|
sergio [27175. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 13:56] View Near Messages
`While all the above scenes are shocking and uncomfortable to watch, this film IS very good.`
`...that being said, I`ll be surprised if they were phased by the necrophilia / rigor mortis sex moments,...`
Sorry? Isn`t that now illegal?
`While I`m no fan of censorship (I wouldn`t be on here if I was), I do believe that a metaphorical line should be drawn in the sand, especially when dealing with children and sex in films.`
I was just watching this with Heather Brooke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdszORp_-fk
Interesting what she says at the end ... `...some sort of provable harm that can happen...` sergio [27173. Posted 2-Sep-2010 Thu 06:54] View Near Messages
`While you don`t actually see anything as such, the repeat viewings could be seen as being titillating and arousing for certain viewers`
Is it me or does that sound moronic? sergio [27146. Posted 19-Aug-2010 Thu 04:01] View Near Messages
Irony:
Next to story of `Prudish council` and `Artist John Vesty `
was
` * Kelly Brook is a goddess in gold as she FINALLY puts some clothes on for Piranha 3D premiere But slashed dress was still rather revealing
`
I am not sure why he is `astonished` - has he never displayed nude paintings before? Of course the opinion of a few council officials is flimsy.
`But former actor Mr Vesty, 57, and his supporters insisted that none of his paintings were erotic or pornographic.`
Again, that is his and the supporters opinion. If it is not erotic then it must be bad art.
(`No nude, however abstract, should fail to arouse in the spectator some vestige of erotic feeling, even if it be only the faintest shadow — and if it does not do so it is bad art and false morals.` - Ch. 1: The Naked and the Nude by Kenneth Clark)
I am not sure if this is censorship. They put them up and then take them down and then put them somewhere else - a gallery.
I wonder if some of the people were so turned on by the pictures that they couldn`t take the acres of flesh.
Council officials, public/staff and opinions of offence.
Interesting game, how many opinions of offence does it take to take a picture down? sergio [27120. Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 01:28] View Near Messages
"He was expected to call several expert witnesses who would have challenged the characterisation of the clip as `pornographic`"
Interesting, how many `experts` does it take to measure a piece of string?
sergio [27099. Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 11:39] View Near Messages
It`s bloody obvious, anyone who fucks or is interested in fucking a tiger must be sick in the head and a danger to children.
Just like when porn actors get divorced, the fucking for a living must ring bells that you are an incompetent and dangerous parent.
It`s bloody obvious.
(level 5 cynicism engaged) sergio [27090. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 06:10] View Near Messages
BBFC Cuts for Jul 2010
Number of items=69
No. Cuts=15
Cuts ratio=21%
Cuts of interest
ANNA LOVATO - YES MISS
Compulsory cut required to remove sight of potentially harmful sexual activity (in this case, a cane penetrating a vagina). Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
Cane cunt can`t sergio [27088. Posted 4-Aug-2010 Wed 01:49] View Near Messages
Interesting prog - in 2 parts? about the drugs in UK. It said Police only have stopped 1% of drugs (or was that cocaine?).
Professor Nutt seemed to be in a quandry over why when the evidence says that banning stuff doesn`t make it better that the thrust of `social and political` action is to `ban stuff`. Anyone got any theories as to why the ban vein seems to be hemorrhaging? I think, if I remember, he mentioned, lower classes doing stuff people don`t understand. sergio [27065. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:24] View Near Messages
I could argue that all `images` are altered to one extent or another.
In the digital domain the light that enters the camera and captured by the sensor is not in a pure 1 to 1 relationship.
Even an ordinary old fashioned gelatine print has been `altered`. sergio [27062. Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 03:52] View Near Messages
`The Commission was satisfied that the public interest argument advanced by the newspaper - to the effect that the ongoing design of websites connected to the sex industry was incompatible with the complainant`s role in a prominent local community website - justified the employment of such mild subterfuge in this case.`
What? Who says "sex industry" website design is `incompatible` with `local community website` design?
What about `sickening` Hull Daily Mail content?
sergio [27049. Posted 24-Jul-2010 Sat 07:58] View Near Messages
It`s a great `human interest` story, but how many people has Bulger killed?
The greatest killer of children in the UK is ... cars.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10730095
But that item doesn`t even cover it. I heard about it when one of the reports author`s was interviewed on tv.
Seems like child porn is more sexy than mass murder by FORD. sergio [27020. Posted 16-Jul-2010 Fri 07:41] View Near Messages
I thought the problem was `ignorant pig` and not `nazi`.
It seems that the law will determine what is `offensive` and not ofcon. sergio [27008. Posted 10-Jul-2010 Sat 03:14] View Near Messages
Seriously though, is a man putting his arm up the vagina of a cow - bestiality? sergio [26995. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:30] View Near Messages
Can customs stop material that has no BBFC cert? sergio [26988. Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 01:33] View Near Messages
BBFC cuts for June 2010
Number of items=80
No. Cuts=23
Cuts ratio=28%
Cuts of interest
ASS TO MOUTH VIRGINS
Directed by Phil Barry
One cut was required to remove sight of faecally contaminated lubricant trickling from a woman`s anus. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
---
Mr Barry seemed to disagree with the BBFC observations.
`it was actually liquid coming from the girls pussy whilst vaginal sex was taking place and was clear
outragous but easier to cut than argue ,i suppose they need to keep
themselfs in a job` sergio [26984. Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 12:25] View Near Messages
`The consumer is not breaking the law because it is only the sale by mail order, not the purchase, that is illegal. `
Does this happen to be the case for any other product? sergio [26964. Posted 30-Jun-2010 Wed 09:28] View Near Messages
`The ASA said the poster with the woman flashing at the camera was also likely to encourage copycat behaviour.`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290749/Diesel-posters-showing-women-flashing-banned-promoting-anti-social-behaviour.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
So the Dailymail is now showing posters which some `experts` think will encourage copycat behaviour.
sergio [26955. Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 06:43] View Near Messages
I ain`t seen it so I can`t tell.
But I can see both sides.
we just have to take the bbfc on trust that that is what they saw ...
a piece of shit
`One cut was required to remove sight of faecally contaminated lubricant trickling from a woman`s anus. Cut required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.`
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=2&i=164349&t=164349
`
it was actually liquid coming from the girls pussy whilst vaginal sex was taking place and was clear
outragous but easier to cut than argue`
That`s right - it`s easier to cut than argue. £1000 vs delay and review and shit. sergio [26882. Posted 6-Jun-2010 Sun 10:42] View Near Messages
Is poker `a game of chance`? sergio [26873. Posted 1-Jun-2010 Tue 11:54] View Near Messages
Are you ready for Michael Sniffmybottom`s latest ultraviolent `The Killer Inside Me`? You wanna see Jessica Alba beaten black and blue and red?
Interesting thing he said on Radio 4 film prog, something like - to me sexual violence (or is that rough sex?) doesn`t overlap real violence.
try 8m40s in
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sgdg0/The_Film_Programme_28_05_2010/ sergio [26842. Posted 20-May-2010 Thu 07:39] View Near Messages
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1279757/Why-pop-songs-tell-girls-theyre-sluts.html
She refers to `Exposure to Sexual Lyrics and Sexual Experience Among Urban Adolescents`
http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797%2808%2901011-8/abstract
Some sort of rebuttal
http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2009/02/26/dont_blame_me_the_sexually_degrading_lyrics_made_me_do_it
sergio [26836. Posted 16-May-2010 Sun 12:01] View Near Messages
http://censoredzine.wordpress.com/
http://actart.co.uk/#/nextevent/4535264727
thanks to Helen Gorrill sergio [26816. Posted 11-May-2010 Tue 08:24] View Near Messages
correction
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/r18cuts.htm
`Sex Dirty Stars` should be `Sexy Dirty Stars`
sergio [26806. Posted 8-May-2010 Sat 08:19] View Near Messages
Do you mean that someone actually reads `Zoo magazine`? (titters behind hand) sergio [26796. Posted 7-May-2010 Fri 02:05] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for April 2010
Number of items=65
No. Cuts=16
Cuts ratio=24%
Cuts of interest -(gay title):
SEXY DIRTY STARS
Cut required to the title `Sexy Dirty Teens` which, in this sex work context, tends to encourage an interest in underaged sex by linking the word `teens` with words signifying sexual activity. Cut made in line with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. sergio [26777. Posted 2-May-2010 Sun 04:14] View Near Messages
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/ sergio [26774. Posted 1-May-2010 Sat 04:53] View Near Messages
`During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission.`
Is this `advice` `free` ?
(a little fantasy -
Distributor to BBFC: ok chaps, we have 24 fucks in our movie documentary, now, I want a 12A cert, so is that okay?
BBFC: no.
Distibutor: Okay, how many `fucks` can we have?
BBFC: not telling but reduce it please.
Distributor: Hows about 5 fucks?
BBFC: no reduce it please.
Distributor: 4?
BBFC: please send it for review)
sergio [26744. Posted 25-Apr-2010 Sun 06:46] View Near Messages
Embryobras®
The embryobra® is an underwired, half-cup, padded bra with three section cups.
+ Hand wash
+ 43% Polyamide, 27% Cotton, 22% Polyester, 8% Elastane
Fitting service available.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4551020876_b6c2f03b50_o.jpg
Available in extra-small - ES, tinnie winnie - TW and microscopic - MS. sergio [26728. Posted 19-Apr-2010 Mon 11:39] View Near Messages
Anyone see Charlie Brooker with Spartacus clips? Looks like a totally awful tv series with buckets of artistically spurting blood and various body part hacking in full 3d color. Absolutely sick. I am not sure that someone can actually have there legs chopped off like that. sergio [26718. Posted 13-Apr-2010 Tue 01:58] View Near Messages
I am not sure I understand
http://www.baileys.com/Gateway/
You need to put in your age of birth for this website?
The next page after we get
`Family get-togethers and BAILEYS`
---------------------
`Cars, alcohol and cigarettes can cause harm but that harm is caused by people who misuse them (eg: someone who drives dangerously or consumes alcohol to dangerous levels) and people are not forced to use/consume those things`
Are alcoholics `forced to use` alcohol?
Let`s call this `third party` harm. Alcohol doesn`t cause a third party to be harmed?
???
`Forced by a third party`?
So, war is harmful and caused/forced by a third party and therefore should be banned. (?)
Don`t adverts `force` people to drink? Doesn`t `social expectation` cause/force people to drink? sergio [26715. Posted 12-Apr-2010 Mon 07:05] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for Mar 2010
Number of items=76
No. Cuts=15
Cuts ratio=19%
Cuts of interest:
DOUBLE TEAM: A GROUP SEX FILM VOL. 2
Cut made to sight of faecal-contaminated fluid seen just above woman`s mouth and on a dildo being inserted into woman`s mouth after the dildo had been removed from the woman`s anus, in accordance BBFC Guidelines and policy, and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. sergio [26714. Posted 12-Apr-2010 Mon 06:54] View Near Messages
Child porn should be banned because it`s harmful.
If `harmful` was the only reason then wouldn`t more things be `banned`?
Is child porn banned because it`s harmful and because it`s `bad`?
If `harmful` as a principle were consistant then wouldn`t `war` and `alcohol` and `cars` and `cigarettes` be `banned`?
There`s usually an extra `reason` for banning something other than the simple `harm` principle.
sergio [26706. Posted 9-Apr-2010 Fri 03:12] View Near Messages
How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb?
4
1 to claim for a weekly cleaner to clean the bulb
1 to claim for a security officer to test the bulb for fire hazards
1 to claim for a second replacement bulb for their second house
1 to claim for a public enquiry to see how many other MPs have claimed for lightbulbs
sergio [26679. Posted 2-Apr-2010 Fri 06:14] View Near Messages
`The region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon. But not one for Brits to buy as it contains a scene of oral sex on a dog. This is now illegal to posses under the Dangerous Pictures Act. BBFC classified films are exempt but a cinema classification may not exempt a video.`
From memory the scene is of a dog licking the pussy of a nun. The dog licks a penis, but I don`t remember a human licking/sucking the dog. sergio [26678. Posted 1-Apr-2010 Thu 13:29] View Near Messages
`Det Insp Kevin Hyland said: "Men who visit brothels and pay for sex are exploiting vulnerable woman and plying a trade of abuse.`
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8600118.stm sergio [26677. Posted 1-Apr-2010 Thu 08:16] View Near Messages
Dano, can you give me a quote from where you think that was ever mentioned?
