See also Religious Watch Forum

IanG    [27127.   Posted 13-Aug-2010 Fri 08:39] View Near Messages
Harvey, I`m sure you`re right but I do know I heard (in the TV documentary about the subject) that the ECHR or ECJ ordered the UK to change its legal aid policies when McD brought its entire corporate might against two UK citizens who were simply publicising the TRUTH about McD`s products.

------

While I`m here, I thought you good folks might like to read this (as succinct as I can make it) argument against OFCOM`s illegal activities.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=594135#pid594135

IanG    [27124.   Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 08:00] View Near Messages
Harvey, I thought following the McD libel case that the ECHR had ruled the UK MUST provide Legal Aid in civil cases?

IanG    [27121.   Posted 11-Aug-2010 Wed 06:19] View Near Messages
phantom, "That a current standard of `public decency` can be obtained by a poll of 12 is statistically questionable at best."

Now, now, phantom, I`m sure you know far better than to question the justice system in this manner. After all, these 12 good citizens are symbolic of the 12 Apostles chosen by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are believed to be duly guided by the Lord God Almighty to reach the correct verdict according to `His` will via their conscience.

The authority to hand out justice in the Royal Courts of Justice is derived from God through `His` representative on Earth, the Crown of England, Defender of the Faith, HRH Queen Elizabeth II.

Of course, this entire system of divine justice pays little respect to Article 9 of the HRA 1998, as beliefs alone are not supposed to be allowed to impede, restrict or otherwise affect the rights and freedoms of other human beings. This inherant injustice is only compounded by legislation that creates supposed `offences` out of unproven and deranged beliefs that assume possession of so-called `extreme images` can provoke extreme or dangerous behaviour.

However, whatever the shortcomings of the justice system, 12 independant members of the general public are probably far better placed to assess and represent matters of `public decency` than the 7 biased, bigoted and misguided twats, namely:

Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam(Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor

that are the OFCOM Content Board, lord and masters of all that we are allowed to see and hear in the broadcast media.

As for matters of logic or, indeed, interpretation of legislation, the OFCOM Content Board appear to have abandoned all logical conclusions made by reasonable people as confirmed in legal precedents and elevated themselves far above the law we must all obey. They see fit to restate legislation intended to guide them in creating their Standards Code (section 319(2)&(4) of the Comms Act 2003), in their pathetic excuse for that supposed Standards Code. They even dare to publish so-called `guidance` that displays their inherant prejudice that should, and indeed must, fall foul of every principle of due impartiality (see section 1.18 of their stakeholder guidance) and fitness to stand in judgement.

IanG    [27104.   Posted 8-Aug-2010 Sun 10:59] View Near Messages
Typical brainwashed British nutters.

"That this House deplores the easy access children have to pornography by means of satellite and cable television; and calls on Ofcom, the appropriate regulator, to amend its broadcasting code in order to ensure that access to pornographic material is only available via a secure authentication system."

Upon WHAT EVIDENCE, other than their own discriminatory, backward, puritanical religious claptrap, do these `representatives` of the masses base their deplorable feelings?

Clearly, these wankstains haven`t bothered trying to watch `pornography` on UK TV because, if they had, they`d have discovered OFCOM have done a pretty good job of denying ADULTS access proper porn on TV let alone, allow "easy access" to children.

WHEN WILL THE FUCKING TOSSERS SUPPOSEDLY RUNNING THIS CUNTRY GROW UP?

IanG    [27097.   Posted 6-Aug-2010 Fri 04:57] View Near Messages
Protection from Nutters...

What`s all this supposed invasion of privacy bull for `adult` actors/workers? If you`re tested colour blind then you`re not allowed to fly commercial aircraft. If you fail a medical check-up then you`re often banned from driving buses, HGVs, trains, planes and automobiles, you`re often barred from operating machinery and/or excluded from pension schemes, health insurance schemes and so forth.

So what`s the supposed difference when it comes to folks working in the `adult` industry? If you test HIV +ve and your bodily fluids are dangerous to those you work with then, I think, your boss and your collegues deserve to know the truth. And if that means you`re not fit for that type of work then so be it. It is after all the safest course of action for all those involved.

In work and business, health and safety issues trump privacy every time - and AFAIK they always have.

IanG    [27096.   Posted 5-Aug-2010 Thu 06:17] View Near Messages
ASA re ClubOops poster: "We concluded that the image was likely to cause serious or widespread offence and concluded it was unsuitable for public display."

This `conclusion` is based on one complaint from one complainant after a year on display...

Methinks the ASA is full of shit. Of course, this ASA `conclusion` would perhaps be true if this were a religiously corrupted, sexually repressed and backward shithole...as the ASA obviously seem to believe it is. However, to conclude an ad would cause "widespread offence" and is somehow "unsuitable for public display" after its been on display for a year and attracted only ONE complaint in all that time can in no way lead to, substantiate or support the ASA`s, quite irrational, `conclusion`.

This is biased bullshit coming from the minds of the biased bullshitters. The ASA are clearly not fit to judge. There`s not one shred of rationality in their `thinking`. Not one shred of evidence to support their view.

`Offence` is not grounds to censure ANY material under the terms of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This poster is clearly not a threat to national security; it is not libelous or slanderous; nor is it potentially harmful. A drawing of a partial female figure removing underwear is not physically, psychologically or morally harmful, indeed, I`d bet 99.99% of females remove their undewear in a similar fashion everyday without causing any harm to any on-lookers of any age.

Why I wonder do the ASA believe their Code can be implemented in a way which is compatible with the HRA when the HRA doesn`t allow mere `offence` caused to some cretinous and/or deranged twat to justify censorship? Subjective opinions DO NOT constitute proof of harm. One complaint after a year on display doesn`t tend to suggest there`s any major widespread concern or widespread offence even to these backward, sheltered, inhuman wankstains, that wish to cause widespread retardation of our social progress.

These complainants and the ASA are clearly offended by the mere hint of nudity and/or human sexuality. Why such views exist or, indeed, have any weight or place in 21st century Britain beggars belief. Of course, criminals and religiously deluded fascists alike don`t give a flying fuck what the law says about people`s right and liberties...do they?

IanG    [27079.   Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 04:24] View Near Messages
"But Ofcom ruled that the programme did not contain any alternative views. It said: Presenters or interviewers must ensure they are articulating alternative views in a duly objective manner or putting them to interviewees in a manner that achieves due impartiality.

It said: In summary ... we considered the broadcaster did not provide sufficient evidence of alternative views within the programme. Overall the programme gave a one-sided view on this matter of political controversy. Furthermore and importantly, the broadcaster did not provide any evidence of alternative views on this issue in a series of programmes taken as a whole."

A case of Pot n Kettle.

Where`s Ofcom`s EVIDENCE to support their discriminatory CENSORSHIP of `adult` entertainment?

How come EVERY complaint of supposed `offence` felt by childish fuckwits viewing specialist niche channels gets Ofcom`s unmitigated support whilst the ALTERNATE views of the VAST 75% majority of this country go totally unheeded by lord god twat Ofcom?

According to MY RESEARCH of actual VIEWERS` opinions, Ofcom`s claims that programmes "likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience" are totally UNTRUE, BIASED, BIGOTED LIES.

These are the names of the bigoted, clairvoyant LIARS that make up Ofcom`s Content Board:

Richard Ayre
Chris Banatvala
Anthony Lilley
Millie Banerjee (Board member)
Tim Gardam (Board member)
Philip Graf CBE (Deputy Chairman to the Ofcom Board, Chairman to the Ofcom Content Board and Chairman to the Radio Licensing Committee)
Dr Paul Moore
Joyce Taylor

IanG    [27071.   Posted 30-Jul-2010 Fri 04:05] View Near Messages
SasaMisa, sorry to hear you`ve been ill. I hope all is under control now.

I also hope that any repressive legislation not clearly supported by hard evidence; not widely accepted as an absolute necessity in any rational liberal democracy; and blatantly discriminating against people on the grounds of their inherant sexuality and choice of pornographic enjoyment but, who`ve done nothing to threaten or endanger the wellbeing of others; will all be thrown in the bin as the rights abusing and politically devisive trash it truly is.

First they came for the perverts...and we ALL cried FOUL!

The political will appears to be there to put right what Nasty Labour have done to undermine and destroy our rights and liberties.

My major criticism of the Tories at the time of the DPA was that they abstained from voting...so allowing a CERTAIN victory for NL and the religiously corrupted forces of descriminatory evil pervading that party and their self-righteous legislation.

There`s always the invasion of privacy issue to attack this type of legislation too. The OPA was based on people publishing nasty works and pictures - in going public the possessor/author/publisher opened themselves up to public scrutiny. Not so with plod rifling through your computer disk, browsing history, bookshelves, scrapbooks and work trying to find supposed `evidence` of `illegal` pictures.

I`ve said many times that I don`t care about people wanking off to `outrageous` pornographic images like, for instance, drawings of supposed under 18-looking cartoon characters fucking cartoon horses. If there`s the remotest chance looking at such images prevents them raping or murdering a child victim..."if it saves one life"...then it`s clearly something society should be willing to accept and protect lest we create an environment that is more harmful and dangerous via our misguided ignorance. This is New Labour in a nutshell - religiously inspired anti-porn terrorists and human rights abusers - they don`t care if their beliefs are correct, they simply assume they magically `know better` than the rest of the free world and deny the existence of the evidence that proves their beliefs WRONG.

IanG    [27067.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 07:22] View Near Messages
Ofcom committing serious fraud: http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=17619&pid=582566#pid582566

IanG    [27066.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 07:17] View Near Messages
phantom, goods points as ever.

If it is indeed necessary to state when an image has been touched-up then, surely, it should be necessary to stamp `This face is not real` across the forehead of every woman wearing foundation, rouge, eyeshadow, lipstick, mascara, eyebrow pencil and/or those using nip-tuck surgery, botox, collagen injections, silicon implants etc. etc. etc.? Or doesn`t the use of such enhancement techniques and/or concealment of defects create the sort of impressions/images that count toward the `degradation` of, and supposed `harm` to, women?

As far as I know, people have been inventing and reinventing the beauty `ideal` since the Ancient Egyptians first highlighted their eyes and braided their hair if, indeed, the practice hasn`t been on-going since Homo Sapiens evolved over 250,000 years ago...?!

Michalangelo`s David is a good example of how human beings simply don`t conform to the aesthetic `ideal` most moronic fucks `believe` people `should` look like.

We`re designed to survive in a harsh and wild world, not to look pretty on the front of fake beauty magazines. That`s the truth of it. And as ever, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the tip of a virtual airbrush or glossy ad.

We should probably ban ALL cosmetics and supposed anti-aging products - if indeed, the fake face of beauty is so damaging to the physical, psychological and moral wellbeing, and/or social standing, of impressionable females.

Of course, real men and real women don`t give a flying fuck what happens to the shallow and weak-willed. FUCK `EM ALL I say. If they`re not smart enough to know shit from shinenola then the human race, indeed, the entire WORLD probably doesn`t need them, their surgeons, their chemicals and face paint.

On a similar note - did anyone see the suntan lotion that`s being advertised with "7 out of 10 women say they envy friends that tan easily"? Envy is now a blatant ad man`s tool - not that `keeping up appearances` or `being one step ahead` hasn`t always been in their bag of tricks...

IanG    [27064.   Posted 29-Jul-2010 Thu 06:11] View Near Messages
"We considered that the image and text were likely to be seen to objectify and degrade women by linking their physical attributes to the advertiser`s door and window products, and concluded that the image, in an untargeted medium where it could be seen by a general audience, and which bore no relevance to the advertised products, had the potential to cause serious offence to some consumers."

Whatever happened to NO INTERFERENCE as GUARANTEED BY LAW?

Fuck the easily offended. They stifle progress, freedom and creativity. They are backward, mindless, idiots, who deserve no special treatment save perhaps for the psychiatric kind.

IanG    [27056.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 07:20] View Near Messages
Pathetic!

"Jeremy Hunt

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Our real concern on this side of the House is about the sexualisation of young people in particular; we take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television. I do not want to pretend that there is an easy answer, because traditional linear viewing, which allowed the watershed, made it possible to be much more definite about what would be seen by children and what would be seen by adults. To answer the hon. Gentleman`s question directly, we have no plans to relax any of the taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts."

What EXACTLY is `the sexualisation of young people`? And what evidence is there that this is something that MUST be prevented or indeed, is caused by the media and thus can be prevented via censorship of the media? Or is this perhaps just more mythological claptrap and spin designed to ensure minority `religious values` can be imposed upon the majority of non-religious citizens in direct violation of human rights?

I don`t think `traditional linear viewing` has existed since the mass take-up of the home VCR, has it Mr Hunt? For more than a decade I`ve been using my VCR to allow me to view late night `adult` TV at a more respectable and reasonable time.

And do I detect a hint that `taste and decency regulations on terrestrial broadcasts` don`t, won`t or shouldn`t apply to non-terrestrial broadcasts? I`m sure the Comms Act states the measure should be for `harm and offence` rather than `taste and decency`, although as many have realised, if `harm and offence` is misinterpreted to mean `harm and/or offence` then, `offence` alone serves to censure TV on grounds of puerile, rights-abusing ideas of `taste and decency`.

And if it is really so that you "take a liberal view of adults` ability to make decisions about what they see on television", why doesn`t Ofcom allow adults to view what adults, like many here, really want to view on TV?

In all I see nowt but the usual double-speak typical of religiously corrupted British governments and the double-standards their quangos, like Ofcom and the BBFC before them, have been allowed to implement without any proper legal oversight and consideration for our legally enshrined rights and freedoms.

IanG    [27055.   Posted 27-Jul-2010 Tue 05:18] View Near Messages
Harvey/pbr, he didn`t `just` commit rape after viewing this `violent porn`...according to the police and his computer history he also viewed the material again immediately after the rape - i.e. it seems committing actual rape itself wasn`t as good as the `real`, (no doubt poorly) acted and idealised pornographic rape fantasy material.

The bloke is obviously fixated with the idealised rape porn fantasy. We don`t know how long he`s been viewing such material but, it seems he eventually thought trying it for real himself might satiate his obviously inherant need for sexual domination of a victim.

I think we`re all pretty tired of hearing the same old "porn made him do it" bullshit. Porn cannot turn ordinary folks into psychotic loonies. You have to be a psychotic loon to allow (i.e. WANT) any entertainment media to convince yourself "this is what I want to do" before enacting the scenarios on real victims. It`s a pathology - a mental illness - inherant in this man. I`ve watched loads of rape fantasies over the years and never once have I thought `this is real` and `this is something I want to do` or, indeed, ever wanted to do to anyone irrespective of viewing such sexually `violent` porn.

We need only dig up the `violent porn` research from the 1980s and the BBFC`s own `Media Effects` report, to convince EVERYONE that any supposed causal relationship between porn use/users and sexual assault is NON-EXISTENT. Indeed, WE ALL KNOW the opposite effect is the rule and, that this man is the exception that PROVES the rule.

Anyone who is not distressed at the sight of any type of real violence (sexual or not) is clearly not empathising with the victim. An inability to empathise with others is a clear sign (if not the definition) of psychopathy and sociopathic tendancies. Being able to distinguish real violence from fake movie violence is also key to determining if one is sane or not. We can all enjoy the fake violence of Tom and Jerry, we can all thrill at the Swartzenegger slaughter fests, BECAUSE we know no one is really being harmed. ALL the `rape porn` I`ve ever seen is all clearly fake and, quite honestly, it leaves me cold, like fake orgasms in consensual porn (or the bedroom!).

We know the moralising fuckwits are just that - mindless aresholes that need to good kick in the reason department. They`re the ones that allowed the creation of porn in the first instance - indeed, they gave it its name, defined it, created a market for it and have cried and moaned about it ever since. It`s a lesson in evolution and environmental pressures...but that`s another story. No prohibition in the entire history of mankind has EVER resulted in anything BUT the OPPOSITE of what it was believed it would deliver/cure/fix/resolve. Morons rule the world and the rest of us just have to muddle on the best we can.

There are no quick fixes - there are NO FIXES full stop. We`re not born equal, we`re all unique because Nature is still fucking about trying to find the next best thing to exploit the shite we allow ourselves to believe is `right` for `our` society. Of course, the more restrictive we allow our society to become the more extreme the solutions to bypass those restrictions become - that`s life, evolution itself, in action.

SHIT HAPPENS and there`s fuck all we can or should do to stop it - end of.

The PROOF is that people were being violently raped and abused many thousands of years before violent porn existed and, this trend/trait has actually DECLINED or at least CEASED INCREASING as porn has become more widely available. That`s the rule and, this man is clearly one of Nature`s exceptions.

IanG    [27051.   Posted 25-Jul-2010 Sun 06:59] View Near Messages
I was just responding to a post over at Babeshows forum and it dawned on me that the only place `pornography` is named as a possible risk to minors is in the TVWF Directive. As I`m sure we`re all aware, Ofcom stated on several occasions that they had no evidence or reason to believe they could ban or unnecessairly restrict access to R18-type porn under the terms of the TVWF Directive. However, in a leap of irrationality, immediately after making these `porn is safe` declarations, Ofcom then proceeded to apply the TVWF definitions of `potentially dangerous material` (i.e. porn and gratuitous violence) to the Comms Act requirement to protect the `under eighteens` and other `vulnerable people` and instigated their illegal ban of R18-type material.

(see 1st Aug 2006 entry here : http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arow06.htm)

Cherry picking censors is what Ofcom are. Liars and cheats is what I`ve always said they were. Untrustworthy, duplicitous, hypocritical lying bastards is what they`ve proven themselves to be over the past five years.

IanG    [27044.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 08:07] View Near Messages
rainman, long time indeed! I think you missed the trick re adult channels...your TV subscription gets you `free` access the real stuff on their respective websites. Oh but of course, Ofcom don`t allow them to tell you that...! What`s that bit about "no interference"...?

Now, of course, unless your PC is totally secure, your kids could be accessing everything Ofcom claim to be protecting them from on TV via the net (like kids aren`t already able to access heaps of truly free porn anyway...).

Ofcom`s `rules` have made the whole situtation far less secure than it ever was. And the whole "PIN isn`t secure" argument is tosh anyway.

Can a child actually access PPV channels without a parent/guardian noticing a porn channel charge appearing on their their bill? Anyone remember Mr Jacqui Smith deciding to ask the taxpayer to pay his TV porn expenses for instance...?

And aren`t parents actually going to be at home and able to supervise their children`s viewing if `adult` material is not broadcast before 10pm? The watershed has functioned correctly for over 40 years. Ofcom seem to be under the impression that no one at all is at home supervising children when `adult` material is being broadcast. And let`s not pull any punches - if R18 is not suitable for kids then the `tellycore` near-R18 stuff on TV isn`t either, yet Ofcom`s `research` claims 50% of kids KNOW the PIN and KNOW how to access this 18+ `adult sex material`.

Ofcom are a very, very bad joke. They`re clearly insane. They`re clearly biased. They`re clearly unfit to regulate anything.

IanG    [27042.   Posted 23-Jul-2010 Fri 06:38] View Near Messages
malcom, indeed, if porn and sexually explicit material of any kind were dangerous to children then, as many here have stated for many years, the evidence of this harm would/should by now be incontrovertable and overwhelming - SO WHERE IS IT?

HOW could the High Court rule, based on the available evidence from over 30 child wellfare experts around the world, that risk of harm to children from R18-type porn is insignificant if Ofcom`s, the government`s or the chruch`s BASELESS BELIEFS about its supposed effects are even remotely correct?

For more than 40 years the rest of the free world has managed to watch and broadcast porn without any major concern over the safety of kids BECAUSE there`s no evidence of it causing harm to kids.

The pathetic, illegal, unfounded bullshit used to impose rights-abusing censorship in this country is utterly sickening. IT IS TIME IT CEASED. IT IS LONG PAST ITS CREDIBILITY. IT IS NOW HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE OF THE FIRST ORDER...AND ALL BALTANTLY AND PROVEABLY SO.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

IanG    [27040.   Posted 22-Jul-2010 Thu 10:33] View Near Messages
simcha, surely you know the difference between sexually explicit material for the puposes of sex education and sexually explicit material for the purposes of sexual arousal? Perhaps not though? I think you`d better ask Ofcom for a full explanation.

You see ACCORDING TO OFCOM (see clause 1.18 of their stakeholder section 1 guidance) showing offensive vaginas on screen for educational purposes is "justified by the context", whereas, showing offensive vaginas on screen that might make blokes horny will NEVER be "justified by the context".

Vaginas are offensive aren`t they? If not then I reckon Ofcom are for the high jump (and may be soon...).

It`s a little thing called DISCRIMINATION on the grounds of SEXUALITY and, ITS ILLEGAL. But Ofcom, the courts, the police and the Government don`t seem to give a flying fuck about it.

HELP! I`m being oppressed, marginalised and discriminated against because I happen to like consensual adult porn and I don`t find vaginas, bums, tits, cocks, fucking, sucking and squirting (or anything else) offensive in ANY context. But then I`m a liberal minded sort of chap not a religiously corrupted freak with a huge chip on my sholder.

FUCK OFF OFCOM, YOUR TIME IS ALMOST UP!

IanG    [27030.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 09:02] View Near Messages
"Jackie Hill, who runs the Limelite Costume Shop on the other side of where the sex shop would be, said she intends to start a petition against the application: You don`t need it shoved in your face. You can get everything you want online if you really want it and it`s the clients that are going to be using the shop that really worry me."

Well, Jackie, its people like YOU that REALLY worry me! You judgeMENTAL twat.

What of ALL the other people YOU don`t see who "get everything online"? Do they worry you too dear Jackie?

I suggest you PUT BRAIN IN GEAR, OPEN GOB and SHUT IT AGAIN RAPIDLY. MORON!

IanG    [27018.   Posted 15-Jul-2010 Thu 23:47] View Near Messages
Dave, this Gaunt case is clearly fucked-up. Sir Anthony appears to be quoting Ofcom`s Code when offering his pathetic opinion. He`s not applying or reading the law and assessing if Ofcom`s Code does what Ofcom are required to do by law.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act 2003 requires Ofcom as part of their Standards Obecjives to "ensure generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of TV and radio services to provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion in those services of offensive and harmful material".

Clearly, the host/presenter/guest is not responsible for what is broadcast by the licensee. The generally accepted standard means of preventing offensive and harmful material leaving a broadcaster`s aerial during live tranmissions is to employ a short delay such that an operator can bleep or silence any offensive material so that it is not included in their transmission and the the public are thus adequately protected from exposure to it...that is as per the requirements of section 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act and Ofcom`s Standards Objectives as dictated by THE LAW.

As Ofcom`s Code doesn`t state what generally accepted standards are to be applied to adequately protect the public from inclusion of offensive and harmful material in programmes; and the Code fails to specify what is to be considered offensive and harmful material; and fining people after the fact or giving them a ticking off doesn`t prevent the inclusion of such material then, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM`S FAULT for NOT ENSURING Talksport prevented the inclusion of Gaunt`s comments in their broadcast.

Just to illustrate: If the Comms Act required Ofcom to "ensure adequate protection against people being shot" and then someone got shot, who could and should be held accountable?

Surely, Sir Anthony cannot believe the intent of Parliament was to allow Ofcom to prevent people expressing their thoughts and feelings on air? Such a notion is an absolute violation of Freedom Of Expression. Clearly, no matter how offensive 53 people found Gaunt`s comments, his right to state his opinion in any terms he so chooses is sacrosanct - as is everyone`s right to do the same.

I agree with Gaunt. Mr Stark is a `health Nazi` and an ignorant pig - is he going to sue me now? As a smoker I can assure Sir Anthony and Mr Stark that I feel I am being ostracised, scapegoated, marginalised and excluded from social activities simply because I smoke. My smoking does NOT "seriously harm those around me". More deadly crap comes out of a car exhaust in a minute than my smoking creates in a day. You could once go into a pub where donzens of people were smoking and walk out alive after serveral hours and very probably live the rest of your life totally unaffected by the experience. However, if you placed a car in that pub and left the engine running almost everyone in the place would be dead or dying with a few hours. New Labour were/are a bunch of lying, theiving, two-faced, fascist pigs - are they going to sue me now?

Jon Gaunt needs to appeal on the grounds that Ofcom`s Code doesn`t do what is required by law and request or force a Judicial Review of Ofcom`s pathetic excuse for a Code according to the letter of the law. The High Court is not there to enforce Ofcom`s unenacted Code. They`re there to uphold and enforce the LAW. 319(2)(F) certainly doesn`t say Ofcom are supposed to hang around waiting for someone to complain about feeling offended and then fine the channel - but that`s exactly the line of FRAUD they`ve chosen to adopt. And Ofcom can sue me anytime their miserable little minds choose - I CAN`T FUCKING WAIT FOR MY DAY IN COURT WITH THESE TWISTED CUNTS!

Come on Ofcom SUE ME! I DARE YOU!

IanG    [27012.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 07:54] View Near Messages
RE: More Spit

"The BBFC commented on their latest cuts:

•Company was required to make cuts to scenes of sexual violence in order to remove potentially harmful material."

What material did the BBFC require to be cut and how, exactly, is it potentially harmful?

I saw this movie in its original uncut form almost 30 years ago. It was powerful, disturbing and exciting but, it did not convince me or any of my pals that gang rape was a good idea or something we`d like to try.

When I watched the first BBFC butchered version on, I think, the Horror channel a few years ago, it left me angry and dissappointed that such a powerful film had been utterly ruined by a bunch of idiotic morons who clearly don`t know their arse from their elbow. The BBFC had, according to their own deranged thoughts, made the rape scene MORE `acceptable`, MORE `palettable`, MORE `repeat-watchable`.

The scene is SUPPOSED to be sickening, violent, unrelenting...in short, HORRIFIC.

Just what type of psychotic sicko the BBFC believe they`re protecting the public from by hacking such scenes from movies is beyond my comprehension. I was thinking just the other day following my previous post and that mention of Grotesque; if I`d gone to the trouble of building a sound-proof dungeon, selected, subdued and transported a victim or victims to my torture chamber undetected and, subjected them to unimaginable abuses for my own sick enjoyment then, there`s really no film or scene on this earth that could inspire such behaviour or cause such a mental disorder. Likewise, there`s no amount of censorship that could prevent or cure someone harbouring such plans and desires from carrying them out whether they watch an uncensored movie, a BBFC butchered cut or, indeed, never see such scenes and movies in their entire life.

Censorship is futile and wholly unnecessary in such circumstances.

WHY do the BBFC believe they can somehow cure the unstable and mentally ill and thus protect society with cuts to the sight of stuff they`d rather not let anyone see? WHY do they believe for instance that any gang rapists would be inspired by I Spit on Your Grave when all that`s really required to inspire such copycat gang rape behaviour is a real news story about a group of young men raping some teenage girls in a local park - this really happened so, how many copycat gang rapes followed as a result?

Are we to believe gang rape never existed before I Spit on Your Grave was made? How many young women were brutalised in Roman times? How many girls were gang-banged, beaten and murdered by Viking raiders? How many were raped and tortured to death by the Church in pursuit of confessions of pacts with Lucifer? How many suffered unimaginable horrors chained to the decks of slave ships and a life of enforced servitude?

Censors are clearly not of this world. They live in cloud cuckoo land and believe they hold the power of life and death in their own miserable and misguided hands.

Prove what you claim BBFC or FUCK RIGHT OFF you mindless Nazis (and please, BBFC, feel free to take me to court for libel and slander...I can`t fucking wait...)!

IanG    [27010.   Posted 11-Jul-2010 Sun 06:22] View Near Messages
MichaelG, you know mate, I`ve said all along that the moral guardians have extremely sick and twisted minds.

This Twilight saga and Moir`s `insight` into the girl`s options highlight the issue perfectly.

I had a good go at all that bull the BBFC puked up about Grotesque. It`s the same with their `reasons` for hacking 30% of porn movies (that are freely available uncut across most of the rest of Europe) to remove supposed `harmful`, `imitable` and/or `obscene` material - all based purely on the BBFC`s distinctly low opinon of their idea of the stereotypical porn movie viewer (i.e. a member of the British public).

In the censor`s view it`s always these unknown `other people` that will do these bizarre things as a result of simply seeing something in a movie. If the hypersensitive censor or biased critic can imagine people being influenced in the ways they claim then, again, as I`ve always said, they themselves must feel these influences to be able to claim they could occur in the mysterious and easily influenced `other people`. It`s not other people at all...it is the censors/hypo-critics who are insane enough to believe other people might do nasty things or pick-up subliminal messages the censors/hypo-critics alone(?) perceive to be present/possible/plausible. They would probably make good fiction writers...no...actually they make good fiction writers - the problem is they get to censor what the rest of us are allowed to see based on their own fictional nightmare scenarios.

Whenever these folks make their deranged claims and observations, we should quote Lord Herschell (paraphrasing from Derry v Peek): "If someone claimed to know something they could not possibly know and, had made no attempt to find out the truth then, that person would be an untrsutworthy character".

They are liars, pure and simple. They are deranged, sick and twisted liars to boot. They postulate, extrapolate and condemn without any knowledge that what they believe is actually true. Censorship is clearly a matter of Thought, Conscience and Religion, as such, NOTHING the censors/hypo-critics believe CAN EVER be used to restrict the fundamental rights of others - the BBFC and Ofcom and no doubt the ASA are all Human Rights Abusers.

HRA, Article 9(2) "Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Our rights and freedoms are all protected from restrictions arising purely from the beliefs of others. It`s the law. Moreover, its the law that all other laws are supposed to be read in such a way as to make them compatible with this law. None of us have to believe the censor`s beliefs or be subjugated by or be subject to their ravings.

PROOF of HARM is all that cuts it these days irrespective of perceived risks to `health and morals` - if these things can be damaged by stories and images then there must be some proof somewhere? After more than 40 years of watching golden showers and fisting (even bestiality) there should be some indication across Europe that the sight of these activities does `corrupt and deprave` the viewer shouldn`t there? As Shaun says, if any of the material that`s routinely cut from films and banned from TV were as dangerous as is claimed then the evidence of the harm it does should be overwhelming by now - so where is it?



freeworld, following on from the above, there`s no doubt certain drugs can influence people`s behaviour and personality. Whether these effects are permanent with regard to steroids I cannot say. I do know that females who take testosterone (a powerful steroid) cannot reverse the enlargment of the clitoris or voice box. Why some women want to beef themselves up could be (perhaps very likely) due to some predisposition and/or crisis/conflict of sexual identity (I believe that`s one possibility). Why men want to beef themselves up with drugs is also very likely to do with some underlying insecurity or some uncontolable desire to be `more` than they are (again I believe these are plausible possibilties). What drives someone to want to look like Mr Universe? Is it for the adoration of jelly-kneed women? Is it simply the addiction to exercise and the endorphine rush strenuous exercise induces?

I mean, clearly, Mr Moat was off his rocker. However, there are numerous incidents of people committing suicide after the loss of a beloved pet cat, birdie or pooch. What drives people to commit murder and/or self-harm has fuck all to do with what we watch or indeed, what some may use to try and `fix` their own perceived faults or blot out some externally inflicted pain, let down, betrayal etc. The list of things that upset perfectly normal people is almost endless, as I`m sure most of us have at one time or another felt all these things, and perhaps, even contemplated revenge or doing `something silly`...? (I know I have...sort of)

We can all kill or choose to `end it all` if pushed beyond our own individual breaking point. Just which straw will break our camel`s back is anyone`s guess. All I know is you don`t need to blame steroid abuse for the things Moat did. He had plenty of scores to settle and the fact he may have abused steroids simply points to some deeper insecurity that suggests an extreme course of action if `dissed` by those he cared about.

Casual, `recreational` drug use is usually fine. We all enjoy the odd tipple or spliff from time to time I`m sure. When drug use becomes more of a necessity or, indeed, results in physical changes, there`s a pathology at work - its a disease or the symptom of a disease (if perhaps `only` psychological disease - usually the worst type to detect or cure before its too late).

This will probably not come as a shock to most but, I don`t think any human being is 100% sane (i.e. in rational control of ourselves) 100% of the time. We are highly evolved animals and sometimes that animal takes over and we act on pure fear, anger and/or hate. We can also act uncontrollably in positive ways so its not all bad news. It recently occured to me that the cause of bullying is likely actually part and parcel of our inherant ranking/pecking-order instinct, which in itself is a result of the evolutionary principle of survival of the fittest. We`ve tried to bypass all the mechanisms that gave us this brain and it shows in our inhumanity to unarmed civilians (murderer, terrorist bomber or `misdirected fire` incident, it doesn`t change the fact someone`s loved ones are now lying dead, does it!).

I believe that if we could all just sit down and think about all the important basic stuff for a while we might actually figure out how to save ourselves from those that want to order us to war.

Of course, while you`ve got a bunch of alpha male wannabies calling the shots, and broken individuals like Raoul Moat and Derrick Bird roaming the land, the likelihood of anything like sanity prevailing is pretty remote. Still, I guess we can live in hope.


In conclusion, drawing on all the above, it seems to me that the censors/hypo-critics simply do not understand human nature. When the BBFC cut or ban material they are in fact deeming it `obscene` according to their beliefs or some perceived feelings of British society - as we know, such excuses hold no favour in the light of human rights. I simply do not believe the producers of such BBFC/Ofcon banned material had/have any intent whatsoever to `corrupt and deprave` the likely audience. Indeed, writers, directors and producers usually want to convey a message or warning as well as to entertain.

To try and illustrate the situation. No one painted a cinematic picture of what it might be like in a Nazi death camp before the 2nd world war. The Nazis created such horrific scenes all by themselves. If the BBFC had seen such images prior to 1939 they would without doubt have claimed they could inspire radicals to commit such acts of inhumane depravity, torture and murder. However, the fact is we create and watch horrific scenes in order to warn ourselves just how inhuman and evil we can become if we never consider both perspectives - i.e. oppressed vs oppressor, victim vs murderer/torturer/exterminator. The censor worries about desensitisation and, consequently, chooses to conceal the awful truth of what we are capable of doing in order to try and perpetuate the myth that we`re somehow better than rabid animals. However, had we seen or imagined the scenes created by the Nazi in death camps before 1939, there`s a good probability we would (or could) have guarded against such an eventuality. Forewarned is forearmed. No one could (or wanted to) have believed the true horror of Nazi depravity until those images from Belsen and Auschwitz appeared for real in the post VE Day news reels.

This is, yet again, what I`ve always said is the danger of censorship. It is a lie by omission. An obfuscation of the truth or a vision of a potential truth. It is a denial of our inherant prepencity toward inhumanity to our fellow man. Horrific scenes warn us of just how fucking evil and horrible the sufferers of deranged beliefs and/or followers of repressive religions can become.

IanG    [27005.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 08:22] View Near Messages
MichaelG, sounds like the plot of the Thirty Nine Steps to me...perhaps with hints of First Blood? ;)


malcom/DM, I`m sure you guys can understand my not so infrequent outbursts and outrage at the illegal activities perpetrated by Ofcom. What I cannot fathom is how or why such abuses of law and human rights go unchallenged for so many unbearable years. As I say, all see is anarchy so I guess we can all say "fuck the law...Ofcom do". Why aren`t Liberty on the case? Why isn`t the Judiciary on the case? Why aren`t the police investigating possible human rights abuses and the crime I see as a rip-off scam tantamount to fraud being perpetrated by Ofcom? Why does Justice cost us anything? Haven`t we already paid for our legal protections and protectors` services with our taxes?

IanG    [27000.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 07:50] View Near Messages
DM, I landed here at MF following a Customs seizure and the usual threats to do me for importing obscenity and...`intent to distribute`, which was always tagged on by Customs to their unjustified charges against personal imports.

Owning `obscene` materials had NEVER been a criminal offence (until this Nazi bunch of religious New Labour cunts were given a majority in Parliament...). Only publishing/distributing obscene materials falls under the OPA. So, Customs had to invent a charge that could negate our right to freedom of speech and legal private ownership of `obscene` materials. If challenged, Customs would have to prove obscenity first and then try and prove intent to distribute - anyone with the money and balls could have smashed their rights abusing regime decades beforehand.

The solicitor I contacted said much the same as yours...i.e. you`ll have to appeal the magistrate`s decision and go to trial where you`ll likely win so long as there`s nothing truly obscene in the matreial (the stuff I was trying to import featured Racquel Darrian and was completely consensual).

It`s not surprising the BBFC didn`t mount much of a fight. After all, it had been their policy to relax the R18 limits in 1997 to try and beat the blackmarket only for Jack Boots to step-in and attempt a forced and unnecessary U-turn (mindless prig that he is). As we all knew then and know to this day, the liberal-minded public were right about the harmless nature of consensual adult sex material. More than 40 years of legal availability in most of the rest of Europe and the USA hadn`t created any obvious porn-related problems had it? The BBFC were desperately trying to justify their continued existence so, they invented the idea that consensual sex is fine but any `dangerous` or `abusive` elements should still need their beady eyes and butchering.

