of gross distaste and offence and little else, and that is a position I do not hold with. The "lack of consent" argument is specious in my opinion. I am sure animals don`t consent to be eaten but many of us do it all the same. Should it be an offence to possess a picture of a cow being eaten ? Should this be allowed on television ? If you were a cow with just two choices, what would you consent to ? Being in an extreme sex video, or starring in an advert for British Beef as Sunday lunch ?

In Spain I have seen such material openly sold in street corners, I also saw some in the shop I went in, whilst on holiday, when I took a look in those booths they have. Nasty stuff. Doesn`t justify carting people off to jail for simple possession though.

As far as I am concerned only REAL child abuse justifies such draconian and otherwise downright NASTY measures as prohibition from possession. Anything else is repression and tyranny, and the imposition of someones "standards" on someone else. I don`t care how distasteful it is to some, or how "nasty" they believes it to be. More human misery than enough has been caused by people trying to impose their narrow-minded crap on others.

Shaun    [24166.   Posted 21-Dec-2008 Sun 04:44] View Near Messages
IanG wrote, and Harvey rebutted:

"IF the police were doing their job properly there would be no one working as a sex slave under the control of a pimp."

There would certainly be less of them IMO. The police of course, have turned a blind eye to much of this kind of thing for years and years, upholding the laws they want to enforce and ignoring those laws which they don`t.

In any case, not all pimps are bad, as far as I know. Some of the girls might well want to have someone to protect them, and actively seek them out; here however I merely speculate.

The problem is NOT pimps per se, it is pimps who are forcing others into this business AGAINST their will. Such an act would ALREADY be a criminal offence. The answer of course is to legalise the trade and regulate it, so that people in need of such services have somewhere to go, where those working in the service are properly protected by the law.

It`s only stupid old fashioned and dogmatic morality brought about by the religious sensitivities of some of those in high authoritiy which is preventing this. The majority of the public certainly aren`t against it. Why are such people running the bloody country anyway ?

One point about this new law - Brothels are fully legal in New Zealand, in parts of the USA and elsewhere. I presume that the girls there, are "controlled" in some way, and the controller is benefitting for gain in some way. So if a British born national goes there, pays one of the girls in a FULLY LEGAL establishment, he is then a criminal ? What a load of complete bollocks that would be.

As I wrote in my letter, the only people who should be in jail, are those who want to heap this kind of repression upon us.

Shaun    [24097.   Posted 17-Dec-2008 Wed 11:06] View Near Messages
"they intend to close the loophole on the 26 Jan 2008. "

You almost sound as if you are pleased about this forthcoming GROSS ABUSE of HUMAN RIGHTS.

There is NO NECESSITY to do this WHATSOEVER.

It is TYRANNY pure and simple.

Even if I don`t want such material myself, and such porn has never been my forte, I want the choice and FREEDOM to DECIDE FOR MYSELF, not have it IMPOSED on me by NEW religious FACISTS.


You know, at FIFTY TWO years old I am OLD ENOUGH to decide for myself, not to have such a decision forced on me by the bullies of the British STASI.

If you think I am being OTT take a look around the web and see how SICK TO DEATH the BRITISH people have become of UK Nanny.

Declined ? How do you know I declined ? Are you Mr Field in disguise ?

You know anyway that a court case would have been a waste of time. In any case the material siezed is now unequivocally allowed at R18, and has been for quite a few years now, so it couldn`t have been THAT HARMFUL could it ? Indeed it wasn`t. Therefore the seizure of my DVDs WAS a HUMAN RIGHTS violation.

Shaun    [24096.   Posted 17-Dec-2008 Wed 11:04] View Near Messages
My DVDs were confiscated because "indecent and obscene" material were illegal to IMPORT into the country. Nowhere was it suggested such material was illegal to possess. Indeed I was specificially told it wasn`t. However ANY illegally imported item IS illegal to possess, so imported DVDs could be siezed, for example if customs raided a house and found commercially made DVDs which were previously imported. They could not however seize home made videos or DVDs as these would not have been illegally imported.

Shaun    [24093.   Posted 17-Dec-2008 Wed 06:24] View Near Messages
"The OPA`s very remit and the type of material prosecuted using this ACT would however suggest possession be it for personal use or supply to be anything but legal."