`All sexual material aimed at men= rape`
Seems like either Dworking or Catharine A. MacKinnon have had a `All sex is rape` quote attributed to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin sergio [26675. Posted 1-Apr-2010 Thu 05:49] View Near Messages
`Dr Singh described the ruling as "brilliant", but added that the action had cost £200,000 `
on the radio Singh seemed to say that it cost both parties a total of £200,000 - not the seeming `it cost me £200,000` which that sentence seems to imply. sergio [26670. Posted 31-Mar-2010 Wed 08:49] View Near Messages
http://carnalnation.com/content/51058/4/el-asira-online-islamic-sex-shop-opens
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7540030/Online-sex-shop-a-hit-with-Muslims.html
elasira.net
31Mar10 - 16:47 - site seems suspended
(early april fool to be suspected?) sergio [26598. Posted 13-Mar-2010 Sat 05:24] View Near Messages
http://website.lineone.net/~darkangel5/moral.htm
sounds familiar sergio [26590. Posted 12-Mar-2010 Fri 03:26] View Near Messages
I reckon she`s in the wrong party - Liberals? Don`t make me barf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257210/Porn-film-director-Anna-Arrowsmith-selected-Lib-Dem-Parliamentary-candidate.html
Anyone got a gun?
http://blog.dorries.org/Default.aspx sergio [26556. Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 04:50] View Near Messages
[26515] Paul B said it was rejected by BBFC. I can`t find it in BBFC search.
MY DAUGHTER`S A COCKSUCKER
Anyone else know where to look?
BBFC cuts for Feb 10
Number of items= 76
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=7%
Pissing off the BBFC.
STREET PISSING VOL.2
Cuts made to images of sexual activity (masturbation, fondling of breasts and buttocks) occurring either in the course of, or immediately following, urination in order for the work to achieve a `R18` classification. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
sergio [26549. Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 15:03] View Near Messages
` I find it offensive that we are all presumed to be working and making films in the world of violence and pornography, and cast out of being able to express ourselves via the medium of film just in case.`
Maybe he is just another `artist` with his head up his own backside, now, why can`t `porn` be `self expression`? Horror movies and porn are bad things seems to be his assumption.
Maybe his attitude is a bit retro but dvd seems to be dying, although I am not too sure of the legalities why doesn`t he just stream his artistic crap?
He is not a threat to main stream media? Who is he kidding? sergio [26544. Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 03:21] View Near Messages
Children will copy anything so therefore ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255483/Parents-anger-class-seven-year-olds-shown-graphic-sex-cartoon-school.html
Harvey, get your facts right (thumbs nose)!
`Mr Justice Hooper dismissed the test case brought by the BBFC, saying that the risk of the seven videos involved being seen by and causing harm to children was, on the present evidence, insignificant`
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arloh11.htm sergio [26529. Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 09:32] View Near Messages
`The introduction of a system of ratings symbols for photographs to show the extent to which they have been altered. This is particularly critical in magazines targeting teen and pre-teen audiences.`
Why not a default state, these images have been altered? A rating for every photo in every magazine? WTF?
`The government should work with internet service providers to block access to pro-anorexia (`pro-ana`) and pro-bulimia (`pro-mia`) websites`
I am not sure on what grounds they want to do that. Because it is a `bit dangerous, harmful`? What a slippery slope. Melonfarmers to be restricted due to being for harmful freedom. Pro uncensorship sites to be removed with the help of ISPs. sergio [26513. Posted 26-Feb-2010 Fri 01:17] View Near Messages
Who`d of thunk it? A psychologist with Mary Whitehouse syndrome. sergio [26511. Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 15:41] View Near Messages
seemingly a free download pdf
http://www.aup.nl/do.php?a=show_visitor_book&isbn=9789056291501 sergio [26469. Posted 12-Feb-2010 Fri 10:56] View Near Messages
What exactly do they `censor` on youtube safemode searches?
I tried `president kennedy` and got a video of his head being blown off.
You could see all the brain matter being caught by his dutiful wife , not sure she was going to do with the grey matter, give it to the dog?
Community standards means censor nipples not brain smash bullet explosions.
??? sergio [26462. Posted 9-Feb-2010 Tue 07:16] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts Jan 2010
Number of items=375
No. Cuts=75
Cuts ratio=20%
You`ve been snookered!
Cuts of interest:
SEANCE
Distributor removed sight of a pool cue being inserted into the vagina in line with the Video Recordings Act 1984 and BBFC Guidelines and policy,
HOUSE OF WICKED
Cuts made to potentially harmful activity in an R18 adult work (in this instance, vaginal penetration with a billiards cue and a cigarette holder), in line with BBFC guidelines and policy. R18s can only be sold in licensed sex shops.
I`ve checked the figures and it seems 375 is the number of R18 dvds passed in January 2010 - seems a bit strange. sergio [26457. Posted 6-Feb-2010 Sat 05:51] View Near Messages
`However, if what we`re reading about Mood pictures is true, then I hope the owners get the legal equivalent of a red-hot poker shoved up their collective arse.`
What is `sadism`?
re: the hotmoviesblog article
`According to a police captain, Hungarian law states that a person cannot consent to be harmed, meaning that any contracts signed by the victims are invalid.`
`the producers ignored her repeated use of the “safe words” and kept filming`
I think the safe words aspect is bogus. Safe words don`t make it `legal`.
Now then, what do we mean by `harm`?
Is it legal to harm oneself? sergio [26449. Posted 5-Feb-2010 Fri 04:00] View Near Messages
`Sadistic bastards like this give everyone who is into BDSM/spanking, at whatever level, a bad name`
I have to admit, but that is funny.
`Take northernspanking.co.uk, for example, who hold spanking parties, where paying guests get to play with willing submissives. That`s immediately going to outlaw all that sort of stuff straight away - and to what end?`
But is that a `sexual service`?
Is not Ann Summers a `sexual service`? Don`t they `facilitate` sexual goings on? sergio [26443. Posted 3-Feb-2010 Wed 10:33] View Near Messages
I wonder if anyone knows more about this but it seems the owners of elitepain.com have been arrested. sergio [26441. Posted 2-Feb-2010 Tue 02:17] View Near Messages
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/6615552/Martin-Amis-the-sexual-revolution-killed-my-sister-Sally.html
Let`s add this up: banged on head - coma, stroke, father died, alcohol, mental age of 13, unspecified disease.
But I blame the `sexual revolution`. sergio [26431. Posted 22-Jan-2010 Fri 11:00] View Near Messages
`The court earlier heard the brothers, who were placed in foster care a few months before the attack, had a chaotic upbringing with their violent father, mother and five brothers.
They were shown "extreme" horror films and the younger brother had access to pornographic DVDs and smoked cannabis grown on his father`s allotment. `
-----------
`The court earlier heard the brothers, who were placed in foster care a few months before the attack, had a chaotic upbringing with their violent father, mother and five brothers.
They were shown Tom and Jerry cartoons and the younger brother had access to martial arts DVDs and smoked cannabis grown on his father`s allotment. ` sergio [26419. Posted 20-Jan-2010 Wed 01:52] View Near Messages
`I think the BBC are not worth the money ...`
Is that a libel? Will the BBC sue me and melonfarmers?
I don`t think the BBC has ever actually sued someone for either saying or thinking that, have they?
`I think the Police are probably paedophiles ...`
You see, opinions are not falsifiable ...
Now, if I went up to a Policeman and said ` I think you are probably a paedophile...`, what would happen?
The specific vs the individual ... ?
sergio [26417. Posted 18-Jan-2010 Mon 08:53] View Near Messages
Can you actually libel naturists?
All politicians are money grabbing ...
Doesn`t one have to know who actually said the slander?
`...One commentator on radio suggested that children needed to be protected because Gough could be a paedophile ...`
`Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.`
It is my opinion that you could be a paedophile ... ? sergio [26407. Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 09:35] View Near Messages
`I am an ardent supporter of the right to free speech and expression, but I acknowledge the need for a system of regulation that protects children from harmful content in film, videos and DVDs.`
Why do they use the word `but`?
Does `right to free speech and expression` mean you don`t want regulation? sergio [26398. Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 03:07] View Near Messages
Dave, seem to have mangled links at
http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ssgayn.htm#Unhealthy_Beliefs_6245 sergio [26390. Posted 11-Jan-2010 Mon 04:16] View Near Messages
Should adulterers be stoned to death?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7439661.stm
Re: tiger sex
I don`t understand how you can `review` a clip without the sound.
Did the CPS actually `see` the clip. Or did they `review` a report from an officer that this clip shows x, y and z?
How can you give no soundtrack? You must demux the vid clip? Or just turn the sound off?
Now, why can`t it be both pornographic and comical?
sergio [26375. Posted 2-Jan-2010 Sat 02:42] View Near Messages
Latest R18 Cuts for Dec 09
Number of items=58
No. Cuts=11
Cuts ratio=19%
cuts of interest
GHETTO DOWN LOW
Distributor removed verbal references to `gagging` during deep throat fellatio in line with BBFC policy, Guidelines and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
-------
Total R18 cuts for Jan to Dec 09
Number of items=836
Number of cuts=199
Cuts ratio=23%
Put another way, (approx) 1 in 5 R18 dvds are cut. sergio [26370. Posted 31-Dec-2009 Thu 15:45] View Near Messages
If we bomb (from the UK) the Iranians can they sue us? sergio [26367. Posted 31-Dec-2009 Thu 03:39] View Near Messages
I think it must be some of the most beautifully designed censorship I`ve seen.
There was a little naked child and his genitals were fuzzed by some round areas of blur. What was so beautiful was that the footage was amateur film/video and that they were looking at the sun and getting blur burn out. The camera seemed to have some dirt or water drops on the lens (they were filming on the beach).
The rest of the film included drowning and `the actual moment where people lost their lives`
http://channelhopping.onthebox.com/2009/12/30/tsunami-caught-on-camera-review-wave-of-misery/
sergio [26356. Posted 26-Dec-2009 Sat 17:01] View Near Messages
Religiousized
I really hate it, all the young children are religiousized, forced to go to church and worship some sorts of fairy tales which help people with anxiety.
Children are forced to grow up too soon. Forced to tend the needs of priests and guardians.
Shaun - what rational debate? Was Mr Average debating anything? Or just the usual bellyaching?
sergio [26350. Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 09:10] View Near Messages
What`s the problem with being silly? Isn`t it silly to look for comediens who don`t swear? What about if I search for comedians who don`t make jokes about eggs? What he is really saying is I would like a comedian who doesn`t `offend` me. Swearing causes `offence` - I want jokers who`s jokes don`t offend. Somehow swearing is the only offender.
I thought that Seinfeld was supposed to not swear (maybe only live) but he did say bastard in an episode of Seinfeld.
`No aggressive personal abuse`
But who am I being aggressive to? Mr Average? But there is no `Mr Average`. sergio [26348. Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 04:41] View Near Messages
Merry Christmas everybody! sergio [26337. Posted 18-Dec-2009 Fri 04:15] View Near Messages
`1.20 Representations of sexual intercourse must not occur before the watershed (in the case of television) or when children are particularly likely to be listening (in the case of radio), unless there is a serious educational purpose. Any discussion on, or portrayal of, sexual behaviour must be editorially justified if included before the watershed, or when children are particularly likely to be listening, and must be appropriately limited. `
What is a `representation`? If i say ` the penis goes into the vagina` am I representing sexual intercourse?
`1.17 Material equivalent to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) R18-rating must not be broadcast at any time.`
Is 18 material equivalent to R18?
Is `9 songs` equivalent to R18 hardcore porn?
If a film has explicit sex is it not equivalent to R18?
sergio [26329. Posted 15-Dec-2009 Tue 01:58] View Near Messages
Does anyone have any info on The Darkside magazine?
wiki says -`The magazine reportedly ceased publication, possibly temporarily, in September 2009`
Last one I have is #140 I think. sergio [26323. Posted 12-Dec-2009 Sat 13:38] View Near Messages
Robert Maplethorpe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00p66s4
Shelved
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p7g8b sergio [26305. Posted 2-Dec-2009 Wed 09:44] View Near Messages
Cannabis causes schizophrenia.