Just to come back to the circumstantial conspiracy theory, I still find it very hard to believe no one in authority at all checked on the implications of hardcore being allowed at R18 and esp. what that might mean for TV broadcasting - i.e. "no real sex" became "no R18" in the ITC Code despite the FACT R18 WAS the defacto fare on `adult` TV throughout the 1980s and 1990s because it contained no real sex in those days.

As I`ve said all along, what the ITC did was ILLEGAL because up until that point all legally available material WAS indeed being broadcast as per the Groppera AG v Switzerland ECHR statement. It stands to reason ALL legally avaiable material SHOULD be available on TV even if some of it needs restricting to specialist opt-in services to protect narrow-minded arseholes from stumblng into it unawares.

IanG    [26991.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 06:54] View Near Messages
Shaun, I too recall writing to my MP about the double standards and import ban (I seem to think Dave published it too).


malcom, haven`t we always argued that the `not quite R18` material on `adult` TV can be no more dangerous to the under eighteens than full-on R18?

If folks want a flavour of what`s going on behind the PPV screen then take a look here (pls note these are the absolute `best bits` from this channel as you will likely note from the viewer comments, most of the rest of the 5 hour broadcast is typical oft repeated softcore striptease)
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=19180&pid=560458#pid560458

I think I said a few months ago that Ofcon`s PIN research wasn`t properly assessed or reviewed. The BARB viewing figures Ofcon called upon, show that about 23% of u18s stay up to watch late night TV...that is until the midnight hour when "that figure reduces dramatically" according to BARB sources. There are virtually no under eighteens watching TV after midnight. Moreover, the BARB figures (if you can find them) show only a tiny, insignificant fraction of viewers actually watch `adult` TV full stop (typically 0.1% of the audience). I might add BARB pricing of their data is monstrous - about £500-£5000 for a decent data set to non-acedemics (there`s a 90% discount for academics though...!).

I`m hoping the AVMS amendments (section 368(E) in particular) will finally bring about the liberalisation that was ALWAYS the intent of TVWF. The AVMS clauses make it absolutely clear that ONLY material which can cause "serious impairment to minors" (under fifteens) is to be made available in such a way as to make it UNLIKELY minors will see or hear it. Unlikely doen`t mean `never` and it doesn`t imply an all out ban is at all the right course of action. Moreover, as the law recognises the risk of harm to minors from exposure to consensual adult sex material is insignificant, this hardly sounds like the sort of stuff that needs any restrictions to guard against serious impairment to the physical, psychological and moral development of minors (i.e. health and morals).

IanG    [26987.   Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 21:10] View Near Messages
DM, thanks for clearing a few ends up. Any hint of a conspiracy theory is purely circumstantial. The main issue is with Ofcon. If as Shaun says any action by Customs would have been a HRA violation, what allows Ofcon to ban legal material from our TV screens? Ofcon were supposed to be "light touch". They were supposed to be balancing the rights of adults with protection of the under eighteens. What they`ve done is set adult TV back about 15 years and reinvented `taste and decency` in the guise of mere `offence` which is the all encompassing excuse to further restrict the rights of adult viewers.

I recall when Ofcon first published their Code, several contributors here reported minor breaches on the R18-content front. They were told by Ofcon that their complaints weren`t appreciated and that they (Ofcom) thought they were being `vexatious`. (I think there`s something in the Ofwatch archives about it)

Compare that with a few weeks ago when some nutter complained that although the girls on the asian chat line were wearing fleshy-coloured knickers and white thongs on top, they were offended because the girls appeared to be naked. OfCON jumped through hoops to justify the complainant`s feelings.

Call it bias, call it prejudice, whatever it is Ofcon are up to its not balanced, rational or remotely ethical.

Back in Bullshitting 151 this Feb. Ofcom claimed that when they said back in 2008 that BangBabes couldn`t start boob rubbing and nipple licking before 10pm, they didn`t necessarily mean BB could start doing it after 10pm. As I`ve said before elsewhere (and probably here) when I see a notice saying "No parking before 9am" I don`t assume that means "No parking at anytime". Ofcon seem to think such a piece of negligent pedantry isn`t remotely hypocritical or unethical...esp. when it pertains to a gyrating on-screen phone `babe` causing some voyeur`s dick to twitch. (Sorry. I`ve just remembered what one guy called adult channel viewers in his consultation response...`the peepers`)

It seems perfectly clear that the Comms Act actively discriminates against `adult` channels and viewers...that is unless of course disappointed viewers can complain about being treated like irresponsible children, perverts and `peepers` and, that the type of material we`d like to watch is presented as the most uncontrollable and disgusting source of all offensive material on TV...? The `adult` channel viewer`s treatment at the hands of Ofcom has been nothing short of dispicable and totally unnecessary and, as such, I think its illegal.

New Labour seemed to have excelled at passing laws to criminalise supposed sexual deviants, and even the Comms Act seems remarkably biased in favour of Jack Straw`s likely vision of `decent` British TV.

However, it may just be Ofcon`s interpretation of the Comms Act that`s at fault. If the Government had meant to keep `taste and decency` as the acid test then I guess that`s what they`d have said in the Comms Act. As it is they said Ofcom were to provide adequate protection against "offensive and harmful material" not merely fine or repremand channels for broadcasting that which may cause harm amd/or offend against some cretin`s idea of taste and decency.

I`m sure I`m right because the HRA doesn`t permit thoughts and feelings to be used as excuses to restrict the fundamental rights of others. Ofcon don`t seem to have grasped that concept while trying to interpret the Comms Act in a way which makes it fully compatible with the HRA and the principles behind TVWF.

IanG    [26982.   Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 04:34] View Near Messages
pbr, I note Ofcom are yet again quoting their Code which to me bears little relation to Ofcom Standards Objectives as specified in the Comms Act.

Section 2 of the Code on Harm and Offence is here http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/harmoffence/

Under the heading Principle and Rule 2.1 of the Code it states:
"To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content
of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for
members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful
and/or offensive material."

The Comms Act has very similar wording, and requires Ofcom to draw up a Code to ensure:-
319(2)(f) "that generally accepted standards are applied to the content
of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for
members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material"

Now this may be pendantic nit picking BUT, Rule 2.3 of Ofcom`s Code states:
"In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender, race, religion, beliefs and sexual orientation). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence."

Ofcom generally abbreviate Rule 2.3 to just "material which may cause offence is justified by the context". You can see this in virtually all Ofcom`s Bullshittings (e.g. see ARY decision).

Question: How does the context justify the inclusion of offensive and harmful material as per Ofcom`s Code Rule 2.3, when the Comms Act 319(2)(f) requires Ofcom to enusre "adequate protection...from the inclusion of such material"?

There is little doubt Rule 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 all pertain to harm and offence - Section 2 of the Code even bears that title. There is little doubt clause 319(2)(f) of the Comms Act pertains to offensive and harmful material.

How can any reasonable person read the Comms Act and arrive at the conclusion that offensive and harmful material can actually be included in the content of radio and TV programmes if justified by context when, in fact, Ofcom are supposed to ensure adequate protection from the inclusion of such material FULL STOP?

Clearly, what the gov. intended and what Ofcom have chosen to implement are completely different. Ofcom`s fortnightly Bullshittings just highlight their utter failure in providing adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material in their licensees programmes.

IanG    [26981.   Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 18:54] View Near Messages
pbr, I understand the legal framework is complicated. You do however highlight the issue that`s been bugging me for some time - i.e. the free passage of legal goods.

As we know, in 2000, HMC&E had been threatening to prosecute folks for importing porn for over 100 years. Suppliers all over the world were aware of the UK`s import restrictions and often recommended taking-out insurance against HMCE stealing your goods on their trip to the incinerator. After the HC ruling that all changed. I think you`d have to be pretty naive not to think the gov. had to inform the EC about such a change to the content of R18 and the legal status of `hardcore` porn and its passage into the UK. Wouldn`t you?

Surely too, any questions over the `health and morals` issue was answered by the High Court when they agreed with the VAC that a reasonable person faced with the evidence presented by the BBFC in support of banning hardcore at R18 turned out to support the exact opposite. The BBFC are charged with "preventing any harm which may be caused" - that`s about as broad a scope as you can get - yet the risk of harm to children from exposure to hardcore material was deemed to be insignificant by both the VAC and the High Court.

I simply do not see how you can read Comms Act in such a way as to make it compatible with the HRA and the Case Law of the ECHR (as ALL public bodies are required to do by law) and end up with the fucked-up situation we have in this country.

It stinks. It makes no sense legally or logically.

Perhaps you can offer an opinion on the TVWF in respect of it conferring the right to broadcast any legally available material not specifically banned by the State TV regulating body on exactly those grounds of minor or serious impairment to the physical, psychological or moral development of minors? They pertain to health and morals do they not?

How is it Ofcom can (or is it MUST?) allow unrated European hardcore to be beamed into UK homes whilst at the same time ban R18-rated, UK-legal porn being broadcast into UK homes? If the TVWF applies to all brodcasters in Europe how come the UK viewers and broadcasters get fucked-over by a pisspot, unelected, unwanted shit-for-brains outfit like Ofcom?

Does the Comms Act actually allow Ofcom to write broadcasting `law` as they see fit? Can the gov. hand such powers to unelected cunts? Why is there no legal oversight or indeed any automatic mechanism that sees Ofcom and the BBFC are properly supervised and their `interpretation` of the law set straight BEFORE any human rights abuses CAN take place? The BBFC had been denying the right to watch what every other modern European country had allowed since the late 1960s - at least 40 years of unlawful restriction of freedom of expression in film and, at least 16 years of unnecessary video censorship under the VRA. But that`s not the half of it. As soon as we catch-up with Europe on the film and video front, the TV twats decide they`ll ignore the legal status of porn and ban it from TV because they alone think the VAC and the High Court got it wrong. I think that`s Contempt of Court esp. as OFCON have produced no new evidence to contradict the High Court ruling.

I can think of some really good `generally accepted standards` that OUGHT to be applied to these censorial muthas. WHY DOESN`T THE GOV. or THE LAW ensure some AUTOMATIC Judicial oversight? What the fuck is the law for if it doesn`t step-in to protect those its supposed to fucking well protect - i.e. the people that PAY FOR IT to PROTECT THEM AND THEIRS?

How dare `they` talk about "substantive injustice" - have they looked at their so called law and order recently?

All I see is ANARCHY and it STINKS.

IanG    [26979.   Posted 5-Jul-2010 Mon 07:28] View Near Messages
Dave, so what was the point of maintaining the advertising and mail order ban in the UK if it is deemed absolutely unnecessary to enforce it across all suppliers in the EU? Was this unecessary restriction deliberately imposed to disadvantage UK sex shop owners? Was it maintained to force some of the biggest companies in the UK adult industry to relocate outside the UK? What happened to their tax revenues? Was it maintained to mitigate what Ofcom (who were now a real twinkle in NL`s eyes) were going to do, indeed, be FORCED to do by some shadowy figure with top secret info?

I think people forget that the Gov. are supposed to be creating an environment that brings money INTO our economy not, as in this instance, forcing money and business out of our economy (and all on top of what the UK already donates to the EC).

There should be no doubt in anyone`s mind that before that censored meeting, the Ofcom Code was going to allow R18 on encrypted services. In Ofcom`s consultation report there`s a very strange bit of english usage - i.e. "Whereas R18 was banned under the ITC Code it will remain banned under the new Code". Like Paul T. said, "Shouldn`t that `was` be an `is`?". Even if the `was` were replaced by `is` the sentence still makes little grammatical sense because `whereas` is used to highlight a change in status - FULL STOP!

Further to my previous post, why did the ITC completely rewrite their Code, virtually overnight, following Straw`s `R18 Review` meeting? I watched the Code change almost right before my eyes. I can`t quite remember why I was looking for the clause numbers in the ITC Code but, I know one day it read something like "53. No real sex can be broadcast at any time", which changed within a few days to read "<some new number>. No R18 can be broadcast at any time" (the whole document had been redone from start to end with completely new layout and numbering).

That `R18` wording change WAS and still IS (in the Ofcom Code) ILLEGAL according to the ECHR Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990 statement - i.e. "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material" - as quoted by a law professor in his submission to the Comms Bill consultation. I stumbled on these Comms Bill consultation responses while searching for the UK`s trips to the ECHR... The law prof. also noted that he thought `the decision to allow harcore porn on TV has already been made` (or words to that effect).

I suppose the question is, how many other legal precedents, human rights violations and ECHR Case law decisions do various bodies in the UK choose to ignore in favour of their own religiously corrupted view of what Britain `needs`?

This all STINKS of anarchy and unlawful activity - FULL STOP!

IanG    [26977.   Posted 4-Jul-2010 Sun 05:53] View Near Messages
Re section 44 : "The Home Office now has no remaining grounds for appeal. But, despite the crushing Strasbourg defeat, officials say they will not stop the police from using the power for months or even a year or more."

I thought the minister responsible had just 3 months to remedy the incompatibility? That`s how I read the relevant section in the HRA 1998.

Of course I could be wrong as I don`t speak legalese and, furthermore, it now seems no punishment without law only applies to "substantive injustice" (see VRA 1984 ruling). To my mind I think enforcing punishments without law (or acting on the basis of illegitimate `law`) is THE `substantive injustice` irrespective of the degree of the punishment suffered by the INNOCENT `criminal`/`suspect`.

It`s plain in my mind - no law means no order, no order means anarchy. Enforcing unenforcable legislation is ANARCHY and all the guarantees made by The Crown since Magna Carta probably mean nowt. Which is a shame really because The Crown is where the law obtains its judicial power. Anarchy rules UK.



pbr, Re VRA : Do you know (or know where we find) if the gov. are/were reqd. to inform the EC about the change to R18 content in 2000? If not, fair enough. If so, then what I said the other week is quite likely true.

We KNOW something major happened after the HC ruling in 2000. HMC&E were ordered to wave R18-type material through customs despite there APPARENTLY being a mail order ban on R18. Of course it now transpires that the R18 advertising and mail order ban were in themselves UNENFORCEABLE at the time. (And my guess is they`re unnecessary restrictions as far as supplying harmless material goes!!!)

Also, the ITC/Ofcom stopped (i.e. were/are likely prohibited) from proscribing channels supplying R18-type material via satellite. Only ONE channel which showed material deemed harmful (i.e. obscene) has been proscribed in the past 10 years. All the other hardcore channels (dozens of them) are operating in the single market of which the UK is certainly part.

One thing that really makes no sense since 2000 is the requirement to have a license to sell anything deemed harmless. One can understand chemists, tobacanists and publicans needing a license to sell potentially dangerous substances but why does anyone need a license to sell material that poses no significant risk to anyone?

Something STINKS - the UK courts for one and everything to do with Ofcom, the VRA, Jack Straw et fucking alia.

IanG    [26976.   Posted 3-Jul-2010 Sat 08:49] View Near Messages
"More problematic was Showgirls, an expose of the seamy side of Las Vegas, with a prurient emphasis on exploitative nudity, which was not only the subject of the film but its main selling point. In such a context, the sadistic gang rape of the only wholly sympathetic character in the film seemed unnecessarily extended and sensationalised. The rape was trimmed for cinema, and trimmed further for video, since the price of the rape could be adequately conveyed by the sight of the battered and bleeding victim."

Ah yes, I can see the BBFC claiming we don`t need to see Michelangelo`s David`s willie - the rest of the statue tells us all we need to know.

Kindly fuck right off, BBFC, you mindless twats. Go and apply your narrow minded standards to those with narrow minds. The rest of us however would like OUR Human Rights respected to the full. As I don`t expect to see black marker drawn all over a Piccasso because some tosser thinks the publc "SHOULDN`T BE ALLOWED" to look at a ladies` boob, I don`t see why anyone thinks you`ve any right to make up shit to justify your dictatorial existence.

Pray tell BBFC, which cuts didn`t you make that `forced` Peter Suttcliffe or Derrick Bird to go on their murderous sprees? As I`ve maintained all along, censorship CANNOT protect ANYONE from the actions of NUTTERS. And as ONLY NUTTERS would DO what the BBFC claim `might happen` then ALL their arguments for censorship are but puerile bullshit.

IanG    [26961.   Posted 29-Jun-2010 Tue 04:55] View Near Messages
"According to writer Natalie Wilson: Kids who grow up watching sexist shows are more likely to grow up internalising stereotypical ideas of what men and women are supposed to be like."

Oh yes, 1.5hrs a day watching a movie will completely override the other 22.5hrs the child spends watching how mom and dad and all their friends and siblings function in society.

IanG    [26960.   Posted 28-Jun-2010 Mon 06:03] View Near Messages
"The remake stars Jackie Chan as an updated version of the original`s Mr Miyagi character, but opponents said the movie should not be seen by youngsters because it featured an adult instructor urging children to be violent to other children."

Really? I find that hard to believe. Karate is a self-defence technique. It has NO opening attacks and EVERY instructor I studied under said the best defense is not to fight if at all possible. Kara Te means the way of the empty hand and is all about defense and counter to disable an assailent as quickly and efficiently as possible. It does not teach anyone to be violent at all but, simply how to look after oneself if attacked.

IanG    [26958.   Posted 27-Jun-2010 Sun 06:01] View Near Messages
"As many as 4million volunteers have been forced to undergo Criminal Records Bureau checks over the past decade, according to a new report, but many are giving up on their roles because of the red tape involved and the feeling that they are under suspicion."

Isn`t that an understatement? They are under suspicion. Guilty until proven innocent. Of course that all seems justified as they`ll be working with children and other vulnerable people. However, all vetting really does is keep those who are known to be guilty from applying for such work (we hope) but still allows those who are a danger but have no record access to children etc. under a false sense of security. In short, this can only tell you what peolpe did and were caught doing not what they might do in future or got away with in the past.

It is typical false sense of security spin, like censorship, it protects no one and simply pisses a lot of people off.

IanG    [26956.   Posted 24-Jun-2010 Thu 07:10] View Near Messages
pbr, what would Lord Herschel make of the BBFC`s claim? (Derry? v Peek)?

"Anyone who claimed to know something they could not possibly know and hadn`t even bothered to find out, that person would be an untrustworthy character" (or words to) aka LIAR, FANTASIST, NUTTER

All my accusations were based on EVIDENCE no body with any legal experience seems to have read or applied or followed to it inevitable conclusion.

You know how I work folks. WHEN I`M RANTING It`s because I CAN`T BELIEVE what I`m discovering is the fact of the matter!

Sure I speculate - how else do we find the correct answer to a question we don`t yet know to ask?


This is what I think is the truth : MWUK (or similar religiously corrupted nutters) runs the Ofcom Content Board. No other LOGICAL explanation for the ravings of nutters coming out of the Bullshittings. Is there? No. NONE. Nutters through and through. Sectionable: Call the Cops (I can`t) - they need locking up WHOEVER they are? Do you know who the Content Board `are` or maybe `is`? Viv P.? Bakri? I don`t know, do YOU?

I`ve figured our religious nuts out: They care more about their beliefs, texts, prophets, saviours, paradises and gods than they do for their `fellow` man esp. if they think he`s a "wierdo" (eh, Salter?). Simple really. Obvious actually.

Tell me folks, do you think Mr Salter would actually call members of the BDSM and LBGT communities `wierdos` and not be hauled before the HRC?

I doubt Martin even agrees with it.

Be good if he`d come on here and tell us what he really thinks.

IanG    [26952.   Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 13:12] View Near Messages
malcom, well..who cares. They`ve been insulting us indirectly for long enough - just repaying the compliment ;)

IanG    [26948.   Posted 22-Jun-2010 Tue 04:38] View Near Messages
Dave,

Let me tell you a story...

For a long time now I`ve had the uneasy feeling that the Ofcom Content Board have been screaming for help. I do not believe they are deranged prudes who cannot understand plain English. I do not believe they could pull such an unethical stunt and claim "you can`t do that before 10pm" means "you can`t do that at all ever". The Content Board (or whoever makes these calls) have, as I intimated previously, gone all `HAL9000` or `Colonel Kurtz`. They are in confict within and are acting without due restraint. They`ve been crying for help since day one and stunts such as these are attempted suicide.

The `why` of all this nonsense and insanity was a conundrum until it was revealed last year that the VRA 1984 hadn`t been fully enacted - on a mere technicality. Now imagine what would happen if, after 16 years of enforcement and many convictions under the Act according to the very real and intended purpose of the Act, that these all had to be overturned because of a silly mishap. No one in Britain wants to pardon those selling obscene and unclassified videos. The Law had been enforced to the letter according to the will of the People and Parliament. It had indeed punished wrong doers who, probably, speaking even as an anti-censorship campaigner, were a risk to society. What if this undoing of justice was also coupled with R18 finally going hardcore? And having to be allowed on `adult` TV channels? The morality police would have had a heart attack - they nearly did. So, an executive decision was made, one we can perhaps see was justified if unjust according to our long held beliefs and rights promised by The Crown. I can forgive the ones who did this, I understand their reasons but its not right, technically.

So, now there`s a dark secret to conceal based on a white lie. Webs do become tangled very quickly and this one almost fell apart in 2003/4. So, another plot and another cover-up was hatched, all of course in the hope it acted in the interests of the people. And in the middle of this maelstrom is poor old Ofcom. Trapped by guilt and duty, falling at every hurdle, it would drive anyone insane.

What we need I think is a ruling from the ECHR. One that clears the air and sets the record straight. Perhaps then sanity can return to the land of TV regulation, so that freedom and justice, rhyme and reason can return to these shores...?

We are only human and we all make mistakes and that road to you know where is always paved with good intentions.

So I`ll make a plea for those who need to to fess-up, pretty please, I beseach you do the right thing. We all forgive you I`m sure, I do, I understand. Now what say you all?

The truth will set us all free!

And they all lived happily ever after.

IanG    [26946.   Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 21:55] View Near Messages
malcom, I don`t know what insults you see in that open letter? It`s as cordial as I can make it. The site refs are just that - no links to anything. What`s the issue? Believe me mate, I don`t have to treat these incompetent oafs with any respect. I`m just looking for gaping holes (aren`t we all).

Maybe ask Dave to see Q2,3,4...then you might get the picture if you haven`t figured it out yet - not that its anything but conjecture of course.

I doubt they can answer any of the questions satisfactorily anyway.

And raving loonies are harmless eh?

NPWL!



Dave, sorry I left that other junk in the email - just venting - the question are self explanitory I hope? Don`t know if its any form of reality though - just exploring ideas. Don`t worry. I`m OK ;)

IanG    [26943.   Posted 21-Jun-2010 Mon 07:29] View Near Messages
Dave, I`m about to blow the lid off the whole stinking cover-up - I cannot live with this unless things change DRASTICALLY.

It`s YOUR HOME Dave. ONLY YOU can set YOUR conrols the way YOU NEED them. If you read my evidence you`d have seen I blew Ofcom`s whole idiocy out of the water.

To answer your ratings question - I propose U M A X

U - GREEN symbol - Universal to young teen (U - 12UK,10Fr(iirc) etc.). TV - Gradual move from lower to higher end from am to early pm.

M - AMBER symbol - young teen to mature teen (12A - 15UK/13Fr(iirc) as approp. to other states). TV - Gradual move from lower end to higher end from early pm to usual watershed.

A - RED symbol - Normal adult (15UK/13Fr(iirc) - 18UK/16Fr(iirc) etc. as per other states). TV - Gradual move from lower end to upper from watershed to +1hr (e.g. 9pm start 15UK/13Fr rating - after 10pm start 18UK/16Fr rating).

X - BLUE symbol - `X` rated legal adult material. Blocked until age-verified (FTA or subscription) - PIN controlled by USER - On 24/7 or Off 24/7 - need to look at creating user-specified time range (once the kids are in bed there`s no problem, ma and pa are there).

I don`t see how a 10yo in France is any `harder` than a 12yo in UK. Getting these ages the same everywhere should be easy BUT this doesn`t matter because you slot them into the appropriate positions. UMAX generalises the whole thing so you know what to expect under each symbol no matter where you are in EU.

Each programme title has UMAX symbol in () at end of name.

Each dedicated channel has approproate UMAX symbol in () at end of name. Now the USER can block anything they NEVER want to watch and, as the software can `see` what the UMAX rating is it can check what time YOU set for mandatory PIN to be On or Off for that type.

Comments? Suggestions?

We need people with BRAINS and PERSPECTIVE in the right places - don`t we!

If anyone thinks this is great I`d like some financial reward - a couple of hundred thousand for my retirement would be nice.

ps. anyone want to see Questions 2,3 and 4 contact Dave.

IanG    [26941.   Posted 19-Jun-2010 Sat 22:50] View Near Messages
Guys, I suspect many of you believe I may have taken leave of my senses after making some very serious accusations against Ofcom. In mitigation, can I explain that my ravings were made after 48hrs without sleep as I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to temper my language and set out a reasoned and justified argument while in a fuming rage and sufferring the debilitating effects of sleep depravation. I am much calmer now and well rested so there is no need for concern over my mental state.

I am about to send this open letter to Ofcom and I wondered if there were any further issues any of you guys would like to raise with the Office of Communications while I`m at it?

<snip>

Dear Ofcom,
As you may or may not be aware, I have made some rather serious accusations against you on the melonfarmers anti-censorship web forum (www.melonfarmers.co.uk) and the babeshows fan forum (www.babeshows.co.uk). In your Bulletin no. 151, <insert date> you make several statements and claims about seeing various acts and female body parts complained about by a viewer of "Bangbabes", which you state are "so strongly sexual that they likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience". As the audience are red-blooded males (to coin a phrase) I find this hard to believe. Indeed, I find it hard to believe any regular member of this audience would have any cause to complain at all.

I have seen some rather poor quality clips from what I believe are the shows in question, posted on a thread by one of the regular and much appreciated `caps n vids` contributors to the babeshows forum. I believe, although I cannot be certain as the clips are not time-stamped, that I have found the acts as you describe that occurred at the times compained about. I cannot however distinguish the anal and labial detail you say is visible nor do I feel the action on screen is so strongly sexual it would exceed any reasonable person`s expectations of what might appear on a sex chat channel in the so-called "adult section of the EPG" at around 02:00 in the wee hours of the morning.

I would like, therefore, for you to provide to myself (via the webmaster at www.melonfarmers.co.uk), and to anyone else who may be interested, evidence to prove:
a) the acts complained about are so strongly sexual that they are likely to exceed the expectations of the vast majority of the audience;
b) clear footage of the anal and labial detail that exceeds that specified in your published Code for a programme of this particular description at this time of the day; and
c) the clause(s) in your published Code that specify what can and cannot be broadcast in a programme of this particular description at this time of day.

Kind regards and thanks in advance

IanG

IanG    [26937.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 14:37] View Near Messages
"The Edinburgh-based Zero Tolerance Trust backed the call, arguing lapdance clubs are harmful to women individually, women collectively, and communities."

Based on what evidence?

More FRAUD? More unsubstantiated claims? More believing rather than knowing with absolute certainty?

I don`t believe in fairytales - I don`t have to. The burden of proof is ALWAYS with the ACCUSER.

That`s why I presented REAL EVIDENCE of Ofcom`s REAL ABUSES.

IanG    [26936.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 12:49] View Near Messages
OFCOM OFF

If anyone is in any doubt about Ofcom`s ILLEGAL ACTIVTIES this is the FRAUD in a nutshell.

IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF ANY CHANNEL THAT PEOPLE COMPLAIN, IT IS ENTIRELY OFCOM`S. BUT OFCOM FINE THE CHANNEL!

Under section 319(2) of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom are to create a Code to ENSURE
(a) the under eighteens are protected;

(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of radio and television services to provide adequate protection to viewers from offensive and harmful material;

It is ENTIRELY OFCOM`S FAULT that their Code is shit - THEY WROTE IT.

EVERY COMPLAINT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR FAULT, THEIR BREACH OF THIS LAW.

PUBLIC ENQUIRY NOW PLEASE DAVE, NICK and any bloody body left out there that`s NOT part of this CONSPIRACY.

IF I MEET WITH AN ACCIDENT...YOU`LL KNOW WHY LADS.

FUCK KNOWS WHERE THIS STOPS...?

Don`t tell me NONE of the `adult` channels legal reps couldn`t see this? I`m not a fucking lawyer BUT I FOUND IT! You lot aren`t worth a shit. YOU ARE SHITS.

DISGUSTING. PUTRID. OBSCENE!

And THEY DARE lecture US?!

I am so, so fucking angry. AREN`T ANY OF YOU?

IanG    [26934.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 11:42] View Near Messages
Oh no, no, no, no, no, Shaun. NEVER!

As this lot think you can make up the rules any way you choose then so can we all according to lord Ofcom.

Let`s go shoot them (only kidding, its against The Law and I don`t really like breaking the law - its really there to protect everyone from monsters, traitors, liars, cheats, thieves, fraudulent hyporcites and ALL ENIMIES OF THE STATE, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE).

BUT YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF OFCOM.

Are these CRIMINALS at The Office of Communications still AT LARGE?

Has Carter been rounded up yet?

Who are we supposed to trust and trust in?

IanG    [26931.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 03:58] View Near Messages
A little EVIDENCE to support the accusation:

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=14756&pid=548075#pid548075

IanG    [26930.   Posted 18-Jun-2010 Fri 01:08] View Near Messages

Dear People of the WORLD,

It has come to MY attention as a member of the British public, Sovereign Power of the Land and most humble Loyal Subjects of our Most Gracious Royal Majesty Queen Elizabeth II THAT,

When your BOSS, Ofcom, TELLS YOU IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS TO DO AS YOU ARE TOLD ACCORDING TO GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS, Then, John `kiss my ass` Glover et alia, Ofcom, ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS IS THE ONE WE OF THIS LAND HOLD SACRED AND THAT IS THE LAW!

YOU, Ofcom, ARE FIRED! You are the lowest scum known to man. YOU ARE CRMINALS, CHEATS AND LIARS! I ACCUSE YOU, OFCOM, OF DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM VIA THE QUEENS ROYAL COURTS AND THE RULE OF LAW.

YOU ARE TRAITORS TO YOUR PEOPLE.

I AM NOT A LAWYER SO I CANNOT SAY IF THIS IS TREASON BUT IT DAMN WELL FEELS LIKE IT TO ME, OFCOM!

HEEL! OFCOM.

As I was saying, before I went off to find out what it was we could do Ofcom, under the Communications Act 2003, to get you to do as you ARE ORDERED. You are ORDERD BY LAW under 319(2)(f) of YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION, Ofcom, to ensure:
319(2)(f) that generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material;

As you don`t seem to be able to READ IT, Ofcom, it says that you are to make sure no offensive and harmful material according to YOUR CODE (apparently), emanates from any of your Licensees else you`ve failed on this Standards Objective. You are the broadcasting police OFCOM, NOT the uk tv government and courts of justice - GOT IT!

As you chose to interpret "offensive and harmful material" as ordered by law as, "that which may cause harm or offence" then, smarty pants John Glover, Mr `lord` Carter et alia, YOU FAILLED on the most simple task the FIRST TIME someone complained about RECIEVING IT FROM ONE OF YOUR LICENSEES. ARE WE CLEAR MR GLOVER, MR FOX (DCMS), AND MR, OH YES, MR CARTER...YOU FAILED. YOU ARE FIRED! AND YOU ARE IN VERY SERIOUS TROUBLE WITH SOME VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE.

AREN`T THEY MY LOYAL COUNTRYMEN!

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE PATIENCE, DILLIGENCE AND INTELLIGENCE OF THOSE WHO RULE OVER YOU, OFCOM - YES, RULE OVER YOU AS THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THIS NATION YOU FOOLS!

CHEEKY BASTARDS.

YOU ARE FOR THE HIGH JUMP. GOT THAT MR GLOVER!

DIE OFCOM!

IanG    [26925.   Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 16:52] View Near Messages
malc, sim, great to see you guys again.

Good points malcom. A broad range of tastes is what Ofcom WERE supposed to cater to by Law. They`ve failed on that point, abysmally...like so many, many others. (mental note: thats another one for the PYRE!)

I hear on the grapevine (might just be smoke...) that things are about to change...maybe for the better. Reading between the lines, the AVMS has shaken things up a bit and double standards aren`t going to last long. Yeah, I know, this is Britain and it never quite delivers what you expect, does it!

I`m working on something...actually its all ready to fly but I want a couple of people just to give me the OK before I/we mount the assualt - it could get nasty (not for us of course - no liars, hypocrits or incompetent nutters laying down the `law` here are there chaps! ;).

Anyone seen pbr? Any other legally astute types around?

Dave, I`ll be sending something re Ofcom and mandatory PIN plus a SHIT LOAD MORE - I`d like pbr (or anyone you might know?), as our legally aware type, to give it the once (better thrice...) over (make sure I/we can`t be got at - we have legal ways but I don`t know they work publishing online). It`s brutal, full-frontal - but nothing they don`t justly deserve. Oh and of course, its all the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (AFAIK) so the law might be interested...if you get my drift.

Anyway, a little ditty while we twiddle our thumbs...

Altogether now:

You put your PIN code in
To keep the children out
In out in out
And mess it all about
You pull a little fast one
And your PIN is out
That`s what Ofcom`s all about!

Sucking thru the undies
Licking over panties
Parents can`t be trusted
Two pairs of knicks on
And don`t flash the gash

Have you got the time luv?
This is not a `Clock` luv!
Turn that bloody mic off
People might be watching
And we can`t have that!

Feel free to add more verses lads, Shaun?... ;)

IanG    [26900.   Posted 12-Jun-2010 Sat 07:04] View Near Messages
Shaun, you`ve hit upon something which I now believe is evidence of sexual discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation - i.e. the porn fan and porn actor alike are painted as a `danger to children and decent society`, to have `low morals values` or, as being `depraved` and so-on.

Similar baseless `arguments` were used to criminalise homosexuals - i.e. that they were a danger to children and `decent`, `God fearing` society.

Ofcom perpetuate a similar MYTH re R18-rated material. Moreover, Ofcom claim bog-standard, 18-rated, `softcore porn`, available to any `vulnerable person` over 18 from the likes of Amazon and HMV or, indeed, given away FREE in your local newsagent on the cover of various mags and rags, is supposedly so `dangerous` and `corrupting`, "harmful and offensive" that it can ONLY be broadcast behind layers of encryption and "mandatory PIN access restrictions". The question is, is this Reasonable? Would a REASONABLE PERSON given the ALL THE AVAILBLE EVIDENCE reach such a decision? I think NOT. I think NOT because in 2000 the High Court RULED that "Based on the available evidence, a reasonable person would conclude that the risk of harm to children from seeing R18-type material (i.e. HARDCORE PORN) is INSIGNIFICANT". If HARDCORE R18 porn isn`t a risk to the physical, psychological and moral development of children then SOFTCORE sure as hell isn`t either.

Ofcom`s decision is clearly UNREASONABLE, DISPROPORTIONATE and completely UNNECEASSRY according to ALL the available evidence. Ofcom admitted on several occaisions that they had no Right whatsoever under EC Directives to ban R18 let alone demand 18-rated "adult sex works" be placed behind the `iron curtain` of subscriptions and PIN codes. When Ofcom made these statements with regard to EC Directives, they CONFIRMED the ABSOLUTE RIGHT for any broadcaster anywhere in the EU (which includes the UK) to broadcast R18-type material to the UK population. Rights confered by EC Directives take ABSOLUTE PRECEDENCE over Domestic Legislation, thus, Ofcom had NO LEGAL RIGHT to then claim the Comms Act allowed them to revoke the Right TO broadcast perfectly safe (by their own admission) R18 material on UK TV.

The TVWF Directive was DESIGNED to create a `level playing field`. Ofcom had no reason to deny the UK adult TV industry the Right to broadcast what EU-based broadcasters beam into the UK UNHINDERED. That`s the WHOLE PURPOSE for the TVWF Directive and Ofcom simply CHOSE to IGNORE our obligations under EU Law.

We can show quite clearly that Ofcom are acting unreasonably and unlawfully. Indeed, they have willingly ignored the `LANDMARK` High Court ruling of 2000 which states REASONABLE PEOPLE SHOULD agree R18 IS safe for kids to inadvertently view in the home (by any means whatsoever).

IanG    [26870.   Posted 1-Jun-2010 Tue 06:56] View Near Messages
MichaelG, while religious nutters and sex-obssessed cretins are elected to positions of power there will be no rational, reasonable, sensible decisions made. Anyone who believes the display of any part of the human body is `inappropriate` is quite clearly insane, deluded or just plain corupted and depraved. Obscenity exists in their eyes, in their thoughts. Reality, normality and rationality never enters their conceited mindset. They are sick, thick, demented, seduced by the `dark side` as it were, believing they know what`s `good`, their minds are twisted, their emotions corrupted, their reactions tainted.

But what do you expect from mindless dweebs that believe in ghosts and demons? What do you expect from folks who show all the same feelings of superiority as fascist dictators, islamic terorrists and other psychopathic paranoid schizophrenics?

I`ve said before that no one should be allowed to stand for any public office without first undergoing a full psychological evaluation. Instead we subject society and the law to the influence of some of the most dangerous, backward, idealistic luddite nutters in existence.