It "suggests" nothing of the sort. During my row which started nearly ten years ago, when HM Customs siezed such DVDs my MP confirmed, via the Home Office, that "simple possession" of such material was not a crime.

Shaun    [24090.   Posted 16-Dec-2008 Tue 11:43] View Near Messages
@I.D.I.O.T. :

"Never been legal in law to possess,"

You mean it has never been *illegal* to possess don`t you ?
Unless the possession was with intent to supply, it has never been illegal to posses the material to be prohibited soon.

I don`t recall Bod mentioning the expense of clean rooms but he may have done.

I`ll tell you this. Telling people what they can and cannot LOOK AT, in terms of visual imagery in the PRIVACY and SANCTITY of their own home surely requires the strictest of justification, and I think this forthcoming fiasco is a human rights abuse for sure, and the only people who should GO TO JAIL are those who want to impose this on people. The MAJORITY of INDIVIDUALS who expressed a view DID NOT WANT THIS so why the FUCK are they imposing it anyway ?

Because it is (more than) necessary ? Load of bollocks. I hope the bastards loose the next election and never get elected EVER again. I`d love to see some of these MPs on the DOLE where they BELONG.


Child Abuse ? Yes I can undestand possession restrictions on that awful stuff. Provided its REAL children not the output of someones warped imagination, and that`s WHERE IT ENDS as far as I am concerned.

Making people criminals for anything else is simple TYRANNY nothing less. I hope some politician is amongst the first to get done with this.


BTW "More than necessary" it has to be, before it is NOT considered to be a violation of human rights. One murder in a case where the material cannot be proven to be a direct cause doesn`t seem like ANY kind of necessity to me.

Protection ? Yes by the playground BULLYS in the government.

Shaun    [24084.   Posted 15-Dec-2008 Mon 16:38] View Near Messages
" back out shut down browser, 4; open my cache folder and delete everything 35 times"

That`s not the problem. What you have to do, is to overwrite the FREE SPACE which is then left after deleting a file just once, around 35 times, using a fixed pattern/varying random pattern/fixed pattern . See Guttman`s recommended 35 pass disk wipe algorithm. This is because the clusters marked as free after deletion, still contain the data for the original file.

To be honest, to try to analyse a hard disk to that level after 35 overwrites would only be done in extreme cases, a couple of overwrites (as someone else said here) should be enough. Even then I think they have to take the hard drive to bits in a clean room which wouldn`t be at all cheap. Bit of overkill for a bit of formerly perfectly legal extreme porn don`t you think ?

I think in most cases, if the data wasn`t visible after examining the files and then free clusters under the control of a standard OS, they`d consider it gone.

Shaun    [24053.   Posted 13-Dec-2008 Sat 07:09] View Near Messages
Thanks Jimmy for that detailed description.

Why don`t more sites use it then ? Is it because of higher server CPU demands ? https:// does seem to be rather slow.

Shaun    [24051.   Posted 13-Dec-2008 Sat 05:56] View Near Messages
Harvey:

Yes I agree there would be a grey area wherever you drew the line.
However if you drew it, at a place where there was OBVOUSLY dodgy images involved then surely you would only catch those who deserved to be caught.

Admittedley, there would be those at the legal side of the line which might be subject to opinion however surely the fact that they "got away with it" is a price worth paying to ensure the innocent are less likely to be unjustly prosecuted ? For example owners of old Scorpions records ?
Old Sun Newspapers ? That kind of thing.

This is one reason why I strongly objected to the raising to 18, the age of subjects which people could possess explicit pictures of. They did this too, to remove a grey area. IE the opposite of what I would like to see.

jimmy the hoover:
Re: https

I wasn`t sure that https:// encrypts URL info... But that`s interesting.

However if you call a https:// link from outside the site, that link won`t be encrypted initially will it and therefore could be blocked by the ISP ? IE won`t the initial request will travel in the clear to the https:// server ?

I suppose the https:// web browser could first contact the server root, download the public key from it, and then encrypt the initial URL request along with everything else using RSA to generate a session key, so the iSP can only block the root request. Is that how https works ? I really must study the protocols involved.