Scientists aren`t too clear about what schizophrenia is.
So, cannabis causes something that `scientists` aren`t too sure exists. sergio [26304. Posted 2-Dec-2009 Wed 03:38] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for Nov 2009
Number of items=89
No. Cuts=12
Cuts ratio=13%
Cuts of interest:
ANAL FINISHING SCHOOL
Directed by Paul Carder
A compulsory cut was required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984 to remove sight of anal and vaginal penetration by an object likely to cause harm (in this case a hockey stick handle).
sergio [26285. Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 12:29] View Near Messages
[26283]
Don`t make no difference. If it was vanilla or extra spicy, an MP saying
`I really hate porn – it shouldn`t even be shown on the telly`, should be questioned. Maybe when people say porn they mean animal porn.
I don`t think so.
This flaccid `liberal` should join the Labour party.
Anymore flaccid liberals to out? sergio [26282. Posted 28-Nov-2009 Sat 07:13] View Near Messages
`Woolley also admitted breaching council rules in allowing unauthorised people to use the laptop. He told the County Gazette: I`m innocent. I didn`t download the film. None of the inappropriate material was downloaded by myself – it`s downloaded automatically by the machine - so why should I get done for it? I really hate porn – it shouldn`t even be shown on the telly.`
Yawn. I am not sure what Liberal means anymore. Let`s name and fucking shame. The first fucking MP who says I love fucking porn! sergio [26266. Posted 25-Nov-2009 Wed 09:16] View Near Messages
Does Michelle Obama look like a chimpanzee?
Being blended with a monkey is racist.
Being blended with a monkey is racist?
If you look at the context, does this black attractive woman being made into a grotesque chimp hybrid imply racism?
http://celebrityape.com/
Don`t blend blacks with apes - you racist bastard!
Most of the pictures are `offensive` but so what? Is the implication that you are a monkey a degrading concept?
Why has that black woman got more media coverage than the Mickey Jackson blend?
The usual bollocks
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8377922.stm
My riff
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/3871644102_b7b498092d_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2498/3873804319_eaceb7fcbd_o.jpg sergio [26252. Posted 22-Nov-2009 Sun 04:56] View Near Messages
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229959/ITV-newsreader-Lisa-Aziz-sues-5m-mimicking-Sir-Trevor-McDonald.html
Jesus christ - 160,000 a year!
‘It was like I was Bernie Madoff,’ she reportedly said. ‘The most insignificant of expenses queries were dangled in front of me as if I were a criminal who’d masterminded the crash of Lehman Brothers.’
Why has corporate crime had such a low priority?
Laurie Taylor explores the punishment of white collar crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qy05 sergio [26237. Posted 19-Nov-2009 Thu 15:14] View Near Messages
`cuts made in accordance with the terms of the Video Recordings Act 1984 which requires the Board to have special regard to harm which may be caused to viewers or to society through the actions of viewers . `
I am not sure who is sicker. It could cause harm in 2001 but in 2009 it won`t cause harm. In 8 years everybody is now hammering nails into their penises.
Go fuck your self BBFC. sergio [26227. Posted 17-Nov-2009 Tue 09:21] View Near Messages
`Today, we live in an unpleasant world where pornography is considered cool and censorship is a dirty world among the liberal elite who haven`t a clue about what really goes on to create hardcore porn.
From fashion advertisements to children`s clothing (which encourages small girls to dress like hookers), the `pornogrification` of our society is complete, and anybody who decries it is accused of `moral panic`.
Lap-dancing clubs? Just harmless entertainment, so the liberalisers argue. Let`s license more, even in residential areas. Porn on the internet? Well, censorship would be the real sin. And so on.
Yet all of this rests on women`s bodies being exploited for cash. That is not sexy, fashionable and exciting, it is sleazy, dark and corrupting. `
sergio [26199. Posted 11-Nov-2009 Wed 01:22] View Near Messages
pbr - you`ve been mislead by the name `Liberty`, middle class journos more like.
BBC news had an item about children wearing bracelets - shag bands
can you make this up?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/09/25/band-them-115875-21698898/
Some overpaid politician seems to want them banned. Sex , children - children, sex.
Lolita bands, when you wear this lolita band you commit to shag an underage teen .... sergio [26181. Posted 4-Nov-2009 Wed 14:08] View Near Messages
"unlikely to cause sexual excitement".
This must be a really bad advert. sergio [26179. Posted 3-Nov-2009 Tue 09:24] View Near Messages
R18 BBFC cuts for Oct 2009
Number of items=70
No. Cuts=15
Cuts ratio=21%
PAGING DR. FINGER
Directed by Steven Scarborough
A cut was made, in line with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984, to remove a sequence in which an unconscious man is subjected to oral sex whilst not being in a position to consent to the act.
http://backroom.hothouse.com/video/paging-dr-finger
Doctor Ross Hurston and orderly Johnny Gunn sedate Francesco D`Macho in the hospital E.R. with a healthy dose of anesthesia; but they don`t administer enough gas to keep Francesco down! He awakes from his gassed state to the slurping sounds coming from his own cock and the doctor`s mouth. Powerful legs, meaty asses and raging hard-ons bounce and grind into each other until they all shoot their shot.
sergio [26134. Posted 21-Oct-2009 Wed 08:52] View Near Messages
The reason woman don`t get top jobs is lapdancing.
Kat Banyard
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=31
on female`s hour
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00n7gj6
According to Kat Banyard ...(4.53 in the broadcast)
Lapdancing is part of the sex industry because it is designed to sexually stimulate (the sole purpose of lapdancing is to sexually stimulate the paying punters)
....
Erotic art is designed to sexually stimulate ... museums should be licenced just like sex shops ...
sergio [26117. Posted 18-Oct-2009 Sun 00:43] View Near Messages
It`s Sunday!!!!!
http://davidgalbraith.org/uncategorized/irelands-blasphemy-law/2176/ sergio [26114. Posted 17-Oct-2009 Sat 12:24] View Near Messages
Ok, a drawing I did of the new face of intolerance
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/4020245268_c946cd510b_o.jpg sergio [26112. Posted 17-Oct-2009 Sat 04:05] View Near Messages
Interesting, ... pic of vivienne-pattison was disputed to be in copyright by someone - the same pic as used on melonfarmers. I had added moustache and nazi symbols.
Interesting.
Pic of original face still up on melonfarmers.
etc. etc...
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/10/14/vivienne-pattison-hits-the-ground-running/ sergio [26097. Posted 13-Oct-2009 Tue 13:50] View Near Messages
I heard a pretty odd news report on the Radio 4 BBc news. It referred to this case http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8302520.stm.
The report said that the story had details that were so vial that they couldn`t report them.
A bit strange as the same day the BBC included a photo(on the website) of the 16 year old girl who in another story had lost 8 fingers after putting her hands in plaster of paris. There must be some subjective vialness meter that they use.
Sexual abuse is at the top of the vialness meter while finger disintigration seems okay with included photos. sergio [26072. Posted 8-Oct-2009 Thu 04:56] View Near Messages
`She explained: In this particular work, there was so little focus on urolagnia, that the BBFC took legal advice and the advice was that taking the work as a whole there was no realistic prospect of a successful prosecution under the Obscene Publications Act and therefore the BBFC passed the work. However, were the focus on urolagnia to be more significant in other works, they would require cuts`
Total bollocks. Define `more significant` ... really this is such a piece of balony from the BBFC. The BBFC doe not take items as a whole in the R18 category.
Is 1 minute of urolagnia `significant`? If not then how many minutes/proportion is `significant`? Total bollocks. sergio [26068. Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 11:39] View Near Messages
R18 BBFC cuts for Sept 09
Number of items=65
No. Cuts=11
Cuts ratio=17%
ASS TITANS 2
Cuts were made in accordance with BBFC Policy and Guidelines, and under current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, for sight of urination during sexual activity and for aggressive behaviour during sexual activity including throat holding, slapping and nose pinching during fellatio.
Piss no, squirt some piss yes. sergio [26064. Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 09:46] View Near Messages
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ampGnXvEGLwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=%22The+Human+Female+Prostate
`Female Ejaculation and the G-Spot: Not Your Mother`s Orgasm Book!
By Deborah Sundahl`
`Female ejaculate is predominatly prostatic fluid mixed with glucose and trace amounts of urine`
So it is is urine.
sergio [26058. Posted 6-Oct-2009 Tue 08:46] View Near Messages
`Determined to put the record straight, Anna Span presented the BBFC with irrefutable scientific evidence in support of model DJ’s ability to ‘squirt,’ as it is known in the adult industry. Anna says; ‘I am really proud to have changed this outdated ruling and to have made a difference to women who experience this in their own lives throughout the UK. It was never fair that the BBFC dismissed their orgasms as urinary incontinence’
Initially the BBFC stood their ground and refused to pass the film but when Anna pushed for a hearing with the Video Appeals Committee, they later backed down after taking legal advice. They say that their ‘position remains fundamentally unchanged for future releases’ although it is difficult to see how they can argue against future claims for DVDs which contain FE, now that this precedent has been set.`
Does anyone know what `irrefutable scientific evidence` is? And how does a lawyer (yes, they must be very, very clever) know what `irrefutable scientific evidence` is? Legal advice or scientific advice?
Anna seems to have raised the ante and the BBFC folded. Simple! sergio [26054. Posted 5-Oct-2009 Mon 14:37] View Near Messages
Ermm, why hasn`t BBFC any news of this Video Appeal? It was passed 14 September, 2009. sergio [26038. Posted 3-Oct-2009 Sat 06:34] View Near Messages
Bunch of hypocrites!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/6255773/Posing-naked-for-a-womens-magazine-felt-brave-and-shocking.html
Is there an age verification on that page? sergio [26021. Posted 1-Oct-2009 Thu 08:51] View Near Messages
`A Scotland Yard source said the actions of its officers were common sense and were taken to pre-empt any breach of the law. The source said the image of Shields was of potential concern because it was of a 10-year-old, and could be viewed as sexually provocative.` sergio [25988. Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 14:19] View Near Messages
The new face of intolerance.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3951296932_cd9838f029_o.jpg
I didn`t say `she is a Nazi`. Maybe if you paint a moustache on a face you are saying `they are a Nazi`.
I am not too sure what someone means when they say someone is a Nazi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
or maybe
`Both fascism and Nazism reject ideologies like democracy, liberalism and Marxism,`
or maybe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law sergio [25974. Posted 24-Sep-2009 Thu 11:09] View Near Messages
The new face of intolerance.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3513/3951296932_cd9838f029_o.jpg sergio [25967. Posted 23-Sep-2009 Wed 07:37] View Near Messages
Lily Allen - The Fear
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-wGMlSuX_c
sergio [25949. Posted 18-Sep-2009 Fri 03:14] View Near Messages
http://www.strictlysplatter.com/Asia/Carved.html
`In the basement of an abandoned house she keeps the children tied up. Now I know this is horrible but I
wanted her to give one of the little 10yr olds a giant slit mouth with her long scissors and she does, but
you don’t see much of it. What you do see is pretty sweet` sergio [25885. Posted 4-Sep-2009 Fri 01:09] View Near Messages
`Could cause offence` and `could win the lottery` - which one is more likely?
If 1 in 60,000,000 is `offended` or `could be offended` then isn`t that enough?
`Your perfume `offends` me` - officer, arrest that man! (having an offensive perfume in a built up area)
[25883]
I think the dailymail had a big black square over some part of the figure, the bbc has subtly pixelated it. What looks like 2 pixels have been spread over 30. sergio [25877. Posted 2-Sep-2009 Wed 00:52] View Near Messages
Reports from others seem to say that the BBC documentary `Hardcore Profits` was another hatchet job.
No change there from the state sponsored BBC.
----
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46886.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232162.stm
`Because the ad could be seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years, we concluded that it was inappropriate and could cause serious offence to some readers.