I heard a classic example of the sort of non-logic that spews from the gobs of these empowered cretins just last week. Following the discovery of a womans head in some psycho`s rucksack in Bradford, some brightspark came on the news professing "we must do something about kerb crawling" - that`s despite the FACT that 99.999% of kerb crawlers DON`T go around hacking girls to pieces. Kerb crawlers aren`t the problem, murderous psychopaths are. Thankfully, one Bradford MP/Councilor thinks the law on brothels needs addressing to offer working girls more protection from the 1 in a million punters that might want do for them. But common sense has been in short supply over the past 20 odd years (in fact I`d say its been non-existent for the last 12 years under the Neo Labzis).

I don`t know what we can do Michael, the world`s fucked-up because for some bizarre reason the rationalists and realists have to pamper to the whims of the clinically deluded believers in ghostly "uber-daddies" floating around in some timeless dimension. Why we can`t get these fuckers sectioned beats the crap outta me...well, not really...the fact is without beliefs and believers we`d never let any politically-deluded arseholes rule over us ever. Religion and politics are one in the same thing - they both rely on unbelievable bullshit and unbelievable bullshitters (and boy oh boy don`t they all just love for people to worship their bullshit).

IanG    [26756.   Posted 27-Apr-2010 Tue 05:01] View Near Messages
Dave/Harvey, is there a specific clause in the POA which defines "religiously aggrivated alarm, harrassment and distress"? If not, then the courts and police are making the law up as they go along.

The charge must appear as an offence on the Statute, in legislation. The police can`t start mixing and matching bits of legislation to create `offences` that don`t actually exist in law. What it sounds like to me (and possibly the source of Dave`s confusion) is that the police/CPS have created some bastard conjoined twin from the POA and Religious Hatred legislation.

Let me point out that what Taylor did under Religious Hate law is ALL protected speech. What is protected speech under actual Religious Hate law CANNOT become `illegal` under the non-existent `Public Order and Religious Hate Act`, which the police/CPS appear to have created out of thin air.

Now, clearly, the police, CPS and the court in question have committed a travesty of justice no matter what. As this is most definitely a religiously motivated act on Taylor`s part (the cartoons all riduclue religious beliefs don`t they?) then the LEGAL DEFENCE under the religious hatred legislation is MOST CERTAINLY RELEVANT to the case! Indeed, the public order offence is SUPERCEEDED by the Rights GRANTED AND PROTECTED by the Religious Hatred Act.

IanG    [26749.   Posted 26-Apr-2010 Mon 08:46] View Near Messages
Harvey, so what was Taylor charged with?

Also, you say: "So, it`s not really fair to blame NL entirely. The basic offence of causing offence - by intentionally causing alarm or distress - was created by those traditional lovers of freedom of expression - the Tories."

The POA "alarm, harrassment or distress" clause is not about causing `offence`, it is about threatening behaviour toward another PERSON - stalking, prank calls, breaking windows, pouring paint in the letter box, scratching the car etc. etc.

So, where`s the personal attack within these cartoons? They ridicule religious beliefs but do not necessarily attack any real or living individual in order to cause them "alarm, harrassment or distress" or indeed, to feel personally threatened in anyway.

This is a clear case of the path to hell being pathed by good intentions. We all know what a fucking pest anti-social yobs can be and, we see the necessity for those who are genuinely "alramed, harrassed and distressed" by such threatening twats to have recourse to the law. However, The Bible, The Quran etc. all contain messages that I personally find threatening, alarming, harrassing and distressing - so why can`t I charge every single mindless fuckwit that leaves these printed materials lying around to corrupt innocent minds and put the willies up people for not quite measuring up to God`s supposed standards with threatening behaviour?

Is it one law for `believers` and another for the atheists? "You can`t be threatened by my God because you don`t believe in Him" - is that it? Odd though, not believing in God is supposed to lead to eternal damnation or pergatory isn`t it? Sounds pretty fucking threatening to me esp. as I don`t believe in ghosts, goblins or any other supernatural superbeings. Oh and of course, if you`re homosexual you`ve really had it, you`re an "abomination" worthy of execution - I doubt you can get any more threatening than that...

IanG    [26710.   Posted 9-Apr-2010 Fri 10:29] View Near Messages
pbr, you beat me to it.

"The ASA considered that, although the ad`s image was not explicit, the ACCESS DENIED sign across the naked woman`s bottom implied anal sex."

Well, I guess it would IF that`s what you want it to `imply`. Dirty minds anyone?

"That sign, in conjunction with the chains wrapped around the naked woman`s body, suggested the woman was a sex object and were likely to be seen as demeaning and objectifying women."

Really? Well, if that`s what you want it to `suggest` then I guess that`s what it `suggests` but, as far as I can see, its all really a matter of rather sick and twisted opinion because, the ad is in NO WAY `suggesting` any such bullshit.

So, let`s stick a naked bloke in chains and an "Access Denied" sign on his arse in the ad and see if that prompts any "we`re being objectified" complaints from sane and rational members of the general public. Because you know what...I bet it won`t generate any fucking complaints because it simply DOESN`T "imply" or "suggest" any of the sick bullshit the ASA or this ONE complainant `believe` it supposedly `does`.

IanG    [26708.   Posted 9-Apr-2010 Fri 07:14] View Near Messages
Mike, obviously Bob Ager is a bit too `European` in his film tastes for the ultra conservative British-brainwashed pricks at UKIP.


On violent games:
"Simon Hughes stated: The report then makes a controversial point, but I believe that it is true – evidence supported our view that violent DVDs and video games exert a negative influence on those who watch and play them."

Tell ya what Simon, why don`t you play one or two of these games and then tell us what you don`t simply `believe` but, indeed, what effect they actually HAVE/HAD on YOU? Call it experimentation. Call it investigation. Call it research. Call it what you will...NOTHING beats hands-on experience, experimentation and investigation into finding out what REALLY happens (....again and again and again). It`s all part of that thing we call discovering the TRUTH (anyone remember that...before the spin doctors all started fucking about with people`s minds and perceptions?) and its the basis of all our scientific knowledge.

IanG    [26682.   Posted 2-Apr-2010 Fri 08:32] View Near Messages
Spider, I don`t know why it is but these censorial types just can`t get it through their thick skulls that these are simply stories, fairytales, comic strips, legends, myths, stage plays and so forth brought to imaginery `life` or retold on celluloid.

They are NOT a template for life. They are NOT obscene corrupting influences. They ARE pieces of escapist entertainment. So what`s so wrong about that? Do children grow up wanting to be Jack the Giant Slayer? Do children think they`ll be eaten by giants of they climb up giant beanstalks? What about murdering old cannibalistic witches who live in gingerbread houses - do kids grow up believing its OK to deal death to all grannies?

What Tookey and his ilk fail to aknowledge is that these are just films, books, plays, stories, fairytales. These are things that we like to watch...NOT do! What kind of monsters do they take us for? "But you like to watch this stuff!" - is that the basis of the argument? Because in someone`s opinion something is `obscene`, `dangerous`, `sick`, `twisted` or whatever, this makes the viewer the same or "gives insight" into their psychology? I don`t think so. Indeed, I know this is NOT so because I`ve been watching `video nasties` since Batman and Robin used to `Biff!`, `P@w!` and `Thwhak!` their way through a dozen baddies every week on TV. I abhor violence yet I`m thrilled and excited by action and horror movies - I love to watch them but, crucially, I do not emulate them - now why is that?

Some people like skydiving. Some like rock climbing. Some drive racing cars. People like to be scared. People like to be "grossed-out" too. When I watch a horror movie I expect to be horrified - what`s wrong with that? Why is it the censor believes just because I expect to be horrified that this would make me want to do what I find horrifying? Where`s the `obvious` logic in that...the truth is usually self-evident isn`t it? Do they really think I would like to witness such scenes reenacted in real life? And what of those derranged nutters that indeed would like to see such scenes of horrific torture enacted in real life? Is a mere film responsible for their actions or needs/wants? Can it really "reinforce their unhealthy fantasies"? Where`s the proof? Where`s the evidence? It`s bullshit. Psychos are a fact of human life. From Alexander the Great to Napoleon and beyond, the Hitlers, hitmen and homicidal maniacs need no prompting from images to commit their dastardly deeds.

So why the pretence? Why the intellectual insult added to censorial injury? What`s wrong? Have they finally run out of `obscene` excuses to ban and hack films, books, plays, records, paintings, sculptures...?

IanG    [26668.   Posted 30-Mar-2010 Tue 09:35] View Near Messages
"In the two years since I (Dr. Tanya Byron) published my first review, a lot has changed – we have a huge number of under-aged children on social networking sites; we know that there are location-based devices; we know that there is an extraordinary ease of access to pornography for children and young people."

And the evidence this "ease of access" is causing harm is where Dr Byron? The only thing under threat here is the great British censorship lie. The whole fucking regime is under threat because the traditional `reasons` to censor are being proven totally bogus, unfounded and pointless.

We all know any real threat to children comes from people, not images, games or stories. There may well be `unsuitable` material but that`s not the same as `dangerous` material - it sure as hell won`t arrange to meet, kidnap, rape or kill a child.

Historically speaking, culture is all about teaching the young the rights and wrongs of how to live in `our` society, environment or `Culture`. Education is the answer, not more fucked-up reasons to censor, control, lie, persecute, prosecute and generally run amock over the most fundamental of human rights.

IanG    [26658.   Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 06:54] View Near Messages
What fucking planet are these tossers on?

"A Culture Department spokesman said: Parental controls do already exist for video on demand services. Parents should be aware of what their children watch online and use these controls.

Pattison responded: Banning post-watershed material on catch-up players is a blunt instrument, but that may be the only way to do it.

Labour MP Barry Sheerman, Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee, said: Our broadcasters who put this sort of filth online should be forced to ensure children are unable to access it."

A Culture Department spokesprat should have said "Clause 368(1)&(2) of the Comms Act amendments 2009 already specify parental controls should be in place for material which can cause `serious impairment`. It is Ofcom`s DUTY to inform parents of all child protection methods at their disposal...this is after all the ONLY way Ofcom can fulfill their duties toward Freedom of Expression and protection of the under 18s."

And sorry, Viv, but, if the material were so dangerous it could warp young minds then it would already be banned from TV, you fucking dozy CUNT.

And Mr Sheerman, whom we assume sits in Parliament and votes on fucking `laws`, should surely be aware of the clauses HE already voted for in the Comms Act amendments 2009 to include parental controls on any VOD material which can cause `serious impairment` to minors? Perhaps not?

Let`s cut to the chase. What exactly goes out on UK TV that CAN "seriously impair the physical, psychological or moral development of persons under 18"? "NOWT" do I hear? Thought so.

All this is total and utter bullshit. Some spare room in a sunday rag needed filling with some shit and this `argument` is surely it. Pointless, pathetic, already covered by law, no proof of harm, scaremongering bullshit of the first order.

Fuck off Pattison and get a bastard life will you!

IanG    [26650.   Posted 26-Mar-2010 Fri 07:07] View Near Messages
When will the morons get it through their thick skulls that there are mentally ill people walking the streets? About 1 in evey 100 people has some form of psychopathic tendancies. These tendancies can range from what we might view as mildly annoying stubornness, egotism or selfishness through to all out self-gratifying murderous intent.

This mental affliction affects young and old alike. When it is coulpled with psychosis, paranoia, even schizophrenia, the individual can become highly dangerous. Your typical jihadi terrorist suffers a deeply religious psychotic obsession, general paranoia (either Allah is watching their every move or the devil is always tempting these folk) and a large dollop of psychopathic indifference and hatred toward `infidels`.

You typical school shooter has pretty much the same mix of paranoia, obsession and psychopathic leanings as any of the Mumbai shooters.

Banning games won`t magically cure these people. Banning films won`t erase their mental illness or undermine their `unhealthy fantasies`. Indeed, in mild cases such games and films may have a cathartic effect - i.e. killing `life-like` bots in a game is certainly safer and perhaps just as rewarding as going on a school shooting rampage. Of course, that all depends on the person`s worldview, because one thing we know for certain is that psychopaths do not see the world the same way `normal` people do. As I`ve said many, many times before, trying to guess what`s going on inside the head of an unknown murderous loon is simply futile.

The fact is people were killing other people tens of thousands of years before there was anything like `violent media`. People are animals, we don`t have to act like wild animals but, we cannot escape the fact that we`re governed by emotions and we`re built to either fight or run in the face of danger. Anxiety, insecurity, paranoia, psychotic obsession, schizophrenia and psychopathy are all far too common disorders amongst people in the modern world. In the past such traits were likely of good use in the game of survival. Traits such as fearlessness, heroism and bravery are actually indicators of indifference toward personal injury - i.e. carelessness - and carelessness is one aspect of psychopathic leanings. Psychopaths believe they are better than the rest of us, that they`re `special`, `meant for greatness` - these are all traits of common paranoia...`feelings of grandeur`.

Now where on earth are all those highly trained psychologists and psychiatrists that supposedly know all this stuff? Why aren`t they on the streets and on TV telling everyone that its not the fault of films or games that nutters get sick and do nasty things to innocent people? What`s stopping them tellling it like it is? What, no books to sell in telling the truth? No name to make for yourself? No chance of fame and fortune on the back of the real and mundane...? No, thought not. There`s so much more to be had and made from pretending `we` can save the world if we just got rid of this or that or put these people in their place (e.g. jail or gas chamber).

Now, we`ve all got these lunatic traits to some extent. Some folks freeze in the face of danger, some run and some stand and fight. The people that run or fight are pretty normal, those that freeze aren`t. Where`s all the pop psychology explaining this abnormal, and usually fatal, freezing reaction? Some folks will run into a burning building to save their child or pet. Some will leap into a freezing torrent to save a drowning child or pet. Not all survive their moment of heroic action but perhaps that`s better in the long run than living the rest of your life feeling like a worthless, useless, fearful excuse for a human being? And what if such feelings burn deep into one`s psyche? Might these failed heroes become psychotic, obsessive and paranoid? Might they feel marginalized, excluded and ridiculed? It matters not whether the rest of society treats these people this way, only that this is how the person feels, because it is how they feel and deal with those feelings that can lead to murder, suicide or both.

Ah well, if we behave like fools then we deserve to die like fools. But rest assured, the truth will always bite you in the ass...HARD!

IanG    [26645.   Posted 24-Mar-2010 Wed 08:01] View Near Messages
Taking Liberty`s...quilts?

"Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos said she was `shocked` by the quilts, adding that they presented children with images they were not ready to understand."

And your evidence for this assertion comes from where Linda? Perhaps from the myriad of studies you yourself and collegues have carried-out in order to determine the exact moment a child is ready to understand sexual or sexy images?

Why don`t you trust old mother nature? Why do you think you know something more than your creator, Linda? Did `She` die and make you god?

All that is normal and natutral and been a part of human evolution since year dot cannot in any way be harmful or even inappropriate for anyone of any age. Whatever mind fuck games you think you`re playing, Linda, they all boggle logic and commonsense. You`re a quack. You don`t know jack shit.

Images pertaining to Human sexuality are bad for kids are they? Tell that to those living in the middle of the Amazon where none of your pathetic modernised religious bullshit affects the lives of real human beings living as human beings have lived for over 20,000 years. You know what, I doubt these people would think thee quilts were `shocking` and I doubt very much they`d think children might be harmed by not apparently being ready to see them.

IanG    [26635.   Posted 22-Mar-2010 Mon 08:48] View Near Messages
pbr, we can trace this creation of the phantom menace all the way back to the days of witch hunts. Dangerous Comics (aka dangerous drawings - all the same thing), dangerous pictures, the OPA, the VRA, the Comms Act etc. - NONE produce concrete evidence of the harm to which they all claim to be protecting people from. It`s all hearsay, myth, witchcraft, bogeymen and black magic.

Let`s consider the VRA. The moral panic over `video nasties` was started by the press - chief scaremongers and fairytale story tellers. The stories wern`t based on facts, there was no proof of harm but, the `dangers` were conjured up in the imaginations of people who were forced into a sheltered upbringing under the cloak of BBFC (i.e. no sex or violence please, we`re British) censorship. As I keep saying, censorship is a self-sustaining system of human rights abuses based on total ignorance.

Governments thoughout history know that if they`re to remain in control they must deal with the things that cause the people concern - whether they`re real or not - if the people are afraid of something the Government must go after the bogeyman be it real or fiction. So we have 16th century witch hunts - not because there are real witches and witchcraft but simply because the people believe there are witches and witchcraft (and tens of thousands of innocent young women were tortured and burned to death as a result - just to appease the scaremongers, the fantasists, the ignorant and, of course, make the Government appear to be `doing something` to keep their position of absolute power).

This is how it has always been. We`ve learned nothing. Indeed, our Governments continue to sacrifice the innocent to appease the deluded, fearful and ignorant masses. Society itself creates such monsterous imbeciles by sucking up to the censors, by not demanding the proof of harm, by not asking to find the absolute TRUTH of the matter, by choosing ignorance above knowledge, and myth above reality.

Of course, the `moral panic` over `video nasties` that resulted in the VRA was actually the brainchild of the main film studios. The porn and `B` movie mob had stolen a march on the newly formed home video market. The big players hadn`t really thought about going `straight to video`, they had months of waiting getting films classified and then promoting/selling/distributing and showing their works in cinemas. Of course its not fair is it - how can someone with $1000 make a video and cash-in on it straight away when Hollywood film makers have to pay thousands to get their films classified, often suffer major cuts or a cert. refusal, and only then start the costly business of selling the work to the public. And the independant video producer wonders why its so diffucult to get their films on the shelves these days...? - why its no surprise at all, this is exactly what the VRA was designed to do.

If we don`t banish the bullshit folks, we`ll still be doing the same old hunt the bogeyman bollox in another 500 years time. It`s time to banish superstition, religion and ignorance to the history bin. No beliefs have ever served to make the world better, indeed, they simply make it worse because the things we`re supposed to fear don`t exist and are thus unfixable but, moreover, they distract us and resources away from finding the real cause, which we might actually be able to fix because it is actually real and is the TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

To paraphrase a famous line: "Just because you can believe bullshit doesn`t mean you should".

IanG    [26617.   Posted 17-Mar-2010 Wed 06:30] View Near Messages
Sorry, more on the same...

"But bishops and family campaigners say it will normalise the idea of children under 16 having sex. The Catholic Bishops` Conference of England and Wales said: It is profoundly inappropriate to advertise condoms to children. Promoting the use of condoms cannot be separated from promoting sex, and the sexualisation of the target audience, which will be extended to children from ten to 16."

Oi, Bishops, who the fuck asked you? Haven`t you got an 8 year old choirboy to molest? Scared the little dears might get wise to your shinannigins? It`s so much easier to abuse children that don`t know what sex is isn`t it? Oh, and one last point, GOD decides when a person is old enough to become a sexually active young adult, not the Church, not the Government, not the ASA, not Ofcom, not `society`, not the parent and, surprise, surprise, not even the child.

And let me point out that only 100 years ago having sex at 12 was the legal norm. Moreover, if we`d stuck to this age of consent and the short time frame in which to teach them about the birds and bees, our children would be more than prepared for the onset of puberty and sexual maturity than they are now by pushing the age when they `can know` about sexuality back into late adolescence and early adulthood.

All of our `moral protectionists` are a bunch of moronic fuckwits.

IanG    [26616.   Posted 17-Mar-2010 Wed 06:08] View Near Messages
Good to see the British Establishment facing up to reality. Of course, its only taken them 26 years to wake up to the facts. It`s all alright now folks. In four years time your child will know all about condoms, well, actually, they`ll know who makes them and what brands are out there. It`s just such a pity the Government and the dinosaurs of advertising `standards` compliance didn`t review their archaic `codes` in the 1980s when AIDS demanded an immediate and revolutionary change in British attitudes toward sex. At least we know for sure now that keeping people in the dark (esp. children) cannot help us protect ourselves or our kids nor indeed, help them protect themselves.

I`m afraid if we want to see the sort of responsible teenage sex our Dutch and Danish cousins exhibit, Britain will have to fob off its porn taboo and finally rid ourselves of the religious cloak of ignorance that stifles British society, progress, justice and democracy.

You`re not protecting people Mr ASA, Mr Broown, Mr Ofcom, you`re all in fact the monsters that corrupt people`s minds with `porn harm` claptrap. You close minds with your protectionism of the easily offended who should in all honesty be sent for psychiatric help. Why else would a person watch shows they know will offend their ultra-sensitive `sensibilities` - its self-abuse of an entirely different nature, indeed, its self-inflicted mental torture.

IanG    [26611.   Posted 16-Mar-2010 Tue 08:32] View Near Messages
All sex is bad, particularly on daytime TV

Oh dear Ms Pattison, just because something offends you or your clan doesn`t mean the material is offensive. You may believe it is offensive but, offensive material is actually defined in law as being racist and sexist material - i.e. "hate speech".

As grown adults YOU are supposed to be able to deal SENSIBILY and MATURELY with themes of an adult nature. If you can`t then you`re not a rational human being, you`re not an adult, indeed, you are nought but spoiled brats throwing your proverbial toys out of the proverbial pram. Please grow up and act like adults, you`re giving the British people a very bad name and allowing fascist freaks to take that mile when we don`t want them to have an inch.

IanG    [26610.   Posted 16-Mar-2010 Tue 08:23] View Near Messages
Cinema Chain Smoking - I wonder how many billions of `Marmite impressions` yound people get around the world? Odd that some still either love it or hate it. Odd too that with billions of `cigarette impressions` going on in cinemas less than 20% of the audience ever take it up...

IanG    [26607.   Posted 14-Mar-2010 Sun 12:31] View Near Messages
"In four years I won`t be the prepubescent child you see before you, I`ll be a fast-maturing 16 year old with a mind and will of my own. I`ll make all the same mistakes my parents made when they went to parties and, like them and countless generations before, I`ll chalk it all up to experience as I learn what it is to be an adult."

IanG    [26577.   Posted 10-Mar-2010 Wed 07:38] View Near Messages
"In addition, after viewing the content complained of Ofcom noted that during all four broadcasts the website www.bangbabes.tv was promoted. When accessed by Ofcom this website featured images of a strong sexual nature equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material (R18-rated equivalent material) which could be readily viewed without appropriate protections."

This is still an outright LIE Ofcom. There was/is no such material on this site available without a creditcard and age verified subscription. And more to the point, YOU`RE not qualified nor empowered by law to make any such judgements. "Strong sexual material" means real, unsimulated, explicit sex acts - that`s according to the BBFC`s clear, concise, published guidelines. There was/is NO such material on this site available to anyone who isn`t a verified adult subscribing member.

YOU need a refresher in what R18 ACTUALLY looks like Ofcom, because clearly, you`ve got some very strange and incorrect ideas about it.

IanG    [26573.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 09:45] View Near Messages
DarkAngle5, [26564] yes, the whole of Schedule 1 is dedicated to completely rewriting the VRA.

I do hope the games and DVD industries stop Meddlesome soon. He`s supposed to be writing the Digital Economy Bill however, he`s going to deliver the Digital Chaos Bill and likely destroy the Digital Economy singlehanded.

No longer will a BBFC certificate be a guarantee of legality. You can`t plan promotions or order stocks in advance because out of the blue Mr Braisier might take a dislike to your latest `flying off the shelves` blockbuster and revoke the cert. and thus render the stock illegal to sell and the games/DVDs illegal to supply. Oh joy.

What I`d like to know is who`s picking up the tab for all the stock that has to be collected and destroyed? Who`s footing the bill for all the breaches of contract and lawsuits? Who`s paying for the wasted fuel as ships arrive with container loads of contraband games/DVDs onboard? I most certainly hope its not the taxpayer. Government censorship and a few £100m costs?!! - it won`t wash with the public.

Sorry, Mandy, but this is utter shit typical of all your other political gaffs. You`re a twice dismissed, disgraced and unelected twit. Now stop messing about with things you CLEARLY do not understand!

Y`know I`m sure there was a point to having an independant body do game and DVD classification based on consultation with the public but, I`m damned if I can remember what it was...? How about you Mandleson, can you remember what it was all about?

Oh yes, now I remember...when a people finally rid themselves of a censorial government dictatorship they usually BAN censorship altogether. I guess every cloud has a silver lining ;)

IanG    [26572.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 09:43] View Near Messages
"Pattison said: Why is it entertaining to watch people being slashed like that with blood everywhere? In no place in society would that be acceptable other than on television."

Hey, that`s right Viv, its only acceptable on TV, games and film. But you try telling that to the nutty religious monsters who go about hacking people to death, blowing them to bits or smashing planes into skyscrapers - and all for no apparent reason. You try telling that to our own sexophobic wankstains in chruches and Government up and down land who seem to believe its fine to drop bombs on innocent people with a "Oh sorry, thought you were someone else". You`re all bloody insane - you`re so sick you can`t even see the nonsense you spout is utter bullshit.

Anyway folks, according to Vivienne Pattison of MediawatchUK, who speaks for society in general (apparently), Spartacus: Blood and Sand, is acceptable on TV. And for once I think I can agree. In fact the only place I`d like to see people being hacked and blown to bits with blood `everywhere` is in games, TV, films and plays, where its all CLEARLY PRETEND.

Of course, there`s not much changed since the Spartans and Romans went on a bloody rampage across the known world. The Yanks and Brits and barbarian muslims seem to be keeping up the tradition quite nicely. Go for it guys - with a bit of luck you`ll annihilate each other and leave the rest of us to live in peace forevermore (or is that just wishful thinking?).

IanG    [26562.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 22:19] View Near Messages
Anyone else spotted this?

http://www.recordoftheday.com/dailybanners/digitaleconomybill.pdf

Schedule 1

1 The Video Recordings Act 1984 is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 4 (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification)
is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (i), after “issue” insert “or revocation”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), after “issuing” insert “and revoking”.

IanG    [26561.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 15:21] View Near Messages
I once said the BBFC were sick and twisted. I stand by what I said.

"My Daughter’s A Cocksucker is an explicit sex work featuring a number of very similar scenes in which young women perform acts of fellatio on men (shot so their faces are not seen) while frequently looking into the camera and asking questions of the viewer such as ‘are you proud of me now Daddy’, `Am I a good little cocksucker daddy?`, `My older sister isn`t as good as this, is she daddy? Mommy taught me well`, `Am I good enough to teach the little sister?` and `are you jacking off to your little princess?’. The female performers also make comments to the viewer such as `Daddy always likes it when I choke` , `Daddy told me to do it just like this` and `Daddy always said a wet blow job`s the best blow job`.

The context makes it clear that ‘Daddy’ is being used to refer to a familial relationship and not as mere term of endearment for an older lover. The Board’s judgement is that in this work the dialogue encourages the male viewer to be aroused by, among other things, the idea of instructing and watching his daughter in the act of fellatio. This effect is potentially heightened by the implication that the daughter also finds this paternal interest arousing. The Board has concluded that such sequences constitute ‘material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…’"

"This effect" exists only in your twisted imagination `Mr` BBFC. Its your rather perverse opinion, not proven fact. You truly are the sickest of the sick if you believe any of the above speculative claptrap is remotely real or feasible, or indeed, the INTENTION of this work...that actually, to any sane and rational person, appears to be a fucking JOKE.

Pray tell how a complete stranger (i.e. porn actor) is to appear to be the viewers` own daughter, apparently, `inciting`, `encouraging` or `heightening an interest` in them to abuse their own offspring? What `thought` processes do you people go though to reach such unequivocally sick and twisted bullshit?

Perhaps, BBFC, you`d like to point us to all the other films that have slipped though your net that actually encourage all those incestious fathers out there to teach their own daughters to suck their cocks? As far as I can see, none of these sick people need/needed any encouragement at all - they`ve all been at it for centuries, long before films came along, long before porn became acceptable. The evidence is so hugely stacked against your pathetic psychobabble one can only assume you think you`re now Gods, able to steer and `correct` people`s behaviour with a splicing blade. Grow up will you. You`re doing yourself no favours. You`re doing the public a disservice. Indeed, you`ve taken to insulting our intelligence with your unsubstantiated and wholly `unhealthy fantasies`.

Please fuck off and peddle your brand of snake oil elsewhere. I`m truly sick of it.

IanG    [26560.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 08:48] View Near Messages
emark, if they did some research I think they`ll discover MOST teenage boys are `crap at sex` whether they look at porn or not. In fact I`ll wager the lads that know what lady bits look like are slightly better `at it` than the ignorant, sheltered, trigger-happy rest.



Re: Times article on public photography.
I can`t seem to post a comment on the article but, I wonder why it is that the public cannot demand the removal of all CCTV cameras on grounds of invasion of privacy? After all, CCTV is designed specifically (and often covertly) to SPY on people`s lives and invade their privacy.

IanG    [26554.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 08:13] View Near Messages
Does anyone know the definition of a `sex object`? I can`t see how looking upon someone as a possible sexual partner turns them into an object or remotely objectifies them.

We may believe we are far nobler and that we seek some deeper emotional and intellectual friendship with our sexual partners, indeed, this non-sexual bonding is usually reserved for same-sex friends and those whom we are not sexually attracted to. However, when seeking our `soul mate` we generally consider a long term partnership in terms of physical, emotional and intellectual compatibility. If one of these aspects remains unfulfilled then the relationship can be compromised - the eye can wander in search of more physically appealing partners, the mind may seek new challenges or like-minded souls and, as a consequence, the emotional ties, the things we call love and trust that bind `soul mates` together, can become strained.

It may be convenient for some to consider the mind and body as seperate entities but, we are one whole, one complete being. Indeed, the idea that the flesh may be weak while the spirit is strong is deeply flawed. The flesh is controlled by the spirit, the psyche, the thought, the reflex, our hopes and dreams. We do as our mind directs (and often subconsciously). The body is but a vessel for the mind and, despite everything society may believe, our mind is but biology and our biology knows what it needs not just for our personal survival but for the survival of our very species and what`s best for our offspring.

In terms of sexuality, only rapists (and perhaps traffickers/pimps) treat other people as `sex objects` to be used and abused. Where there`s mutual attraction or some mutually beneficial arrangement (i.e. partnerships and/or paid-for `sexual encounters`) there`s no objectification but, indeed, a degree of mutual respect, social interaction, even pleasure in the fulfilling of some inherant socio-sexual need for all parties involved (that maybe sexual for one and, perhaps, monetary for the other but, it could be emotional, re-humanising, de-fusing and satisfying nonetheless).

And it should be stressed that it is far better for hormone-filled young lads to work off their excess testosterone with pictures of naked ladies than getting their 14-17 y/o girlfriends pregnant - isn`t it?

Our sexuality is only something we alone can control and, how we choose to do that is our business alone. It should be noted that pornography has always been part of human society. And just because some religiously deluded twits in the middle of the 19th century thought they could protect children by turning sexually explicit materials into `obscenity` has done nothing to protect children from sexual abuse and, indeed, has only increased their naivety and vulnerability to sexual exploitation and abuse.

Indeed, denying youngsters the right to know and explore their own inherant sexuality is a vile and insipid form of child sexual abuse. You`re as guilty as hell Britain and the proof of your illness is plain for all sane, rational and sexually open countries to see.

IanG    [26542.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 08:44] View Near Messages
Thanks for that hobosoup - do you know if or where this cummulative study is published? (Can`t see any links on Xbiz) Many of us here are aware of Milton Diamond`s previous studies in Japan in particular and, the work of Beryl Kutchinsky, indeed, even of Guy Cumberbatch, Neil Malamuth, Donnerstein and Linz.

The evidence for the Governmnet`s stance on porn is clearly against their policy. Indeed, we can be certain Ofcom`s position re porn on TV is placing children in danger. I mean (awful as this is) their (Gov/Ofcom) prohibitions did nothing to save Baby Peter or Khyra Ishaq, nor, indeed, any of the other 220+ chidren that were starved, tortured, abused and murdered in their own homes by their own families last year alone. I see no protection of `vulnerable children` coming from censorship. Indeed, I see only mindless human rights abuses coming from people who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence (of over 50 years of studies) that proves conclusively their beliefs to be absolute nonsense and, dangerously perverse nonsense at that.

It`s 10 years since the High Court ruled that hardcore porn was not a danger to children. How can Ofcom dare to claim it is `harmful` without providing any proof to back up their claims and, indeed, act in complete contempt of the law of this land as handed down by the High Court?

IanG    [26535.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 09:49] View Near Messages
MichaelG, the loonies have all come out of the woodwork mate.

Where`s Shaun? Where`s anyone who, like myself, grew up in the 1970s with programmes like I Clavdivs, Monty Python, Q8, Bouquet of Barbwire, The Cleopatras, any number of Play for Today...the list goes on and on... I recall seeing dozens of programmes which contained "full frontal nudity, sex and violence". This begs one very important question: why did NONE of this `unsuitable for children` material do anything to cause anyone of my generation to be `harmed physically, mentally or morally` nor indeed, cause any concerns over `early sexualization` of us children. I`ll tell you why shall I, because it did NOTHING to affect our healthy, normal and quite enlightened progress into sane rational adulthood.

I speak from 100% experience. I was THERE. I am absolutely sick to death of insane religious, feminazi nutters fucking up the psychological development of our children.

None of this `unsuitable for children` material damages children. It in fact adds to their sexual education and prepares them for the harsh realities of life. We were not dumbed down. We were not mollycoddled. That twat Whitehouse was an enemy of freedom and rationality even to my tender 10 years old eyes. And I`m afraid Ms Pattison you`re no fucking better - you know nothing and care even less.

The things that traumatised me as a child were: the death of my pet dog, the death of my father, Leeds Utd not winning the FA Cup - all things which I had real emotional attachments to.

I recall watching Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon. I recall seeing a Vietnamese girl about my age running from her napalmed village with all the skin from her back trailing behind her. I knew then that we live in a totally fucked-up world and that its all the fault of our gloriously deluded, insane, psychotic `leaders`.

I know this: you cannot create the world of your dreams through censorship. Hiding the brutal truth, sex, warts and all, improves no one`s life. In fact it demeans and debases, degrades and insults our very intelligence. But then that`s what they want - a whole generation of easily offended fuckwits to back them up on their insane crusade to the promised land of cottonwool and candyfloss and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

We have a right and need to experience everything in the realm of human existence else we can never know or claim to be sane and rational human beings. Knowledge and experience give us power over our own minds and bodies. The easily offended are nought but infantile cretins. The morally superior are nought but deluded children. If you cannot react to a stimulus in a sane and rational manner then you are not a sane and rational human being - end of.

IanG    [26526.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 08:54] View Near Messages
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Causes.aspx?url=Pages/what-is-it.aspx

Shaun, yes, not looking to other countries/cultures is why I made the point about `Dr` Papadoloulus and, indeed, this Government, not presenting an existing `model` human society as a control or baseline before arriving at their extraordinary `fixes` for our perceived `problems`.

`Gender inequality` is fundamental to all living creatures and most certainly has been central to human cultures since Homo Sapien evolved some 250,000 years ago. Evolution is a NATURAL process - you fuck about with it at your peril. Indeed, the state of the world today can be pinned firmly on bullshit religious beliefs, farming, finance, finite resource exploitation and of course government. None of this bullshit is natural and its consequences can all be seen in all good history accounts leading to the untimely deaths of countless billions of lives.

The NHS link above states some of the known factors leading to young people (mostly girls) developing anorexia. It says along with bullying, depression and (perceived) obesity, the onset of puberty is a trigger in developing such eating disorders. Now I don`t know about anyone else, but teaching `gender equality` - i.e. social androgeny - would tend to clash with girls entering puberty when they begin forming curvy hips and breasts. One consequence of exercise at the level 12 y/o East European gymnasts used to train was to hold back the onset of puberty (the NHS recognise excessive training/exercise as a factor in causing eating disorders too). All the `psychological` evidence points toward inappropriate messages of gender nutrality or social androgeny and body sterotyping playing a role in creating anxiety, depression, low self esteem etc. that CAUSES eating disorders in "VULNERABLE CHILDREN".

WHY can`t people be happy with their own gender? WHY can`t society celebrate sexual differences? WHY do we `demonise` sexual expression? WHY must we steer our youngsters down a totally untried, untested, unnatural path toward social androgeny? More to the point, if the self-proclaimed engineers of social sexual equality can`t see the effects their sick ideology is having on real human beings then WHY should anyone trust them to know what`s `right` at all?

I DEMAND `Dr` Papadopoulous and this Government point us to the `ideal` society upon which ALL their unnatural claims and `fixes` for our society are based. Who, what and where are these wonderous people? I`ve a sneaking suspicion all the recomendations are based on the sex lives of bisexual worms or slugs because they sure as hell have got fuck all to do with social primate (e.g. human) society.

Any society that doesn`t rejoyce in our sexual differences and permit boys to be boys and girls to be girls is on a course for total and utter sexual dysmorphia. A glaringly obvious consequence of anorexia in teenage girls is the halting of puberty and attaining not just a cronically thin body but one that looks like a prepubescent boy`s. To a child`s innocent mind, the message of `gender equality` sounds like "boys and girls are the same" - the fact that prepubescent boys and girls bodies look the same is the key to understanding what happens next in the vulnerable child`s perception of body `perfection` and "what society wants me to be like".