Shaun    [24045.   Posted 12-Dec-2008 Fri 12:49] View Near Messages
That`s the point Bod. You and everyone else have to tell the politicians that they have now gone too far, and it is now THEM who are being the CRIMINALS for violation of Human Rights.

Goodness they are all too quick to condemn the Chinese etc. They should take a GOOD HONEST LOOK at THEMSELVES for a change.

Pot, kettle, black and all that.

If this censorship has done anything it has shown the authorities that such ZEALOUSY will NOT be tolerated by British Internet users. It has also made it clear exactly how many DO oppose such censorship. The vast majority in fact. Child abuse is one thing, and I wholeheartedly support the removal of that. But it ends right there for me.


It`s almost as if the mandarins are saying "We`ve got away with censoring that, so what is the next thing we can make illegal ?"

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH already.

Shaun    [24043.   Posted 12-Dec-2008 Fri 12:39] View Near Messages
Harvey,

If the law was clear, then people would KNOW for sure what was allowed and what wasn`t.

Perhaps "Genitals and/or anus clearly visible", and subject posing in an explicit or aroused way, for example with the buttocks raised or legs apart would be a start. Or physical contact with another`s genitals etc. Look we all know it when we see it, and that Scorpions picture WASN`T it.

Yes there might be a small grey area after such descriptions, but in this case, it would catch those who probably deserve it anyway, rather than owners of 32 year old LP records which is completely ludicrous.


You wrote:
"
I would also say that in general, the test of what should be allowed to be merely possessed or viewed on a website should be more stringent than the test for what can reasonably be allowed to be published
"

Are you sure you have this the right way round ? The publishers are responsible for what others might see, and they should be taken to task more strictly IMHO, if they make illegal material available.

Personally I believe that censorship (by means of prohibition of possession), of anything but the above mentioned material should be completely illegal. Even that which is prohibited should only be tolerated because of its uniquely horrendous nature.

The government are going too far, and the internet community WILL fight back. Soon sites will be designed so that people such as the IWF will have to take down the lot, or none of it.

Consider a "contact us" page on a web site:

The web server might send a link of:

http://mysite.com/d32y23423e3x343243223432d.html

The next time that SAME page is shown it might be:
http://mysite.com/xvv883dnfhgh348f8r8ye98ry983y454389.html

The next time it would be different again.


The server, always knows what the information refers to. The IWF on the otherhand wouldn`t. So they`d have to take the lot down. They couldn`t just filter out the URLs of the bits they didn`t like.

That could eventually extend to the whole of the internet. On or Off.
Period.

For example even now, the page could be on a DynDns IP address, which would probably have circumvented the present fiasco anyway.

The internet was DESIGNED to be hard to censor. It will no doubt evolve to be even harder still.

Shaun    [24037.   Posted 12-Dec-2008 Fri 09:19] View Near Messages
The point about all this, is that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, in respect of what is, and is not legal.

Otherwise one might as well do the OPPOSITE of what Islam does, and put all the CHILDREN in black gowns with slits for eyes, their faces only to be seen by their parents.

Or perhaps we need a reality check.

Personally I think the line should be drawn JUST BEFORE the kind of nude poses similar to those in girle mags where the genitals are exposed provocatively, not innocently. The legal status of this kind of picture of a child would be then beyond dispute.

Otherwise all kinds of things might become illegal. Family snapshots and videos for example showing kids in the bath etc.

Shaun    [23984.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 14:03] View Near Messages
@bod:
"what message were the band trying to put across?"

They were trying to shock people I guess. But really it`s art, not porn.

By having a statue of a nude boy, willie and all on the front of their building, what is the BBC trying to put across ?

I find the image of the girl a little unsettling. But I certainly don`t consider it porn or child abuse though. I definately don`t think it justifies the restrictions imposed on Wiki or on any other site. If the goal of the IWF was to prevent people from seeing this, then they failed miserably. Hundreds of thousands have now seen the thing, who never would have. I hope it teaches them a valuable lesson. I hope the IWF and politicians now also realise that the vast majoroty BRITISH PUBLIC does NOT want censorship of THEIR internet except of REAL child abuse images.

Shaun    [23982.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 13:08] View Near Messages
The thing is, I don`t think this is a picture of child abuse is it ?