On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clause 2.2 (Social responsibility) and 5.1 (Taste and decency).` sergio [25874. Posted 1-Sep-2009 Tue 03:46] View Near Messages
Number of items=67
No. Cuts=14
BBFC R18 cuts for August 09
Cuts ratio=21%
Cuts of interest:
HARD CORPS RECRUITS - THE FEW; THE PROUD; THE HORNY
Directed by Chip Daniels
Cut required to remove sight of potentially harmful anal penetration with a small glass mercury thermometer. Cut made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
sergio [25858. Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 12:38] View Near Messages
Yawn....
Can remember who did this ..............
To the BBFC
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I`ve come up with some rather disturbing findings which I`ve tried to summarise below. A long-term survey during the 1990`s in Japan revealed a sustained and steady reduction of sexual offences amongst those who would be expected to be `most affected` by pornographic material (i.e.
adolescents).
The most recent crime figures in the UK show an 11% increase in violent crime and a further 9% increase in sexual violence. If the Board are successfully `protecting` people why do these figures keep increasing? As I say, the conclusion from the study in Japan showed a marked decrease in sexual offences (some 83%!) following relaxation of their anti-pornography laws. I don`t believe for one moment that 13 year old girls (which the study centred on) would stop reporting or, indeed, could hide the effects of such attacks. Your suggestion that these were simply going unreported is based on pure speculation and is actually addressed in the report as not being the case. Bearing in mind that `Manga` and `Hentai` form the vast majority of teenage pornographic entertainment in Japan, the conclusion that such material has a beneficial effect overall cannot be ignored and, should not be ruled out because some flawed psychological studies can be interpreted to show this material MIGHT have detrimental effects on `some men`.
The full report on Japanese porn effects is available here http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html and a similar study of European trends here http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pd
None of the evidence the Board is relying on shows that these supposed effects are long-term nor do they show ANY correlation between sexual violence in society and sexual violence in film (in fact they show the opposite - your report states `sex offenders do not view (violent) pornography`). In this respect the evidence is NIL and, on the basis of the effects observed in Japan and Europe, one can only logically conclude that; when people feel excited by sexual violence in film, some other psychological mechanism swings into play and subsequently prevents the individual enacting such behaviour in life. The few people who do not respond in this way are probably totally unstable and as likely to attack someone whether `fired` by what they see in a film as not. I might also make the point that the Board should not, indeed cannot, safeguard the public from the maladjusted individuals in our society, to try to do so would mean banning any and all media which has ever provoked anyone (or which could provoke anyone) into committing an illegal act (which covers just about everything from cornflake ads to news items).
As an extreme example, I do not think your comment about paedophiles was `glib`, it is a fair point. However, consider whether showing (simulated) molestation to kids might increase their awareness and willingness to report such offences against them and, whether such material might satisfy the needs of a few sick individuals? We know that many paedophiles photograph and film their acts and that other paedophiles `feed` off this material. We also know that most paedophiles are `friends and family`, they are known to both victim and parents and they have some leverage/control over their victim ("it`s our secret"). Studies in the US have found that 66% of sex offenders were themselves abused as children. I know this is an extremely sensitive area and it provokes extreme emotions but, to combat such a cycle of abuse, people must stay rational and accept that the answers may not always be the most `acceptable`. The question is, which is more acceptable, child abuse, or the use of some `questionable` material to help combat child abuse? The answer may not be as distasteful as allowing `child porn` (simulated or not) to become widely available but, simply to allow more people access to more, and far healthier, sexual outlets e.g. banishing notions that `pornography` is dangerous and, more openness and acceptance of our own sexual NEEDS. Neurologists say we are `hard-wired` to reproduce, we need access to sexual outlets. It is becoming apparent that the stigma associated with `sexual desire` being something `dirty` or `evil`, which many religions seem to suggest, is damaging and extremely unhealthy.
On a similar note, it has been suggested that the Japanese `fixation` with hairless bodies was the reason teenage rape was so high in Japan before Hentai etc. became more widely available. There is little doubt in my mind (or that of the researchers) that the `schoolgirl` scenarios in Hentai cartoons and Japanese pornography has contributed directly to the reduction in offences involving teenagers. I`m certain exposing young Japanese men to scenes involving young girls in rape scenarios has exactly the same psychological effect as it does on western men, the point is, what happens to that excitement/aggression in a `normal` (i.e. non-laboratory) environment...? What the `Media Effects` studies uncover could simply be sexual frustration brought about by the conditions of the experiments - fact: we cannot measure anything without affecting the thing we are trying to measure. I`ve maintained all along that these are not truly scientific experiments. The test subject KNOWS exactly what they have been exposed to and, no matter how carefully the testing stage is disguised, the subjects know they will be tested at some point. Conscious responses re `rape myths` and `likelihood to rape` cannot be fully trusted. Furthermore, as subconscious responses are exactly what the researchers are looking for, `subconsciously` the subject may know they are being tested...again their responses cannot be viewed as reliable. If we`ve learned anything about the how the mind works over the last 100 years it is that it is far more complicated than we can imagine. Aromas and colours can produce just as `significant` changes in behaviour as anything observed in these media effects studies, and far more reliably too.
The underlying fact that everyone seems to be overlooking is that all the depictions in film/cartoon are pure fantasy. I would not argue with the Board banning or cutting REAL sexual violence but, the arguments against fantasy violence (sexual or otherwise) seem to be non-existent (I believe Sir Quentin stated as much in an interview about the violence in Kill Bill but then went on to say he was trying to `stamp out` sexual violence).
Distinctions over `titillation` etc. are meaningless and just reinforce the `pure fantasy` argument. Rape is an act of violence, it requires the victim to be overpowered and subdued by whatever means necessary. Therefore, the fantasy depictions in the Spy Of Darkness etc. do not and cannot be seen to reflect reality and are very unlikely to provoke copy-cat re-enactment.
What scenes of this nature can do however, is fulfil a `rape-fantasy` many men (and women I might add) have, without causing anyone any actual harm.
In this respect they could and, based on the findings in Japan and Europe, most likely do have a beneficial effect on the instances of sexual assault quite contrary to the Board`s understandable concerns. I might add that Spain and Portugal have shown no adverse social effects since they adopted a position of non-censorship.
Throughout the course of our correspondence I have raised several issues which have been largely ignored or refuted by yourselves. I would however like to raise these in summary form and hope that the Board would consider these points very carefully when interpreting the law with respect to `protecting the public` in assessing various works. (Please also see some further points and issues in the post script to this letter). My issues are:
1. By removing graphic violence and humiliation, the Board `makes acceptable` horrific scenes of sexual violence. What effect does the Board think this has on people`s perception of rape as a violent and heinous act?
1.1 With respect to I Spit On Your Grave, I saw this uncut in 1983 and found it to be an extremely powerful film despite the low-budget appearance. In my perception, the rape scene justified the woman`s subsequent actions.
However, although I have not seen the BBFC version, I can only imagine that removing `violence and humiliation` from the rape scene has shifted the viewer`s perceptions and may paint the woman`s actions in the wrong light.
Can the Board be certain that the cuts made have not altered the viewer`s perception of the victim and her methods of revenge? Would a viewer of the BBFC version agree with the tag-line `...no court would convict her`, which was quite believable of the original version?
2 The Board also remove scenes and ban works containing `eroticised` sexual violence. In the BBFC report `Media Effects`, there is made mention to Donnerstein`s comment about the statistical relationship between the measured effects of this type of material being "more certain" than those of smoking related illness. The report also states that `he has since softened his opinion` however, Donnerstein said he "could have easily got the same results from having the men ride a bike for 20 minutes", in other words, the statistical relationship was no more sound than that between teachers` pay in the US and lung cancer in the UK (another demonstrable statistical `relationship`). Despite Donnerstein`s revelation about the true nature of these `effects` and, the evidence from Japan of lowering sexual offences and, that Donnerstein and Lintz found the effects of "violence alone to be more than that of scenes of sexually explicit violence or scenes containing just explicit sex", why do the Board still insist that `eroticised sexual violence` is of most concern?
2.1 With respect to Baise Moi, the Board removed a penetration shot during a violent and humiliating rape scene on the grounds that this `eroticised` the scene. I have seen the uncut version of this film and I fail to see how anyone could claim or even suggest that this shot was in the least bit `erotic` or would instil any erotic feelings in the viewer. Isn`t it the case that this was actually quite shocking, completely cold and callous, devoid of any feeling at all and that neither party showed any emotion at all let alone any enjoyment from it? I therefore cannot agree with your explanation or reasons for cutting that particular scene and must assume it was based simply on the sight of a penis entering a vagina which, I`m sure most people would not find `erotic` in (or out) of the context of that scene. Are the Board suggesting that the mere sight of a penis entering a vagina is `erotic`? Or, are the Board suggesting that the British public would find such a scene `erotic`? Either way I find this to be an insult to everyone`s intelligence and a total abuse of your position.
3. On wider issues, do the Board think that cutting some scenes from `18` rated cinema versions or raising the rating from `PG` to `15` etc. for home viewing on DVD/video has the desired effect? The evidence suggests that parents are becoming ever more lax about the viewing habits of their children so, on one hand this seems appropriate however, have the Board considered that their actions are undermining the very purpose of the ratings system? Do the Board not consider that if videos were full cinema versions and were left at their original rating, parents might be a) less confused and more observant of video ratings and, b) more vigilant about allowing their kids access to unsuitably-rated material?
3.1 To illustrate the possible harm that censorship provokes, studies in countries where pornography has been made freely available have all shown a marked decrease in sexual offences. I feel it is important to stress that this has been observed in countries where porn has been made `freely available` because, in the UK, access is limited to over 18`s buying such material in person from a licensed `sex shop` and, UK TV channels are not permitted to broadcast `R18` material. `R18` material is also subject to cuts depending on whether the Board deem certain acts to be `obscene` or `harmful`. In short, pornography is not `freely available` in the UK, and thus, we have seen none of the benefits observed in other more liberated countries. If the Board are to `prevent any harm which may be caused`, how can you justify such cuts and restrictions in the light of this evidence?
Might I point out that to circumvent the restrictions on `R18` availability does NOT require a change of UK legislation, you could simply classify ALL adult material `18` and bypass all the restrictions placed on `R18` material contained in the VRA (this would also reinforce in people`s minds that `18` rated works are intended for adults only!).
4. What research has the Board conducted to ensure they are indeed fulfilling their requirement to `prevent any harm which may be caused`? I`m sorry, but when I said the Board were `sick and twisted` it was because I felt that your imagination/interpretation of the effects of certain works/acts/scenes is quite simply the worst case scenario. Ordinary people simply do not think or act in the way the Board sometimes suggest they might if exposed to certain material. I have referred to Japan as a case in point however, the evidence from the rest of the world is just as compelling. I have compiled the following table of the various levels of censorship versus sexual offences in several countries: (crime figures from Interpol)
Country General Censorship Censorship of sexual violence sex offences (per 100,000 capita)
Sweden yes yes 100
UK, USA, Norway some yes >70
France, Germany some some ~60
Benelux no no <50
Spain, Portugal no no 20
Japan no no <10
Perhaps Sweden is real proof that what the Board are suggesting is not only wrong but, to implement cuts and bans on certain material might actually result in more harm than good! We all know the Swedes don`t censor consensual sex but, they do censor non-consensual sex and other violent or `disturbing` imagery. The Swedes have the worst incidence of sexual offences anywhere in Europe (if not the World).
Spain and Portugal do not censor any material except (as far as I know) illegal child pornography. All and any other consensual or non-consensual imagery is permissible irrespective of violent or erotic content. Even acts considered `obscene` in the UK are freely available on video throughout Spain in newsagents and even respectable department stores. I`m also given to understand that all of Spain`s ratings are purely advisory and that anyone of any age can view any type of material. Spain and Portugal have the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in Europe.
Japan produces some of the most violent films in the world and an awful lot of erotic non-consensual and `schoolgirl rape` pornographic material. Japan has probably the lowest incidence of sexual offences anywhere in the world and, it should not be overlooked that until such material became widely available, Japan had similar levels of sex offences as in the UK!
As a final point, were the Board aware of any of this data and, if not, how does the Board know or even believe that the decisions it makes are correct and that you are fulfilling your remit to `prevent any harm`? As far as I can see the evidence is rather stacked against you...in all countries where censorship is applied to violence or sexual activity the incidence of sexually violent crime and non-sexual violent crime is significantly higher than in countries where no censorship is applied.