Now you`d perhaps expect in times of great stress and food rationing, such as during and atfer WWII, that anorexia would have been a natural consequence but, surprise, surprise it wasn`t. In my mother`s 35 years as a nurse, midwife and health vistitor, anorexia was unheard of. It is a modern, post-women`s lib disorder that, as far as I can tell, affects girls who`d likely grow up to be just fine specimens of womanhood were it not for the `equality` bunch filling children`s heads with the idea that girls should be more like boys, sexuality is abnormal, sexiness is degrading...and the rest of the femo-fascist mantra.

I have absolutely nothing against sexual equality in terms of law and human rights, but, it does not follow that we should fool ourselves (indeed, our own children) into believing boys and girls are remotely similar in their roles as natural sexual human beings.

Moving on. I`m deeply concerned with the sexually repressive stance this Government is yet again planning to enforce on the populace of this nation. It is a proven FACT that such environments CAUSE sexual abuse. It is a proven FACT that sexually liberated societies are far healthier and safer than sexually repressed societies. It is known that pubescent teenagers don`t like to watch pornography - it angers them (why we don`t know - could be their repressed upbringing). I don`t like the soap operas, kids programmes or bloody football on TV - they anger me hence I don`t watch such bile. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that under 18s are unlikely to access pornographic materials of their own free will if they don`t actually like it. Ergo, there`s no need to implement human rights abusing restrictions on adults accessing such material via TV and on-demand audiovisual services.

Indeed, here are the conclusions from Ofcom`s report from 2005, "R18 material: its potential impact on people under 18":
[quote]
Almost no research has been done with the under 18 age group and R18 material (Corne et al., 1992; Donnerstein et al., 1992; Haynes, 1987; Linz et al., 1992; VanEvra, 2004)52. The result is that there is no conclusive empirical evidence for a causal relationship between exposure to R18 material and impairment of the mental, physical or moral development of minors.

Whether or not R18 material will be made available on UK television, it is probable that young people will be increasingly exposed to violence towards women, sexual messages and depictions of sexual intercourse in the media (Harris, 1994; Kunkel et al., 2003; Kunkel et al., 2001; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004)53.

A bigger exposure to this kind of material is related to children being sexually active at a younger age (Brown et al., 1990; Brown & Newcomer, 1991; Brown & Witherspoon, 2002). This is a correlation and not a causal link however.

Young children (under the age of 12) do not seem to have developed enough emotionally to understand what sexual material is about and older children appear more angered by it than traumatised (Donnerstein et al., 1992; Silverman-Watkins & Sprafkin, 1983; U.S. Department of Justice, 1986).

Most researchers stress that good sex education and an open relationship with parents in issues of sexuality are more important for the child to develop normally than a ban on R18 material (Linz et al., 1992; Strasburger & Donnerstein, 1999; VanEvra, 2004; Zillmann, 2000).
Zillmann (2000) argues that results from research carried out with college students should be transferable to adolescents. He refers specifically to research on long term or frequent exposure to pornography and its relation to attitudinal changes (eg. less appreciation of traditional (sexual) relationships) (See also Allen, D`Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995; Allen, Emmers, & Gebhart, 1995; Bushman & Cantor, 2003)54.

There is some evidence for a positive effect of R18 material and young people; exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes
[/quote]

Let`s quote that last line again: "exposure to pornography at a younger age and a less restrictive parental environment seem to be related to a lower likelihood of committing sex crimes". Have you got that Mr Government? How about you Ofcom?...YOUR mindless, baseless `protectionism` is what`s REALLY fucking vulnerable young people up!

Leave people ALONE to be free to find out what suits them PERSONALLY and we all turn out fine. Fill people`s heads with religiously inspired Victorian bullshit, constrain and restrict their choices and access to knowledge and information and you`re asking for absolute disaster. The British people deserve better - I deserve better, everyone here deserves better.

IanG    [26523.   Posted 1-Mar-2010 Mon 05:53] View Near Messages
I`m wondering which human society Ms `Dr` Papadopoulus used as the `control`, `baseline` or `model` in order to identify what`s `wrong` in our society to mysteriously `know` these could be `corrected` by her recommendations?

You know, off the top of my head I can`t think of one human society that doesn`t practice some form of body alteration/adornment or, indeed, have some regimented stereotypical gender roles. Indeed, there are many that practice some form of body fear and loathing. There are also many that base their culture upon strange mythological beliefs too.

I do hope the Government chose `Dr` Papadopoulus based on her decades of experience working with children and not for her fame as a TV pop psychologist. I wonder why the Government didn`t pick some relatively unknown Dr with 20 or 30 years experience working with children? If I didn`t know `better` I`d say they picked someone they could rely on to deliver Jacqui and Harriet`s vision of model Britain rather than someone who would likely find the Governmnet sadly lacking in any knowledge of child wellfare and developmental issues.

Reading what I have so far about the contents and recommendations of `Dr` Pap`s report I`m inclined to believe its not even pseudo science but, something more akin to the religio-feminist agenda. This surely cannot be what the Government spent the taxpayer`s money on can it?

I was also shocked to read this in the Guardian: "The difference between "inappropriate" and "appropriate" behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. New guidance for social workers states that they should recognise that children are at risk from their peers, and that they should not interpret sexual play as "normal". Social workers are advised not to accept a high threshold before taking action. There are numerous experiences that are entirely harmless in the context of children`s lives which would take on a more sinister meaning if they were carried out by an adult. The Home Office report falls into the trap of seeing the dark side of adult sexuality in the playground."

This is Government advice? "Sex play is not normal"? Well I`m sorry Gordon but I beg to differ in the strongest possible terms, indeed, I`m CERTAIN the VAST MAJORITY of Child Wellfare EXPERTS and Child Psychologists would agree this behaviour is PERFECTLY normal. I think you lot in Parliament have forgotten everything you did when you were just toddlers. In fact you all seem to have forgotten what you did as teenagers.

Of course, the religiously corrupted British Government believe this behaviour is not `normal` according to their interpretation, idea and vision of `Britishness`. This is surely PROOF of what I`ve been saying for years - people are being systematically brainwashed with the FALSE ideologies of complete nutters from the moment they`re born.

If anyone hasn`t noticed (esp. you Ms `Dr` Papadopoulus), children are born with sex organs. And just as they`re predisposed to discover what their eyes, ears, arms and legs are for, so too their inherant purpose in life, to procreate, drives them to need to know what every other part of their body is for. Indeed, they inherantly need to discover that fundamental difference between boys and girls and how to cement fruitful relationships. That is, as they say, LIFE.

Of course we see the underlying problem with Big Government now. Human Beings are more than capable of learning how to live and perpetuate our species without state education and without religious brainwashing - hell, even our dumb ape relatives seem to mamage it just fine. And of course, social norms are what society as a whole deems normal not, as the case may be, having unnatural, unjust and misguided `norms` dictated from cretins in positions of unimginable power. And of course, those positions of power could not exist unless people were brought up to believe in nonsense - such as those who would be `kings` mysteriously know what`s right for everyone `below` them. It`s a pity these dictators are only human else I might believe they were infallible, alas, that`s not the case and at least 1 in 4 are, we`re assured, guarnteed to be sufferring some form of mental illness at some point in their pathetic lives (and believing there`s something fundamentally `wrong` with sex is surely a mental illness...?).

IanG    [26510.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 09:40] View Near Messages
Someone sent me this, thought it might interest some
"Myths of Media and Audiences" http://www.aup.nl/do.php?a=process_visit...ial_id=409

IanG    [26505.   Posted 24-Feb-2010 Wed 08:56] View Near Messages
"In addition, after viewing the content complained of Ofcom noted that during all three broadcasts the website www.bangbabes.tv was promoted. When accessed by Ofcom this website featured images of a strong sexual nature equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material (R18-rated equivalent material) which could be readily viewed without appropriate protections. Although this R18-rated equivalent material was not broadcast on-air, Ofcom was concerned that it appeared on a website being promoted on Ofcom licensed services freely available without mandatory restricted access from 21:00."

Well, I`ve been visiting the www.bangbabes.tv website for months and never once have I seen anything close to R18-type material. You`re talking SHIT Ofcom and we`re now going to prove what an unfit, rights-abusing bunch of cretins you lot truly are.

If anyone here is interested, I along with several of the 27,000+ (if only we`d had these numbers on the days of Ofwatch...) members of www.babeshows.co.uk forum, have created a campaign group to represent the rights and interests of UK babe and adult channel viewers. BACVA (the Babe and Adult Channel Viewers Assoc.) has quite literally just launched a blog site at www.bacva.blogspot.com.

I have also been running a poll over at babeshows to test the veracity of Ofcom`s claim in Bulletin 151 that the material on Bang Babes was "So strongly sexual it likely exceeded the expectations of the vast majority of the audience". This struck me as total and utter bullshit and indeed, this has been borne out in our poll with over 51% saying their expectations are never or rarely met, let alone exceeded. There are several members on the babeshows forum who regularly post recordings of shows and highlights (many clips appear on the www.babevideos.co.uk sister site too). The Amanda Rendall thread has received over 190,000 hits and contains most of her flashing and `strongly sexual` activities. Clearly, Ofcom have no idea what the expectations of `adult` viewers are and cannot cliam to know or represent our views.

I made the point recently that had the material on Bang Babes caused widespread harm or offence as Ofcom claim then, Ofcom would have received 1000`s of complaints instead of the usual ONE. I`m tired of one solitary twat being able to ruin programmes many tens of thousands of viewers are perfectly happy with, aren`t you?

If you are sick of being lied to and misrepresented by Ofcom then please join us at the Broadcasting Regulations thread at www.babeshows.co.uk and/or sign up at www.bacva.blogspot.com.

Cheers

IanG.

IanG    [26502.   Posted 23-Feb-2010 Tue 06:49] View Near Messages
bleach, there`s no need to speculate on the real and positive effects of open and honest treatment of sexual matters and pornography. Just over the Channel sex is legal at 14 and young adults of 16 are treated as such. And despite such `lax` precautions against `early sexualisation` ( by religious, `traditional` British `standards`), teenagers wait a year longer to lose their virginity than British kids (ave. is 17 not 14, 15 or 16 years), 95%+ use condoms and practice safe sex thus the rates of teen pregnancies and STI infections is next to NIL compared to the UK.

I`m sick of the lies and bullshit British people allow themselves to believe based on their very particular British conditioning. British `attitudes` and `values` are perversely sick and do exactly the OPPOSITE to that which is KNOWN to be beneficial to every child`s health and wellbeing across the Channel.

IanG    [26496.   Posted 21-Feb-2010 Sun 14:02] View Near Messages
phantom, I don`t know how many times I have to say this but, its pointless trying to find logic in insanity. There is no such thing as a dangerous picture. Just as there is no such thing as dangerous terrorist materials. Intent is, was and always will be the test as to whether the possessor is a danger to society. Without intent the possessor is merely a collector of oddities, pictures, memorabilia, antiquities. We have some very sick people in some very powerful positions - and their intent is crystal clear.

IanG    [26493.   Posted 20-Feb-2010 Sat 05:48] View Near Messages
"Last month developers were notified that all screenshots for the App Store had to be free of objectionable material and be acceptable for a 4+ rating."

Can 4 year olds legally purchase iApps? I could have sworne the World Health Org. recommend breast feeding to at least the age of 2 years and that they say the average age to stop breast feeding world wide is 4 years. Ah well, such is the power of social conditioning. Tits become `objectionable` as soon as you turn 4 years old. Odd though, as most women in the `west` don`t bother breast feeding past the first 6 months, an average age to stop feeding of 4 years world-wide must mean many over 4s are still being exposed to `objectionable` boobies - in their millions.

Maybe Apple mean a mental age of 4...? And what was that ruling by the US Courts...oh yes, women can get their nipples out anywhere men can get their nipples out.

I thought all civilised countries had laws against monopolies specifically to stop anyone who controls a mass communications medium having their opinion foist upon the masses, dictating to the people what `public` opinion `is` by way of lurid headlines and dictats on what can and can`t `be allowed`? Perhaps not? Was there really `mounting pressure` on John Terry to resign or be sacked, or was it all just media hype? Does anyone really have a right to judge Tiger Woods because he has a private life? It`s a good job we don`t live under Sharia law else many celebs would have been publically flogged and their names dragged through the mud by the press...but now I come to think of it... :sigh:

IanG    [26482.   Posted 17-Feb-2010 Wed 11:16] View Near Messages
DarkAngel5, "This is what happens when you don`t view things for yourself and rely upon hearsay." Such as that from the BBFC... Their description of Grotesque was frankly ridiculous, I dare say, horrific, biased and increduluous.

IanG    [26438.   Posted 1-Feb-2010 Mon 09:21] View Near Messages
Consequences?

Let`s see now. In the 1920s, the `alcohol problem` in the US was treated with an outright ban. That ban created an environment in which: organized criminals FLOURISHED; drinking became covert and establishments moved underground; it increased the number of people drinking covertly; it increased the production of illicit, unlicensed, `bathtub` hooch.

Now if IDS or anyone else in the UK Establishment believe making alcohol so expensive no one will want it then, all I can say is we need a completely new Establishment - one with people that UNDERSTAND not just the British psyche but also the human psyche in general and, indeed, the consequenses of their own pathetic control freak fascist agendas!

"Is your booze too expensive?...Then why not make your own or, buy ours (we won`t tell if you don`t (nudge nudge wink wink))".

No doubt all those binge drinkers that simply want to get so `out of it` they don`t know what they`re doing will find cheaper alternatives - like heroine, super-pot, pills and other alchemist`s potions that have been banned for over a century (with absolutley no discernable interruption to their supply or street-price whatsoever (in fact most are cheaper now than they ever were...)).

The British Government (no matter which party gets picked) are a bunch of self-righteous dickheads who know nothing and care even less.

The real question no one in Parliament dares ask is: WHY are more and more people going out to get completely lashed on a regular basis? Could it be their lives are so completely empty and unfulfilled in this money-centric shithole excuse for an `aspirational` society? Money doesn`t buy love or happiness. The Great British Debt Mountain maybe good for banks and business but it does nothing for anyone`s feelings of self-worth - does it? Depression and drug abuse go hand-in-hand, and alcohol is clearly the preferred legal drug of the masses. The state of the nation`s health, wealth and happiness are all dictated by Government policy. Clearly then, the repressive, paranoid, control-freak attitudes of Governments passed and present are the CAUSE of the binge drinking culture. The powers that be are not making this country better, they are in fact making it sick - in every sense of the word.

IanG    [26432.   Posted 24-Jan-2010 Sun 08:51] View Near Messages
"Dr Tongren picked out two examples to highlight the problem.

In the 2003 Christmas movie Elf, the main character played by actor Will Ferrell gets knocked down by a New York City taxi while crossing the street. He bounces back up without a scratch – which Dr Tongren said gave a false view of what happens."

How do you know that Doc? Do you know for sure that 6`6" Elfs aren`t `unbreakable` or `invincible`? Of course, a film about an Elf strikes me as being a fantasy or fairytale in which, most children know, nothing is real.

"And in the 2005 comedy Yours, Mine and Ours, about a family with 18 kids, the children are wearing life jackets during a boat trip — but not the parents played by Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo."

How terrible, a whole generation of children might grow into adults who believe the wearing of life jackets is `optional`.

"The two films were among 67 popular movies from 2003 to 2007 examined in the study including Harry Potter. From those movies, the researchers found 958 scenes involving potential injury-prevention practices. 55% of the scenes involved children. Twenty-two scenes involved either a fall or a crash, but just three of those scenes resulted in an injury."

I think this is known as poetic license. It might bollox the plot and the flow of the film if after every incident the characters are carted off to hospital for xrays and `observation`.

"The study, published in the journal, Paediatrics, found 44% of people in motor vehicles failed to wear seat belts; 65% of pedestrians did not cross at zebra crossings, 75% of cyclists failed to wear a helmet and 25% of boaters failed to wear life vests."

Ah well, there you go, a symptom looking for a cause. Funny you know Doc., most people I know watched thousands of films and TV shows that showed `unrealistic consequences` of accidents but, even our feable childish minds managed to figure out "its only a film".

Anyhow, it seems 56% of people in car accidents do wear seatbelts and the other 44% are probably lacking in the common sense department.

As 65% of pedestrians are not being killed or injured when crossing the road we must assume that they can negotiate traffic without the aid pedestrian crossings - a skill I learned as a child before the age of 8 in order to walk to school. Oh yes, once mere children walked to school 5 days a week and played outside on the streets with their pals and crossed main roads completely unsupervised and unaided. Perhaps we were `superkids` compared to today`s knuckle-dragging mollycoddled apekids with cottonwool for brains - or is that just the research psychologists that appear to have forgotten everything they saw and did as children?

Oh yeah, I had a couple of bikes when growing up but, in those days there were no such thing as cycle helmets - only grown-ups on motorbikes wore crash helmets and some of them did so only because the Government made it the law.

Finally, it seems the vast 75% majority of boaters do choose to wear life jackets.

My fear Dr. Tongren is that YOU dickheads are sending the human race backward, after all, EVOLUTION is about weeding out the mentally and physically `challenged` that prove THEMSELVES incapable or unworthy of surviving in the real world.

Somehow Dr Tongren, you and I and most people I know, managed to survive the barage of un-PC, unsafe, violent, horrific and oft extremely funny antics of say, Batman, Tom & Jerry, Wilie Coyote and such-like, without acting like completely deranged and idiotic fools. The human race would, I suggest, be far better off however without the offspring of those who might disregard all common sense and everyday safety advice in response to something they saw in a film.

IanG    [26427.   Posted 21-Jan-2010 Thu 10:47] View Near Messages
Harvey, I think the recent cases of Super Injuctions prove without doubt that the defamation need not be proven but simply claimed to be possible. Even where the evidence that the damge to reputation is justified by incompetence or illegal activity, the person/company involved appears to be able to prevent 3rd parties from revealing the truth.

Of course it is unlikely that a private indivdual would bring defamation charges against someone exposing the truth - if the claims can be proven then they will simply further damage their reputation at great expense to themselves. When someone claims to have been slandered we generally assume that the claims against them might actually be false - and it is then for the accuser to make their case that it is the truth.

This is after all how the police and CPS operate. They accuse someone of committing a crime and then have to prove it in court. It is not for the accused who denies the charges to prove their innocence but for their accusers to prove their case (at least that was how the people wanted justice to work before the Government decided they should be able to throw anyone they dislike in jail).

IanG    [26425.   Posted 21-Jan-2010 Thu 06:46] View Near Messages
Shaun, I find it totally inconceivable that Parliament can even contemplate re-enacting legislation that belongs to a previous generation. The VRA 1984 was created in response to a press-induced hysteria that has been proven completely unnecessary and irrational with virtually every film on the `ban this filth` list being passed uncut and with a 15 rating. The VRA was created when the humble VCR was just becoming affordable to most households. It belongs to a passed age of pre-HRA 1998 rights-abusing censorship, to an age void of Cable, Satellite and Internet TV. It belongs to a Britain where hardcore porn was banned and `obscene` instead of being the most searched for topic on the Internet - proof positive the VRA, like the BBFC and Parliament is totally out of keeping with the modern world.

Rushing this piece of rubbish back into law 25 years after its flaws and rights-abuses have been publically and repeatedly exposed is not just wrong but, proof that Parliament is utterly pathetic, lazy and acting in a way which is NOT in the public interest. Indeed, the VRA places so many unnecessary interferences on Freedom of Expression it is quite likely illegal in today`s HRA-protected Britain - or are we to believe a ban on the advertising and mail order supply of material which is legal to import via mail order and which can be easily accessed in the home with just the click of a mouse makes any legal or rational sense? In fact, one can only assume Parliament`s rush to enact this tripe properly for the first time in its entire history is merely to legitemise the convictions and restriction that have been illegally enforced these passed 25 years.

I will add that this seems to be par for the course in our broken Parliamentary system. I don`t believe society is broken however, the law and governance of this nation clearly is.

IanG    [26423.   Posted 20-Jan-2010 Wed 12:01] View Near Messages
"Ian Gilmore, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, welcomed the code but whinged that it failed to deal with the issue of cheap supermarket drinks."

And rightly so Gilmore! The QUANITY of alcholic drinks one buys bears NO RELATION to the SPEED at which it is imbibed.

If I buy a crate of wine - i.e. 12 bottles - because its on offer, this does not then mean I consume more than the recommended units per day or week. Indeed, if one is holding a reception or dinner party, the chance to purchase drink in bulk at discount is very HANDY and indeed, somewhat NECESSARY.

Now would you kindly FUCK OFF (Dr?) Gilmore and tackle the REAL CAUSE of binge drinking culture and leave the rest of us who KNOW HOW to drink cheaply AND responsibly ALONE. Cheers!

IanG    [26422.   Posted 20-Jan-2010 Wed 10:18] View Near Messages
sergio, I do not care if those comments are slander or libel. My concern is that such completely unsubstantiated bullshit (i.e. the implication that millions of naturists or indigenous people are `ill` and a `danger to children`) join the already evil and despotic mythological shitpile our `masters` and oppressors call upon to create criminals out of perfectly harmless and innocent members of society who simply fail to conform to the `idealised` version of a sexually-repressed `British subject`.

Where is the EVIDENCE that PROVES, say, `obscene` images (or short stories ffs!) can `corrupt and deprave` the viewer/reader or, that the hapless possessor of Japanese erotic art IS a danger to children?

Where`s the EVIDENCE naturists abuse children? Where`s the EVIDENCE that naturist children are being `harmed` either by being naked or by seeing other naked people?

The ONLY thing being `damaged` is the IDEA of `Britishness` - that IT ALONE `means` we HAVE to be anti-porn, anti-naturist, sexually immature and sexually repressed dickheads that consequently `need` a thousand `laws` to lock people up for enjoying the most basic freedoms and erotic interests.

Censorship creates and maintains the environment in which British people are BRAINWASHED by the centuries-old INSANE religious ideologies that none of us here subscribe to - as is OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!!

IanG    [26418.   Posted 19-Jan-2010 Tue 02:12] View Near Messages
sergio, "Commentators on radio shows could be completely deranged halfwits with minds like sewers who abuse children every day in every way possible".

Of course I have no basis whatsoever to believe this is so but, what the fuck, this `commentator` deserves to be exposed for the mindless twat they truly are.

"..Gough could be a paedophile"

Really? And what led this person (sorry, minless twat) to hold such an opinion? Let`s see...ah yes - Because Gough doesn`t wear clothes (like fuck knows how many millions of people across Europe, Africa and the Amazon), he might be something he (and those other millions) have never ever been suspected of or charged with. Oh yes, the logic of it is...INCREDIBLE!

"...Gordon Brown could be a paedophile" (I`m sure he`ll like that, mind you, I don`t think being a complete baffoon warrants the assertion - only my opinion of course...)


But wait.

"...children need protecting because fully-clothed nursery nurses are known to be paedophlies"

Now that`s true and, moreover, the assertion logically relates to the reason.

Anyone who believes statements of opinion cannot be falsified isn`t fit to serve the law or justice. If this bullshit legalese you`ve quoted is actually correct then there`s absolutely no wonder the application of law is an utter travesty to the notion of justice.

I give in. Its pointless trying to talk to sense to utter morons - but morons we have aplenty in this sexually immature nation of religiously fucked-up dickheads - and that `commentator` proves it!

Correct me if I`m wrong, but how come Gough keeps going to prison because, in the mere opinion of the magistrates and judges, he`s "likely to cause a breach of the peace" - is there any EVIDENCE he HAS or WOULD cause a real breach of the peace (whatever the fuck that is)? If mere opinions don`t carry any legally enforceable weight, how come these immature Scottish cretins can take 7 years of a man`s liberty away on nought but speculative claptrap?

IanG    [26416.   Posted 17-Jan-2010 Sun 19:32] View Near Messages
"Nudity for nudity`s sake – well, that`s deeply suspect."

Really?! I`m sure that will rank as a rather disturbing libelous slur to the hundreds of thousands of naturists across Europe (and the millions worldwide).

Being naked is quite normal and natural for all but one (insane) species of creature on this planet. Asserting there`s something `disturbing`, `dangerous` or `obscene` about someone`s (even your own?) naked body is indeed deeply suspect, possibly deranged and, quite frankly, monsterous.

Seven years in clink for doing nothing more than not wishing to cover one`s body is totally unnecessary and an absolute perversion of justice.

I was just reading about the `sex aid` shoplifters and that "the store caused controversy in 2008 when it erected huge bill-boards featuring scantily-clad women. Drivers complained they were distracting, and families said they were unsuitable for children."

"unsuitable for children"? How so? Children don`t normally associate nudity or even partial nudity with anything sexual or remotely `unsuitable`, do they? It`s a religiously inspired urban myth. How do we know this? Answer: Because there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly happy and well-adjusted naturist children across Europe (and millions worldwide) who see every detail of the naked human body on a regular basis without suffering any `serious impairment` to their lives, development or general wellbeing. Indeed, these children don`t grow up believing people should be locked-up for years on end simply because they don`t choose to wear clothes in public.

As I`ve always maintained, those who censor do so to perpetuate their own mythological demons and brainwash the masses in order to exercise control over them. It is the easily offended that have had their psychological and moral development `seriously impaired` by their moralising censorial control-freak `masters` - so much so that they`re all now so fucked in the head that they can`t see how insane they truly are and how immoral their baseless actions have become.

Free Stephen Gough! He`s done nothing wrong - unless of course there`s some dispicable rights-abusing `law` somewhere that stipulates life imprisonment for causing mild offence to brainwashed bigots...? That`s what the case is all about isn`t it - causing offence to supposedly rational adults who clearly cannot act like rational adults...?

I guess you`ll be going to jail for 3 months for `shocking` someone with a can of springy snakes soon.

"And if someone should sue you for the shirt off your back then I say give them your undergarments aswell" - some bloke called Jesus apparently said that but, he obviously hadn`t counted on you being immediately rearrested as you stroll from court stark bollock naked though. Ah well, so much for unconditional forgiveness, love and global peace. Trust the religious devotees and politicians to fuck it all up!

IanG    [26411.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 21:36] View Near Messages
Shaun, I was just reading the piece about the NI Assembly discussing extending the `new` VRA over there.

Look at what one rep. says: "Without the repeal and revival of the Video Recordings Act 1984, the penalties for offences under that Act are unenforceable, and we are unable to protect the public and our children from the distribution of inappropriate and offensive material."

Straight away I see that this whole argument is utter bull. The first part of that sentence is absulutely true, indeed, the UK Courts should NEVER have enforced these incorrectly enacted offences. The assertion on the end of that sentence is however totally UNTRUE and specious. As we know, there`s a little bit of legislation dating back to the 1850`s which was specifically aimed at preventing "children and vulnerable people" receiving "inappropriate and offensive material". It`s called the Obscene Publications Act. Now this Act places strict liability on the supplier to ensure that the material supplied CANNOT "corrupt and deprave" the receipient - with harsh (now even harsher) criminal penalties for such breaches - breaches I might add that are decided by a contemporary jury of the people (i.e. not by slow, expensive and `interpreted` public consultations every 4 years or, indeed, by overtly biased and unelected `moral protectors`).

I agree to some extent that age-classification is useful to `concerned` parents - its an easy way to determine `age-appropriateness`. I don`t however agree with rather nasty criminal sanctions against people who supply say, 18-rated material to 17-year-olds or, who supply unrated material to adults - except of course where the material is so upsetting to the receipient that they report it to the police for obscenity. And I`m aware this maybe somewhat hypocritical, as my views on the application of the OPA are well-known here. However, if the material is only upsetting to this particular individual and is unlikely to be found guilty by that contemporary jury of the people then, at least justice and contemporary community standards will win the day (sanity will prevail one hopes...).

As I`ve said before, hardcore porn hasn`t been deemed obscene by English juries since the mid 1970s. Film `censorship` in the UK COULD have kept pace with the rest of the liberated world had the BBFC, Cinema Act and VRA 1984 NEVER existed. It is indeed a perversion of natural justice to allow a Government quango the power to DICTATE what the people `should` be allowed to watch - but that is EXACTLY how the BBFC has `traditionally` operated (as proven by the High Court decision in 2000). Indeed, the BBFC still maintain that pissing, fisting, gagging, `abusive` language and references to under-18 sex at R18 are harmful or obscene - I, along with many thousands of experienced porn fans, actors and producers the world over totally disagree with the BBFC`s position. Moreover, the BBFC seem to believe they need not PROVE their position is correct despite them being found in breach of the law on such matters and material already. This I find totally unacceptable, indeed, I believe the BBFC`s position is untenable - and the same goes for Ofcunt.

There is I feel no reason whatsoever why film producers/distributors cannot self-certify their own material according to content. Such publically-determined age-appropriate guidelines are indeed already published by the BBFC. Why anyone feels the BBFC alone should be the people to apply these rather simple and clear content ratings beggars belief. I can see. I can hear. I can read. Ergo: I could do what the BBFC do (and a damn sight quicker and cheaper and without applying narrow-minded religiously-inspired moral objections to certain types of content to boot!).

I`ll tell ya what I find obscene: red tape blocking aid and aid workers reaching the desparate victims of the Haitian earthquake - fucking evil lunacy is what it is; unelected fuckwits dictating what you or I cannot be allowed to see on TV or DVD - a breach of our fundamental human rights is what it is; Governments enacting completely unlawful legislation and expecting, nay demanding, the courts and police continue to apply it long after its been declared unlawful - evil fascist dictatorship is what it is. The list of REAL WRONGS I see in this world goes on and on, and unfortunately, a lot of it starts right here in the UK with the self-righteous, self-serving, self-indulging little cunts we`re forced to elect into Parliament!

What sort of cuntry allows some twisted little shit to threaten an octagenarian with a £400 fine or 2 YEARS in jail (ffs!) for displaying a mildy amusing poster about his "big bulls" atop a picture to prove it?

Morality? They don`t know the meaning of the word!

`They` are, as I`ve always maintained, totally and utterly insane and unfit to run, let alone assume they `rule`, anything!

IanG    [26406.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 08:38] View Near Messages
Shaun, with regard to the UFC video, if it actually shows "bloody and sustained head blows" as Dismore claims then, it CANNOT be exempt under the `gross violence` clause of the defunct/current VRA 1984/2010 restrictions can it?

Of course, if trading standards and the BBFC don`t believe these "bloody and sustained head blows" fall under the `gross violence` classification requirement in the VRA then there is really no need for Dismore`s scaremongering Bill.

And as for these supposed "self-inflicted injuries" in a music video, which one can only IMAGINE were self-inflicted because the `actual` (special effects?) infliction is NOT SHOWN at all, is OBVIOUSLY EXEMPT because it contains no `gross violence`, no `imitable techniques`, no `methods of self-harming` etc. As I haven`t seen the video in question it is impossible for me to know how `realistic` the make-up effects are but, one might suppose these `injuries` are no more harmful than a tattoo (indeed, they may well be tattoos or simply drawn on in lipstick or red food dye for all any of us know).

Of course, Mr Dumbmore ASSUMES all film-makers are rolling in cash and absolutely everyone can afford to get their YouTube clips classified by the extorters at the BBFC. Yet, at this very moment there is a petition by indie film-producers on the No 10 website asking for an UNRATED classification (to be sold to over-18s only) which would allow (oft penniless) low-budget film-makers to sell their works to responsible adults WITHOUT INTERFERENCE by Gov. appointed meddlers - as the HRA 1998 stipulates is a FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT!

Any and ALL age-related classifications SHOULD BE voluntary and purely advisory (as they are in Spain). The WHOLE premise for the VRA has, over the past 25 years, been PROVEN totally and utterly unfounded and as such the classification (err...sorry...CENSORSHIP) requirements are an unnecessary interference/restriction of Freedom of Expression.


As an aside, I`d like to know what COMPENSATION/REPARATION the Gov. are going to make to ALL those people wrongly prosecuted under the UNENACTED and ILLEGALLY enforced VRA 1984...? The Human Rights violations by this Gov., indeed, by the UK Courts and Police enforcing unlawful legislation, are on-going and seemingly never-ending...

IanG    [26394.   Posted 12-Jan-2010 Tue 02:03] View Near Messages
Re: web TV

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6796364/Broadcasters-challenged-over-childrens-access-to-sex-and-violence.html

>
Miss Pattison said programmes containing sex and violence should be restricted automatically, with all viewers having to set up a password to access them.

"This is a really obvious one, it would be simple to do and we hope to campaign on it big next year," she said.
<

Simple eh, Vivienne? Hmm, let`s see now. They (BBC/C4 etc.) will need a database with potentially 70 million IDs and passwords which will need maintaining for the lifetime of the viewer (there`s at least 100,000 deaths/yr and 100,000+ births/yr to consider too). And of course SOMEHOW they`ll need to stop net-savvy youths pretending to be over 12, 15 or 18 - and that`s not easy with gowd knows how many portable PC-like, net-enabled phones and other devices being brought to market each year...

>
Mediawatch UK has also questioned the legality of online television services in the light of a new law which comes into force this week.

The Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Regulations 2009, which take effect on December 19, require that under-18s should not be able to "normally see or hear" material which "might seriously impair [their] physical, mental or moral development".
<

"Questionable legality", Viv? How the fuck did you work that out? The AVMS was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR ONLINE TV SERVICES you dozy twat!

>
Miss Pattison said: "It very clearly says children should be protected from undesirable material, which currently I do not think they are."
<

Oh no it doesn`t. It says, and I quote: "under-18s should not be able to normally see or hear material which might seriously impair [their] physical, mental or moral development". Apart from the total absence of any solid evidence to prove any of this supposed harm can come from watching or hearing anything, surprise, surprise, Ofcom (and various other laws and agencies) ALREADY do that by NOT permitting the broadcast of R18 adult porn, bestiality, child porn, live executions, suicide techniques and various other potentially HARMFUL material. To SERIOUSLY IMPAIR someone (i.e. a child) PHYSICALLY, MENTALLY or MORALLY requires some pretty damaging material I`d say - material WAY BEYOND anything the BBC or C4 might DARE broadcast or host on their websites. In fact, to cause SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT of the kind specified would likely require some form of systematic child abuse and plain old parental neglect...!! - wouldn`t it? Indeed, I THINK IT WOULD!

Can merely seeing or hearing something `physically` damge someone? Looking directly at the Sun or a nuclear blast might send you blind - so, has anyone got a 10 billion candle power TV they let their kids stare at? How about an ear-damaging 120 decibel sound system you let your kids use at full volume for an hour every day? Noone daft enough? Ok, dropping a TV on a child`s head might do some physical and mental damage but, I doubt it would cause any moral harm - and the child would likely run away IF they SAW or HEARD it coming (I knew these eyes and ears had some purpose)...unless of course they were ALREADY physically and mentally bolloxed. In fact, I`m not sure what you could see or hear that might cause serious mental or moral impairment - except perhaps being systematically brainwashed with religious/social/political claptrap...eh, Viv...?

Common sense, observation and experience tell me most kids can get over the untimely death of a beloved pet or even a parent or two (I know I did). Most 12-year-olds can successfully cope with the devastating trauma of learning about...shock...horror...HUMAN SEXUAL REPRODUCTION!!! (I know I did). As most kids can deal with REAL LIFE traumas (including warfare, car accidents, cancer, parental divorce etc. etc. etc.), I think they can cope with the sort of piss poor shite Ofcom condescend to allow us adults to watch on UK TV after 9pm. And after all, there`s absolutely NOTHING to prevent parents allowing their own children to watch 12/15/18-rated movies or play 12/15/18-rated games at home, is there? And let`s face FACTS. The majority of kids have lost their virginity by the time they reach 16. Many kids have tried cigs, drugs and alcohol, most have stayed up late to watch `adult TV` or found daddy`s porn mag stash - and guess what, they ALL grow up to be PERFECTLY NORMAL HAPPY RESPONSIBLE members of society (I know I did). Others may well carry weapons, join street gangs, terrorise neighbourhoods, deal drugs, beat people up or stab and shoot supposed enemies - NONE of which they `learned` or `copycat` from TV programmes. Indeed, you need only read Twain or Dickens to know what mischief mere kids were getting up to 100 years before film, TV or computers were ever invented. Real life is what fucks people up, not exposure to `adult themes` in bloody TV programmes! And ain`t that the TRUTH!


You know folks, I`m getting pretty tired of trying to point out how fucking insane these people who believe they can protect everyone from everything really are. It`s a pitty the world doesn`t work they way they`d like but then that`s life, and pretty much all life KILLS and certainly FUCKS to survive...and that`s the truth of it!

Morons go home! And please, SHUT THE FUCK UP - you`re giving intelligent life a bad name.

IanG    [26345.   Posted 20-Dec-2009 Sun 15:56] View Near Messages
Walt Disney ad too offensive for the ASA?!!

"We concluded that, because users were encouraged to take action to remove the woman`s top in order to see her breasts, the ad was likely to cause serious offence to some users."

Who are these "some users" exactly? Religious freaks perhaps?

"We considered that because users were actively encouraged to remove the woman`s top, the ad was unsuitable for children and that Walt Disney had not taken adequate steps to ensure it was appropriately targeted."