Which is what the law was supposed to prevent, and which is what the IWF was ORIGNALLY about preventing, and NOTHING else.

If it was tested in court I think it would be found to be legal.

The fact that it`s been on a record sleeve for some 30 years, and on sale in record shops says it all. No one gave a stuff. Now because of some unelected quango there`s all hell on. I for one am ALL for removing pictures of children being sexually abused, or used as PORNOGRAPHIC models. But it has to END there, or all manner of LUNACY will prevail.

This LUNACY is what will come under the DPA.

The IWF can soon no longer pretend to be concerned with protecting children they are JAFC as far as I am concerned.

Shaun    [23965.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 04:37] View Near Messages
The point is that the IWF DON`T protect the public against anything.

If one IS found with a suspect picture on ones computer it is NOT a defence to say that it is there because the IWF didn`t protect me from it.

If they really did protect people properly they`d have to be sure EVERY such image was blocked regardless of where it came from. Only then could people surf the internet without fear of anything illegal appearing on their machines by accident. We all know that this is not possible.

Whatever the IWF are, they are NOT a charity nor do they act like one.

As for visiting and writing to MPs... My own MP was customs minister at the time I complained to him that they were still intending to seize R18 films unless exactly the same as ones classified by the BBFC. Things changed very quickly after that.

I hope that people will write to their MPs and tell them, that as laudible censorship of child abuse is, it has to be censorship of THAT, and it should not include simple nudity, or the kind of mildly suggestive image that most people wouldn`t find harmful, such as the one under discussion here.

In short the law IS a human rights violation because no one is sure what the law prohibits including the authorities themselves. Such laws restricting freedom of expression, should be clear. Now a picture of a child subject to sexual violation IS clear. and it is rightly banned. As would be pictures with emphasis on the child`s genitals. These would also be unequivocal and beyond question. These are the kind of images the IWF should be dealing with.

Shaun    [23962.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 03:43] View Near Messages
Sent to the Charities Commission via their contact pages
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/index.asp

I strongly urge others to send something similar as the IWF is NOT any kind of charity but simply a government backed censor.

Dear Sir/Madam,


I am writing to request that you urgently review the status of the following charity:

1112398 - INTERNET WATCH FOUNDATION

This organisation is not a charity at all. It acts to protect the interests of subscribing Internet Service Providers and acts simply as an internet censor, and this can no way be regarded as any kind of charitable activity.

The decisions it makes as far as internet censorship is concerned are completely clandestine and unaccountable to the public, and I would submit that it is political in nature in that it imposes the restrictive policies of the government and other authorities on the general public. In this it may serve a legitimate purpose, but it is certainly NOT any kind of charitiable purpose by any interpretation of the rules.

The British Board of Film Classification acts in a similar vein for the film and video industry but it is not, and never has been deemed to be any kind of charity.

I therefore request that the Charitable status of the Internet Watch Foundation is revoked with immediate effect.

I would point out to you that the request for Charitable status of "MediaWatch UK" was denied for similar reasons, and if they aren`t any kind of charity, then I am sure that the IWF certainly are not.

I hope to hear from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,

Shaun (Censored)

Shaun    [23961.   Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 01:44] View Near Messages
"
I for one am happy for the IWF and ISPs to censor material they consider abusive and illegal regardless of the content.
"

Well, I`m not. Unless it amounts to OBVIOUS "child sex abuse" to use one of their OWN phrases. Such a picture would and should be obvious, even to the most liberal interpreter.

I`m also NOT HAPPY when they take half the internet down with it, which WILL happen if things get any worse, as their censorship methods are clumsy to say the least.

By all means block sites dedicated to child porn or ones with seriously illegal images. But this ?

One thing that SHOULD BE EXPECTED from a "public authority" in a "free" (?) country even a self appointed one, is a rational approach. Theirs is anything BUT that.

Shaun    [23957.   Posted 8-Dec-2008 Mon 17:16] View Near Messages
"
The IWF have said they will be adding "extreme porn" images to its blocked list as soon as that law is in effect. It will be they and their police advisers who will decide what is and isn`t "extreme porn".
"

So the IWF aren`t there to protect children after all. They are simply government censorious lackeys.

I shall be contacting the Charities Commission, and DEMANDING that they lost their charitable status, if they extend their remit. I hope others will join me.