I think the explanation for these findings is relatively simple. The notion that certain material can cause people to become sex offenders is totally wrong and utterly misguided. It is clear that when `some men` have unhindered access to certain types of material, they have little or no need to seek out a victim to fulfil their fantasies.
The Board can continue to place it`s trust in a wholly biased report based on some very unconvincing psychological studies or, it can look to the real world evidence and realise that you may not be doing anything `to prevent any harm which may be caused` and, in fact, you may well be adding to the problem by removing a safe and simple channel for people to experience their fantasies.
I`d just like to thank you for your patience and diligence in answering my queries and I hope the Board will now take this information forward as you draw up your new guidelines.
P.S. A few other thoughts and observations:
Until very recently Norway has imposed an almost `puritanical` degree of censorship. No films containing any form of sex or violence have been tolerated and yet, the incidence of sexual offences has mirrored that of the UK for many years. This would indicate that `nice wholesome` media has little if any effect on behaviour. Although Norway has now relaxed it`s rules to allow most mainstream movies they have maintained a ban on explicit pornographic material. Only time will tell if this has any effect however, as this is similar to the UK`s position prior to 2000, I believe they will see no beneficial effects whatsoever.
I think Sweden should be causing alarm bells to ring in all censors offices.
Clearly, in other countries where there is a `balance` in consensual sexual imagery and violent/non-consensual sexual imagery there has been a lowering of sexual offences. It has been my contention that the media can fill a gap in people`s lives, they do NOT simply copy what they see in the media but instead live out their fantasies through film. If the Board were correct in their assumptions then, as the Swedes are ONLY exposed to consensual sexual imagery then, we should expect that they would only indulge in consensual sex. However, this is clearly not the case and I would suggest that the Board`s assumptions about media effects are completely wrong and in fact very dangerous! Eastern philosophies hold the idea of `balance` to be of utmost importance - that too much of anything is bad whether or not the imbalance is toward `good` or `evil`. Bombarding people with `wholesome` images of consensual sex only creates a void for non-consensual sex. The evidence from Sweden/Norway/UK/USA is that this void is then filled in real life - exactly the opposite effect to that which the censors were trying to safeguard against! The studies above conclude that about 2% of pornographic material contains non-consensual imagery, the proportion is probably a lot higher in Japan and yet, Japan has shown the most compelling evidence that the widespread availability of pornography, and even violent pornography, actually helps reduce sexual offences. Just how the Board reconcile these facts with the `Media Effects` report baffles me.
It has been found that people who commit rape and sexual offences are most often from very sheltered, conservative backgrounds. Many are only exposed to sexual imagery very much later in life than non-offenders. Clearly, if you are serious about `preventing ANY harm which may be caused` then people must be allowed access to sexual material at a younger age. To this end, access to such material should not be restricted to adults-only purchasing from sex shops. There is now plenty of evidence to suggest sexual material poses no threat to children and indeed, exposing people to sexual imagery in their adolescent years may actually reduce the risk of them becoming sex offenders later in life. More openness and acceptance of our sexuality is a good thing. Denial and repression of our most basic instincts is quite obviously very damaging (as borne out by the recent studies into the huge and disproportionate number of paedophiles amongst the priesthood).
I know that this evidence represents a paradigm shift for the Board (and the public) however, I think the Board must now stop placing it`s faith in some unreliable and flawed psychological studies and accept the real world evidence. After all, it does very much appear that the restriction and censorship of all types of material has a very detrimental effect on society, which is exactly what you are supposed to safeguard against! I know change will not be easy, some members of the public and the Government still continue to press home notions of `moral values` and other such repressive ideas. Fortunately, these ideas are being replaced by more open and accepting opinions. I hope the Board will now take the opportunity to investigate the real effects of certain media on rape and other violent crime and revise your guidelines accordingly.
I do realise that this is but one of at least 3 factors which contribute to the instances of sexual offences. In the countries where the relaxation of sexual attitudes to porn, prostitution and `sexual desire` has taken place, there has been a corresponding decrease in sexual offences. The first step has been to relax restrictions on the availability of porn and indeed, all types of material. The second is the acceptance of our sexuality and the fact that we do need outlets for our desires. The third is the relaxation of legislation surrounding sexual behaviour. It goes without saying that Sweden prosecute more sexual offences because they are more critical of certain types of sexual behaviour. Sweden is the only country in Europe that still prosecutes prostitution i.e. accepting money in return for sexual favours. Rape in Sweden is no higher than in any of the other more `liberated` countries and, violent sex crime in Sweden has been seen to follow the same downward trend. Porn, violent or otherwise, does not appear to be harmful. Women and children are not afraid to walk home alone at night in Japan despite films like `The Spy of Darkness` being available to young men. It seems the moral values extolled by followers of some religions, and their influence on society, is the CAUSE of the so-called "breakdown of society" and "lowering of values". If the "values" weren`t so damaging and in direct conflict with our nature then, it`s obvious there would be no sex crime as a result of trying to "maintain" them! Save for the few offences committed by clinically sick `monsters` there might be no sex crime, unfortunately, it`s now becoming clear from some evidence that "maintaining" these "values" actually may go hand-in-hand with the creation of such `monsters`!
The Board, and more importantly the Government, seem to rely solely on second-hand and anecdotal evidence of the `harm` of certain material.
Acting on speculative information can have one of two outcomes depending on whether the information is right or wrong. The only concrete evidence of the effects of the availability of certain types of materials (and attitudes), comes from criminal studies into the behaviour of the people on the streets. The evidence suggests that your information is wrong, and as a consequence, the whole country has been adversely affected by your actions.
It`s over to you guys...remember: if you`re not part of the solution then you must be part of the problem!
----------------------------------------
IanG [28-Jun-2004 Mon 16:59]
sergio, It`s a good point you make. The BBFC report, "Media Effects", makes the argument for restriction of sexual violence. This report is based mainly on the findings of 2 psychologists, Donnerstein & Lintz. The BBFC quote Donnerstein as saying "these results are more certain than the effects of smoking". These 2 psychologists reported that "violence alone has most effect followed by sexual violence and lastly sex alone".
Why then do to BBFC choose to restrict material in a different priority? The BBFC guidelines make it clear that violence is `ok` but sex is restricted to R18 and sexual violence if `eroticised` (i.e. nudity or sex) is actively banned. It doesn`t make sense to quote a specialist in the field to emphasize their report and then ignore his (and others) findings!
The BBFC have twisted the truth to suit their own political and `moral` ends. There is no need to censor sex or sexual violence if the BBFC (and the public) deem the effects of dramatised violence to be acceptable viewing. The effects of sex and sexual violence are known to be less `effecting` than scenes of violence, so why are the BBFC allowed to ignore the facts? The law does not permit ignorance of the facts, the HRA demands proof of harm before censorship but the BBFC don`t seem to care about the law or the effects of their meddling in matters they obviously do not understand.
--------------------
IanG [13536. Posted 14-Jun-2005 Tue 17:44]
treacle, I agree with you entirely. The full rape scene is sickening - as it was intended to be. Pity the BBFC can`t stomach it (or do they find it a turn on?)!!
Since the BBFC banned the hentai cartoon "The Spy of Darkness" about 3 years ago, I`ve taken all their justification for cutting `sexualised violence` to pieces. Their report, "Media Effects", uses information from experiments carried out in the 1980s and some `meta studies` looking at criminal evidence. The report cherry picks less than half of the experiments conducted, most of which show NO link between sexual violence on screen and real criminal activity but, they prefer to use the one`s that suggest there `might` be a link to `some men`.
After the shambles called the "Meese Report" Pres. Regan instituted, Dr. Malamuth, Lintz and Donnerstein issued a retraction of the blatant misuse of their research and stated "Most effects are seen with violence alone, followed by sexual violence and lastly sex alone".
Why do this Government and the BBFC choose to suppress sex when this is known to have virtually no bad effects? Why do the BBFC pass extreme violence when this is known to have the worst (yet negligible) effects. And why oh why do the BBFC cut all `sexualised violence` when it is known to be less harmful than violence alone?
You see those Doctors` experiments are the same ones the BBFC use in their "Media Effects" report - they`ve been disowned by the people who did the work and yet the BBFC feel quite happy to use them to support their sympathies with the Meese Commission findings.
The real criminal evidence paints a truly different picture to the one the BBFC try to conclude from it too. 60% of sex offenders were themselves abused as children. When given films of containing `sexualised violence` it was found that sex offenders can and do relieve their sexual frustration through mastrubation - so reducing the risk of committing an offence. Was Baise Moi cut for continental cinemas and video? No. Do other European States have similar rape statistics as in the UK? No. The UK has the worst record in Europe. Why? Because the BBFC and our Government choose to suppress sex and `sexualised violence`. People are not `angels`. People need sexual outlets. People have rape fantasies. People are just people not idealised robots the BBFC and the Government want us to be.
If anyone has followed my criticism of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, you will know that outlawing sexual contact between adolescents is likely to result in an increase in paedophiles. Yes, that Act will no doubt put your children at more risk of rape and murder. No one in authority will tackle the real issues and admit a sexually repressive environment, which has existed in the UK for 200 years or more, is actually the cause of these problems.
It is a sign of good leadership and honesty to admit when one is wrong. The BBFC and our Government haven`t got the balls to admit they are wrong in this instance. So poor shmoes like Braintree get prosecuted for a non-crime, selling adult videos to adults should not be illegal should it? Cutting or banning cartoons which have been part of Japan`s amazing success in cutting violent sex crime by 84% in just 10 years doesn`t make sense does it? Not if the BBFC are supposed to be `preventing any harm which may be caused`. Letting R18 through with an 18 cert. would prevent harm too. Leaving all sexual violence in tact would prevent harm too.
We are being lied to. We are being abused by those who are supposed to be looking after our interests. I`ve had enough of it and I don`t understand why anyone else in Britain doesn`t feel the same way?
Let me make it clear to all those brainwashed parents out there. If your kids knew that sex was not dirty, shameful or evil then, when `uncle Bob` sticks his finger up their arse or worse, your kids would know it was not someting they should keep a secret. If our `uncle Bob` could watch cartoons of little boys and girls having sex he might not need to stick his finger up your kids arse - he`d be too busy wanking in the safety of his own home.
Stop letting `sensibilitites` get in the way of common sense!!
--------------------
sergio [25841. Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 01:04] View Near Messages
I don`t understand the BBC. This morning they came up sharp on Ester Rancid who mentioned an injury company she works for and then in the following prog they had a massive advertisement (seemingly free) for alcoholic pear cider. WTF? sergio [25840. Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 00:35] View Near Messages
`Do DVDs have to be classified?
Yes. The Video Recordings Act requires that all elements present on a DVD (or video) must be classified. This includes not only the main feature but also any `extras`, such as trailers, deleted scenes and other special features. If a film has been classified for video release, then there is no need for the film itself to be resubmitted for DVD classification, provided that the DVD version is identical to that released on video. However, if the version of the film intended for DVD differs in any way (eg a widescreen version), then it must be resubmitted.`
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faq/index.php
Dear BBFC, please update your faq.
------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6083182/Selling-illegal-DVDs-not-illegal-because-of-blunder.html
`However, Lavinia Carey, director general of the British Video Association which represents 90 per cent of the industry, said: "All our members will be continuing to do their business as though the Act was still in force.
“They will not be taking advantage of this legal loophole. It would not be a responsible way to trade.” `
In other words, they enjoy the cartel and the position of monopoly status. Business is business.
--------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/25/prosecutions-sale-unclassified-videos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8219438.stm
Barbara Follett MP is a disgrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Follett
Barbara Follett MP is a disgrace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5297818/Barbara-Follett-Millionaire-MPs-25000-expenses-on-security-over-safety-fears.html
Barbara Follett MP is a disgrace. sergio [25827. Posted 19-Aug-2009 Wed 07:51] View Near Messages
Where does that cover come from? It has the BBFC 18 symbol but the dvd was rejected?