Yep, definitely says Walt Disney there. Now let me see..ah yes. The female breast was `designed` to feed younger human beings - i.e. children. So, we might suppose a child exposing, or being exposed to, a female breast might be considered perfectly normal, even natural - couldn`t it? It couldn`t ever be considered `inappropriate` or, `offensive` could it? Well according to the ASA it can, apparently.

Speaking as outsiders, I wonder what the ASA think of the Human Race?

IanG    [26339.   Posted 18-Dec-2009 Fri 09:22] View Near Messages
sergio, well, its been pointed out several times that the BBFC do pass sexually explicit material at 18 - "if justified by context" - BUT, ONLY the BBFC are QUALIFIED (i.e. legally entitled) to make that call. Ofcom ARE NOT allowed/qualified/entitled to claim anything is "R18-like" or "R18-equivalent" (even when/if R18 actually exists as a legally recognised film classification).

Might we mention mission creep? "TV censor replaces BBFC as film classifier (when shown on TV...)". This role is NOT in Ofcom`s legal duties or responsibilities - Ofcom are NOT empowered to decide what BBFC rating a programme "should have".

Moreover, Ofcom are NOT legally entitled to place an outright ban on "any legally available material". The point is that R18 material has been declared NOT HARMFUL by the High Court and can thus be supplied to adults to take into their homes because the risk to "people under 18" DOES NOT EXIST. How can Ofcom claim youngsters need protecting from supposed `harmful material` that the BBFC and the High Court eventually agreed DOES NOT POSE ANY SERIOUS THREAT TO CHILDREN?

IanG    [26265.   Posted 25-Nov-2009 Wed 09:12] View Near Messages
phantom, I never said Switerland was occupied (and actually that`s the basis of my disbelief). I implied that had the Allies not defeated Hitler then Swiss `neutrality` would have resulted in unresisted assimilation into the Nazi `Uberstate`.

Actually, I have written off Britain - not on the basis of the 3 academics that did the REA for the DPA of course but, indeed, because the Government passed the DPA into law virtually unhindered and, look set to carry on creating new crimes and new criminals on the basis of their own twisted "fantasy is reality" rhetoric - and all seemingly with the blessings of the Great Brainwashed British public.

And I wasn`t picking on `the Swiss` as such. As I said, computer games do not have to obey any real-world laws, nor do films, TV, plays or books. So why did these Swiss folks pick on games in particular? Are they going to be picking on `inhumane treatment` in Manga comics next? As I tried to point out, man`s inhumanity to man has been on-going for millenia and oddly enough, art/games/stories simply reflect that reality without harming any living thing - you see, different rules mean no one dies or suffers as a result of these virtual `war crimes`. For some unfathomable `reason`, these Swiss `researchers` appear to want to put a stop to that. Why? Do they honestly believe people will stop flying planes into buildings if all games are based on Mary Poppins? Or perhaps they believe people will simply stop dying while demonstrating or, in custody or, under `interrogation`, despite the sad fact these things have, are and will continue to be far more commonplace events outside the realm of computer games?

Finally, firebombing gutted entire cities and killed something like 50,000 civilians. I think someone said recently that the Allied attacks were 10 times more devastating than the Coventry blitz (the attacks were on-par with A-Bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki - surely you don`t deny that brought the Pacific war to a rapid conclusion?). It was the morale of the people that was the real target - i.e. undermining support for Hitler and the war effort in the very heartland of Germany.

IanG    [26260.   Posted 24-Nov-2009 Tue 07:33] View Near Messages
emark, I find it incredible that people should waste their time with such nonsense. The whole point of a game, indeed, books, films and plays, is surely to present a world or story without the constraints and laws of real life?

If we follow the `reasoning` by this bunch of Swiss nutters then we`d have to ban such favorites as Jack and the Beanstalk. It`s wrong to eat people isn`t it? It`s dangerous to climb a beanstalk several hundred feet into the air without safety equipment isn`t it?

I haven`t played a war game yet that lets you kill unarmed civilians or non-combatant characters without some penalty (either a lost objective, a bad mark on your record or, in some cases, immediate termination of the current game with a "you killed an innocent person/team mate" - "`friendly fire` will not be tolerated").

So, MW2 has a terrorist infiltration scenario where you shoot civilians - big deal - its JUST A STORY! The crucial point is that, even if the characters in this game were modelled on real living people, NO ONE is being killed. The game shoots imaginery bullets from imaginery guns at imaginery facsimilies of people. These things feel no pain. They have no life to lose. They are not self aware. They have no brains to be splattred, no blood to be spilled, no heart to be broken. THEY DO NOT EXIST. You cannot kill or harm anything that doesn`t exist, ergo, you are not committing any crime by following the game`s story and rules to remove charaters from the game and complete your objective. Different world, different rules, different laws.

I wonder what we`re supposed to make of the European invasion of the Americas and the slaughter of countless thousands of native people? One could argue that the USA was and is built upon and by war crimes. In fact, I`m sure the same can be said of Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all were founded on mass murder and genocide.

I don`t know what world these Swiss `researchers` live in but it sure as hell ain`t this one.

It is widely accepted that if Britain hadn`t firebombed the crap out of certain German towns and killed untold civilians during WWII, then Switzerland and the rest of Europe would likely be under Nazi rule (not that its easy to tell Britain isn`t ruled by Nazi scum right now...!).

IanG    [26245.   Posted 20-Nov-2009 Fri 20:59] View Near Messages
"Vivienne Pattison, director of campaign group Mediawatch UK, said the BBC had made a serious error of judgment: Parents driving in their cars having just picked up their children from school would have been horrified to hear the clip. It boils down to a decision taken by the producers of that particular show. The BBC have a serious responsibility to their audience but this was totally inappropriate for that time slot."

And what are these school children to make of that clip? Do they know about faked female orgasms?

Sure, the PARENTS might have been `horrified` but, were the kids? After all, grown ups are supposed to act like adults aren`t they - y`know, get over shit (and themselves).

So, do we have any children left in a catatonic state after exposure to these "ooh, ahh, yes, yes, yes!" noises? Any had a fit of giggles? Any been `shocked` or `disturbed` in anyway whatsoever? Any been seen performing `sexual behaviour` "they should know nothing about"?


"Addressing a Commons debate on the Queen`s Speech, Sheerman told MPs: We are a country awash with focus on early sexual activity. I think it is very serious the access to pornography to children ... you go to infant schools now and teachers say to me: `Children come here at five and six simulating sexual behaviour that they should know nothing about.` That is something pretty disgusting."

Picking your nose is `something pretty disgusting` Mr Sheerman but, thousands of children do it. They must learn it from adults eh? Or maybe they pick it up (no pun intended) from TV programmes? Oh yes, of course, all those programmes aimed at adults on "how to pick your nose" are being watched by kids and copied in the school yard.

"The Labour MP for Huddersfield complained that Britain is awash with material promoting sexual activity too early in life."

Oh no it isn`t. Anything promoting sexual activity "too early in life" is totally and utterly illegal to possess in the UK - even drawings of characters of indeterminate age are to be a criminal offence to possess. "Awash"? "Awash" my arse! No one under 18 appears in ANY remotely titilating, let alone, `sex manual explicit` material that children MIGHT copy IF they saw it. How exactly is this promoting "sex too early in life"? And WHO exactly get`s to say what "too early" is and, more to the point, WHY do they claim this when there`s no evidence to suggest that there is any age at all before which a child can, should or could know about sex?

I think they`re making it up.

IanG    [26240.   Posted 20-Nov-2009 Fri 05:59] View Near Messages
MichaelG, ah yes, I can see Ofcom hunting for excuses to swing AVMS Art. 3(2)-(5) into action `to protect children`. Odd though, as I recall the Bible is brim full of people `begatting` and `laying with` and `knowing` - its even got stories of people offering up their daughters rather than have men arse raped by rampant mobs of sexual deviants.

I note the distinct absense of any testimony from child welfare experts or developmental psychologists in this Mail article. What we have is anecdotal bullshit interpreted to `mean` some unproven thing is `happening` by a self-serving MP. Is there any EVIDENCE 5 and 6 year-olds ARE watching porn on TV or the Internet? Is `disgusting behaviour` really so unusual in 5 and 6 year-olds? Even babies play with their genitals without any knowledge of sex or pornography at all - some carry-on the practice well into pre-school age and beyond. Sex is so fundamental to the Human condition that folks really should learn to keep their noses out of other people`s business and, indeed, their own arses. It is in fact quite common for youngsters of all species to go through the motions of sexual congress as practice for adulthood - there isn`t anything strange or deviant about it at all and, it certainly doesn`t mean they`ve been corrupted, influenced or even exposed to porn in any way whatsoever.

IanG    [26219.   Posted 16-Nov-2009 Mon 11:11] View Near Messages
hobosoup, I wonder what the extent of `possession` is? Is a sawn-off shotgun dumped in a bin bag in your garden in your `possession` or not? Is taking the bag into your home or, simply opening the bag where it lies, in order to discover the contents `possession` or not?

When utter fuckwits are allowed to start writing laws of `strict liability` then we can only expect laws that are totally and utterly devoid of justice. INTENT used to be of paramount importance in assessing REAL GUILT. Alas, there is NO JUSTICE in this shithole of a cuntry as it is now ruled over by madmen, liars, thieves and the utterly incompetent.

IanG    [26215.   Posted 15-Nov-2009 Sun 21:20] View Near Messages
I think we`re seeing the UK Government fiddle while the world burns. They`re incapable of reasoning outside their historical (sorry, hysterical) cultural closet...

Anyway, have a laugh while reality bites... ;)

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

IanG    [26204.   Posted 11-Nov-2009 Wed 16:52] View Near Messages
MichaelG, Oh the hypocrisy...sorry if I LMFAO... Last night there was a little spot on Look North featuring 5 new recruits to the Yorkshire Regiment, swearing the oath of allegiance as they joined up to go fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. What`s so funny? Two of these new recruits were just 17-years-old (the oldest was I think 22). These two `children` under 18 that apprently need all the protection our nanny censors can muster, can`t buy a Playboy or, a pint or, indeed, this game, let alone any of the films you mention yet, they are, right now, being trained to use lethal weapnos and tactics in order to kill people or else be killed. Now that`s satire. This cuntry is a fucking living breathing JOKE on wheels with little jingly bells on.

IanG    [26202.   Posted 11-Nov-2009 Wed 12:09] View Near Messages
phantom, its not the `what` people feel that`s the issue but the WHY?!!!

WHY does a perfectly normal size 14 feel "depression, stress, guilt, shame, insecurity and body dissatisfaction" when shown an `idealised` picture of a skinny fashion model? Is this reaction normal? Is it indeed the picture that`s at fault or something more pervasive doing the rounds through society?

WHO exactly is telling people "if you don`t look like this you`re inadequate"? Why, I believe its the stupid twat who feels inadequate.

What has this study failed to address? The FACT that people with annorexia are perhaps half the weight of your average fashion model BUT still think they themselves are FAT when they look in a mirror!

Clearly, this `idealised` body image exist ONLY in the heads of the people who feel there`s something wrong with their own bodies.

I really don`t know what`s happened to science, logic and reason but, studies like this are totally UNSCIENTIFIC, ILLOGICAL and DEVOID of all REASON.

Where`s the control group? Where`s the hypothesis? Where`s the double blind experiment and the unbiased, independent peer review?

IanG    [26196.   Posted 10-Nov-2009 Tue 09:16] View Near Messages
This seems to have gone under the radar http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/avms/index_en.htm

Can I draw your attention to this part in particular:

<snip>
Two-step safeguard for receiving countries (Article 3 (2) – (5))

- if a country objects to the content in a foreign television broadcast which is wholly or mostly directed to it, it can use a consultation procedure (cooperation procedure) to address the country of origin. The latter shall then issue a non-binding request for the broadcaster to comply with the stricter rules of the targeted country.

- if the broadcaster circumvents these national rules, the objecting country can also - with the Commission`s prior approval – take binding measures (circumvention procedure).

<end snip>

So folks, it would seem Ms Reding`s work is done. Ofcom`s quite illegal and rights abusing Code will now apply to any Euro-based broadcaster with a majority of UK viewers/subscribers. Ofcom`s jurisdiction now reaches the parts even Parliament, nay, even the High Court cannot reach.

Oh, and don`t forget, the AVMS applies to web-based TV-style On Demand services too, which likely means Ofcom will be disconnecting the UK from any website that feeds R18-type material into UK homes.

Whatever its reach, we have a situation where a completely unelected body with powers no self-serving dictatorship would be complete without, enforcing a potentially unlawful code right across Europe.

Moreover, if you have chosen to subscribe to a foreign adult service specifically BECAUSE you cannot view what you want under Ofcom`s rules, Ofcom will now be able to cut you off or, indeed, force that channel only to supply what Ofcom alone have dictated can be viewed in the UK.

I believe it is NOW of paramount importance to force a Judicial Review of Ofcom`s Code. Let me remind everyone that despite the BBFC being required to "prevent any harm which may be caused" by the VRA, the rules they were applying banning explicit sex at the R18 category were found to be UNLAWFUL. Imagine if the BBFC had been issuing fines along with refusing certificates (read `licenses`) based on their FLAWED interpretation of the law and UNLAWFUL application of their guidelines (`code`)? This is EXACTLY what and how Ofcom are operating. Their Code WOULD NOT pass legal scrutiny - the ECHR has ruled that a broadcast licensing system CANNOT be used as Ofcom are using it. Ofcom`s measures are wholly disproportionate, unjustified and unconstitutional. Ofcom`s rules are now being granted the status of International Law without ever undergoing scrutiny by the Law Lords, without ever being declared compatible with the HRA 1998, indeed, without any debate, let alone being voted onto Statute by Parliament. These are NOT "national rules", these are Ofcom`s rules, and they stink to high heaven of hypocrisy and prejudice.

Now, can anyone tell me if Parliament has the legal authority to create a quasi autonomous body that can act as judge, jury and legislature - i.e. be a law unto themselves? It occurs to me that there "can be no punishment without law" and Ofcom`s code is most certainly NOT LAW. Yet, Ofcom hand down judgements and fines as if they are qualified members of the Bar or court-appointed Magistrates. Is this legal? Is this Democratic? What about due legal process and, more to the point, the law of this land not, cloud cuckoo Ofcom land?

IanG    [26183.   Posted 6-Nov-2009 Fri 10:45] View Near Messages
So, if you`re not a $ky customer you won`t be getting access to the babe channels on Freeview come next year.

How many complaints have Ofcom received about the babe channels on Freeview?

"Any services featuring promotion of PRS of a sexual nature would be clearly labelled and positioned as “Adult” services including adult content, lessening the risk of unwarranted offence and allowing viewers to choose to exclude such services from viewing."

Well now, we just have to "lessen unwarranted offence" don`t we! But that`s a really good label for it - UNWARRANTED, UNFOUNDED, ARBITRARY - oh yes, the entire population of Britain has to suffer censorship because of the pathetic feelings of religiously corrupted mindless wankers.

I`ll say it again. Those who are offended by nudity are sick in the head. They are gymnophobic. Britain`s censors (aka regulators) are GUILTY of promoting this irrational phobia. Indeed, it now appears that if you`re not afraid or offended by the naked human form then you`re not British enough for Ofcom. Odd then that the SOA 2003 doesn`t actually prohibit public nudity when there is no clear intent to deliberately offend on-lookers...?

The babe channels certainly don`t set-out to offend - who`d phone in to chat if they were being deliberately offended?

The TVWF Directive is absolutely clear on what`s required to protect the sensibilities of religious nutters and minors - i.e. a suitable time for braodcast, a pre-show audio warning and an on-screen age restricted symbol (e.g. a little red circle with `18` displayed inside it or, indeed, a little blue circle with `R18` displayed inside it).

Every piece of televisual equipment sold in the EU is fitted with a `child lock` PIN/code access system to prevent unauthorised or under-age use. Adults over 18 are SUPPOSED to be able to cope with offensive material - its what classifies us as RATIONAL ADULTS. Pampering to the whims of IRRATIONAL ADULTS is a recipe for total and utter disaster in over-bearing, uncontrolled, unwarranted and unfounded CENSORSHIP! Sound familiar?

Irrespective of what the Comms act says about `harm and offence`, the laws of this land do not permit restrictions in Freedom of Expression on the basis of mere offence (esp. emanating from the minds of the gymnophobic religious morons). Only serious harm can warrant a restriction of a fundamental human right. It is NOT for Ofcom to dictate what the law means, it is for the courts to decide EXACTLY what `harm and offence` means and what it relates to and how it can be interpreted WITHIN the scope of Human Rights Legislation and the case law of the ECHR. It has already been stated numerous times that "a broadcast licensing system CANNOT be used to restrict ANY legally available material" - that`s the law Ofcom and as you`re clearly not obeying it you can only be breaking it!

It is time to call for a Judicial Review. It is time Ofcom produced REAL EVIDENCE that evolution can and does create creatures that can and do get seriously harmed by the sight of their own species` naked bodies and, indeed, by knowledge of their own means of reproduction. I know this is impossible. Every rational person on the planet knows this is impossible. Why not Ofcom and the religious freaks we have `running` this country and every other illiberal religious dictatorship?

IanG    [26177.   Posted 1-Nov-2009 Sun 08:44] View Near Messages
"Ofcom was also concerned by the degree of offence likely to be caused to viewers watching at this time and the significant effect this material would have had on those who may have come across it unawares. There was no sufficient editorial justification for the broadcast of these strong sexual images. Also in Ofcom`s view factors such as the channel being in the adult sector of the EPG and the content being broadcast well after the watershed did not justify the broadcast of this material. This has been made repeatedly clear by Ofcom in various published decisions.

Therefore Ofcom concluded that this content was not justified by the context and breached Rules 2.1 and 2.3."

Sorry Ofcom but you`re wrong. So wrong that your decisions are a clear breach of Internetional Law and Human Rights legislation.

"Lingering and intrusive" shots of the anus and genital area have been available in `mens` magazines in most any high street newsagents for almost 40 years. If this complainant isn`t aware of these GENERALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS in adult entertainment then that`s their fault. If Ofcom are UNAWARE of such STANDARDS that`s clearly their own fault.

As for Human Rights, the ECHR have stated that: "It is undisputed [i.e. it is the generally accepted standard with regard to the interpretation of Freedom of Expression] that a broadcast licensing system CANNOT be used to restrict ANY LEGALLY AVAILABLE MATERIAL" (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990).

Moreover, the TVWF Directive makes it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that where `technological means` to restrict access to adult material is unavailable (or undesireable), the time of broadcast, an audio warning and an on-screen age-restricted symbol are ALL that is required to `protect minors` from inappropriate viewing.

Causing offence is INSUFFICIENT `reason` to restrict a FUNDAMENTAL Human Rights such as Freedom of Expression. Indeed, the LAW says that "Freedom of Expression exists to SHOCK AND DISTURB states and opinions...", that is, FoE exists to permit the sharing of information and ideas that "are not favourably received" - i.e. that OFFEND the narrowminded, culturally isolated and intellectually blinkered MORONS that pervade society and use BOGUS claims of `outrage` to impose UNLAWFUL censorship on other free, liberal and open minded citizens.

IanG    [26174.   Posted 29-Oct-2009 Thu 18:14] View Near Messages
"Where there is doubt we `must` err on the side of caution..."

Odd, I thought the founding principle of doing the right thing in a liberal democracy is that where there is doubt there is THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE?

IanG    [26168.   Posted 27-Oct-2009 Tue 09:08] View Near Messages
phantom, we might also add that many glamour publications choose to use Photoshop/airbrush to erase evidence of models` tattoos yet, the apparent need to get a `tramp stamp` or some other body modification (e.g. multiple piercings) amongst current teenage generations seems all pervasive. Clearly, there`s some conformist peer pressure at play. It`s all good and well the Government aiming for some aspirational homogeneous society but, what happens to individualism and a sense of one`s own identity if you`re `just the same as everyone else`, indeed, feel pressured to be `just the same as everyone else`?

There`s most definitely a cultural aspect to this whole area. In terms of body image for instance, the Pacific island cultures like some `meat` on their bones - in their eyes its a sign of health and prosperity. The typical size zero catwalk model probably looks more like a Belsen `survivor` to these people.



Tarkus, there is no need to conduct this `social experiment` on children - its been on-going for over 12,000 years in cultures untouched by `western values` and organised religion and, lo and behold, the kids are doing just fine.

All the mechanisms we need to survive as living beings have been honed over the course of some 7 million years of human evolution. We know children from age 0-5 show no signs of sexual modesty or inhibition and display some inherant `need` to know where babies come from. From age 5-10 (i.e. to the end of prepubescence) children show a natural aversion to all elements sexual (even preferring same-sex friendships and thinking the opposite sex is `silly`). From age 10+ (the onset of puberty) however, their attention refocuses on their entire purpose for being - finding sexual partners and having sex. We do not, indeed SHOULD NOT interfere with this process as interference can and does cause psychological damage.

We must not allow our cultural conditioning to persuade us that we know `better` or indeed, that we know ANYTHING. We know nothing but what we believe and what we believe is but fantasy. Why is Britain so obsessed with pornography? Why are Indian temples decorated with carvings of all the sexual positions in the Karmasutra? Why is prostitution legal in Germany but illegal in Sweden? Who has it right? All of them? None of them? Or just the one`s that align with our own cultural conditioning?

Maybe I`m blind to some deep secret of the universe but, I can`t see what`s supposed to be so damaging to children knowing how people make babies...? Which of these would be most harmful: showing a child a clip of a couple copulating or, showing them a clip of a doctor taking eggs and sperm from a cryo-freezer, mixing them together in a testube, waiting for the eggs to start dividing, then genetically screening the zygotes for defects before implanting the chosen embryo up mommy`s flute with a pippette?

We have some very strange ideas of harm my friend - none of which are real at all.

IanG    [26156.   Posted 25-Oct-2009 Sun 08:20] View Near Messages
Tarkus, there two issues. First, today`s social standards create the marketing opportunity for such `contrived` imges. Second, I do not accept an adaptation to living in a cold climate - i.e. wearing garments - should change our perception and acceptance of our naked form into something to be feared and reviled. How does the naked form become something which threatens a child`s morality and thus requires them to be protected from it? Morality and nudity are completely independent and unrelated. Nudity doesn`t equate to immorality as any naturist gathering confirms. Indeed, earlier this year the BBC Horizon programme asked the question "What`s the problem with nudity?" and found there really isn`t one even in the minds of British people - we can all become accepting of social nudity within a matter of a few hours (as any novice naturist will attest).

On the issues of body image, this is certainly due to `contrived images` of super-skinny, `flawless` fashionistas that don`t exist without the use of a strict diets, exercise regimes, cosmetic surgeons, cosmetics, Paintshop or the `traditional` airbrush. Unlike the mens/lads mags, these fashion/celeb/pop idol icons are most certainly damaging the psychological health and wellfare of young children. It isn`t pictures of naked women that are causing kids to kill themselves but, the objectification and idolisation of manufactured people thrust before the cameras to make the fashion, film and record industries a tidy profit.

It is through censorship that society`s `unhealthy fantasies` toward natural sex and nudity are `reinforced`. We live in a manufactured society in which unrealistic fantasies are heralded as aspirational objectives whether they be religious, political or commercial. Again, it is via selective censorship and propaganda that such fantasy apirations are given credence above the harsh realities of existence. Culture used to be about passing on the knowledge and skills required for our offspring to live in a particular environment. Culture is now used to manufacture an alien environment by instilling irrational myths and fantasies in the minds of our offspring. All of man`s supposed achievments are testament to the collosal waste of time and energy our aspirational fantasies have demanded - and I`m sure many would agree that our irrational and irrelevant past is now catching up with us...

IanG    [26148.   Posted 24-Oct-2009 Sat 09:44] View Near Messages
"Sir Menzies said his natural inclination was against censorship...BUT...it is unacceptable such material could be displayed at the eye level of a six-year-old: The photographs and headlines on the front cover are pretty lurid. The present code does not seem to be working and so it needs to be tightened up considerably."

Well, Menzies, if you were at all familiar with the thoughts and feelings of your typical 6-year-old you`d probably realise that they don`t give a flying fuck if ladies show off their boobs or not. Indeed, if any of you politicians bothered to read the decades of material into child development and psychology you`d understand that creating an asexual, repressive, sexually-intolerant environment is the WORST thing you could do for kids to develop a healthy and open attitude to perfectly natural human sexuality. You people are insane. You`re so blatantly sick in the head - corrupted by your own initiation into a gymnophobic society which openly detests its own body and fears its own inherant sexuality - you`re pathetic. And to what end? So that we can pretend or assume we`re better than naked `savages`? Or that our religious and feminazi ideologies are `right`? Give me a fucking break! You people wouldn`t know morality of it poked your easily offended eye out.

Tell you what Menzies, why don`t you and those 650 morons that think they`re right about everything, spend some of our cash on something that might actually benefit British society? A couple of days here http://www.british-naturism.org.uk/pages/pages.asp?page_ID=431 with some people that know something about real human dignity and morality might do the trick...?

IanG    [26144.   Posted 23-Oct-2009 Fri 08:04] View Near Messages
DM, it could be the same film - it could have won an award at a film show in 1969 but not gone on general release (in the USA) for several years. Judging by the dates, 1969 to 1972, there were great changes in attitudes taking place around the world - in 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled nudtiy was not obscenity, by 1968 legal hardcore started to appear in cinemas. You know the problems Straw Dogs had with both the MPAA and BBFC in the early 1970`s - what do the BBFC say the release date for this film is? (clue: its 30 years after it was made - refused classification from 1971 to 1999, finally passed for general release in 2002)

IanG    [26124.   Posted 19-Oct-2009 Mon 07:48] View Near Messages
Winters22, children have a far higher tolerance to so-called damage and the ability to repair and heal totally and rapidly. I know they are small and fragile but, a child`s mind and body are extremely resilient. A child`s immune system is at its peak, learning to cope with every bug, virus and pollutant in the environment. Kids are supposed eat shit off the floor - that`s why they do it - they`re not just exploring the environment, they`re building up an arsenal of antibodies to everything that might do for them. It`s us oldies that can`t repair lung damage that, amongst many others things, develop asbestosis, emphesema, chronic bronchitis and...cancer.

Anyway, as for this idiot, I`d plump for the "sick in the head" option, which is why I don`t think 18 months will do any good at all. I don`t believe in good or evil. There`s only a continuum of behaviours that, at any point in time, are deemed acceptable or unacceptable by the general population. It used to be fine to burn supposed witches and heretics in Britain. It`s still considered the done thing to stone supposed adulterers to death in Saudi. Looking at these things from our perspective, its very hard to distinguish the punishment from a crime and, the so-called crime from freedom. I don`t know what we do when the punishments for what are essentially non-crimes are in themselves criminal - we sure as hell don`t have a justice system that`s for sure - we have an injustice system (don`t we Mr Brown, Blair, Straw, Goggins, Coaker, Salter and the rest!!).

IanG    [26115.   Posted 17-Oct-2009 Sat 17:03] View Near Messages
Winters22, I don`t deny giving a 3-year-old cigarettes for a laugh is somewhat sick but, I don`t see how 18 months in jail will improve this man`s moronic sense of humour or affect his status as a "sick and evil bastard". I wasn`t aware of any law that makes it illegal to give any one a cigarette - maybe that`s changed since this bunch of puritan freaks banned selling ciggies to the under 18s? You know it took far too many decades and the choking deaths of tens of thousands of people affected by smog for the Government to create the Clean Air act. And I doubt we`ll ever know how many toddlers were killed in that sick and evil bastard Tony Blair`s unjustified and illegal war on Iraq. These are all cases of Governmental neglect and yet no one has ever been brought to book, let alone punished, for their years of moronic complacency or demonic behaviour. Justice is supposed to be blind. The law is supposed to apply equally to all yet, it seems it rather conveniently skips around those that do the greatest damage. Indeed, it seems the law is now used to keep secret what damage was done by whom and, even reward these secret criminals if anyone dare accuse them of the harm they may have done or mention the laws they may have broken.

IanG    [26107.   Posted 15-Oct-2009 Thu 11:41] View Near Messages
A Day In The Death
==================
I read the news today oh boy
Two lads guilty of writing a rap
And though the rap was rather crap
The had to stand
Perverted justice rules this land

And yes its true the banks went bust
But Dr Brown y`know he saved them all
His cash injections were a must
But now I`m not so sure
10 years as Chancellor, seems he never had his finger on the pulse

I saw a film today oh boy
A stream of bodies from some Hel on earth
A crowd of people stood and stared
Lest we all forget
There`s 6 times more now crippled in wheelchairs

I`d love to set you free

Woke up, got outta bed
Ran some gel over my head
And I went downstairs and had a cup
And looking up I noticed I was late
Grabbed my hoodie and baseball cap
Made the bus without a SAS
And I went upstairs to have a smoke
But somebody choked and they threw me in a cell
Ahhhh! Ahhhh! Ahhhh! Ahhhh!

I read the news today oh boy
4000 laws of pointless tyranny
And though the laws were rather mad
Now we know what laws you need
To turn the land of hope and glory into misery

I`d love to set you free

IanG    [26104.   Posted 15-Oct-2009 Thu 07:11] View Near Messages
pbr, thanks for the comments. Let`s hope the whole world follows California`s lead and renders British libel useless in the face of the rights-abusing, twisted bullshit it has become.


Any more bad laws...?

"Sqweel is a patent-pending sex toy for women or their partners, designed to simulate the sensation of oral sex. The wheel of 10 tongues provides easily controlled stimulation at just the right speed needed to deliver deeper, longer-lasting, more sheet-clenching climaxes."

Hang on, "pat-pending"? There was a giant verson of this pussy-licking contraption over 20 years ago in the Penthouse film Caligula. Watch out guys...you`ll be expected to pay a license fee to this non-inventor to go down on your girlfriend next...!

I wonder where the human race would be if someone had patented rubbing two sticks together to make fire? How about flint napping? Windmills, waterwheels and mill wheels?

Of course, patent law perhaps wouldn`t be so bad if it hadn`t resulted in some of the biggest travesties of natural justice in living memory...? Elisha Gray invented the reliable, electronic, horizontal-scanning system of TV in use all around the world but, he got nothing for his invention. Why? Because such was the scope of John Logie Baird`s patent for his unreliable, mechanical, vertical-scanning system of TV that no one with a better system, working totally independently, could claim to be the inventor of their own TV system. This isn`t a case of hard luck or bad timing as often potrayed. This is a case of totally shit law doing people out of their rightful dues and place in history.

IanG    [26100.   Posted 14-Oct-2009 Wed 06:30] View Near Messages
Spider, is it me or aren`t slander and libel laws supposed to protect the character of innocent people falsely tarnished by scurrilous lies?

How the hell can quacks, claiming they can cure asthema by manipulating the spine, be awarded damages when accused of making such ridiculous and unproven claims?

How can a company breaking international laws on the dumping of toxic waste be awarded damages and gagging orders when their illegal and lethal practices are exposed?

What the fuck happened to Justice, to truth, to decency and honesty? The `law` has been turned into a tool to protect charletans and criminals from the cold light of day.

A company is non-living legal entity - it has no claim to Human Rights or privacy whatsoever.

Criminals forfeit their right to freedom, to anonymity and privacy when they choose to flaunt the rights and break the laws the rest of us try to live by.

What is the point of laws and regulatiors if they don`t do what they`re supposed to do - i.e. protect the rights of the people they serve?

It has taken years for the ASA to act against the false claims made by `pro biotic` yoghurt companies. I`ve seen at least 2 independent studies, aired on TV over the past 3-4 years, that prove there`s a standard distribution of the so-called benefits of these products ranging from downright dangerous, through no effect whatsoever, to highly beneficial. They do not work beneficially for everyone as all these adverts claim and, can indeed damage some people`s health and do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of healthy people. The whole point of advertising standards is not to protect people from totally harmless `offence` but, indeed, to prevent companies making completely bogus claims about their products and protect the public from potentially dangerous products.

The ASA might also like to investigate Ofcom`s claims about protecting the public because, Ofcom have no evidence whatsoever to back-up their rights-abusing stance on adult TV censorship. Only REAL, PROVEN HARM warrants censorship - and as far as `adult sex material` is concerned, such harm was declared non-existent by the High Court in 2000. Protecting against `offence` merely requires an apology and a right to reply - perhaps some financial compensation (there are of course libel laws for anything more serious...!). Ofcom have set British TV back more than 10 years. To use a BBFC phrase, they are "reinforcing unhealthy fantasies" regarding `adult sex material` - fantasies that were deemed unlawful by the High Court no less.

IanG    [26086.   Posted 12-Oct-2009 Mon 08:54] View Near Messages
"But Sue Clark of the BBFC said: We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment."

Actually, Sue, I think your surveys show its us adults that believe we should be free to choose our own entertainment.

"Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch, called for tighter controls. She said: Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm, is it worth the risk?"

Which studies would these be Vivienne? It may not suit your theory but, throughout history the vast majority of mass murderers never saw any media violence at all simply because there was no media at all. Claiming pictures can make people do things they would not normally do is irrational, unproven and actually quite paranoid, silly and childish. Anyone that cannot control their behaviour is clinically insane and I`m afraid there`s no evidence whatsoever that shows the media can drive people round the bend. Rational people attack only what they percieve to be threats. Both yourself and Mr Brazier seem somewhat threatened by our right to freedom of expression and, indeed, the completely harmless and inert media in which we choose to tell our fansastic tales. In and of itself that is somewhat irrational, indeed, the persistence of such unnecessary attacks on our most basic freedoms and entertainment media smacks of obsessive compulsive disorders. Banning violence in the media will not rid society of violence, and 5000 years of recorded violent human history must confirm that. Of course, if you wish to contain and condition people like animals then don`t be surprised when they turn on their masters, in fact, your abilty to spout rubbish and Mr Brazier`s ability to sit in Parliament are all the result of a little British uprising that ended with the creation of Magna Carta. History shows people are most willing to fight oppression in favour of freedom, indeed, I think we`ve been fighting a couple of wars recently to try and rid the world of dispicable regimes that would deny the people any rights at all.

And let me point out that if we ban incitement to hate/fear/violence/prejudice then Mr Blair and Mr Bush could not have presented their arguments for war against these rights abusing regimes. "He`s got bombs so we need to kill him" - that was it wan`t it Mr Blair? Wasn`t it Mr "lets go to war" Brazier?

Sycophantic hypocrits! Or should that be, Psycho-fanatic hypocrits!?

IanG    [26081.   Posted 10-Oct-2009 Sat 06:00] View Near Messages
Spider, [26075] that`s quite sickening. If I`ve got this straight, these two are being banged up for writing an intimidating song aimed at someone they don`t know who bore false witness against one of them. So, if they are at all guilty of anything, it is in fact for perverting the course of injustice by possibly intimidating a false witness. Who`s running this kangeroo court?

IanG    [26078.   Posted 9-Oct-2009 Fri 08:11] View Near Messages
phantom, see sergio [26068]
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.

IanG    [26076.   Posted 9-Oct-2009 Fri 06:23] View Near Messages
phantom, agreed. I was merely pointing out that the phenomenon is real and the science proves its not urine. Fakery in films is most certainly the norm and the BBFC`s decision is, as I think we`re all agreed, utterly arbitrary, even nonsensical.


ste, have you had any luck finding a pissing related obscenity trial guilty verdict? How about fisting? How about deep throat gagging? Anything on slapping/choking/nose pinching?

NOSE PINCHING?!!! It`s true - the BBFC have gone insane. They see people having sex and performing acts outside their own narrow-minded definition of `normality` and see all manner of ways to `harm` people... Bizarre, truly bizarre.

IanG    [26073.   Posted 8-Oct-2009 Thu 08:43] View Near Messages
sergio, they`re trying to usurp the Common Law definition of obscenity - "when taken as a whole, the work has a tendancy to corrupt and deprave the likely audience". Why, indeed, how can 90 minutes of pissing or female ejaculation have any more effect than 60 seconds? After the first `shock` the rest simply becomes more of the same. You could in fact take Anna Span`s DVD, set the A-B repeat on the ejaculation scene, and watch it over and over for 90 minutes. This ability to repeatedly view material is apparently significant in the minds of the BBFC - it might cause `some men` to do nasty things to young ladies according to the BBFC, especially when it suits their Britishly-distorted and biased agenda for keeping the rest of us sexually repressed and sexually-phobic Brits.