Shaun    [23953.   Posted 8-Dec-2008 Mon 14:23] View Near Messages
Apparently a Google search for "Virgin Killer" throws loads of these images up. It seem that the URL has been reported to the IWF according to a contributer on the Be* ISP customer forums.

It will be interesting to see if they start censoring Google.

China and Russia would be proud of those fools in the politburo at 10 Downing Street.

Shaun    [23952.   Posted 8-Dec-2008 Mon 13:36] View Near Messages
@bod
"Shaun it`s clear the IWF and authorities consider the cover to be such"


Then the authorities are bloody STUPID. All of them. If it is illegal why hasn`t there been any prosecutions for the record cover in the past thirty years ?

The IWF will certainly reduce their popularity with this one.


I suppose before long THIS will be porn as well:

http://www.roger.beckwith.btinternet.co.uk/bh/bh32/bh32_es.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadcastinghouse/community/pdfs/broadcasting_house_leaflet.pdf

It`s on the front of the BBC building.
Would anyone care to submit this to the morons at the stupid IWF ?


The law was to help PREVENT child abuse, not to censor simple nudity.

Shaun    [23938.   Posted 8-Dec-2008 Mon 08:35] View Near Messages
"Can people please refrain from linking to illegal images, especialy something as controversal as child porn, it may be just an album cover and not intended to be sexually provocative, however thats clearly not how big brother see`s it perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the links Dave?."

If that`s child porn then half the pictures and statues in the Vatican in Rome are also child porn too. There`s nothing pornographic or indecent about it. Also what about the statue of the boy Ariel in the entrance to BBC broadcasting house ?

The genital area CANNOT even be seen in this picture. All this is getting utterly ridiculous and completely stupid and inane.

The IWF should take this to court. It should ALSO be possible to CHALLENGE their decisions.

I am pretty sure similar and perhaps MORE explicit images have been found to be perfectly legal in the past in UK courts or by the police.

This illustrates the HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSING laws we have in this country, which are not clear enough so people can KNOW FOR SURE just was IS and IS NOT legal.

Shaun    [23848.   Posted 1-Dec-2008 Mon 03:13] View Near Messages
spoonbender
"The freer and less restrictive porn is then the freer and less restrictive the government and hence the country is. "

I`ve been saying this for years. But I think you have to consider censorship in general, and not just porn. I`ve always said that the level of censorship imposed on the citizens of a country, is an inverse barometer of how free they are.

I am glad others have realised this at last. Compared with most of Europe we`ve not been very free at all.

Shaun    [23823.   Posted 28-Nov-2008 Fri 08:56] View Near Messages

Does this also mean that the BBFC now has to classify videos, which WOULD NOT be illegal to possess under this stupid law ?

For example scat and urolagnia ?


The implication certainly is there, and I know from discussions from Mr. Ruddell HIMSELF that the government has no plans to include such material in their new wave of repression. In any case the activities THEMSELVES aren`t illegal.

Censorship of what is, in itself not illegal, should NEVER happen in a free country, except for cases of national security or to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Shaun    [23760.   Posted 21-Nov-2008 Fri 07:01] View Near Messages
@pbr:
"In England and Wales your rights exist only because Parliament hasn`t taken them away from you!"

We need some rights which parliament CANNOT take away in a proper WRITTEN constitution.

But at least we have the consolation that hardly ANYONE on the web agrees with this stupid prostitution law as it is. Many have actively expressed their disdain for this lousy government.


Most people expressing a view around the web want prostitution totally legal, and regulated.

Democracy anyone ?

Shaun    [23698.   Posted 16-Nov-2008 Sun 11:28] View Near Messages
I hope (when they grow up) it is one of Jaqui Smiths two sons that gets done with one of the NASTY laws that their mother has helped introduce. I think if it was my mother, involved in such repression, I wouldn`t want to know her anymore.

The same hope applies to the other MPs who support this blatent abuse.

It`s very laudible trying to protect people who are forced into prostitution against their will. But there is a right way, and a wrong way, of going about doing it.

The offence, if there is to be one, should be "to *knowingly* use the services of people who are coerced into prostition, and controlled AGAINST their will"

Also the offence should apply EQUALLY to male and female sex workers, thus including the rent boys that some MPs use now and then.