Also, has anyone seen the shameless dvd covers?
http://www.shameless-films.com/2007/10/14/torso-where-whores-meet-saws/
Have these been approved by the packaging whatever? You look on the back and see titties and blood ... ??? sergio [25818. Posted 17-Aug-2009 Mon 01:50] View Near Messages
Phazers on stun
http://www.art-forum.org/z_Mann/gallery.htm sergio [25797. Posted 9-Aug-2009 Sun 09:41] View Near Messages
Is Hormone a lier?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/08/statistical_gender_bending.html sergio [25792. Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 12:20] View Near Messages
IanG - has the BBFC responded to your comment?
[25789]
I`ve tried with no reponse. sergio [25781. Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 10:16] View Near Messages
BBFC cuts for July 2009
Number of items=51
No. Cuts=14
Cuts ratio=27%
Cuts of interest:
This deadly beautiful woman, Belladonna directed
COCK HAPPY #3
and had the pleasure of male violence i.e. the BBFC
Cuts were required to remove extensive sections of scenes featuring abusive or dangerous acts (asphyxia, gagging during fellatio, slapping and fish hooking) in accordance with BBFC policy, Guidelines and the Video Recordings Act 1984. A further cut was required to remove urination during masturbation, in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
sergio [25779. Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 07:32] View Near Messages
Ever noticed this before?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sir_joeking_pb/3761541648/ sergio [25778. Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 07:26] View Near Messages
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sir_joeking_pb/3791511973/ sergio [25777. Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 07:09] View Near Messages
For example, on average, women prefer:
* men who are not muscle-bound
* men with more feminine face shapes
* men with attractive faces
* images that show the subject’s character and the environment he is in.
We also know that women’s tastes vary quite a lot, and we aim to cater to that variety too.
???
How big is this `on average`? Is this just pseudo-scientific bullshit? sergio [25743. Posted 27-Jul-2009 Mon 12:35] View Near Messages
to sum up:
If people in the UK argue that people on the continent have more porn than people in the UK then that will frighten some people in the UK.
Is that your argument? sergio [25739. Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 15:21] View Near Messages
Well,if you can get `Nine Songs` down your local tesco then you can get porn everywhere here.
Phantom, where does your fear that this sentence express come from?
`What I am saying is that creating the impression that porn is everywhere on the continent, that it`s effectively next to the cheese counter, is utterly counter productive. For it plays to the very fears those who oppose liberalisation hold over here.`
What are you talking about?
The fear of porn being available everywhere? The fear that people are fucking in the streets?
That you and me will be `uncomfortable`? sergio [25734. Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 00:13] View Near Messages
Let`s talk numbers.
If porn was 50% available on `the continent` then would it be `ubiquitous`?
40%?
30%?
20%?
10%?
1%?
If every other shop had it, would it be `ubiquitous`?
Is alcohol `ubiquitous`? sergio [25731. Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 16:10] View Near Messages
`But it is simply wrong to make out, as some do, that hardcore pornography is ubiquitous on the continent. It is not.`
Define `ubiquitous`.
Are you one of those `I don`t believe in censorship ... but ...`? sergio [25726. Posted 25-Jul-2009 Sat 06:43] View Near Messages
`But if I were you, I would just give it a miss.`
That`s amazing, he `knows` who I am.
`Antichrist is a bonkers attempt to merge three extremely different genres - art-house, horror and hard-core pornography - with predictably catastrophic results.`
``Art` film director:
`Don`t tell me what my intention is``
`The sad truth is that there is nothing in Antichrist that this pathetically ineffectual organisation, funded by the film companies and seemingly unaccountable to the public, has not let through before, with an 18 certificate.`
Well, maybe the 33% of cuts at R18!
Or what about 1/12009 to jul 2009?
http://tinyurl.com/l2lt9j
There some cuts there, 13m for THE MEAT FEAST
`The film that follows is a lengthy, verbose and extremely tedious representation of two souls descending into hell. `
Maybe there wasn`t enough graphic violence and sex then. sergio [25711. Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 01:24] View Near Messages
`...Juste, who had been drinking and taking drugs...`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201646/Judge-slams-Jeremy-Kyle-exploiting-foolish-gullible-people.html sergio [25704. Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 05:24] View Near Messages
Who are these `older` children? How old is `older`? sergio [25703. Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 05:22] View Near Messages
Hollywood mainstream director:
`I didn`t intend to shock or offend`
Horror film director:
`I intended to shock and offend`
`Art` film director:
`Don`t tell me what my intention is` sergio [25698. Posted 22-Jul-2009 Wed 07:55] View Near Messages
What is domestic abuse?
http://www.scottishwomensaid.org.uk/understanding-domestic-abuse/what-is-domestic-abuse
`Domestic abuse is not an isolated incident. It is usually a pattern of controlling behaviour which gets worse over time. Controlling behaviour includes telling someone what they can do, who they can see, how they can spend their time and undermining their self-confidence and self-esteem. `
So, the Scottish Womens aid organisation practices abuse. sergio [25690. Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 11:14] View Near Messages
Are you ordering 1 or more than 1?
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageVAT_ShowContent&id=HMCE_CL_001454&propertyType=document sergio [25687. Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 10:27] View Near Messages
Thanks to Helen Gorrill
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/20/art-censorship-local-government sergio [25675. Posted 14-Jul-2009 Tue 02:17] View Near Messages
I was shocked ... at how gorgeous she was ... the shock of the gorgeous ...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/2524388/Nudes-shown-on-Channel-4-show-at-lunchtime.html
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/model-posing-nude-for-lunchtime-show-meets-with-public-disapproval_100215500.html
http://spicezee.zeenews.com/articles/story34652.htm
http://www.insnews.co.uk/faq.htm
http://www.insnews.co.uk/punteha_yazdanian.jpg
I wonder if she sold that story?
sergio [25671. Posted 12-Jul-2009 Sun 04:29] View Near Messages
The BNP leader on Andrew Marr said that his party is not fascist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
The leader suggested the idea of blowing up the ships of immigrants. To `teach them a lesson`.
I wonder how using state violence in this instance isn`t fascist.
Maybe because we throw them life rafts before they get chewed by the sharks. sergio [25667. Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 09:23] View Near Messages
I think it started with this
`The investigation into Sheppard began when a complaint about a leaflet, called "Tales of the Holohoax", was reported to police in 2004 after it was pushed through the door of a synagogue in Blackpool.`
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8144366.stm sergio [25664. Posted 11-Jul-2009 Sat 05:34] View Near Messages
I find them a bit hard to pin down. Simon Sheppard seems to be a piss taker full of pseudo scientific bullshit. A 21st century comedian or someone who`s gone to college too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sheppard_(far-right_activist)
http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/supprace.html sergio [25650. Posted 7-Jul-2009 Tue 02:22] View Near Messages
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sl-galaxy/sets/72157613990195705/
Sorry, how old was that `teenager` again? sergio [25649. Posted 7-Jul-2009 Tue 01:02] View Near Messages
Data doesn`t change perception.
Now we have the true data about the perception that immigrants don`t jump the cue, does that mean the BNP is now dead in the water?
I doubt it.
The earth still looks flat to me...
(psstt , I`ve heard from a friend who tells me that actually these immos actually jump the cue, they just bring in a crying baby and whammo! ... they gets a council house ....)
<irony mode level 2> sergio [25629. Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 03:02] View Near Messages
They cut to survive! Survival by a 1000 cuts. The 33rd cut is the deepest.
Anyway, the BBFC are still alive and cutting.
BBFC Cuts for Jun 09
Number of items=78
No. Cuts=26
Cuts ratio=33%
Cuts of interest:
MISTRESS NEMESIS
Cuts were required to remove the non safe introduction of surgical and medical tools into the male urethra and bladder; to the rectal insertion and opening up of a metal bivalve speculum and introduction of a rigid probe; and to the unsafe usage of an electrical stimulation device; in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. sergio [25625. Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 10:44] View Near Messages
Thought for the day.
`There are, in fact, two things, science and opinion;
the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.`
Quote from Hippocrates of Cos.
I read it in `Trick Or Treatment?` by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernest. sergio [25614. Posted 3-Jul-2009 Fri 07:35] View Near Messages
That`s correct, photos of handguns cause people to buy and eventually use these lethal weapons. sergio [25611. Posted 3-Jul-2009 Fri 01:23] View Near Messages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8130541.stm
What is a `loophole`?
She got off on a technicality. What `technicality`?
The technicality of the fraud law not covering lying about your address on a school application. Also, the `interpretation` of the fraud act is itself a `loophole`.
Why? Because there is no law to break.
18 cert material uses a loophole in the law to include sexually explicit material, it`s called `context` and art.
Etc, etc ...
Your homework for today:
Can you find any other `loopholes`? sergio [25601. Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 07:48] View Near Messages
I recently emailed the BBFC about some cuts at contact_the_bbfc@bbfc.co.uk
I resent the email and they still haven`t replied.
What do I do next? sergio [25586. Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 03:06] View Near Messages
To campaign.
To campaign is to make your views known.
Campaigning is political.
So, when any charity gets asked what their views are they are campaigning.
Therefore most charities are acting politically.
Campaigning is allowed for charities, not for new laws
Charities can be political if you think that expressing your views is political. They are allowed by law to express their views but not to lobby for new laws
http://www.charityfinance.co.uk/home/content.php?id=1620
`...Commission chair Dame Suzi Leather. She said: “No…you cannot have political purposes and be a charity. You can carry out campaigning activity…but it is not lawful, in our view, for charities to be set up to have political purposes.”` sergio [25578. Posted 25-Jun-2009 Thu 01:16] View Near Messages
MichaelG
you are a bit misleading, the house is managed by the council, the rent is given to you the owner and you can apply to get the house back.
`they`ll probably let it to some Afghan asylum seeker and his six kids, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`
`they`ll probably let it to some asylum seeker and his family, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`
`they`ll probably let it to someone who doesn`t deserve it and his family, paid for yet again by the taxpayer`
sergio [25574. Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 12:46] View Near Messages
Moral maze
Usual rubbish - waste of time. sergio [25569. Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 06:19] View Near Messages
`As part of the research, respondents were specifically asked about explicit images of real sex in main stream films like 9 Songs and the clear message was that these images were acceptable at ‘18’ because of the context in which they appeared.`
What context was that then? A wafer thin narrative by a ponsy `art` director?
Absolute bollocks. sergio [25567. Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 00:41] View Near Messages
I think `The Moral Maze` has a `debate` about the point of censorship in light of the passing of `Antichrist`.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qk11
Let`s see how many cliches they trot out. sergio [25530. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 14:23] View Near Messages
It`s cheeky question time!!!!
Has anyone actually every got `turned on` by your drawings
and
How do you price those large pieces of paper with spilt ink on?
I`ve worked out (using a calculator) that one of your drawings costs actually 1.4p per cm? sergio [25523. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 13:22] View Near Messages
`To tell someone their drawings are crap because they don`t know about anatomy doesn`t make sense. How don`t I know about anatomy?`
You might `know` anatomy but it doesn`t show in your drawings. Anatomy is the underlying structure of the body. It provides solidity and a foundation for the muscles, the volumes of the body. That sense of 3dness. Of course a 3min drawing will have less structure. The space is 2d.
So, your work wasn`t `censored` but rather `restricted`. Or is that the same thing? Can I suggest if you haven`t already read them to read the books by Burne Hogarth.
Why do you accept my opinion? I don`t have a degree! (I`ve got half a degree - HND computing) sergio [25520. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 13:05] View Near Messages
Is there a word for `when you start to look at something for a bit then it starts to fall apart`?
Can Helen clarify what happened to the drawings that the police said `to be careful about`?
`“The police came in and said the females were fine, but we should just be careful with the male figures.”`
Did you show the figures or not?
Was one of them titled `Would he make a good wife 1`?
`As a painter her expression is raw and controversial, enough for the university to censor her FDA Drawing degree show. It’s not the women that are the problem – it’s the men.`
What exactly did the University do? Did they pull the pics and not show them or put black bits over some bits or restricted them or what?
And stop calling me Serge!!!! sergio [25515. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 12:15] View Near Messages
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1981/cukpga_19810042_en_1
Is that the one?
Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981 sergio [25511. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 11:50] View Near Messages
`No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate`
Is calling someone ignorant any one of those things?