I just read this by Kristina Lloyd:

"The adult industry needs to acknowledge female desire – the satisfaction of it, not merely demonstrations of it for the satisfaction of male desire – and Span`s positioning of women as consumers rather than product is radically different. But have general understandings of female sexuality become so distorted that it`s possible for censors to reject authenticity in pornography on the grounds it must be bogus? Many complain that teenage lads gain their sexual knowledge from pornography. It`s troubling when the BBFC seems to learn the same way."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/08/pornography-sexuality-censors-female-ejaculation

The BBFC examiners are not biologists or evolutionists. Female ejaculation pre-dates the first animals that crawled out of the sea - male and female fish ejaculate simultaneously to achieve fertilisation, so do amphibians. The process is altered such that reptiles and birds ejaculate the fetilised egg later - they lay the egg but, this is the same process as seen in fish. As for humans, the male penis is simply a modified vulva where an extended clitoris is joinned with the urethra and prostatic plumbing and encased within the fused labial lips. The basic human template is a female - the male is a hormonally modified form of this basic design (If you`re not convinced explain why men have vestigial nipples? Explain why giving testosterone to women causes them to grow facial hair, their voice to deepen and their clitoris to become penis-like?). The ability to ejaculate is present in almost all creatures irrespective of their hormonally induced gender - and its been that way since year dot - nature has a habit of sticking with designs that work. In fact the gill slits of our ancient ancestors can still be seen in the first weeks of human embryo development - deep down we`re fish and our ability as to ejaculate as male or female stems from being highly evolved fish.

IanG    [26071.   Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 17:31] View Near Messages
bleach, I was going to mention the pissing scene in Taxi Zum Klo. Of course, that`s `different`, its not a "sex work" so it doesn`t get cut like R18. Ah yes, yet another ARBITRARY `distinction` in the self-proclaimed morally superior psychotic minds of the anti-porn obsessed BBFC.


barriejohn, we`ve been arguing the illigitimacy of such ill-defined `law` as the OPA on this forum for many years. The CJIB `dangerous pictures` clauses are no better. `Extreme porn` can apparently be `known` if it is "indecent, grossly offensive and of an obscene character". All these descriptions or supposed `definitions` mean different things to different people. The `law` is thus as clear as mud and, as such, according to the principles of Human Rights it is not lawful to enforce it or, indeed, the OPA.

The case against possessing this `extreme porn` hasn`t been made. Indeed, the case against publishing this `extreme porn` hasn`t been made. No one has shown it to be `dangerous` as the Government (err sorry, that should read NAZI regime) claim. In fact there`s a far stronger case against the possession and use of `dangerous` motor vehicles, which claim the lives of over 3500 people on the streets of Britain each and every year. Just how a picture of someone masturbating a horse over their face is supposed to endanger the public one will never know but, you`ll do 2 years bird for possessing it all the same.

IanG    [26067.   Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 11:12] View Near Messages
sergio, "predominantly prostatic fluid mixed with glucose" is what it is, with TRACE amounts (i.e. negligible, perhaps 1 part per million) of urine. I know, I`ve tasted it, and it ain`t piss.

As barriejohn indicates - the question is, so fucking what? Does pissing on someone cause them harm? Does pissing full stop cause harm? No. It is a natural bodily function.


pbr, on reflection I think science CAN determine what is obscene whereas the law cannot. Child development psychology suggests that our sexual personality/psyche is already set by the age of 5 years. What we`re `into` is largely out of our control - its subconscious. I`ve said many times that simply because someone is drawn to or displays a BDSM/feet/smoking/urolagnia etc. fetish, doesn`t mean they`ve been `corrupted and depraved` by what they`ve seen but, that they`ve simply uncovered something they were already `into` by the time they were 5 years old.

I maintain that there is no such thing as obscene material - nothing a person sees can change who or what they are or, what they like or dislike.

IanG    [26063.   Posted 7-Oct-2009 Wed 08:42] View Near Messages
ste, can you cite a case in recent history where urination has been declared obscene (I couldn`t find any)? I say recent history because the BBFC state "CURRENT interpretation of the OPA..." - that`s not some 100 year-old ruling that pre-dates hardcore at R18 or indeed, Internet publishing and the aquittal of all scatalogical material (where only available to adult subscribers) in Perrin v R. (1999). If shit play/eating isn`t obscene then I fail to see how a stream of near colourless liquid falling on someone`s body can be.

As I pointed out, legal obscenity is not a matter of mere distaste or disgust. For something to be legally obscene it must be believed able to corrupt and deprave the likely audience. Such is the availability of all this supposed `obscene` material on the Internet, the CPS and the BBFC are now bringing the law into serious disrepute indeed, they have made it a mockery.

IanG    [26060.   Posted 6-Oct-2009 Tue 17:25] View Near Messages
pbr, I doubt the law proves anything where obscenity is concerned.

Obscenity is defined as that which "can corrupt and deprave the likely audience". Do the BBFC and CPS seriously want us to believe persons over 18 years of age buying R18 material in person in a licensed sex shop "can be corrupted and depraved" by the sight of people pissing (or `squirting`) on or near each other? Do they expect us to believe a jury would agree porn-buying men and women could be "corrupted and depraved" by the sight of people inserting wine bottles or fists in people`s vaginas or anuses? Do they expect us to believe grown adults could be "corrupted and depraved" by people being slapped or, gagging during felatio or, being choked?

The BBFC and the CPS INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE with their unsubstantiated claims. They LIE. They SCHEME. They DENY us the right to view what every other sexually liberated country in the world allows the people to see. Worse still, their conspiracy works to deny the public our legal right to decide for ourselves what is or isn`t obscene as per the law of the land and the designed intent of the OPA itself.

IanG    [26052.   Posted 5-Oct-2009 Mon 09:02] View Near Messages
barriejohn, I wouldn`t put it past the police to start parading in underwear to try and swing a conviction...got to make them targets y`know to get your bonuses (and stuff the risks, its only someone else`s life and liberty at stake).


pbr, well spotted. Of course I was going to be a bit more blatant - like where`s the tear stained makeup, blood, cuts and bruises you`d expect from sexual violence? As ever, I`d like to know WHO made these complaints and, WHAT is going on in the minds of these people that make such frightening leaps of imagination or `interpretation`?

I don`t get the connection between ceramic tiles and Japanese rope bondage however, having seen many examples of this erotic art form, I know what I saw was extremely TAME and implied no sexual violence what so ever.

Perhaps we should ask the question; In this day and age WHO would use scenes of implied sexual violence to advertise ceramic tiles?

IanG    [26049.   Posted 4-Oct-2009 Sun 06:24] View Near Messages
Do the police regularly climb atop armoured vehicles and flash their bras?
Do riot police wear boiler suits?
Do female officers serve as riot police?

If the answer to any of the above is "no" then I don`t see how 10 girls dressed in boiler suits and skid lids, atop a van flashing their bras could possibly be charged with impersonating police officers.

Impersonation is trying to both look and behave like something you`re not.

Giving the impression of something is not the same as impersonating something. Most rational people CAN tell the difference. Indeed, most people that understand BASIC ENGLISH know the difference.

IanG    [26040.   Posted 3-Oct-2009 Sat 07:44] View Near Messages
"Hugh McKinney, chairman of the National Family Campaign, said the works had no place in a gallery visited by families. You have to ask if this is appropriate material for a gallery as prestigious as the Tate. There is a fine line between art and pornography in some cases. Families visit the Tate, and there is a real possibility that under-age and impressionable young people could see these works."

Ah yes Hugh, better the little tikes think they were found under a bush after being left there by a large wading bird. Family values: lying to children to avoid your own embarrasment.

Telling the truth is liberating. If we get sex out in the open then it will lose all its power to shock and disturb. Ignorance is tish. Hell, we might even regain some sanity and perspective...?

The current situation is totally insane. You can see naked people in the flesh and have sex with them quite legally aged just 16 years. But, these same worldwise, sexually aware folks have to wait until they`re 18 to see other people doing the same? Utterly bonkers! In fact, `children` as young as 13 are having sex and are having the babies to prove it (that qualifies as an adult biologically speaking). If these young adults hadn`t been kept in the dark all their lives and understood the problems of having a baby at 14 years, indeed, if they understood the risks of having a baby (and unprotected sex) at that age, they might just give it a bit more thought don`t you think? But no, we`ll just carry on pretending kids shouldn`t know anything about sex, relationships, STIs and parenthood so that `caring adults` and morally insane `family values` creeps can feel good about themselves. Talk about doing the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons!

Only 200 years ago the vast majority of people in Britain lived in dwellings with a single room where the whole family would live and sleep. Many folks around the world still live like this and they don`t have hangups about public nudity nor do they believe their own children will be morally corrupted by a working knowledge of sex - and with over 20,000 years experience, I reckon they would know what`s good or bad for kids, don`t you?

I think the National Family Campaign ought to adopt its proper title - the British Ignorance and Intolerance Campaign. Now that`s what I call Abhorrent!

IanG    [26031.   Posted 2-Oct-2009 Fri 08:49] View Near Messages
phantom, (I should have posted this yesterday too. Seems the owner of puternet and I see things similarly...)

Does Harman actually understand what is meant by `equality`?

Let`s get the facts straight for Harriet, Object and FCAP. The article, (the `object`) of prostitution is the sale and purchase of SEXUAL SERVICES. As such, prostitution is it neither limited nor unique to any particular gender or sexual orientation - it is universal, UNISEX.

Any disparity in numbers of male and female prostitutes can probably be attributed to the fact that men cum and go, whereas, women just keep cumming - there`s a clear point at which men can be seen to have been serviced that is not so readily obvious where women, and their sexual satisfaction, can be seen to be complete. On the surface this would suggest there should be more male prostitutes than female however, the male labido is far higher than that of the female (a consequence of our primate evolution) and, as the female is generally sexually unavailable for 1 week out of every 4, there`s far more opportunity for more women to exploit the sexual traits of men. In short, it is far easier for a woman to service 10 men in a day to earn a living than it is for a man to service 10 women in a day and earn a living - it is a simple matter of economics - i.e. supply vs demand. A woman has a virtually endless supply of sex to offer and men have a virtually ceaseless demand although limited by ejaculation to erectile recovery times.

As far as sexual functionality goes, men and women are certainly not equal - never have been and never will be - and, 3.5 billion years of evolution most certainly has determined what the best role and labidal balance for each sex should be.

Now, if moralising dickwads and female rights whackos don`t like what niches modern society has created for people to survive in then, it`s not people that need changing but this whole fucking pile of shit economic system they`ve created that`s at fault. Life evolves to survive in the given environment. Prohibitions do not work because they create new niches for exploitation - whether they`re deemed `illegal` or not is irrelevant. Indeed, those deemed illegal tend to deliver higher gains because they are higher risk - the proof is that a ban on booze and illicit drugs simply bolstered the market for such commodities - the demand remained the same (it even increased) and the newly uncontrolled supply-chain flourished.

We`re supposed to learn from our past mistakes. It`s such a pity our self-righteous cunt politicians are so cock sure of their own beliefs they can`t see there`s nothing new under the sun, and the only way to keep society happy is to GIVE US WHAT WE WANT because, no matter what, we`ll get it any way we can...(and far better it serves the whole of society rather than the blackmarket crimimal element don`t you think?)!

IanG    [26007.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 06:00] View Near Messages
barriejohn, [26004] that`s the question I`ve been asking (for far too many years). Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder. It`s strange how naturists don`t seem to share the average Daily Mail reader`s views of naked people (children are people aren`t they?). Odd too that these old stalwarts of `taste and decency` can probably be cured of their gymnophobia in less than day - if that is they`d strip naked with a whole bunch of other people and let their natural instincts remind them how we all used to live. Nudity is natural. Wearing clothes ain`t and, if left unchecked, the very sight of naked flesh can cause mass hysteria amongst the braindead and brainwashed moronic followers of religious fashion.

IanG    [25995.   Posted 28-Sep-2009 Mon 18:28] View Near Messages
Welcome aboard panglossian.

Just picked up on this off the MWUK home page re the `new` Ofcom CONsultation.

"Indeed, mediawatch-uk would argue that in some respects standards are now very much worse because of the ill-defined Code and the way broadcasters have been able to interpret it in their own interests.

"It is not enough to guarantee `freedom of expression` for broadcasters, and their so-called "right to offend", which contradicts the intention of the Communications Act 2003 on `offensive and harmful material` without also guaranteeing the rights of audiences. Whilst we recognise that these rights are `at times competing` surely the first priority for a regulator is to safeguard the rights of audiences."

Odd how MWUK believe the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the `right to offend` should be curtailed on the basis that the Comms Act requires Ofcom to regulate the broadcast of `offensive and harmful material`. It`s quite a different thing really - i.e. censorship v regulation.

Of course, `offensive and harmful material` isn`t quite the same as `offensive or harmful material`. Obviously, racist or homophobic hate attacks would satisfy both `offensive and harmful` criteria. Bad language on the otherhand harms no one but, might be a bit unpleasant to some religious freaks that believe a decent society can only be forged if some words of the English language are never heard or spoken. "John Spartan, you are fined 3 credits for a breach of the verbal morality code".

The thing is the British public don`t think bad language or explicit sex are `offensive and harmful`. And the PROOF of that is in the "not guilty" verdict handed down to Penguin Books over the publication of Lady Chatterly`s Lover. It is also confirmed by the BBFC`s public consultations and what the people believe SHOULD BE ALLOWED in films.

It`s all good and well banging on about standards but, the standards we`re supposed to be working to are those that safeguard the universal rights of human beings. And these standards say we have the right to offend moralising creeps that would send us to jail for watching porn movies in the privacy of our own homes. These standards also say oppressive regulators should not be allowed to use purely speculative `precautionary` claptrap to prevent a broadcaster showing such porn films at a suitable time or, on subscription TV stations.

What is the point of law if the people being paid with your taxes ignore your legal rights and flout the laws they`re supposed to be upholding?

Ofcom are required by law to respect the case law of the ECHR. And the ECHR case law states "It is undisputed that a broadcast licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material". R18 material has been legally available in the UK since 1984. R18 has included explicit sex since 2000 on the basis that the High Court could find NO EVIDENCE to suggest explicit pornography could "seriously impair the moral or psychological development of minors". Ofcom seem to believe these legal precedents and decisions don`t apply to them, when in fact, they define the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the UK (of which Statute Law - e.g. the Comms Act 2003 - is but a tiny and sometimes unlawful part).

There are no guarantees those idealogically misguided monsters we elect to Parliament every 5 years are right about anything let alone everything.

As CRB checking is in the news again, who believes this could/would have stopped that woman in Plymouth from molesting children in her care? The fact is it didn`t nor could it if the person being checked has no previous convictions or accusations made against them. At best this is just another job creation scheme for a bunch of jobsworths. At worst it is designed to lull the public into a false sense of security, to make us believe the Government have all the answers and, indeed, know what the fuck they`re doing.

I don`t want to go off topic but I believe it is no longer acceptable for any party with a Parliamentary majority to pass any old law they choose. That`s dictatorship not democracy. We should require any new law to achieve at least 75% of votes. Scraping through with a handful of votes isn`t good enough. Moreover, if a new law really is in the interests of the nation then any Government should be able to convince at least 75% of Parliament of that, if not then the law probably is not worth passing.

So, what`s the Government doing creating conflicts between the HRA 1998 and the Comms Act 2003? MWUK are correct, the Office of Communications SHOULD be placing the rights of the audience first - they work for US! They`re supposed to ensure we get the services WE WANT and at a price and standard WE WANT. They`re supposed to ensure OUR right to freedom of expression is fully respected and that programming we specifically choose to watch measures up to OUR expectations and "generally accepted standards". It seems to me Ofcom have ignored every basic principle of public service regulation. Indeed, they`ve allowed rip-off telephone services to flourish. They`ve FORCED TV companies to supply inferior products and ecouraged them to lie about what they cannot show. Ofcom have turned regulation into a fucking mockery.

IanG    [25990.   Posted 28-Sep-2009 Mon 07:36] View Near Messages
Reinforcing stereotypes.

"Licences are required where a significant degree of sex related articles are for sale – a term not yet defined by the courts. Each licensing authority determines its own interpretation.

Local sex stores claim Ann Summers is over what they would expect is the threshold. It comes as an Ann Summers store in Soho, London, faces private prosecution for trading without a sex establishment licence under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982."

Can anyone explain why a shop selling non-lethal and non-toxic clothing, sex toys and 18-rated DVDs needs a license to trade?

Don`t Boots sell sex aids?
Don`t John Lewis, Dot Perkins etc. sell lingerie?
Don`t HMV sell 18-rated `sex works`?

The world was a very different place in the 1980s. Frauline Thatcher was busy destroying all sense of society and community. The press were concocting stories about `video nasties`, which were all baseless lies. Out of this era of scaremongering bullshit by narrowminded prigs hell bent on keeping the UK in the dark ages comes the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

The need for a license to trade in non-toxic, non-lethal goods is completely arbitrary if not senseless and, the fact it centres on supposedly sex-related items is utterly discriminatory. Sex is natural. So-called "British values" ain`t.

IanG    [25984.   Posted 27-Sep-2009 Sun 05:06] View Near Messages
Shaun, yes, unless MWUK have appointed a new leader that doesn`t believe in Whitehousian taste and decency, I think we can be pretty sure of Ms Pattinson`s views. Until she makes an announcement (or is that a proclamation?) we won`t know for sure. However, as she is young and likely more politically astute, she may well be more measured, thoughtful and reasonable in her claims and won`t be calling for people to be imprisoned because they watch things she may or may not approve of. A more liberal approach might make her far more dangerous than the ridiculous Mr Beyer ever was - moreso, as we seem to have a bunch of "British values" fanatics that believe their own bullshit running Ofcom.

IanG    [25981.   Posted 26-Sep-2009 Sat 19:29] View Near Messages
Has anyone told the French that Michealangelo`s `David` isn`t a physically correct representation of a human body? I`m fairly certain they didn`t have Photoshop in the 18th and 19th century but, for some reason, women were trying to fit themselves into size zero dresses and where necessary using corsettes to do it and, wearing strange bum enlarging petticoats to enhance the effect. It seems to me people, and women especially, have never been happy with their body shape. I guess that`s proof positive that ideas ain`t natural, especially concerning fashion, beauty and aesthetics.

We should ban clothes - that way everyone will see nobody is remotely perfect.

Oh, and if the French want to stop people getting the wrong idea about enhanced photos they should probably ban Photoshopping because I doubt a few words will change anyone`s perception of the image they`re seeing.

Mind you, if words on a photo can correct the viewer`s perception then perhaps the ASA should recommend putting an age disclaimer on any photo which appears to show a 23 year-old model looking like an under 16 in a sexualised context? "All models are over 18" should do it.

IanG    [25968.   Posted 23-Sep-2009 Wed 08:15] View Near Messages
Dave, you make some excellent points which are of course fundamental to the existence of this, and other anti-censorship forums. Living behind the BBFC, Ofcom, ASA iron shield is for most intelligent free-thinkers a total pain in the arse. A few like yourself have chosen to live elsewhere and, moreover, have been allowed entry to that place by the Governing authorities. The vast majority however are forced to stay put - we can`t all up sticks and go live in the land of the free if, indeed, such a place existed. "Sorry we`re full, now fuck off back to Iranistan".

So, if we abide by the prevailing laws of the particular piece of land we`re born on (not our choice of course), we have no choice, we have no freedom, we are constrained to do as we are told "or else...".

I don`t agree that filesharing is wrong even if these other wrongs based on cultural claptrap are corrected. The world had star actors, singers, performers etc. long before mass produced copies of single performances could be sold around the world. The vast majority of entertainers work for a living, they never achieve `stardom` yet, they can be seen or heard performing in the background of many a marketing dream celeb hit.

Do you think Julia Roberts should or could get $12M for doing one night at the Old Vic? Even if you could pack enough people into the theatre, I doubt her performance would justify the fee.

What happened to the concept of an honest day`s work for an honest day`s pay? The rest of us `nobodys` have to live like this and, before technology created a license to print money, so did every `star` under the sun. Record and film companies are simply ripping people off. In essence they do no more than your average pirate - they copy something and sell it at a profit (and let`s not forget the concept of Copyright is man made fiction that doen`t even exist in some places). Filesharers however do not necessarily make any money by simply downloading something for their own personal use. And let`s be brutally honest, I`d say 99.99% of stuff I`ve downloaded I wouldn`t buy to watch anyway - the companies haven`t lost any revenue because I wouldn`t otherwise shell out for their crap.

Moreover, real fans go to concerts, they go to the cinema, they go to the theatre, they`ll even buy films and records for their collections, they`ll even fork out for all the director`s cuts, special box sets and any other crappy merchandise some overpaid marketing exec can con vulnerable (i.e. fanatical) people into buying.

Films, TV shows, Games, CDs, indeed, all forms of recorded entertainment, should be available to everyone for free from public libraries in the same way books are. Because IF piracy is such an issue (and I seriously doubt that it is) then this is the ONLY way to combat it.

It is my view that the whole own-to-view market is based on a deeply flawed model anyway. I can go into my local supermarket and buy the latest DVD for about £10. Of that 10 quid the production company probably get a few pence after all other costs have been deducted. Now for that tenner I have bought the right to play that DVD all day, every day and to whomever I choose - the production company get nothing from all these extra viewers and performances. If I tire of watching this DVD I can give it as a gift to anyone I choose - the production company still get nothing. This new owner can do as I did, showing it to all their friends and family and, when they tire of it, they too can pass it to someone else - and still the production company make not a penny more. It is possible 100s of not 1000s of people could view that DVD I bought for £10 and which earned the producers a few pence yet, at no time were any laws broken and no copyrights breached. The own-to-view model simply doesn`t work - the market is in fact worthless and as such there should be no penalty for those sharing what they have with others if no profits are being generated. It`s not piracy, it is simply communal generosity and, as you so rightly point out, often the only way to get hold of the uncensored and culturally-liberated version.

The BBFC, indeed, `the law` and Government (joke!) etc. have no right to tell me what I must find obscene, degrading or supposedly dangerous. We all have the right to freedom of expression, thought and conscience. As such I believe we have the right to know what we`re being denied the ability to know by people who resort to mythical culturally-idealised stereotypes to defend their censorial actions.

IanG    [25944.   Posted 16-Sep-2009 Wed 07:14] View Near Messages
phantom, apart from Chitty Chitty, I was having terrible trouble recalling any such scenes in movies of late (save for The Girl Next Door).

So, good call on Addams Family and Home Alone.

The only things I could think of are quite old - Commando ft. 9yo Alyssa Milano and a similarly young Eliza Dushku in True Lies, both being kidnapped and `restrained` or locked up in some way by terroists.

I think the difficulty in even realising films we probably all have seen or have in our video collections might contain `child abuse images` stems from the fact that I don`t see child restraint as something `stimulating` - there`s nothing `sexy` or `special` about it also, its just a film so its not real abuse but all pretend.

Now where doesn`t `pretend` count anymore...? Indeed, where doesn`t `intent` count anymore...?

The DPA etc. make one huge and totally unfounded assumption - that people who possess certain material do so for some underlying ulterior motive and deviant sexual gratification or to `reinforce` such motives and "unhealthy fantasies". It clearly IS NOT TRUE in the VAST MAJORITY of perfectly sane, rational, and safe members of society. Normal folks can possess all manner of `dangerous images` and NEVER become a danger to society at all - "corruption and depravity" simply doesn`t occur.

Now this is something I`ve been meaning to ask the BBFC for some time - i.e. when they ban a film because they believe it will "reinforce unhealthy fantasies" or because they say its "obscene under current interpretation of the OPA" they`re actually implying that the producers are attempting to corrupt and deprave the audience or, that they themselves are corrupted and depraved to include or create such material in their works. But it is precisely because the producers (writers, actors, directors etc.) are not fucking crazed psychos that they don`t see any danger at all in putting their wildest nightmares onto film - they don`t believe for one millisecond anything they produce will have any detrimental effects on the viewer - and rightly so, because this has NEVER EVER been proven to happen!

The test for obscenity itself (ie. `dangerous` and `harmful` materials) is null and void and is based purely on hocus pocus and superstitious claptrap.

IanG    [25940.   Posted 15-Sep-2009 Tue 07:07] View Near Messages
Internet nanny.

"A move to adopt the pan-European video game classification system so parents can check if their children’s video games are appropriate for their age group is under threat. This summer the Department for Culture, Media and Sport told Dr Byron that there were fears that the existing legislative framework could make it hard to adopt the EU-wide system. She wrote back immediately, asking to meet officials without delay, but has had no response."

Ha! There is no obsticle to adopting PEGI ratings from the "existing legislative framework" - the VRA is DEAD, the BBFC are left `involuntarily` powerless.

IanG    [25932.   Posted 13-Sep-2009 Sun 08:43] View Near Messages
Harvey, perhaps the `truth` I`m getting at is that two juries on the same day, in the same court, considering the same material can return two different verdicts. The OPA and its reliance on subjective opinion, `feelings` and hearsay isn`t a sound basis for any sort of fair justice. The OPA and all its "grossly offensive" associated bullshit `laws` have no place in this day and age of Human Rights Legislation.

And I am adamant that if you do not believe you are guilty of a crime then you should not plead to the contrary. This can never serve in the interests of truth or justice. Indeed, by accepting blame and responsibility where none is due allows for travesties of justice such as the OPA to remain unchallenged and may, in some instances, allow a real criminal to remain at large to re-offend.

In British justice, ANY REASONABLE DOUBT about someone`s guilt is supposed to result in acquittal or, better yet, all charges being dropped long before the possibility of a trial.

As I said, when it comes to proving `obscenity` the CPS know only too well how difficult this is and so will resort every underhand trick in the book to try and get people to cop a plea - that in itself is a travesty of justice because it paints the image that the OPA `can` be trusted to return a sound verdict when we know it cannot because its all based on what people believe instead of what can be proven to be the undeniable truth.

And the undeniable truth is that across the rest of liberated Europe, pornography portraying `extreme` acts such as bestiality or other kinky material such as fisting, pissing and scat are not considered so dangerous or `obscene` that people need throwing in jail for either possession or distrubution.

IanG    [25922.   Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 20:31] View Near Messages
Harvey, (Ok, I`ll say what needs to be said...)

Admissions of guilt are not a sound basis for summary justice/judgement. In English law you are innocent until proven guilty (an admission of guilt is not proof of anything). Far too many people plead guilty to offences they have not committed (didn`t you, Harvey?!) for various reasons such as; mental illness, attention-seeking, fear, stress, coersion, blackmail, promise of leniency or the ceasation of torture.

Some time ago a contributor to this forum, one `braintree`, explained to us in detail how he was pressured, even threatened and coerced, into pleading guilty to distributing supposed `obscene` materials he had recorded from European satellite porn channels. He told us the DVDs in question contained scenes of self-fisting and (iirc) urolagnia. As I say, this material has never been tried for obscenity and, in light of the Perrin case, it is highly unlikely (when restricted to adults via R18 certification) that it would be found obscene by a UK court (it sure as hell isn`t considered obscene across most of liberated Europe).

Now sure, `braintree` was caught bang to rights by (the unknown to us at the time, illegal enforcement of) the VRA 1984. He had sold uncertified material to the Trading Standards entrapment squad. `braintree` pleaded ignorance of the law to us on this issue of BBFC certification (and it now seems he was right not to know about the unenacted VRA). However, why should his clear guilt of this (now unenforceable) offence be used to force him to plead guilty to peddling supposed `obscene` materials when the CPS etc. had no evidence or case history to suppose it was `obscene`? All the police/CPS were going on was their intolerance and prejudice toward more liberal European porn standards. What the police and CPS were upto is clearly a perversion of justice. It represents an abuse of trust, power and authority. It is a tactic intended to censor and obfuscate the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as to the REAL status of European-strength porn in the eyes of UK citizens.

Of course this deliberate obfuscation of the truth and the resulting injustice feeds into the BBFCs `current interpretation of obscenity` bullshit. It prevents the UK joining the rest of the Western world by dropping all notions of obscenity unless real harm can be proven to occur - as per our Fundamental Human Right to Freedom of Expression. It allows for convictions and imprisonment purely on the basis of inexpert hearsay, religious belief or arbitrary subjective notions of taste and decency. That the OPA can be quoted and invoked without any referrence to specific material and without any consistent case history regarding the material it supposedly covers, is proof that it is not clear enough to be called `law` and is (in this age of Human Rights) totally unenforceable, indeed, unlawful, unsound and unnecessary.

My advice to everyone is never plead guilty to anything that cannot be proven against you in a court of law. A charge should only stick if the CPS are prepared to take you to court - if they are reluctant to put the case before a jury then that means you`re probably innocent (and they know it) and they`re trying to make you confess to something they cannot prove or think they may fail to prove.

If you plead guilty to selling `obscene` material then you are agreeing that the material is likely "to corrupt and deprave the likely audience". If you don`t believe that possible (and frankly it is IMPOSSIBLE) then don`t agree to it and, be prepared to let a jury decide the same - because unless the material contains extreme sexual violence or bestial activity, and/or you`ve allowed children to view it, the jury will more often than not find it totally innocuous - like most liberal-minded, rational people across 21st century Europe (JUST A SMALL HINT...)!

I think its time to tear Britain`s `Iron Curtain` down - don`t you?

IanG    [25917.   Posted 11-Sep-2009 Fri 07:52] View Near Messages
Harvey/pbr, I don`t think the press would have missed out on a sensational "Extreme porn duo..." headline. If these guys had been peddling `extreme porn` then surely they`d have been charged for possession *and* distribution and the sentence would have reflected this `serious crime`? As it is, they got less than 2 years each - i.e. their crime was not judged to be `serious` and deserving of a 2+ year stretch.

So, one can only assume that this `obscene` material was in fact vanilla Euro porn, probably featuring fisting and golden showers but NOT sexual violence or bestial acts.

This may be pedantic but, to be charged with distributing obscene material, the material must first be proven to be obscene - and that needs a trial to determine the true status of the material in question - logic, truth and justice anyone? Now we know from Perrin v R 1999 that UK juries don`t find scatalogical material obscene where access is restricted to adults. It is extremely doubtful in this day and age that a UK jury would find pissing or fisting obscene (its not nearly as `gross` as shit play IMHO).

Perversion of justice comes in many guises. The police and CPS are quite desparate to keep fisting and pissing material away from court. A "not guilty" verdict would leave them without a fucking leg to stand on. So, they instead insist they `know` what `is` obscene and threaten people with longer sentences if the accused invokes their Fundamental Right to be assumed innocent and effectively say "Prove me guilty in court". The CPS know how close they came to failing to convict Perrin (only his two freely available trailers got him banged up because kids could have seen them). Fisting and pissing have never been tried in a UK court for obscenity, so there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the police or CPS can claim to `know` the status of this material.

Imagine where we would be today if Penguin Books has simply rolled over and copped a guilty plea because the police/CPS/DPP claimed they `knew` Lady Chatterly`s Lover `was` obscene. Penguin were only taken to trial BECAUSE the authorities BELIEVED Lady Chatterly was obscene - else why hold a trial? They don`t prosecute people if they know the charges will be dropped do they? - "You are charged with something we know you didn`t do" - the judge would love that!

Clearly, Justice can only be served when all issues of a case and the law are argued fully in court. Just think how long the BBFC wrongfully suppressed hardcore porn at R18 and you`ll see I`m right (and to prove the point, explicit sex on film hasn`t been found obscene by a UK jury since before 1975!). As I`ve said here and to the BBFC, just because they say they can`t hold 7000 obscenity trials a year doesn`t give them the right to censor material as they see fit. As it stands, in light of the Perrin acquittals, the BBFC cannot legally suppress scatalogical material at 18 or R18 (where intended for adult-only viewing) and, as pissing and fisting are far less gut-churningly `dirty` (IMO) than shit play, there`s no legitimate legal reason for them to suppress these acts either (and certainly not while the VRA is unlawful to enforce!!!).

To claim these two guys were peddling obscene materials without having them declared obscene by a jury is utterly specious - its a LIE! These two were undoubtedly making a very profitable living from selling pirate copies of copyright material - this is REAL Piracy in the digital age. Five van loads of DVDs don`t come cheap and to have £41,000 lying around in petty cash speaks volumes about how successful this illegal business was. And judging by the sentence, I`d say this is all they`ve been committed of - i.e. copyright theft on a massive scale. Now obviously, an operation like this can easily pay £50,000 in compensation to the copyright holders. But to treat non-profiteering filesharers like these pirates is dispicable, indeed, evil. And judging by Youtube`s deal with the PRS, just £1 would pay for 450 `illegally shared` music tracks - so I think Mr Meddlesome had better stick to bum fucking his Hollywood chums because I don`t think the 8 million filesharers in Britain will stand for this cocksucker`s plans to turn them into criminals.

IanG    [25906.   Posted 9-Sep-2009 Wed 04:37] View Near Messages
EDL, don`t you mean the poor cunt is still doing time for an offence that exists only in the brainwashed minds of utter morons?

I don`t recall the BBC documentary showing Gough being arrested on his travels. Sure, he was shown attending court and being forced to dress but this was in relation to his public protests - climbing on statues, bus stops etc. for publicity.

I recall the scene in the Tan Hill pub. Some woman seemed upset by Gough`s nakedness and made the oxymoronic claim that she`d "brought up her daughter with more respect for herself" - as if covering your `shame` (i.e. what nature gave you) because its deemed `disgusting` and `offensive` by insane twats, shows any respect for anyone!

That`s the trouble with nutters - they`re so bewitched, beguiled and bewildered by their own faulty worldview, they can`t see when they`re taking utter tripe.

IanG    [25902.   Posted 8-Sep-2009 Tue 07:23] View Near Messages
MediawatchUK are insane.

"We would suggest that there is only one sure way of effectively protecting the under-18s and that is not permit ‘adult sex` material on television at all."

Protect them from what? The only thing vulnerable people need protecting from is the insane belief that sex is `evil` or `corrupting`. And by vulnerable people I mean children, who are routinely subjected to religious brainwashing and indoctrination and turned into `good` fearful, mindless, anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-freedom British subjects.

"It is also based upon the false assumption that viewing violence and anti-social behaviour has no influence. This section of the Code should be reviewed urgently and the above assumption reversed."

Well, I`ve been watching violent, anti-social material for many decades and not once have I found it to influence or cause me to want to behave in a violent or anti-social manner. At present the leaders of the `freeworld` are most certainly condoning and promoting (glamourising?) violence as the only means to protect `our way of life` from religious fanatics. The British police have been caught attacking and brutalising peaceful protestors, as if they have some right to beat up those they are paid by and to protect.

I suppose if MediawatchUK are believed to be correct despite all commonsense and evidence to the contrary, then we`ll have to ban everything from Oedipus to Shakespear and beyond. Indeed, we`d have to ban all religious materials - which seem to feature violence in one form or another from start to end and, indeed, even condone and glamourise mass murder, infanticide, rape and torture.

You are a blithering idiot Mr Beyer but, if your efforts will get religion banned once and for all then you have my blessings and support - "go ahead, make my day"...

Of course Mr Beyer doesn`t see that his attack upon our right to freedom of expression is an act of violence. It is human nature to attack that which we fear. What we do not understand we fear. What we fear we hate, and our hatred then serves to justify our violent attacks.

However, we humans have a mind Mr Beyer. We can choose how we behave. Those of us with a mind to understand the unknown have the power to dispell our fears, to suppress our hatred and thus overcome our violent nature. Those who choose to deny us our right to freedom of expression also deny us the ability to make progress, to learn from our experience, to lift ourselves out of darkness, fear, hatred and violence. YOU Mr Beyer are not part of the solution, YOU are indeed part of the problem.

You must face your demons Mr Beyer, open your eyes, open your mind, be a man and grow the fuck up!

IanG    [25898.   Posted 7-Sep-2009 Mon 09:42] View Near Messages
Seems I might have been absolutely correct about that insane ASA decision and the `reasons` behind it...?

As the Gov. are now planning on creating criminal sanctions for ISPs that fail to block `child abuse images`, I hope you can understand WHY the ASA`s decision re fashion pictures of a 23-year-old model is so dangerous to the notion of law, order and justice. "It ain`t safe no more".

"The lunatics are in the House"

IanG    [25897.   Posted 7-Sep-2009 Mon 09:26] View Near Messages
dano, bit of coincidence here...I was just thinking about Ofcon`s misuse of that PIN protection `research` from 2003/4 which claimed kids were often given the $ky PIN number to watch/buy Disney films and the like. The data (i.e. the surveyed kids) also claimed that they knew their parent`s `chip and pin` bank/credit card number (is that really true? Or is it bullshit typical of the claims of kids back when titles of `video nasties` that didn`t even exist had all mysteriously been seen by the children interviewed? Kids lie to look big and clever - and that`s a fact).

The Prof. that reviewed the PIN research data and turned it into a report for Ofcon`s `consultation` (let`s call it a fabrication ;), stated clearly (in the report itself) words to the effect that "the data cannot be used as a basis to justify censorship of adult services" - that didn`t stop Ofcom though...ignorant twats!

Here`s the thing. Parents that allow their child to know ANY PIN number quite obviously trust that child not to blow next month`s mortgage on mountain bikes and Xbox games or accessing unsuitable films/TV channels. As we know what Jacqui Smith`s husband was watching, any parent would know if their children were watching inappropriate content when their statement arrived. Of course the bottom line is, if you can`t trust your own children then a) don`t give them the PIN number or, if that`s not feasible, b) the surefire way to stop them accessing anything on $ky is to SIMPLY REMOVE THE VIEWING CARD - "Simples".

All the "techonological means" necessary to prevent `inapprorate viewing by children under 18` has been built into the $ky system since day one - the VIEWING CARD is the KEY without which the system is as dead as a door nail.