Shaun    [23682.   Posted 15-Nov-2008 Sat 06:39] View Near Messages
PS:
Perhaps Ms Follet might like to tell us what`s happening with SCT the satellite porn channel ?

Or are they still "considering the matter" after some seven years <LoL>

What a bunch of complete morons.

Shaun    [23681.   Posted 15-Nov-2008 Sat 06:32] View Near Messages
Another technically ignorant person in the government`s culture deparment

Why don`t they put someone in these roles who UNDERSTANDS the technology and the system ?

ISPs cannot easily "take down" material on youtube or other servers. Only youtube can do that. ISPs could block the whole site, or perhaps even certain URLs (*) I suppose, but it is not that easy to do or maintain. If they blocked the whole of Youtube, or Facebook, I think there`d be a complete riot!

What they should accept is that the internet IS NOT A CHILD`S playground.

They should be working to get ISPs to provice some kind of child safe portals, or white list system. Even so, my guess is modern kids simply wouldn`t want this. I also suggested that they promote software such as VNC for use on home networks (and better still, a "numpty" version of it), so parents can see what their kids are doing. Many homes now have wireless networks and more than one computer. It is a very effective tool, to tell your kids that one can monitor what they are doing. In my case, the software icon changed colour on the task bar, if I was looking in. I never kept it a secret. Any attempt to disable the software would have resulted in disconnection however. I never had any trouble. Now they are nearly 15 and over seventeen, and the software is not used anymore. I trust them, and the older one is all but an adult anyway!

But, if parents are that concerned, they should keep kids OFF the internet, or take steps to properly monitor what the kids are doing, as I did.

People who think they should be able to leave it to politicians to restrict what kids see, are not, in my view, fit to have any children.

Period.


(*) PS (edited)

Even blocking URLs ultimately could be fought against by site owners. Then it would be ALL or NOTHING.


For example - Imagine a site which creates dynamic content, served up at a single web URL:

www.youtube.com/DynamicPageRequest/

Perhaps with reference data after a ? in the URL to access dynamically generated web pages for the current user.

Blocking via URL would be ALL, or NOTHING outside of YouTube itself.

Shaun    [23558.   Posted 29-Oct-2008 Wed 02:08] View Near Messages
C18:
"
What a creepy set of individuals you lot are, weird as fuck.
"

Perhaps you should practice what you preach considering your choice of words ? If you think it is correct to curtail people`s rights to look at things WHERE NO MANIFEST HARM was done in the creation (and I don`t mean the kind of harm imagined by God botherer`s) then perhaps you need to take a good look at yourself. For it is your kind which has been responsible, throughout history, for more human misery than enough, and certainly more than a few highly explicit porn films have caused.

Your comments seem to confirm that you are of the opinion that it is OK to bang people up in jail, simply for looking at images of ADULTS doing things which might not in themselves be illegal, JUST because you don`t agree with their content.

If so, then you are the one who should consider your position, not us.

I suspect however you are merely a troll looking to cause trouble, because real life censorious people tend not to swear in public, unlike you.

Shaun    [23521.   Posted 25-Oct-2008 Sat 09:25] View Near Messages
Perhaps its the limits of their own sexuality they are afraid of ?

As one who has a very close relative who is now an openly gay man, there`s no reason whatsoever to be homophobic. I`ve met loads of my relative`s gay friends, and they`re good people.

Shaun    [23516.   Posted 25-Oct-2008 Sat 04:14] View Near Messages
LIBERTY-STINK

The purpose of Amazon reviews is to give an opinion of the quality and attributes of the PRODUCTS they sell. For games this would be ALL aspects of the product, not just the gameplay or graphics etc. If the product was more difficult to install and use, because of protection issues, that is a good enough reason to give it one star, or even NO stars at all if the person felt so strongly, as it seems many of them do.

I certainly wouldn`t buy any games where I could only install them a few times. If I buy a game, I might want to play on my desktop, on my laptop and perhaps elsewhere, just as I can play a DVD upstairs, downstars, or on any player I wish.

I MOST certainly wouldn`t want software that had to phone home regularly, or installed spyware or the like, to protect itself.