I called you ignorant because you didn`t know that there is an artistic defence to potential `obscenity`. Maybe I should have said what you did was ignorant and not that you are ignorant? sergio [25506. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 11:38] View Near Messages
Do you study anatomy?
You seem to be a bit fearful of `criticism`? Has no one apart from me said you anatomy is crap?
Is it just people with `degrees` who can say your work is great? sergio [25504. Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 11:19] View Near Messages
`PS Sergio. Nothing I have done is illegal. However, I think you may find that making and spreading unjustified comments about an individual is. I think it is covered under the harassment, alarm and distress act (97?)`
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment,_alarm_or_distress
I am not sure what the `Nothing I have done is illegal` refers to. Have I said you have done something illegal?
I think you can feel my comments come from this line I said
`I have to declare an interest. I`ve got an `A` level in Art (and a frustrated jealous artist?).`
But my opinion that `you can`t draw and your anatomy is crap`, is that harassment,alarm or distress?
What I said about the horse was `pretentious bollocks`. Now why did I say that?
`you will see that calling in the police was not a publicity stunt but a recommendation by the University`
In the piece
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/police_called_to_censor_cumbria_university_student_s_art_show_1_560444?referrerPath=home/cn_search_results_2_3080
`After discussing the work with the University, she decided to call in the police herself for guidance`
That doesn`t seem to be too smooth. Did the Uni tell you to call the Police?
http://www.celesteprize.com/artwork/ido:13439/#13439
`This painting raises the issue of gender and the role of women in the hierarchy of the Christian faith. My work is based on the link between religion and erotic art, Christianity`s fear of the flesh having catapulted Lust to the level of “deadly sin”. Patriarchal systems of representation in Christianity have repressed the knowledge that the Virgin Mary`s body is a sexual one, and the female body, sexuality and sexual desire are often proposed as a threat to rational, `civilised` society. This painting aims to challenge sexual repression, blasphemy and the freedom of expression.`
As I said, pretentious bollocks. And you can`t draw and your anatomy is crap.
I am not sure what you mean when you say
`If anybody knows me personally, then they have the right to say whether or not I am ignorant. And the same goes for my work, if someone has seen it in the flesh and can comment rationally...I am sure the university will decide in their assessments`
Why should I be `rational`? I`ve been seeing some pinup pulp covers by
Robert McGinnis - http://www.americanartarchives.com/mcginnis.htm.
I find his work fantastic. Gorgeous women, amazing abstract figurative elements. I react to it more emotionally than `rationally`.
Helen, do you know the work of the best photographer of `obscene` images, Robert Mapplethorpe? sergio [25497. Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 14:18] View Near Messages
17Jun09
I put comment on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/helengorrill/3621868919/
she deleted it (as is her right).
sergio [25492. Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 07:33] View Near Messages
I have to declare an interest. I`ve got an `A` level in Art (and a frustrated jealous artist?).
But the Helen Gorrill `artist` is pretty rubbish pretentious bollocks work.
If you make some really crap picture big enough then it gets better? The monumental scale makes the work. The really floppy anatomy doesn`t.
I found the ink sketches interesting. So, she nicked from fetish photography and made some rough washy designs. Interesting. But the actual pretentious verbiage that comes with it is high grade bull.
Now then, she was advised by the Police that the male studies might be considered `obscene`. The Police are experts aren`t they?
I thought there was an artistic get out clause in the obscene publications act. She`s ignorant and can`t draw very well. The lesson is that even the Police are questionable.
sergio [25479. Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 06:37] View Near Messages
`If the government insists on classification, then THEY should pay for it`
Who is this `government`? I think you mean people through taxes should pay for it. Actually, I don`t want to pay for some unelected idiots to butcher any films just because they can.
They should be elected idiots. Anyone who works at the BBFC is a certified idiot.
I think if the BBFC are idiots then the following film makers who submit to them are on the same par as the BBFC. I can`t see why anyone should pay for `extras` on a dvd track. Although you might get some libel problems I don`t think i`ve ever heard of a voice track being found `obscene` - maybe too many fucks for 15 but obscene never. They just seem to be so easy to bully about these wimpy artistes. sergio [25470. Posted 14-Jun-2009 Sun 08:22] View Near Messages
I don`t know what`s so special about the topshelf. Just because it`s higher does that stop the so called `attitudes`?
How does stopping a cover stop an `attitude`?
Shouldn`t they really be wanting the actual removal of all the mags not just `the cover`?
Aren`t they in favour of censorship for the greater good of womankind?
Half hearted, half arsed and half baked.
Yes, I`m very brave. ... gollywog!!!!! sergio [25465. Posted 14-Jun-2009 Sun 04:34] View Near Messages
What does it mean?
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Lads-mags/
That a high percentage seem to be female.
What does it mean?
Does it mean that women are concerned more than men? Why should that be?
Obviously, when women kill their unborn babies they are not objects. Obviously.
`The growing sexualisation of women and girls in the media promotes attitudes which underpin and legitimise gender inequality and violence against women by portraying women as objects and not real people.`
Hold on a minute. The media promotes attitudes, or does it just promote 1 attitude i don`t like? Is it the sexualisation or the media? Can you sexualise without having the media?
Women aren`t sexual. To sexualise them is wrong.
What?
I am going to try an experiment. I am going to sexualise frogs.
`The growing sexualisation of frogs and spawn in the media promotes attitudes which underpin and legitimise amphibian inequality and violence against frogs by portraying frogs as objects and not real animals.`
Are feminists a fascist regime?
`No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition` sergio [25461. Posted 13-Jun-2009 Sat 06:55] View Near Messages
`ANTICHRIST also contains two scenes showing violence towards genitals or genital mutilation. In one case, the man`s genitals are hit heavily (although this is not shown on screen), resulting in sight of blood in his semen when he ejaculates. In the other case, the distraught woman cuts off her own clitoris using a pair of scissors. This act of self-mutilation is shown in close up, although the image is only on screen for a few seconds. The shot in question exceeds the BBFC`s Guidelines at `15`, where `the strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable` and where `violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury`. Even at `18` the BBFC recognises that the scene will be shocking and offensive to some viewers. However, the Board is aware of no evidence to suggest that the viewing of this scene is likely to be harmful to adults. The scene is not presented in an eroticised or attractive manner and is not likely to encourage emulation or arousal. Accordingly, the scene is acceptable at `18` where, in line with the consistent findings of the BBFC`s public consultations, the BBFC`s Guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law.`
Sorry? What was that again?
Cutting your genitals is not illegal.
Sorry? What was that again?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030031_en_1
Sorry? What was that again?
I think they are a bunch of twats. Pun intended.
sergio [25384. Posted 1-Jun-2009 Mon 06:00] View Near Messages
Is sneezing obscene? sergio [25379. Posted 31-May-2009 Sun 07:32] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for May 09
Number of items=60
No. Cuts=22
Cuts ratio=36%
Seems like a big jump in cuts or have dvds entered for R18 mastication gone down? Slightly less than Dec 08 stats.
I suppose this is a gay title.
BAREBACK IN THE CITY
Cuts were required to remove a scene showing faecal matter during anal penetration, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC Policy and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act, 1959. Further cuts were required to remove scenes of gagging during deep throat fellatio in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC Policy and the Video Recordings Act, 1984.
JOBS FOR THE BOYS
Cuts were required to remove sight of vaginal penetration with a gun, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC Policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984, on grounds that a gun is an object associated with violence.
Previous Portland fines (JOBS FOR THE BOYS, I think, is by the same Portland Enterprises)
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2008/07/nr_20080723 sergio [25362. Posted 25-May-2009 Mon 01:35] View Near Messages
I am not sure what this is about
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/22/bates_hard_drives/
Do you? sergio [25361. Posted 25-May-2009 Mon 01:12] View Near Messages
Let`s make it simple.
Seditious libel is `The Queen is a pussy sucker`
compared with the Defamation `Your sister is a pussy sucker`. sergio [25359. Posted 24-May-2009 Sun 14:30] View Near Messages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
sergio [25357. Posted 24-May-2009 Sun 05:46] View Near Messages
Andy Burnpork - tax dodger
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6350561.ece sergio [25327. Posted 19-May-2009 Tue 01:26] View Near Messages
I have now got statistical evidence that it wasn`t the games that done it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8055638.stm
sergio [25318. Posted 18-May-2009 Mon 02:10] View Near Messages
Ban alcohol now
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5338548/Labour-has-fought-phoney-war-on-drugs-think-tank-claims.html sergio [25260. Posted 2-May-2009 Sat 15:36] View Near Messages
What?
`She began correspondence with six people who claimed to be women aged from 21 to 48`
What sort of bloody crap is the BBC publishing?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8022861.stm
We can`t be sure that they won`t act on their fantasies?
<that`s right - kill yourself now, just to prevent that possibility>
This isn`t in anyway `scientific`. Hearsay from some fantasists who we can`t be sure are who they say they are.
I am not denying that women don`t (you see, I can mind read). But, can`t you do any better - BBC? sergio [25259. Posted 2-May-2009 Sat 11:14] View Near Messages
How would you rate blowing someone`s brains out? Is it a 15 or an 18 or a 12a or a U or an E - exempt?
No tits but brains blown out in slow mo is ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ&feature=related
as long as we can`t see his nipples - it`s ok sergio [25258. Posted 2-May-2009 Sat 11:11] View Near Messages
R18 cuts for Apr 09
Number of items=76
No. Cuts=19
Cuts ratio=25%
Smoking and snooker at the BBFC
SEXY BITCH
Cuts were required to remove sight of vaginal penetration with cigarette holder and pool cue, on grounds of potential harm, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC Policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. sergio [25221. Posted 19-Apr-2009 Sun 08:44] View Near Messages
Has Guido Fawkes been assasinated?
www.order-order.com sergio [25207. Posted 16-Apr-2009 Thu 06:22] View Near Messages
Seems to be `Vauro Senesi` not `Vauro Senese`
sergio [25172. Posted 7-Apr-2009 Tue 05:09] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for March 2009
Number of items=101
No. Cuts=27
Cuts ratio=26
MACHINE FUCKERS 01
Cuts were required to remove all sight of power tools and kitchen objects like knives being used in sexual scenarios. These were in keeping with BBFC policy, Guidelines and the Video Recordings Act 1984.
As an aside - I don`t understand how this works -REAL PUNTING - GENUINE ESCORTS ON THE JOB! 4
So, it`s okay to film prostitutes (or are they?) who are filmed getting paid to have sex on camera but it`s not illegal to solicit? sergio [25118. Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 02:46] View Near Messages
Is it normal to have 4 naked men play with their balls in front of children?
I don`t understand it, why were the men filmed then projected?
`Real people` are filmed then projected?
The prog seemed to say porn=no hair. No hair makes misperception of penis size. But then there were massive close-ups of the men playing with their dicks and balls. Previously there were massive close-ups of massive `vulvas`.
What is that supposed to mean?
Somehow `porn` causes misperception?
Why isn`t it a closeup of something causes misperception?
Porn has closeups and so do other things. sergio [25107. Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 02:28] View Near Messages
Sometimes I feel like I am in a room and there are 4 people with baseball bats hitting me over the head - bang!
HELP PROTECT CHILD BY STOPPING PORN
- bang!
`porn makes girls shave their pussies` - bang!
`don`t shave for your man, shave for yourself` - bang!
Is this `sex education` or a government broadcast by the feminist party?
- bang!
Actually Anna Richardson has got previous form.
She`s a right comedian, and a piece of scum. sergio [25065. Posted 24-Mar-2009 Tue 03:28] View Near Messages
Is Melonfarmers an extremist website?
Extremist is anything that challenges the British way of life - according to the government. sergio [25027. Posted 17-Mar-2009 Tue 15:31] View Near Messages
Life is funny
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
sergio [24998. Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 15:09] View Near Messages
You ever heard a duckling speak english? sergio [24993. Posted 11-Mar-2009 Wed 04:17] View Near Messages
[24991]
Everything is green
Everything can be evaluated as having a percentage of greenness. You might not think that white is green but it is.
Everything can be seen to have a percentage of greenness, from 0 - 100% green.
But I don`t want to see everything in green terms?
What`s wrong with seeing everything in `sexual terms`?
`It is the rape of innocence` - what?