This works even for those children with secondary boxes in their bedrooms. Once it gets past the child`s bedtime, ma and pa can pull the card out of the slot and leave their pride and joy to go to sleep in the sure and certain knowledge they won`t be watching ANYTHING on satellite TV. "Card out, light out and off to sleep".

IanG    [25893.   Posted 5-Sep-2009 Sat 05:26] View Near Messages
Teddy, AFAIK the definition of a `serious offence` is one which carries a prison sentence of two or more years - its not what you `did` that matters but, how long the stretch is. And best not forget that prosecution under the CJIB clauses for possession of `extreme porn` are classified as serious sexual offences and can get you SOR registered.

Our Parliamentarians didn`t beat about the bush when they conjured these victimless crimes out of their own ignorant prejudice and fear. It really is on par with the sort of persecution their predecessors dreamt up for the gay community when people`s ignorance painted homosexuals as anti-social misfits ready to destroy all common decency.

If we don`t wake the people up to the injustice now flowing through our legal system then we`re all fucked. We`ll be following in the footsteps of Mr Hitler and throwing anyone `we` simply don`t like the thought of in jail (and no doubt worse when that punishment just doesn`t seem adequate to the threat these misfits pose to "common taste and decency" (except of course its not common, tasteful or decent but extreme rightwing bigotry)).

IanG    [25889.   Posted 4-Sep-2009 Fri 08:02] View Near Messages
Actually phantom, Stephen Gough, The Naked Rambler, walked naked all the way from Lands End to the Scottish borders without being arrested once - and he stopped off in some quaint English pubs along the way sans underpants. But when he hit Scotland and their Common Law `public decency` bullshit, he was slung in jail - its been more than 3 years he`s been rotting in a Scotish jail in solitary confinement because he doesn`t like wearing clothes. It`s the Scots notion of `public decency` that`s truly indecent.

IanG    [25887.   Posted 4-Sep-2009 Fri 06:17] View Near Messages
What planet? "Cut required to remove sight of potentially harmful anal penetration with a small glass mercury thermometer." AFAIK that`s entirely STANDARD PRACTICE - under the tongue or up the bum, certainly didn`t do millions of people any harm during the long history of the NHS.

And as Dave points out, the law the BBFC quote that empowers them to hack video works, isn`t deemed enforceable.



emark, sergio, if you read between the lines of my previous post, I`m suggesting that the ASA are determined to allow the public to believe it is perfectly fine to incorrectly identify a 23-year-old as an under 16-year-old. The implications with regard to false accusations of child porn that features legal adult actors and the completely indeterminate age of cartoon characters is frightening. The public are being put at risk by this act of censorship, which could, indeed, SHOULD have been used to prove once and for all that appearances alone are EXTREMELY deceptive and UTTERLY incongruous with respect to The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth - i.e. the fundamental principles of our Justice system, Democracy and Human Rights.

All of this `opinion/appearance-based` (CPA, DPA, OPA, DDA, VRA) legislation brings our laws into disrepute. You can kiss justice goodbye when all the charges against you rely upon circumstantial evidence and subjective/inaccurate/prejudiced opinion.

Even the Nazis didn`t throw people in the gas chambers based on whether they merely `looked like jews` but, that`s effectively what all this circumstantial, subjective, prejudiced-opinion and appearance-based legislation actually allows as `evidence` to determine someone`s `guilt`.

We are living in a vigilante police kangeroo court system. This has come about because what Government/Parliament WANT to throw people in jail for possessing and what they SHOULD be able to thrown people in jail for possessing are poles apart. "Too busy asking what they could do without asking if they should".

IanG    [25884.   Posted 3-Sep-2009 Thu 19:22] View Near Messages
What the fuck is going on?

"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."

The model is 23 years old and blessed with apparently younger looks. Are the ASA trying to ruin what remains of her modelling career by claiming she`s too young looking to appear in a typical fashion shoot? I`m sure the ASA could be accused of causing this woman some serious alarm, harassment and distress...?

What worries me about this decision is that it reinforces the belief that people can be imprisoned for possessing `sexualised` images of 23-year-old adults that appear to be `under 18` to some misguided people. The scope for miscarriges of justice are clearly huge.

What concerns me about the ASA is that even knowing the age of this model, the ASA have chosen to allow their clearly inaccurate perception of this woman`s age (based on her appearance alone) to suggest to them she is a child being portrayed in a sexualised context. Of course sexualised images of a 23-year-old are not inappropriate - and that`s what these images actually ARE if indeed, they are `sexualised` - it sounds like a typical fashion shoot to me and not `sexualised` in any way apart from some semi-exposed breast (is exposing a breast to feed a baby or to sun bathe in any way sexual?).

If when you look at an image of someone who has been alive for 23 years and they do not match your preconceived idea of what they `should look like` as a 23-year-old and indeed, seem to match your idea of what an under 16-year-old `should look like` then, it is your idea of what they `should look like` that is clearly inaccurate, incomplete, illconceived and utterly incorrect. Your `judgement` is invalid, indeed, its misguided and prejudiced. In such circumstances you are clearly not fit to make such judgements.

Have the ASA attempted to correct their OPINION of what they`re seeing even knowing the truth about the model`s age? No. Instead they assume their incorrect (and quite sick) perceptions are `correct` (black is white, war is peace) and then foist their sick and twisted `reality` upon wider society. Now the public are to be prevented from correcting any misconceived ideas they may also have about how old someone is from their appearance alone. We now have no chance to learn from this mistake. Our `unhealthy fantasies` are reinforced - i.e. 23-year-olds are 15-year-olds if they look like it (even though we all know they most certainly are not!).

"Freedom of expression exists to shock and disturb states and opinions...in order to progress society". Thanks to the ASA any progress, knowledge and enlightenment that could have come from this case has been DENIED!

When misguided opinion alone takes precedence over the truth and the cold hard facts of the matter then I think we can kiss any notion of fairness, justice, law and order goodbye. We are living in cloud cuckoo land - the Twiggy Zone, where appearance is everything, age is meaningless and opinion is reality.

IanG    [25873.   Posted 30-Aug-2009 Sun 17:59] View Near Messages
MichaelG, now to that Swiss Cheese BBFC response...

BBFC harm is: "not just behavioural harm but also moral harm and desensitisation" and "encouraging a dehumanised view of others or reinforcing unhealthy fantasies".

My first question is how does any of this harm manifest itself if not in "behavioural harm"? Does society need concern itself with the things people think, feel or believe if these do not interfere with the rights and wellbeing of others? I think not. Society should, indeed, can ONLY justify interfering with someone`s life if they are a manifest danger to others - its what we DO that matters not what we watch, read, think, believe or feel indeed, these are all protected fundamental human rights.

Desensitisation is central to not acting like an hysterical child. It is part and parcel of the British stiff upper lip. It is an essential part of growing up and acting like an adult. It is required to prevent `alergic` over-reactions. What would you rather have: an ambulance crew that turn up to a scene of carnage and run screaming at the sight of a drop of blood or, seasoned paramedics who calmly and diligently wade through severed limbs and corpses assessing the injured for who might survive and perhaps save their lives and limbs? In all I reckon desensitisation is a good thing for society as a whole.

My second question is how do the BBFC aim to PROVE that something does indeed "encourage a dehumanised view of others or reinforce unhealthy fantasies"? Who`s fantasies? What fantasies? The only fantasy I see is the BBFC`s imaginary `some men` who apparently have these imaginery `unhealthy fantasies`, which rather conveniently will be reinforced by the material the BBFC imagines needs banning because the public claim to be concerned about it. One wonders how the public can be concerned with material they`ve been `protected` from seeing by the BBFC? No one in Britain has been able to form an informed opinion because all the material in question has been banned from sale in Britain. Fear is borne out of ignorance so obviously, while the BBFC keep the nation IGNORANT the nation will continue to be concerned with stuff they`ve NEVER actually seen! The BBFC `justification` relying on supposed `public concern` is based on nothing more than a self-sustaining propaganda causality loop. "The people say they don`t like it so we ban it - And we ban it because the people say they don`t like it". But the people don`t know what the fuck it is, so how the hell are they supposed to know ANTHING ABOUT IT?

In GROTESQUE, who precisely is being "dehumanised"? The victims? That`s hard to believe because this is a horror movie isn`t it? What makes horror movies so disturbing is that the audience relate to the victims - "that could be me getting my eye poked out/that could be me getting my nipples chopped off/that could be me getting my balls crushed". This is how horror movies work - we FEEL for the victims, we EMPATHISE with our FELLOW HUMAN SUFFERERS. We cannot and do not relate to the psychotic, psychopathic, blood sucking monster that won`t die. By their very definition and nature, psychopaths cannot empathise with anyone or anything - they CANNOT place themsleves in an IMAGINERY position or situation - and that`s the FUNDAMENTAL FLAW with the BBFC hypothesis.

Psychopaths are rewarded by what they DO so, if watching a movie gets them off then all they`re likely to do is watch more movies or, watch the same thing over and over again. The BBFC claim this is bad for our pet nutter like it`ll send them crazy but, that fact is they`re already crazy and, while they`re preoccupied watching their favourite bit on TV they`re not out raping college girls or slicing people to bits ARE THEY!

I`m exceedingly annoyed to read this yet a-fucking-gain. "Media effects research is both controversial and contested. However, there is a body of research into violent pornography, and also into works in which victims are raped and tortured, which demonstrates aggressive responses or disturbing attitudinal change in some male viewers."

I think it was Dr Linz, "Fed a diet of pornography and violent pornography to a group of men for 2 weeks". A week later he invited them in to conduct an experiment. The men were first allowed `accidentally` to read a questionnaire filled-in by their female student test subject which made clear that the girl didn`t like him and would never consider dating someone like him. The men were then asked to administer an (unknown to them, fake) electric shock to the girl every time she got a response to a question wrong. Of course its a standardised test in which all the responses by the girls are the same for all the male test subjects - its the men`s aggression levels that are being tested not the girl`s responses. The good Dr. found NO EVIDENCE of increased levels of aggression or prepencity to rape in any of the men. Indeed, on an ethical level, had their been ANY suspicion that conducting ANY of this type of experiment would or could cause `some men` to become sexually aggressive then I doubt they would have been permitted to be conducted for as long as they have - and we are talking several decades of experiments involving hundreds of hormone fuelled male students...

Unless and until the BBFC produce some incontrovertible, uncontested, utterly RELIABLE PROOF that any of the effects they and the public appear to BELIEVE sexually violent movies MIGHT cause then there is no basis upon which they can legally deny anyone their right to watch any such material. Fantasy harm requires no restriction and no censorship because this harm simply doesn`t fucking exist. And of course this type of fantasy harm is exactly what the BBFC were reprimanded by the High Court for conjouring up out of thin air with regard to hardcore at R18.

Even under hypnosis you cannot change someone`s character and make them be or do something their psyche will not permit. The `some men` the BBFC claim to be protecting society from can only be rapists and murderers at heart and, if they have a need to see someone sexually abused, tortured or killed then surely better they see it on film than be forced to recreate it with a real victim? If the BBFC will not admit they could be DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD, if they will not conduct the experiment for themselves and discover the TRUTH then they are a LIABILITY to the people of this nation because they are acting without any KNOWLEDGE what so ever. Indeed, they prefer to act by reinforcing their own `unhealthy fantasies` on the basis of "controversial and contested" RESEARCH (and that`s NOT `evidence` by anyone`s definition). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary PROOF and I don`t see any proof at all, just speculation and hearsay borne out of ignorance and fear.

According to Dr Donnerstein, Malamuth and Linz these `disturbing character changes and aggression` the BBFC speak of could have been recreated (and I quote) "by having the men ride bicycles for 20 minutes". They are fleeting and transient. They are the product of Adrenalin alone and if this is so dangerous to society then we`d better lock Chris Hoy in jail and ban all forms of excitement for the sake of our women and children.

"It is the BBFC`s judgement that GROTESQUE invites the viewer to revel in the spectacle of sadism and sexual torture for its own sake."

Like the books of the Marquis de Sade parhaps? Clearly, the BBFC have not attempted (or been able) to view the film from the perspective of the victims. Instead, they have assumed the role of the torturer and believe viewers will obtain satisfaction from the pain and suffering inflicted upon our fellow human beings by a demented madman. Odd position to take don`t you think?

But it gets better... "The film lacks any significant narrative or other thesis to justify its theme or the inclusion of such images."

Since when pray tell has a film required any `significant narrative` or `thesis` upon which to `justify` its theme or images? I don`t think I`ve heard such intellectualised claptrap in all my days. Perhaps the BBFC would like to tell us what`s meant by an art installation of, say, a dirty bed or, half a pickled calf or, a pile of bricks? A film`s theme or images ARE its narrative and thesis - they ARE what IT IS - a FILM! Would anyone like to explain the `narrative or thesis` behind a timelapse film of a mouse carcas being devoured by maggots? Anyone know what Koyaniqatsi is `about`?

I can of course only go on what the BBFC have told us about this film but, it seems to be that GROTESQUE is a film about two people who fall victim to the disease we call PSYCHOPATHY - they are slowly destroyed and eaten away by something which resembles MRSA - a mindless, psychotic, parasitic infection that causes pain, disfigurement and death. Of course this disease isn`t shaped like a microbe, it is instead carried by a man. But the carrier is not a human being, the disease has destroyed any vestige of what makes an evolved ape that thing we call a human being. `He` has no more sense of right and wrong than a man-eating tiger. `He` is a psychotic, psychopathic monster that clearly revels in "the spectacle of sadism and sexual torture for its own sake" - which is exactly what the BBFC claim this film was intended to do and how the rest of the UK population will view it. I beg to differ. I beg to differ because I am NOT a psychopathic lunatic that wants to revel in the pain and suffering of my fellow man. If this is HOW the BBFC think then I believe they`re the last peolpe on earth that should be filtering what we`re allowed to see because they are clearly fucking insane.

Now I`m going to indulge in a little speculation. In light of the revelations regarding this Government`s complicity in `special rendition`, I believe that the BBFC have been ORDERED not to let the people of Britain even begin to imagine what HORRORS `terror suspects` MIGHT have been subjected to during `interrogation`. GROTESQUE comes at a time when torture is very much in the news. The film has no narrative because it is a comment on all the recent torturing of INNOCENT people carried out in secret by a festering disease we call `Democracy`, `Security` and the biggest con of all, `Liberty`.

No narrative or thesis? Just take a fucking look at the film! Oh you can`t, its been BANNED! - as it would be in every other commu-fascist dictatorship trying to suppress the rights of the people!!!

Oi, BBFC, I hear you`ve been acting outside any legal framework for the last 25 years - so you`re criminals! Keep your filthy thieving hands off our videos - you haven`t got the right or power to touch `em. Ignorance of the law is NO DEFENSE.

IanG    [25872.   Posted 30-Aug-2009 Sun 08:30] View Near Messages
MichaelG, [25866] "I`d love to know what this inquiry was last year which Cherie Blair chaired. Don`t think it was the Byron report, but it sounds like one of these `specially commissioned` jobbies CommuNuLabour seem so fond of."

AFAIK it was an inquiry into knife crime. And I`m sorry but I don`t think pop songs, films and games change social norms such that you`d be `expected` to knife/shoot/rape a rival gang member, their friends and family or, innocent by-standers.

Threats are what we defend ourselves from. How does a song, film or game paint someone you may or may not know as a threat you need to kill before they kill you? People choose to create enemies of other people they deem to be different. You do it to yourself, you do.

These moronic gang members have created their own enemies by assuming they own and control `a turf` or territory that they lay their own lives on the line to defend. They`re acting like uncivilised apes - in fact Bonobos behave better than these Chumps.

The film `The Warriors` was a warning not a blueprint. Before the VRA 1984 it showed in graphic detail the needless violence and pointlessness of gang culture (no doubt the BBFC made it look oh so nice, quaint and civilised). There`s a scene at the end of this film where the remaining Warriors gang members finally make it back to the derelict and rundown district of NY they `own` and the leader says in utter disbelief "Is THIS what we`ve been fighting for all night?".

There`s nothing romanitic about being in `my gang`. These kids would all be better off belonging to our gang - i.e. British Society, because we don`t feel the need to kill anyone unless they try to invade these shores. Britain is the gang we`re born into, and these isles form the turf our forebears fought and died to make our own. Its exactly the same apeman territory thing but on an entirely different scale. In short, nations and countries can all behave like moronic gangland twats.

I do not know what effect multiculturalism or indeed, globalisation, has on our (or any other) culture. I would guess these alien invaders lie deep at the root of the sub-culture problem (I think that speaks for itself). However, the solution to this counter-culture splinter effect is for us all to join the Human Race `gang` and defend our territory, Planet Earth, from all threats foreign and domestic - and some of those threats most certainly walk amongst us, indeed, some are the lynch pins of `our` supposed/imposed `way of life`.

In the end we all need to play from the same song sheet and realise that within that song is scope for a plethora of tones, rhythms, harmonies, melodies and improvisations. But why we believe and allow, say, `the drummers` to go and beat up `the violinists` because they don`t play the drums is perhaps what`s wrong with our `orchestra`...?

IanG    [25831.   Posted 20-Aug-2009 Thu 18:52] View Near Messages
How many people believe censorship can protect any member of the public from the actions of psychopaths?

Criminals have no respect for the law. They do not care about the harm or loss they cause to others, that`s what makes them criminals.

No rational person needs to be told what a crime is. Crimes are those things none of us would wish upon ourselves or our loved ones, things such as rape, robbery, murder, kidnap and torture.

No story on earth can turn a rational person into a mindless murderous fiend. And no amount of censorship can turn a mindless murderous fiend into a rational human being. It is a simple fact of life that some people are not created equal. Some are born with defective brains. Others yet can suffer such abuse at the hands of psychotic monsters in their formative years that they too can develop damaged psychologies.

If you want to see a truly horrific `torture porn` movie, I highly recommend Jack Ketchum`s The Girl Next Door (2007). This is a very well made movie - too good in fact. Whether this film ever gets a UK release is unknown - it is probably highly unlikely. The most harrowing part of this film (for me at least) is that it is supposedly based on a true story and events which took place during the 1950s in suburban bible belt America. There are to my mind some striking parallels between the events in this story and those described in Grotesque. The point however is that the events in this story apparently happened during an era when `The Hayes Code` was ensuring only wholesome movies were being made and shown in cinemas right across America. Yet despite the iron fist of censorship, despite the "you`ve never had it so good" economic times, despite the idealism of the post war era, what happened to the girl next door had nothing to do with the films people watched and everything to do with a psychotic and totally psychopathic aunt.

The BBFC are ill placed to protect anyone from anything - any real harm that is. Indeed, all the BBFC can do is rob the people of this nation the right to watch films like The Girl Next Door, which could serve as a stark warning and reminder of, say, the life and death of Baby P and all those other men, women and children that have been systematically tortured to death by seemingly `ordinary` people.

Have the graphic descriptions we`ve heard in news reports of the injuries inflicted upon Baby P caused any of us to want to do the same? Would seeing these events re-enacted in a film cause anyone to want to do the same? What kind of people do the BBFC think we are to suggest for one minute that they`re `protecting vulnerable members of society` by denying us the right to see what sadistic monsters do to vulnerable members of society? Apparently we`re far better off not knowing. And, supposedly, Baby P etc. etc. etc. are far safer as a result of the BBFC`s efforts - Yeah...right!

Here`s a thought. What if the studios that produce horror snuff torture porn movies donated some of their profits to child wellfare organisation - say Social Services? Oh wait, silly me, that`s what Company Tax is for - the Gov. take a slice of the profits and use it where its needed (at least that`s how its supposed to work, isn`t it?). So, by banning certain films the BBFC are effectively robbing the public coffers and helping no one. Censorship really does more harm than good - and always in ways people never see...!

IanG    [25830.   Posted 19-Aug-2009 Wed 22:22] View Near Messages
MichaelG, "...giving the film a rating would involve a `risk of harm` to those viewing it." - says who?

I`ve watched loads of things that have no rating and none of them have ever harmed me. No spikes or razors have ever jumped out of the screen and slashed my eyes. No photo has ever sliced my fingers off. No video has ever crushed my skull or blown up in my face.

There`s a risk of harm every time you cross the road, climb aboard a bus, train, boat or plane. Does placing a warning sticker on these things make them safe? There`s a risk of harm climbing Mt Everest - dozens die trying every year. Despite thousands of people being killed and maimed by these things around the world every day none of them have been banned.

I assume the BBFC made the above claim? I do hope they have concrete evidence to back it up because if this is based on a belief (an imagined fantasy) then I think its time we reminded them that freedom of thought, conscience and religion DOES NOT stretch to impinging upon other people`s fundamental human rights. I don`t give a flying fuck how avidly the BBFC believe their own nonsense, its still nonsense and gives them no right whatsoever to refuse anyone the right to sell or watch anything that`s not specifically banned by law.

So what`s the level of this supposed risk of harm? 1 in 10 i.e. 10%? 1 in a 1000 (0.1%), 1 in a million (0.0001%) or 1 in a billion (0.0000001%)? If the risk is real then the BBFC ought to be able to quote the actual level of risk. They ought to be able to name the specific "harm it may cause" and thus who might be affected, how it might be prevented, why it occurs and what we the viewers can do to protect ourselves from it if we inadvertently find ourselves watching it. But if its all just imaginery harm and imagined risk, like that they claimed would arise from real sex at R18, then the BBFC already know that the law of this land doesn`t allow them to censor anything on this non-existent basis. The risk of harm has to be real and of a sufficient degree that it necessitates a restriction in freedom of expression (i.e. the material must be obscene) - that`s the law pertaining to what the BBFC are legally empowered to do as explained to them by the High Court in 2000 (no ifs, no buts and, if they persist with this imaginery risk bullshit then I`d suggest they are acting in contempt of that ruling).

IanG    [25808.   Posted 12-Aug-2009 Wed 21:06] View Near Messages
emark, indeed, this 66 year-old bloke is deemed such a danger to society that he`s out on bail until November.

Nice list of minor offences there MichaelG. It`s good to know the police have got their priorities in order. Didn`t I hear a 300ft cargo ship complete with crew just disappeared into thin air too? You don`t suppose some jewel theives nicked it do you?

One thing that puzzles me. How exactly do/did the rozzers know what this old guy had been downloading? Did they get a tip-off, or were they monitoring hits on one of their worldwide web of entrapment websites? As I understand it, 99% of child porn websites are maintained by the likes of the FBI*.





*Actual figure plucked out of nowhere in accordance with standard Government policy, to wit:

1) All claims must be so incredible as to ensure suspension of disbelief is fully engaged - the bigger the lie the easier it is to sell to the public (see Fascist Propaganda 101, A Hitler, 3RPress, 1936)

2) All claims must strike absolute terror or abhorrance into the public mindset - any opposition to the claim must appear to be treason, unconscionable or suicidal - e.g. "Iraq has WMD it can launch against the UK in just 45 minutes" - this is perfect...the thought is so frightening that the people will simply accept it as the truth in the misguided belief that no civilised Government on earth would make up such bullshit. "Simplzzz".

IanG    [25802.   Posted 11-Aug-2009 Tue 22:20] View Near Messages
emark, how is an image of an erect penis in a magazine going to "offend women`s and religious groups"? Fuck `em. Causing offence is not against the law anyway - indeed, its been deemed the VERY PURPOSE of Article 10.

The ONLY real issue is whether the images are `obscene` and I doubt very much a UK jury will find such images obscene. As every bloke on earth gets a stiffy every so often and "women and religious groups" don`t seem to find this fact of life offensive, then I don`t see what the problem is. It is time Britain moved forward, got over its Victorian handicap, and the mindless dweebs that have been holding us back grew the fuck up.

Oh, tell the printers and distributers that there have been stiffies on video without R18 certs. on sale in HMV, Virgin and other family shops since The Lover`s Guide appeared in the late 1980s - have these "offened women`s and religious groups" at any time in the last 20 years?

Other non-R18 films on sale right now in your local video store with stiffies and explicit sex include: Romance, Intimacy, Baise Moi, Shortbus, 9 Songs plus many, many more.

Who the fuck is going to be worried about a few still pictures of blokes erections in an artsy ladies magazine? - NO ONE that`s who!

Someone`s talking unmitigated bullshit as per bloody usual.

IanG    [25795.   Posted 9-Aug-2009 Sun 06:28] View Near Messages
pbr, I think incitement to hatred is what they mean by `hostility`. Of course the Gov. conveniently ignore their own breaches of such `etiquette`. This Gov. is/was guilty of such unmitigated shit stirring against one Saddam Hussein (deceased). Of course the Gov. claim their blatant hostility was indeed mitigated - by an irrational belief in the existence and potential immediate deployment of totally non-existent WMD...! Iraq wasn`t a threat anyone - Saddam was utterly arm-less. Before 2003 Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism - it is now. It was not governed by Sharia law - it is now. They were not executing people in the streets for such non-crimes as homosexuality or adultery - they are now.

On a similar note, this Gov. have shown great hostility and intolerance toward harmless British people too - people that have done nothing more than possess images some ignorant cretins think "shouldn`t be allowed". Of the 1100 partly-mental-aryans we have `representing` the people, it seems only ONE, Lord Falconer, actually bothered to see the type of material in question with his own eyes. Needless to say, after seeing examples of the `dangerous material` the police have collected, Lord Falconer was left bemused as to why anyone thought possession of such material should be a criminal offence punishable with upto 3 years in jail.

Of course, if Lord Falconer was the only person to witness the material with his own eyes and could see no reason to lock people up for mere possession then, one wonders exactly what the rest of Parliament were IMAGINING was in this material that *would*, *should* or *could* justify a 3 year stretch? - non-existent WMD again? People are not being jailed for what`s actually depicted in the `dangerous pictures` they possess but indeed, because of what the sick and twisted minds of those in Parliament IMAGINE `is depicted` in the pictures they possess.

IanG    [25789.   Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 08:29] View Near Messages
Anyone correct me if I`m wrong but, doesn`t censoring material "in accordance with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959" actually require an obscenity trial? That is the law isn`t it?

I pointed out to the BBFC only a few weeks ago that in 1959 the CPS/DPP thought Penguin Books were publishing obscenity according to their "current interpretation of the OPA" and the ONLY way to stop them publishing was to hold a trial - of course the jury at that trial disagreed with the CPS/DPP. Clearly, the only correct interpretation of the OPA is that it is We The People that decide what is and isn`t obscene in our country, not the BBFC/CPS/DPP or, indeed, any other public body, and certainly NOT shit for brains MPs.

Back in the good old days, when Parliament understood its duty to the people (unlike the lying scheming spin doctors of today), they ENSHRINED IN LAW the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to decide what WE believed should be censored. That law is the OPA.

Now sure, the CPS/DPP should try to save public money by only allowing prosecution of material that, in their opinion, is `likely` to be found obscene but, that doesn`t mean the jury *have* to agree nor does it mean they *do* or *will* agree - and the fact anyone in the UK can pick up a copy of Lady Chatterly`s Lover in any bookstore, school or public library proves the point. Moreover, if the CPS/DPP DO NOT think they can secure a conviction then that means that the material is UNLIKELY to be found obscene and thus CANNOT LEGALLY BE CENSORED. And this folks is EXACTLY the position the BBFC were in back in 2000 when the High Court ordered they allow harccore at R18 because the BBFC had NO PROOF whatsoever to support their insane belief that the material was in anyway `harmful` (to either children or adults).

Of course the PUBLIC already knew this. Indeed, UK juries have been reluctant to find consensual hardcore material obscene since the mid 1970s. The CPS must surely have known that? - and in turn (as the CPS are advisors to the BBFC) the BBFC should have known that, unless of course, the CPS were/are MISINFORMING the BBFC of what "is" and "isn`t" obscene "according to current interpretation of the OPA 1959"???

We know from Perrin v R. 1999 that the British Public do not think scatological mataterial is obscene when restricted to discerning adults (which the R18 cert. ensures, doesn`t it?). It is hard to believe then that if shit play in a sexual context is fine with the public, that piss play in a sexual context will not also be acceptable to the public. "Squirting" while fucking and masturbating is so common in porn these days that the BBFC are simply demonstrating their total ignorance and incompetence as adult film censors. Indeed, that`s the issue - they are CENSORING when they should simply be CERTIFYING hardcore material at R18 - i.e. "for sale only to (discerning) adults, in person, in licenced sex shops"!!

IanG    [25764.   Posted 31-Jul-2009 Fri 08:32] View Near Messages
BT primative Futureworld censorship.

I guess builders and other people searching for "aggregate" and "hardcore" would get told their searches contained `Oops! Inappropriate content` too. I don`t suppose ornithologists would fare too well searching pages for "great tits" either...but I think I`ve spotted some...eh, BT?

Now we know who put the cunt in Scunthorpe...t`was the likes of Dr Tanya Byron, Gordo Brown and every other narrowminded prick that refuses to let children grow up and feels compelled to `think about the children` by keeping them ignorant kids until they`re 18, maybe a teen parent, possibly pregnant and likely carrying some STI. Caring Britain eh?

Britian needs to open up sexually. To that end we need sex on TV. Kids need access to sexual materials - like condoms, wank mags, videos, vibrators - better this than HIV/AIDS or a baby don`t you think? Parents need to get used to answering those embarassing questions kids are going to ask: "what`s sex mommy?", "how do you make babies mommy?", "what`s a blow job?", "what`s a condom?". Parents in Holland don`t have trouble talking to their kids about sex - as a result teens in Holland wait on average a year longer than the Brits to lose their virginity, they`re 100% more likely to wear a condom and thus 5 times less likely to get pregnant or contract a sexual infection. Censorship, sexual repression and over extension of supposed `childhood` well into 18 year-old adulthood, harms young people - its a FACT.

IanG    [25756.   Posted 29-Jul-2009 Wed 06:04] View Near Messages
emark, I`ve lifted this from the other place re Bangladeshi mob rule

"This is not about one terrible event, but about a system of legalised ethnic cleansing that has proceeded non-stop for decades and which places every one of Bangladesh’s 13,000,000-15,000,000 Hindus at risk. For despite Government protestations to the contrary, normal legal protections are suspended for Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh who are often subject to arbitrary actions by the Muslim majority."

Now, I maintain that true Democracy is about compromise. It is about acting ONLY where ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, where there is a MANIFEST HARM and a PRESSING SOCIAL NEED. This is how we safeguard OUR LAWS protect OUR RIGHTS and OUR LIBERTY.

So, with a little rewording of the above, we can perhaps see how mob rule and `British values` (i.e. the ravings of lunatics in Parliament about what "will not be tolerated in `our` society") is actually working...

This is not about one terrible event, but about a system of legalised social cleansing that has proceeded non-stop for decades and which places every one of Britains 8,000,000-??,000,000 porn fans at risk. For despite Government protestations to the contrary, normal legal Human Rights protections are suspended for extreme porn fans and Hentai fans in Britain who are often subject to arbitrary actions by the `British values` majority.

IanG    [25753.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 23:03] View Near Messages
emark, yes, its on here http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/meiwf09a.htm

point 7. 55%, rising to 67% of male respondents, consider pornography on the internet to be legal. Only 13% of all respondents and 19% of male respondents consider very extreme/violent pornography to be legal.

Spin...bias...great init! "Only 13% of all respondents". My 8 million figure is based on the assumption that the sample was/is representative of the entire UK population - if not then the IWF survey isn`t worth the toilet paper its written on.

Ah well, such is the `pornophobic` corrupting influence of the belief system called `Britishness` - 8 out of 10 Britons say "throw the perverts in jail!", 7 out of 10 say "bring back the gallows!". I guess that`s the problem with an aging population - people get all Nazi as their brain cells die and they lose the ability to THINK. AH! That`s it, that`s why the whole of Europe`s gone all `Christian Democrat` and we re-elected NL after it was absolutely clear Bliar had lied to the nation to start an illegal war - the rightwing, waiting for God, old fogey nutters now out number the liberal secular humanist people with working brains!!! I guess we`re fucked then...

Hmm, What`s the significance of quoting the % of "male respondents" I wonder? - D`ya think they`re weighing up the possibility of sending us to feminazi `re-education` camps? "Look out lads, Pauline d`Balzof`s coming..." - what fucking irony!

I don`t know what they`re up to mate but as ever it stinks of prejudice.

IanG    [25751.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 18:24] View Near Messages
Teddy, WB! Yes, thus far I think there`s always been some `underlying cause` - like selling unclassifed DVDs or child molesting - that has then had a DPA charge tagged on. No wait, there was a story about some PC repairer snitching on a guy with `poor social skills` after snooping round his HD - like that`s even legal (probably cause? invasion of privacy? gathering evidence without a warrant?) - people SHOULD learn to use the Law, it actually exists to protect our rights, lives and liberty - thankfully the judge went easy on the poor sod. One would hope a straight possession charge would get kicked out of court without there being any other evidence of REAL criminal intent or activity but, it seems the IWF claim "only 13%" of the population ("only" 8 million people...!) think the DPA is WRONG. Still, it does seem as though you`d have to be doing something pretty nasty or pretty dumb to get caught in possession in the first place.

IanG    [25749.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 15:08] View Near Messages
"Tory MP Anne Widdecombe led the condemnation branding the film, truly revolting."

Sorry to say but, you`re not exactly my idea of a picture either, Anne.


dano, is anyone asking why these poor jilted husbands are looking at porn in the first instance? Are we supposed to believe no husband ever looked at a girly mag before the arrival of the Internet and R18? Weird that, `cos I know 30 years ago my teenage sweetheart found her dad`s porn collection and I doubt her mom didn`t know where it was. As I recall Henry VIII went through several wives, one being dubbed "The Flanders mare" (definitely a 10 pinter - I wonder if Anne W. is rela...no nevermind) - of course Henry had an excuse to keep one eye open for suitable breeding stock but then there`s no real problem if you look but don`t touch is there...? Are we supposed to believe no woman ever divorced her husband for some equally contrived and inane reason? So, grown women, and presumably devoted wives, are being so `shocked` to discover what their husbands like to look at that they`re just `forced` to reach for the lawyers eh? How British, how stiff upper lipped, how resolute in the face of adversity - NOT. Pathetic. Better tell the WI not to make anymore nude calenders - they could be wrecking solid marriages.

IanG    [25746.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 10:17] View Near Messages
phantom, you make the case beautifully. Alas, it is not one that has not already been set before Ofcom during their bogus consultation exercise nor indeed, before the Goverment during their bogus Dangerous Pictures consultation.

These people only know what they choose to believe and what the rest of the world does, what the rest of humanity proves never enters into it.

All we can really do is draw parallels to expose their lies. Ofcon (as they are the Office of TV con merchants) have taken it upon themselves to create a blanket ban on material they don`t want people looking at. There is no reason for this. It is tanamount to them banning the sale of Lady Chatterly`s Lover after its already been cleared of obscenity by the courts. R18 was cleared of obscenity by the High Court no less but, Ofcon choose to ignore the ruling, they choose to defy the law, they choose to abuse our rights.

The Ofcon Code is not law. The HRA 1998 ONLY allows suppression of material proscribed by law - there is NO LAW passed by Parliament banning the broadcast of R18 ergo, Ofcon can ONLY ILLEGALLY prevent its broadcast. Ofcon can only ILLEGALLY impose censorship on Babe Channels. Ofcon are permitted ONLY to ensure adult material is braodcast at a suitable time when the likelihood of children viewing that MIGHT be harmed/shocked/disturbed is at its lowest - and as anyone over 16 can see and do all that is done in R18 porn quite legally without sufferring harm then there can be no argument that the only people Ofcon NEED to protect are the under 16s - in that respect the Comms Act 2003 is WRONG. Parents are the final arbiters of what`s right and wrong for their kids, NOT Ofcon, NOT the BBFC and definitely NOT the Government. And only parents are in any position to KNOW what their kids are watching and stop them if necessary WITHOUT impacting on our rights as adults.

There`s no point having law if it undermines every principle of Democracy. We might as well live in anarchy because that`s exactly what Ofcon`s arbitrary censorship represents.

IanG    [25741.   Posted 27-Jul-2009 Mon 08:57] View Near Messages
phantom, this argument you`re suggesting doesn`t add up.

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

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

HOW? WE CAN PROVE scientifically and statistically that `children` in countries where the age of consent is 14 years and they can view adult material from the age of 16 years, the rates of underage/teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs are a FRACTION of that in the UK. SODOM is the UK with its over-extention of supposed `childhood` well into what EVERYONE considers young adulthood. Britian`s young MEN and WOMEN are not being protected at all but, indeed, are being HARMED and placed at GREATER RISK by UK child protection and censorship policy - PROVABLE FACT!!!

You`re also wrong about `values` in society. Attitudes change - if not then Lady Chatterly`s Lover would still be on the UK`s black list, R18 would still be unbelievably soft.

The religious fears are all based on bogus bullshit. Evolution cannot, has not, will not create a creature that can be `harmed` by knowledge of its own means of reproduction, and hence perpetuation of its own species, no matter what its age. Anyone who thinks or says differently is totally insane. You can believe what you want but, you cannot deny the plain and obvious truth.