I would give Huey, Dewey, and Louie a greenness rating of 30%. sergio [24962. Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 02:12] View Near Messages
Don`t look to bad for a 58 year old.
What do people think of Hormone`s bit ...
`She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves`
?
As a side note I was reading
http://xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/library/57/IPT.htm
sergio [24946. Posted 8-Mar-2009 Sun 04:17] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts for Feb 2009
Number of items= 59
No. Cuts=16
Cuts ratio=27%
MISTRESS DOMETRIAS` BRIGHTON DUNGEON
Cuts were required to remove potentially harmful, potentially obscene, and abusive elements from an R18 BDSM work (in this instance, use of wax on genitals, wounding of genitals, asphyxiative practices, a rape reference and gagging during fellatio). Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines and policy, the Video Recordings Act 1984, and current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
sergio [24907. Posted 1-Mar-2009 Sun 10:52] View Near Messages
We (the government) think what you did is immoral.
We (the government) will get our lawyers to stop what you lawfully did.
I am not sure what you call that. Is that bullying? sergio [24888. Posted 26-Feb-2009 Thu 13:34] View Near Messages
re: Mac
`Can I just start by saying I am on the whole in agreement with you and your anti-censorship stance.`
bollocks and you know it
`...I was overjoyed to see he has gone to jail as after seeing him and his attitude in the Channel 4 documentary...`
He didn`t go to jail for his `attitude`.
sergio [24871. Posted 23-Feb-2009 Mon 12:38] View Near Messages
Examiners say films that are refused an R18 certificate often include scenes that many find disturbing, including sadomasochism and sexual violence. Some are concerned that viewing pornographic content alone will increase the chances of being sexually aroused by the material.
Pathetic. sergio [24697. Posted 9-Feb-2009 Mon 05:47] View Near Messages
...Cuts were also required to remove images which may encourage an interest in underage sexual activity, on grounds of harm,...`
What does `may encourage an interest in underage sexual activity` mean? sergio [24689. Posted 8-Feb-2009 Sun 08:17] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts - Jan 2009
Number of items= 62
No. Cuts=12
Cuts ratio=19%
RINGETSU - THE ANIMATION - VOLUME 3
Cuts were required to remove sexual activity between immediate family members, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC policy, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Cuts were also required to remove images which may encourage an interest in underage sexual activity, on grounds of harm, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, BBFC policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Cut to sight of menstrual blood during sexual activity was also required, on grounds of obscenity, in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
http://www.tower.com/ringetsu-vol-3-milky-dvd/wapi/107057574
It`s not a family, and it doesn`t have members. There is no blood.
This is not a pipe.
That cps advice is just that, advice. A load of bollocks in my humble opinion. Isn`t R18 actually not a defence? There was a cut by the BBFC for anal sex with a mobile phone due to `potential harm` but that cps advice
`An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breast or genitals; this could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals. The words serious injury are not defined in the Act and would take their ordinary dictionary meaning and be a question of fact for the District Judge or jury.`
seems to be let the judge decide, the BBFC seems to be `the judge`?
Bollocks , I tell you, bollocks. sergio [24637. Posted 4-Feb-2009 Wed 02:08] View Near Messages
Mark Stephens
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7868401.stm
At 1:27
`...for most people, that kind of language, if indeed she used the epiphet, err, we`ve been talking about, namely `gollywog` was used, then it`s unacceptable as a joke or any other context, for that reason I think the BBC took action which was well within its power...`
Is he saying `Gollywog` is unnacceptable in any context? Even this? What about his context? sergio [24628. Posted 3-Feb-2009 Tue 09:03] View Near Messages
Stupidy and ignorance
`I have no idea what the law is so am just playing safe. I removed any pictures showing bruising or cane marks. Actually, there were only a few on Spankeefinder anyway. I am just guessing that a rosy bottom is fine. I suspect we will not know until there are some prosecutions and a case law will develop. I just would rather not be part of that process.`
from spankeefinder.org sergio [24621. Posted 3-Feb-2009 Tue 04:42] View Near Messages
It`s nothing to do with paranoia. I think it`s to do with stupidity.
What the hell is `more than a rosy bottom`? A green bottom?
The courts are the final arbiters not some fantasy. sergio [24530. Posted 27-Jan-2009 Tue 12:18] View Near Messages
I stand behind the decision of the BBC to not capitulate to political forces in their upholding of the principle of `objectivity and balance` in respect of `the Gaza appeal` but they previously made this piece of rubbish
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00glc5z/Online_Damage_Porn_in_the_21st_Century/
Which I didn`t find either `objective` or `balanced`.
`Penny Marshall examines the effects of the rapid expansion of online pornography on UK society.`
Funny how it seems to be in the `Factual` category, when the `facts` seem to be more `opinion`. sergio [24457. Posted 23-Jan-2009 Fri 07:19] View Near Messages
`A radio play contains disturbing images`
23Jan09 Radio 4 14:15 --- Radio play -` A Prayer for Owen Meany`
Interesting use of the word `image`.
I have an image inside my mind. Can you see it? sergio [24453. Posted 22-Jan-2009 Thu 03:50] View Near Messages
`Anyone has the right to criticise any religion in any way.`
I think you are exaggerating or are you?
E.g. all muslims are paedophiles etc ... sergio [24394. Posted 16-Jan-2009 Fri 02:27] View Near Messages
What does it all mean?
`(5) “Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6) Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
40 (a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child,
or (b) the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.`
Does that mean 18 yr olds in `school uniform` will be prohibited? Because they don`t have big boobs? sergio [24374. Posted 15-Jan-2009 Thu 02:01] View Near Messages
Do you think Penny Marshall is the new Mary Whitehouse? sergio [24333. Posted 9-Jan-2009 Fri 03:11] View Near Messages
Radio 4
13:30–14:00
More or Less
09/01/2009
I think repeated 11 Jan 2009 at 20:00
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/
I think I heard it was going to discuss the 80% trafficked prostitute stats
sergio [24328. Posted 8-Jan-2009 Thu 15:53] View Near Messages
`Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,`
excretory functions[2] -
^ The syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion
So pissing is possibly obscene in the US?
I`m not too sure if the Max case was about scat, was it? sergio [24302. Posted 5-Jan-2009 Mon 10:20] View Near Messages
BBFC R18 cuts -for the month of Dec 08
Number of items= 37
No. Cuts=14
Cuts ratio=38%
Cuts of interest
ROGUE #32
Several compulsory cuts for R18 required to remove sight of potentially harmful breath restriction during sexual activity, verbal threats, a reference encouraging an interest in underage sexual activity, and violence during sexual activity (aggressive slapping) in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, Policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984. Cuts also required to remove sight of urolagnia (urination during sexual activity) and liquid that was not semen or lubricant liquid exiting the rectum and subsequently coming into contact with another person or being drunk, in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
GIRL ON GIRL SPANKING SPECIAL NUMBER 2
Cuts required to remove dialogue references to familial relationships in a strong fetish scenario which have the potential to encourage an interest in abusive relationships. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC policy and Guidelines, and in line with the Video Recordings Act 1984.
(but I thought it was all `abusive` action (note speech marks) )
sergio [24287. Posted 4-Jan-2009 Sun 09:56] View Near Messages
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/12/30/once-again-websites-not-liable-for-user-stupidity
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081230/1919113260.shtml
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/12/doe_v_sexsearch.htm
sergio [24264. Posted 3-Jan-2009 Sat 04:58] View Near Messages
NCIS showed a `cadaver` of a `male` who had his front chest open with `the guts` and stuff showing. An officer was seen manipulating the innards. The camera pans over `the cadavers` legs and shows? No genitals? It`s okay to show gross out inner intestine blood stuff but external sexual genitals is not okay.
Films & FILMING MARIANNE MORRIS on Cover Jun 1976
http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53481-19255-0/1?type=2&campid=5335983164&toolid=10001&customid=&ext=360114160518&item=360114160518
Is it extreme pornography? sergio [24215. Posted 27-Dec-2008 Sat 04:29] View Near Messages
`You can still view content on the internet which I would say is unacceptable. You can view a beheading," he said. `
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7800846.stm
Let`s have a look now, films with beheading ... ok, what about
Fahrenheit 9/11
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/
didn`t that have a beheading ?
http://bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/F68FF3AA8CFF0D1880256EEE001B6AA4?OpenDocument
Rated 15
Ok, what about EXECUTIONS
http://bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/1AC2824A8973BA688025660B00161C92?OpenDocument
didn`t that have images of beheadings?
sergio [24211. Posted 26-Dec-2008 Fri 04:11] View Near Messages
Coming up
Hippie Hippie Shake
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024652/
An account of counterculturalist Richard Neville`s misadventures in London at the end of the 1960s
Animal sex
http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/rupage.html
b/w comic section I think is in `The Erotic Arts` by Peter Webb sergio [24201. Posted 24-Dec-2008 Wed 08:27] View Near Messages
Idiot - you still talking rubbish
Merry Christmas sergio [24192. Posted 23-Dec-2008 Tue 15:43] View Near Messages
I.D.I.O.T you`re an idiot sergio [24179. Posted 23-Dec-2008 Tue 06:45] View Near Messages
`homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are`
Christianity is not sinful, christian acts are. sergio [24152. Posted 19-Dec-2008 Fri 16:23] View Near Messages
`for or in the expectation of gain`
What`s the difference?
For the expectation of gain.
In the expectation of gain.
What`s the difference? For/in? sergio [24121. Posted 19-Dec-2008 Fri 04:41] View Near Messages
`MEP Maria Martens was pleased by the decision not to show Fitna in the EP. The film has nothing to do with freedom of expression. This freedom does not give the right to offend`
Where do we get these people from?
Article 10: Freedom of Expression
(1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
sergio [24094. Posted 17-Dec-2008 Wed 08:23] View Near Messages
What is this `intention` thingy?
(thinks: `I didn`t intend to smack you in the mouth but I smacked you in the mouth, my arm slipped. Bang, bang, - oops sorry, I didn`t intend to smack you in the face but due to my neurological condition my arm keeps slipping and smacking people in the face` OK, you say, I will try to keep out of the way of your arm`)
By showing people not explode in Kensington gore then I am not glamourising violence? (no, it`s is not my intention, I intend to get a 12 cert so less jam)
`They said there had been no intention to offend or to glamorise violence or to suggest it was morally acceptable to kill people` sergio [24063. Posted 13-Dec-2008 Sat 16:44] View Near Messages
What sort of a stupid remark was that? sergio [24059. Posted 13-Dec-2008 Sat 11:18] View Near Messages
Who/which ISP is not an IWF member/affiliate? sergio [24032. Posted 12-Dec-2008 Fri 01:41] View Near Messages
But genitals aren`t the issue
[23970]
` spoonbender [23970. Posted 9-Dec-2008 Tue 05:07]
sergio [23966]
As a side issue - say someone has a `child porn` image and they blurr the genitals - is that still `child porn`?
The answer is yes. It is the pose rather than the explicit display of genitalia. In the US they`ve gone even further and classified images of fully clothed children as child porn if the pudenda, mouth, hands or buttocks are prominently displayed (ie in tight clothing or displaying provocative facial/hand expressions).`
If the genitals had a black bar and/or the breasts had a black bar then
the image would still be `indecent`?
If you just show the head of an indecent pose is it still `indecent`?
sergio [24027. Posted 11-Dec-2008 Thu 12:01] View Near Messages
`The IWF is saying that in their opinion the image could possibly contravene the PCA if anyone in the UK possesses or downloads it. The location of the site it was downloaded from is not relevant to that.`
I thought it was - the location is relevant, IWF say they only block if the host is in the UK, or rather block then take down notice. sergio [24016. Posted 11-Dec-2008 Thu 02:18] View Near Messages
It`s a bit like the human trafficing, I think an MP/serious bloke said it was difficult to prosecute for that so they use the easier new sexual offences. And they need clearer figures, but Hateman says it`s totally obvious. The police aren`t clear or think it`s lower priority but Ms allsex is prostitution thinks it`s totally in your face and down your street.
Strange IWF, they block stuff that is hosted here if potentially `child porn` and reported , what sort of logic is that? Who cares where it`s hosted?
|