People will always fall in love - the rules of attraction. But it also serves genetic diversity and hence genome resilience and indeed, evolutionary adaptation, for people to sleep around a bit. Many studies on the (beautifully oxymoronic) "Infidelity amongst monogamous birds" exist to show that whenever one partner is sure its safe, they will copulate with another - birds can feel jealeousy and betrayal too which is why the adulterer is always careful their life-partner isn`t looking. And although such behaviour is risky for their own offspring (the parents could `divorce` and leave their chicks to die), the benefits to the species as a whole obviously outweighs the risks. Only idiotic, easily brainwashed humans believe there`s something wrong with this type of putting it about - but at least 30% of us do it anyway, and all for the good of the human race!!

Truth and understanding are the only weapons we have against human stupidity. And stupid is as stupid does - ain`t that right Mr Brown?

IanG    [25724.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 23:41] View Near Messages
Did I miss something in the Comms Act or has it been significantly amended to allow Ofcon to censor TV channel websites?

Re: $ex$tationtv.com

"Ofcom noted however that the Website contained a number of unprotected free-to-view still pornographic images. Ofcom considered that these images were equivalent to BBFC R18-rated material."

Firstly, Ofcon have as much `power` and legal `right` to declare something "equivalent to R18-rated material" as you or I - i.e. NONE! The ONLY body LEGALLY allowed or empowered to classify an image as being R18 is the BBFC - and that`s the LAW according to the VRA 1984.

Secondly, I`ve been a regular visitor to said website for a year or more and apart from `Page3` topless shots, more explicit "still images" of open leg crotch shots typical of those on sale in mens mags in any corner newsagent were always very, very rare and indeed, all such photos disappeared many months ago. Ofcon are quite simply lying - and I invite them to sue me for defamation if they think they can prove me wrong in a court of law!!!

As I recall, the Comms Act 2003 openly and explicitly excluded Internet regulation from Ofcom`s remit. Unless there`s been a significant change to the legislation governing Ofcom, it would appear that Ofcon have taken it upon themselves to act far beyond what they were/are legally empowered to do. As far as I understand Ofcon`s remit, what they`re now doing appears to me to be tantamount to unlawful mission creep.

I`ll reiterate once again that Ofcon`s Code is NOT the law - it has not received, nor will it ever receive Royal Ascent.

I`ll also reiterate what the Court of Human Rights said in 1990 about pisspot regulatory quangos and their precious fucking Codes - "It is UNDISPUTED that a broadcast licensing system CANNOT be used to restrict ANY legallly available material" (Groppera AG v Switzerland, 1990).

So, thirdly, I think ANYONE would agree that simply KNOWING where to find the $ex$tationtv website, and even being told that it exists, is perfectly legal.

Fourthly, it is clearly a complete breach of our Fundamental Human Rights for Ofcon to place an outright ban on the broadcast of legally available, BBFC-certified R18 material.

Fifthly, as I understand it, the "margin of national appreciation" ONLY applies to Human Rights conflicts within the LAW passed by Parliament - i.e. it DOES NOT apply to pisspot quango `Codes` that are NOT law and which therefore MUST comply with "the Articles of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Case Law of the ECHR" - as ever, that`s the LAW!

I do not believe Ofcon are acting within the law (not even close!). I do not believe the ECHR would allow Ofcon to get away with such clear breaches of the ECHR decisions regarding our Fundamental Human Rights. I believe there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between what`s required to "protect the under 18s" (if that`s even NECESSARY) and denying ADULTS the right to view adult material and simply be INFORMED of a TV channel`s website address.

Is "protecting the under 18s" necessary? Protecting those under 15 is the norm across most of Europe - and across Europe R18 equivalent material (and beyond) is most certainly allowed to be broadcast without fear of what it CANNOT be PROVEN to `do` to real CHILDREN under 15! I conclude that protecting the under 18s is totally and utterly unnecessary, after all, those of 16 years can quite legally have sex where and when and with however many others in whatever hole or position they choose - and all live and in colour in full 3D Groan-a-Sweat-a-Spunk-around Feel-o-Vision!


Of course, if you`re 16 and resident in fucked-up Britain and you want to see people sucking and fucking then you`re going to have to find some people to put on a live show for you, because, the dozy cunts running this pornophobic shithole cuntry think you need to be 18 just to watch on DVD what you, your 16-year-old pals and/or your 16-year-old partner can legally do yourselves - and that`s exactly what I and my horny porn-starved school pals were doing some 30 years ago!!

Unless and until Ofcon actually produce conclusive evidence to prove where, when, what, how or why pictures of naked ladies can cause real and manifest harm to persons under 18, they should be forced to cease and desist from any further interference with our legal right to share information and ideas else, I believe, they should be charged with gross violations of human rights and be dragged before the ECHR where, hopefully, they`ll be fined into bankruptcy and the Government will be forced to erase that piece of crap they call the Comms Act 2003 from the Statute. Nothing else will suffice. This over-extended unnecessary censorial abuse and unfathomable bullshit from a completely unelected body has gone on quite long enough!!!!

IanG    [25717.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 13:11] View Near Messages
pbr, methinks the ladies of Scotland are getting into serious trouble now. They have issues with women removing their clothes eh? That`s called Gymnophobia - the fear of nudity - a MENTAL DISORDER likely brought about by the insanity of religious indoctrination and systemic social conditioning (i.e. cultural brainwashing). The naked human body is nothing to fear - we all have one, we`ve all seen one. The irony is if it wasn`t for dozy fucking pricks trying to poison people`s minds with their anti-sex, anti-porn , anti-naturist agenda, there would be no such thing as a porn industry and we wouldn`t have words like obscene, lewd, rude or crude. I hope people understand what I mean by the self-fulfilling prophesies our moralistic cretins have created for themselves - fucking irrational, mindless, insane twats the lot of `em.

IanG    [25716.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 12:55] View Near Messages
RussP, I think the BBC are over egging the case - "Mrs Longhurst received cross-party support and the controversial new law was introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill last year."

There`s a clue to some underhand bullshit in the statement. How exactly does a "controversial new law" raise any controversy if it attains "cross party support"?

According to the BBC, "cross party support" seems to apply to anything the Lib Dems actively vote against and which the Conservatives abstain from voting on!!? Fucking BIZARRE!

Ah well, at least we can now we be absolutely certain the BBC are indeed under the direct influence of the New Labour spin doctors...

IanG    [25708.   Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 17:03] View Near Messages
I wonder if Gordo ever browses YT? Maybe Tanya Byron could learn a thing or two also...

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

IanG    [25702.   Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 05:20] View Near Messages
Harmful sausages?

"We considered that young children would be unlikely to understand the innuendo in the ads. However, although it was not sexually explicit, the innuendo was sufficiently strong to present a problem if it was heard by older children. We concluded that the ads could cause harm to children and, because they had not been scheduled away from times when children might be listening, had not been appropriately scheduled."

Cause what sort of harm exactly? Is laughter harmful? Is humour harmful? If you need a dirty mind to understand the innuendo then surely you haven`t been harmed in order to understand the joke have you?

We can add the ASA to the list of overbearing bullies guilty of committing acts of unnecessary domestic violence.

Acting on just 21 complaints from completely insane, inane, dweebs with nothing better to do than dream up "potential" (i.e. NON-EXISTENT) `harm`, goes against EVERY principle of Democracy. This cuntry is going to the dogs because fuckheads like Ofcon and the ASA, not to mention our totally psychotic Government, listen to the voices of totally deranged idiots and religiously corrupted morons. The thousands, ney, millions of people that do not find cause to complain, plainly represent the real voice and true opinion of the vast and SANE, liberal-minded majority.

IanG    [25699.   Posted 22-Jul-2009 Wed 16:34] View Near Messages
sergio, I think by that definition it is the law and the Government that inflict widespread domestic abuse.

There`s no doubt those with an interest in supposed `extreme porn` - also known to the Government under the prejudicial and very un-PC label, "weirdos" - must be feeling very undermined and controlled right now.

Those with an interest in Japanese-influenced `cartoon` erotica must be feeling similar knocks to their freedoms, self-confidence and self-esteem. After all, these folks are now to be considered just as `evil` and `a danger to decent society` as your typical child murdering Bradey or Huntley.

Clearly, the "controlling behaviour" of this fucking `Government` is most certainly getting MUCH, MUCH "worse over time".

And let`s be in doubt about it. Throwing people in jail, robbing them of their liberty and branding them criminals over nothing but a difference in tastes, beliefs and opinions, is a grossly unjustified abuse of human rights and, in itself, an unmitigated act of extreme violence.


But let`s not stop there...

This same pattern of ever increasing control freakery seems to be true of Ofcon too. Indeed, I suspect Ofcon`s latest attack on Gay TV is based more on their systemic homophobia than any actual harm or danger they can PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt might be caused to `under 18s` that might be watching TV at 10pm. Of course the issue of any real, proveable harm probably applies to ALL `adult` TV services. Ofcon have NEVER supplied any such evidence and indeed, openly admit to implementing their "precationary approach" based on their OWN IGNORANCE and PREJUDICE alone - and that`s a human rights violation in itself.

And there`s no doubt that `some body` exercising control and dictating what any of us can watch on our own TV sets, in our own homes, is most definitely guilty of domestic abuse.

IanG    [25693.   Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 18:25] View Near Messages
DarkAngel5, re Meg Tilly, Psycho II. The only clip I`ve found cuts just before we get a full frontal - boobs only. However, I think its a body double (no face).

have a look here http://www.celebsworldwide.com/M-04.html#MegTilly

IanG    [25660.   Posted 10-Jul-2009 Fri 11:04] View Near Messages
MichaelG, "Do people have the right to legal recourse now because they are `shocked` by what someone else gets up to, behind closed doors, in their private life?"

That`s what the DPA etc. is based on isn`t it? In fact, it seems it is now deemed OK for people, who have no legal right, authority or authorisation, to invade your privacy - e.g. spotty kids working for PC World etc. - to obtain `evidence` illegally, i.e. without a court issued warrant, and have you arrested if what they find `shocks` them. The police can`t search your computer like this, so why is it in any way legal for some unauthorised nosey twat to contravene data protection and privacy laws on the off chance that 1 in 100 people`s computers they illegally invade might contain some `extreme porn`?

Imagine calling in a TV repairman and then finding them rifling through your filing system and personal effects or searching through your entire photo and video collection for stuff they thought "shouldn`t be allowed". It`s called snooping, invasion of privacy, and if you`re working with sensitive government or commercial data it can be classified as espionage - i.e. spying - in any case, its all a form of harassement.

Any evidence found by such unauthorised methods is in fact inadmissible in a court of law because such evidence was obtained illegally - indeed, it could have been planted by the untrustworthy spy that claims to have found it `in your possession`.

IanG    [25657.   Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 18:32] View Near Messages
phantom, It seems current political `thinking` is for any new Government to create its own TV regulator and have them feed the party rhetoric into everyone`s living room.


I`m more interested in the NOTW wire tapping cover-up. Anyone care to speculate why the Met/CPS/DPP (not to mention the courts) haven`t charged Rupert Murdoc`s `little` empire with violations of data protection and invasion of privacy laws, not to mention potentially devastating security breaches? Stinks dunnit?

I wonder, who has access to the technology and resources capable of bugging dozens of public figures? The Police? The Military? How about GCHQ, MI5/6 or the Home Office? Rest assured folks, there`s a damn good reason why the Establishment want to try and keep this little scandal off the public radar.

It`s not just the fact that people in high places were being bugged. It`s the fact that the information was being leaked to the press that`s the real embarrasment. Imagine an Al`Qaeda sympathiser working for the NOTW, receiving all manner of classified and private info - everything from holiday plans to troop deployments.

Who wants to bet where the buck stops on this one? I knew Brown reminded me of someone..."I am not a criminal".


On another note, did anyone see captain Darling telling Newsnight he had no idea when the next election might be? Hey, Al, it`ll be before the end of May 2010 mate - just a friendly heads up you ficking twit.


So, surprise surprise, dangerous drawings are here at last (I told y`so). And yet no one has produced any evidence to prove any of this supposed danger from pictures, drawings (and no doubt texts) exists at all. It`s all about as solid as witchcraft you know. "See the mysterious powers of the ink and photon, capable of entering a man`s mind and causing them to do unspeakable things against their will" <fade in echoey ghost fx here>.

Of course you know "Only 13%" of the UK population is about 8 million men, women and children - any and all of whom can now be branded criminals and sex offenders simply because they don`t share the opinion (belief) that `extreme porn` should be illegal to possess "in our society". Still, don`t worry...in IWF speak, "Only 10% of the German population were exterminated like vermin", "Only 6 million Jews were gassed by the Nazis". Deep down, "only" just doesn`t seem to justify the enormity, does it?

I`m afraid as with all matters sexual, the majority of the British public would rather persecute `perverts` than respect their fundamental human rights. They did this with the queers you know - even convinced India to do it too. And after correcting that mistake, its now the turn of the fetishists and the Japanese cartoon fans to suffer at the hands of ignorant morons.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire must be turning in his grave.

Clearly, we, or rather our Governments, have learned NOTHING. It seems the Government are more than happy for the people to pick on any group of `wierdos` (a.k.a. misunderstood minorities) they like - as long as its not the Government (and lets face it, they`re at the root of all our problems with their mad control schemes, clueless economies and social engineering plans).

Still, if it makes the people happy to throw 14 year olds kids in jail for sending pictures of Lisa riding Bart to each other, then why not. If the Government thought burning virgins at the stake would win votes they`d probably invent some crime to permit that too. "She`s a witch! Burn her, burn her!!!"

Of course, such atrocities are easy to instigate when you`ve spent 100 years and more convincing the people that books and pictures can `corrupt and deprave` anyone that sees them. Easier still when the people have been fed the idea that causing them any offence what so ever is in itself a crime. I sure as fuck wasn`t put on this earth to believe any of the drivel this current batch of fucking morons think is `right`. It isn`t `right`. It`s so far off the wrong end of the scale I doubt even Lucifer would want to be associated with it.

IanG    [25651.   Posted 7-Jul-2009 Tue 09:20] View Near Messages
Flimflam.

"Only 13% of all respondents and 19% of male respondents consider very extreme/violent pornography to be legal."

Example of leading bias: "Only 13%" - 13% of 30,000,000 adults = 3,900,000. NEARLY 4 MILLION PEOPLE in the UK believe extreme porn is legal.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. The Sun can show 75% of their readers think we should bring back hanging. Just because you have a majority opinion doesn`t make that opinion right - democracy isn`t supposed to be about mob rule. And moreover, just because you might be in the minority doesn`t make your opinion wrong.

I`ve no doubt that if we`d surveyed the public about the "gay question" in 1908, we`d have got a similar 13% saying they believed it was legal. Just because the other 87% think it should be illegal doesn`t make them right. Indeed, it just shows how intolerably wrong the majority can be!

Was Britain (and India) ever right to persectue gays? - Definitely NOT! But the ignorant and beligerant mob opinon was given the force of law. Were the Nazis ever right to persecute Jews? - Never! But yet again the ignorant, beligerant mob opinion was granted the force of law.

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

Ignorance is the root of all sufferring. Censorship is the root of all ignorance. Censorship = Sufferring.

Witch hunts are the typical response of Governments to anything the public appear to believe in but which no one in Government is WILLING to disprove ("we must appease the electorate and secure our votes - we must be seen to support their beliefs no matter how fucking insane they are"). Here`s the real danger of democracy folks - pampering to the whims of the mob - and this Governmnet have been doing that in spades (indeed, they`ve been creating the spin (Iraq has WMD y`know) in order to create the panic they need to twist opinion toward their sick totalitarian agenda - the tactics of Hilter and Mussolini in a nutshell)!

If we asked about `extreme porn` in say Denmark or Holland you`d likely get a very different response to that in the UK - very likely the absolute opposite to that in Britain! The point is opinions are based on beliefs and beliefs are based on nothing but imagined `truths`. When fantasy `truths` (beliefs) are used to curtail someone`s rights and liberties, those beliefs need to be scrutinised in forensic detail. Indeed, they need to be proven to have substance, to be real and to be truthful lest we persecute people for no reason other than they don`t share our beliefs/fantasies/opinions - "he thinks like a Dutchman, lock him up and brand him a sex criminal!" - that`s exactly what the DPA and the rest of this Government`s criminal censorship plans are doing.

Where`s the balance, the necessity, the pressing social need to make any of this material `illegal`? It`s "illegal" even if no one is actually being harmed, when its all just makebelieve fantasy? Fucking incredible!

This is all a matter of social conditioning. Of pure fucking bias based on ignorance and fear stemming from religiously brainwashed opinions based on 2000 year-old bullshit. The real crime here (in Parliament pampering to misguided public opinion culminating in the DPA etc.) is supercilious cunts daring to believe anyone has the right to lock someone up for doing nothing more than looking at pictures. That folks is PURE EVIL.

IanG    [25642.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 17:00] View Near Messages
DA, it sure sounds like a joke to me. What I`d like to know is why anyone in Parliament believes anything deemed to have been created for sexual arousal is given mysterious powers to criminalise its possessor.

I mentioned Dr. Donnerstein, Malamuth and Lintz a few weeks ago. In their retort to the Meece Report they stated that in all their studies "Violence alone produces the most measurable anti-social effects followed by sexual violence and lastly sex alone".

Of course this might surprise some but, think about it. Those that get their kicks from violence alone can easily fullfil their needs - in the lab you just press the button marked "100 volts" - outside the pub you just kick the poor bastard in the head when he`s down on the ground. Recreating sexual violence is harder and, one cannot be sure whether it is the violence, or the sex, or the combination that really excites people. Are sexy horror movie fans actually dangerous to society? - Doubtful isn`t it? Of course sex alone appeals to most folks without causing any ill effects because that is what we all pretty much experience throughout our entire lives - so no surprise that it doesn`t lead to anti-social or violent behaviour.

Clearly though, the Government and the BBFC have got their belief driven scale of harm arse end up, with sexual violence at the top, vanilla sex in the middle and violent material bottom (indeed, violence alone is deemed suitable for 15 year olds!).

It`s all good and well holding public consultations but, as I`ve tried to point out many times before, if the public don`t have all the facts and, have been subject to decades of cultural brainwashing and, are asked particularly leading questions then, its no surprise if they get the answers wrong. But what`s worse though is even when the mass consensus of the public is right, the Government decide to cherry pick answers from specific agenda-driven non-expert groups as if they have a better idea of what`s right and wrong than your average joe on the street. I know this: 60 million people are far better at delivering a balanced and proportionate consensus than a mere 50 or even 650 (even moreso when you consider those 650 represent 0.001% of the population that are deluded enough to believe they are never wrong about anything and so have the right to make law which everyone else must obey or else rot in jail).

Bullies are as bullies do.

IanG    [25636.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 09:33] View Near Messages
emark, trying to legislate against basic human nature is a crime against humanity. As MichaelG says, we should be reinstating belief in the old adage, "Sticks n stones...". People, esp. kids, should be taught to rise above petty name calling instead of being BRAINWASHED into taking offence or, worse still, charging people with making racist or homophobic remarks. You will end up with a situation we`re already familiar with - where any legitimate criticism of Islam is branded Islamaphobia.

Are you really offended if a yank calls you a limey?
Are you really offended if an ozzie calls you a pomme?
Are you offended if someone calls someone from Britain a Brit?
Why then should anyone claim offence when someone from Pakistan is called a Paki?

Bullying isn`t about calling a spade a spade. Bullying starts by singling someone out as a target of hate and ridicule because they are `different`. No one is perfect (and a bully is often less perfect than the people they pick on). We all have an ethnic or cultural heritage. We`re all labelled from birth as something we`re not. If labelling someone as something they`re not is bullying then, calling me by some ethnic label like, "British", is obviously bullying, isn`t it?

As ever, it cuts both ways and, moreover, racism is systemic. You cannot claim someone is British by birth and expect them to automatically behave as the people defining this fictional entity dictate. We are all human beings first and foremost. But these fictional (tribal/ethnic) identities have been thrust upon us and used throughout history to create conflict, to create empires, to build borders and entrench division - i.e. such labels have been used to give the few power over the many and bully them to behave anyway the few see fit. However, as a result of the atrocities of Nazi Germany and our subsequent realisation that we are in fact all human beings, the pot is now calling the kettle black.

We are now in some limbo land, stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are on the one hand supposed to cowtow to every whim of the British Government - which believes 100% in their right to enforce some "margin of national appreciation" and thereby deny us the same rights and liberties afforded to all other freeborn Europeans - yet, we the people are not allowed to believe we are any different. However, we`re also supposed to be proud to be British - to believe we`re born to wear clothes, to feel uncomfortable at the sight of naked flesh, to despise pornography, to fear Japanese anime, to incarcerate people for years without charge on the mere suspicion of terrorist involvement, to deny people the right to trial by jury and, to prosecute anyone and everyone who says/paints/films or possesses anything that might offend any insanely paranoid puritanical twat. We`ve got nothing to be proud of! This land is a land of miserably narrowminded nutters that believe they can bully, persecute and imprison anyone who challenges their moronic self-righteous beliefs.

Our supposed `leaders` are handed the right to use the force of law to push other people around and make our lives a misery - and if that ain`t the definition of bullying I don`t know what is!

IanG    [25594.   Posted 29-Jun-2009 Mon 09:19] View Near Messages
More deluded hypocrisy.

"Committee chairman Keith Vaz said: It is clear that concerns about the policing of the G20 protests have damaged the public`s confidence in the police, and that is a great shame."

Not half! We pay these thugs to keep us safe from harm, not CAUSE us GBH!

"The ability of the public and the media to monitor every single action of the police through CCTV, mobile phones and video equipment should mean they take even greater care to ensure that all their actions are justifiable."

One would think so, Keith baby but, YOUR FUCKING MORALLY BANKRUPT GOVERNMENT decided to make criminals of people snapping pictures of the police "while performing their duties" back in February!!! Please, make your tiny warped mind up, you thrice disgraced excuse for a politician!

IanG    [25552.   Posted 22-Jun-2009 Mon 06:20] View Near Messages
Dave, think you might need to re-up the site updates - can`t seem to see `em.

IanG    [25551.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 17:35] View Near Messages
"low social skills" eh?

Where have I heard that before?...Oh yes, the girl (Nodil something) in the notorious "animal farm" bestial porn movie was said to have poor social skills. She preferred the company of animals to that of people - because all the people in her life had treated her worse than an animal.

Time for a definition.

Animal: (noun) A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

Personally, I don`t see anything "grossly offensive and disgusting" in animal porn. It doesn`t appeal to me, but then, it doesn`t repulse me either. It leaves me somewhat bemused. Scat (i.e. shit eating) on the otherhand really turns my stomach but, interestingly, as far as I`m aware, possession of this "grossly offensive and disgusting" material (according to my humble opinion) isn`t covered by criminal sanctions.

Of course in the strictest sense we all have sex with animals (human beings are animals after all and clearly meet all the criteria in the definition above), thus in some ways having sex with a dog is far more natural than say shagging a rubber doll or using a plastic vibrating `toy` to get off. And exactly what the difference between shagging a cold, lifeless, rubber doll and a living person pretending to be dead `is` I`ll never know but, for some reason, our Parliamental representatives think possessing pictures of the latter should be punishable by law.

The way I see it, if the animal concerned didn`t consent to the sexual interference then most (if not all) are more than capable of stopping the `sexual assault`. I mean you can`t really make a dog get a stiffy and jump on your back unless it wants to can you? And grabbing a horse`s dick could easily result in at least a broken arm, if not a cracked skull, if the horse didn`t like what you were doing. So, the animal`s `consent` is for the most part `given`, or can at least be assumed to be given, if the animal in question doesn`t see the `assailent` off.

Britain used to be a Pagan country. Having sex with animals was part of accepted fetility rites and seasonal (`religious`) celebrations. It was the assault on the free world by the imperialist Roman Catholic Chruch that (wrongly) changed our relationship and rightful place in the animal kingdom. What we are left with is a form of religious bigotry. This bigotry was (and still is) used to unjustly persecute homosexuals. It was (and is) used to punish adulterers, supposed `blasphemers`, `heretics`, and, of course, "animal lovers".

The law has clearly been turned into an Ass and, in the spirit of this post, I reckon the Government can go n fuck it...!

IanG    [25540.   Posted 19-Jun-2009 Fri 08:37] View Near Messages
Does anyone understand what the hell Ofcon are taking about?

"Ofcom said that section one of the broadcasting code, which covers the protection of under-18s, requires broadcasters to observe the 9pm watershed – before which channels must be more sensitive to taste and decency issues – and ensure that material unsuitable for children under the age of 15 is not shown before that time.

However, Ofcom added that it recognised that under-18s continue to watch TV after 9pm and some of this material may include sexual content."

Sensitive to "taste and decency issues"? I don`t think so OFCON! "Harm and offence" in the context of "generally accepted standards" maybe, but, enforcing "taste and decency" are nowhere in Ofcon`s remit. Furthermore, "harm AND offence" does not mean "harm OR offence". I can offend someone by calling them a blithering idiot without causing them any harm at all. However, I might falsely accuse someone of shagging sheep, which would certainly offend them and could also harm their reputation or standing in the community.


Now let`s see what the BBFC`s take on what is suitable for "under 18s" but "15 and over`s" (based on regular PUBLIC consultation) is:

`15` – Suitable only for 15 years and over

No-one younger than 15 may see a ‘15’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 15 may rent or buy a ‘15’ rated video or DVD.

Theme
No theme is prohibited, provided the treatment is appropriate to 15 year olds.

Language
There may be frequent use of strong language (eg `fuck`). But the strongest terms (eg `cunt`) will be acceptable only where justified by the context. Continued aggressive use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable.

Nudity
Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail. There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context.

Sex
Sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour.

Violence
Violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury. Scenes of sexual violence must be discreet and brief.

Imitable techniques
Dangerous techniques (eg combat, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on imitable detail. Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised.

Horror
Strong threat and menace are permitted. The strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable.

Drugs
Drug taking may be shown but the film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug misuse.


So, on nudity: "Nudity may be allowed in a sexual context but without strong detail." - i.e. no close-up genitalia but, nudity and simulated sex seem to fall under this description.

"There are no constraints on nudity in a non-sexual or educational context." - damn right, the BBFC (based on public consultation of what is felt APPROPRIATE for children) allows "natural nudity" in `U` certificate material, which means it is UNIVERSAL and thus allowed at any time of day according to Ofcon`s precious code.

"Sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail. There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour." - sounds like your typical babe channel stuff don`t you think? And remeber folks, this is what the PUBLIC think is APPROPRIATE material for over 15s (i.e. under 18s!).

"Joined up regulation" eh? Ofcon isn`t even on the same planet, let alone the same page as the BBFC and the great British public.

IanG    [25498.   Posted 18-Jun-2009 Thu 05:36] View Near Messages
sergio, well that says it all. IF she were really worried about `publishing obscenity` then surely she would have sought legal advice BEFORE publishing her work on the internet - where she could get 5 years in clink under NL`s shiny new piece of repressive bullshit OPA update for publishing materials NOT deemed so `dangerous` that mere possession will get you 3 years behind bars.

This calling in the police is just a publicity stunt to create some controversey over work which looks to me like a pale immitation of your typical Julian Freud.

Moving on though, doesn`t anyone think it strange that materials that would not be so `dangerous` as to get you 3 years for mere possession, will get you 5 years for publishing? Isn`t that completely illogical? "Oh, we`ve created this new possession offence so we`d better up the 150-year-old sentence for printing stuff not quite so bad". Proof positive folks that our politicians are not just self-serving, self-righteous, totalitarian monsters, but they`re totally fucking insane to boot.

IanG    [25495.   Posted 17-Jun-2009 Wed 09:52] View Near Messages
"The VSC, as statutory authority, will take account of UK sensibilities, and will have the power to ban games that are inappropriate for release in the UK."

Self fulfilling prophecies again...?

The VSC: Keeping the unproven bullshit that forms the paranoid heart of `Britishness` alive.

We are ALL human beings - end of! I do not want to be `British`. I do not agree with, or believe in "UK sensibilities". These are a fantasy, designed by and for the censorial regime that rages in Britain. Belief in this nonsense allows the censorious establishment to deny us access to material every other freeborn person across Europe is able to access (and make a mint in the process by scaring the crap out of closed minded, media illiterate, middle class twits).

Enough I say! The VSC, Ofcom, the BBFC and particularly this Government, can stick their "UK sensibilities" where the sun never shines. It`s time to DEMAND our Human Rights are RESPCTED in FULL. Let them PROVE the `harm` that would result from IGNORING "UK sensibilities", which they MUST DO in order to deny us our Fundamental Human Rights.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and there is nothing extraordinary about Human Beings born or living in the UK (except for the fucking crap the Government believe they can subject us to!).

It is time for a sea change.

IanG    [25482.   Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 08:11] View Near Messages
ste, not sure where you`re going with the decriminalisation of homosexual acts in Scotland. So, the Scots have finally conceded that gays have human rights too? How kind of them to join us in the 21st century.

It`s odd how this group of same-sex fetishists (aka homosexual `perverts`) suddenly become flavour of the month whilst at the same time people with other similarly harmless fetishes for `extreme` porn and Japanese cartoon images are being persecuted (as I recall my mam always told me it was fine to look but not to touch - seems that`s just no good enough for our insane leaders). It appears our Parliamentarians just aren`t happy unless their `laws` needlessly persecute some group of supposed sexual `perverts`. I wonder if this need to persecute people who`s fetishes you don`t understand, and thus fear, is in itself a sexual perversion? Maybe its just plain ignorance but, I believe it is a fetish (or indeed, a mental illness) commonly called `Britishness` (Gordon`s favourite).

As for the BBFC, well, in the good old days things used to be so much simpler. If you published or distributed something that a jury of the public deemed to be obscene, then you would go to jail and the items would be destroyed. But back in the early 1900s even this draconian system wasn`t deemed to be good enough for the new cinema era. Enter the BBFC. Now a Government quango of carefully appointed moral guardians gets to dictate to the people what is and isn`t obscene (at least when its on film). Gowd knows how many examiners over the years have had to be locked away in secure mental institutions as a result of having their morals corrupted and depraved by watching a diet of filth and obscenity every day of their working lives...? Then again, perhaps the damage all this corruption and depravity has caused is nil? - which of course means none of the countless hours of material the BBFC have cut and banned over the years "to protect the public" was ever in any way harmful at all.

It used to be up to the public to decide what we thought was beyond the pail. Nowadays however, the Government dictate not only what we must, will and should find obscene but also what we will throw people in jail for simply looking at. Is this what anyone would call progress in a progressive liberal democracy? Or is it more akin to the totalitarian mindset of Hitler`s Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union`s stranglehold on the popular media? The idea of Democracy in Britain is but a faint memory - actually its just a bad joke in very poor taste (so bad its almost been declared obscene).

I see no Freedom whatsoever. Hell, you can`t even emmigrate without having your DNA and biometrics logged in the UK databanks. But at least Scottish politicians can now look forward to getting a blow job in a public lav without the worry of causing a scandal.

IanG    [25481.   Posted 16-Jun-2009 Tue 08:07] View Near Messages
Just checking through Ofcon`s latest bunch of misleading and loaded consultation questions.

Re: Annex 11 Exec. summary of "Attitudes to sex material on TV" by Option Leader

In none of this `attitude fact finding` survey were the participants given a chance to express their opinions on whether Ofcon are `correct` to prevent R18-strength material being broadcast on access restricted (i.e. adult subscription) channels.

It was ASSUMED throughout this survey that Ofcon`s original 2003 judgement was correct - i.e. that R18 cannot be broadcast at anytime anywhere despite Ofcon providing no evidence whatsoever that the under 18s need such a degree of protection from such material that adults MUST be prevented access to it via TV at all times. And I`ll reiterate that this goes against the very spirit of the High Court finding in 2000 which FORCED the BBFC to include explicit sex at R18 - no evidence of harm to the under 18s means there`s NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. Ofcon ARE BREAKING THE LAW plain and simple.

Why were the audience not shown material Ofcon has fined channels thousands of pounds for showing ON ENCRYPTED CHANNELS and asked if Ofcon were JUSTIFIED in doing so? Why weren`t the audience allowed to express an opinion as to whether R18 material would/should indeed be acceptable (only) ON ENCRYPTED ADULT CHANNELS?

Ofcon have YET AGAIN FAILED to clarify exactly WHAT strength of material the British people WOULD ALLOW on `access restricted` (adult subscription) channels.

It`s yet another dubious, biased, blatantly prejudiced, loaded `survey` of British attitudes. They haven`t asked the relevent questions but instead assumed to know what people think about the broadcast of R18 on `access restricted` (adult subscription) channels.

This is BULLSHIT, Ofcon, and YOU KNOW IT!

IanG    [25398.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 08:42] View Near Messages
pbr, correct me if I`m wrong but, how exactly can you get a fair trial if the place where it takes place might (will?) affect the verdict?

Aren`t the laws of this land supposed to apply equally to everyone everywhere? If someone commits a burgulary in one constabulary, aren`t they going to be found just as guilty of that crime no matter where they face trial?

Methinks you`ve made the case as to exactly WHY the OPA goes against every principle of law this country believes in. The OPA clearly isn`t lawful in its application - it actually permits the criminalisation of people based on the ignorance, bigotry and predjudice of a particular jury. Indeed, such ignorance, bigotry and prejudice prevalent in the corrupt and morally bankrupt Parliament of 2007/8 is now enshrined in law in the shape of the DPA clauses - and I say that because the DPA was proposed on the back of what the OPA was deemed unable to reach.

IanG    [25395.   Posted 2-Jun-2009 Tue 19:33] View Near Messages
Will21st, the law as it stands requires the BBFC to pay "special regard to films viewed in the home". The BBFC take this to mean they can hack the home video version of movies to pieces rather than give it a higher rating or add a more detailed description of the content for parents/adults to decide whether or not to take such material into their homes (where they (parent/adult) then become responsible for who may or may not view it).

As we know, back in 2000 the High Court found against the BBFC following a BBFC request for a Judicial Review regarding the VAC decision to permit hardcore material in several R18 titles. The crux of the issue was that the supposed `harm` the BBFC claimed they were protecting `vulnerable people` (i.e. children) from could not be shown to exist. However, despite failing in spectacular fashion to convince one of the highest courts in the land that they were acting lawfully in protecting the health and morals of children, the BBFC CONTINUE to choose to claim to be protecting the health and morals of adults no less from some unknown `harm` that supposedly arises out of what they claim to be `obscene` materials.

As I pointed out re sergio`s post, the jury in Perrin v R. did NOT find scatalogical material `likely to corrupt and deprave` (and thus be deemed legally obscene) where adults that had chosen to view such material were concerned. The BBFC however seem to believe they did or perhaps `might do`. `Might do` doesn`t cut it though. `Might do` is what the BBFC were trying to defend in 2000 when they got put in their sanctimonious place. Indeed, the way I read the High Court ruling, it sounds very much as if the BBFC were warned not to try such a `precautionary approach` ever again or they`d find themselves in contempt of the High Court!

The `change` in the law you seem to be saying we need happened in 2000. The fact is it didn`t have to be changed or rewritten, the BBFC simply needed to have it explained to them in terms their closed, upper class twit, paranoid little minds could understand. The BBFC have no right nor power to dictate standards to the British public. They exist to classify material according to what the public say is `about right` for a particular age category (i.e. what parents do and don`t want their children viewing). And as far as the adult population are concerned, the BBFC have been TOLD time and again that WE do not want adult films (those rated 18+) to be cut or censored in any way, shape, or form.

IF the BBFC are really serious that some material in a film `might` be found obscene, then they can report the DISTRIBUTOR to the police/CPS and let them (the PROPER AUTHORITIES) decide IF the distrbutor should be prosecuted or not. Without a court decision, without the material actually being declared legally obscene by a public jury, the BBFC CANNOT censor or suppress it - all they can do is place it in a suitable (e.g. adult) category and perhaps provide descriptive content guidance to any potential adult viewer.

The BBFC were told in no uncertain terms by the High Court that if they cannot PROVE in a court of law that something is harmful then they do not have any legal power to prevent people seeing it. It`s as simple as that. It`s ALWAYS been as simple as that but, the BBFC seem to think they alone are judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the material the people of Britsin can watch and, as a consequence, which of the BBFC`s `moral standards` we must all be forced to endure (and that`s the real issue!).

IanG    [25381.   Posted 31-May-2009 Sun 15:29] View Near Messages
sergio, they say what?!

Someone ought to point the BBFC to Perrin v R. 1999, because, as I`ve stated many times, the court did NOT find faecal material in adult sex works to be obscene under the terms of the OPA 1959. (And as far as I know that`s the first and last case ever to try `scat` material under the OPA so exactly where the BBFC are getting their info is a fucking mystery!) In fact, the court acquitted all such material where it was only available to an adult audience. And if an R18 cert., which means such material can only be sold to people over 18, in person, in a licensed sex shop isn`t sufficient guarantee that the material will only be viewed be consenting adults then one has to ask what the point of the BBFC and R18 certification actually is...?

We`re talking about matters of freedom of expression and the law here. Methinks the BBFC and the CPS should get their fucking facts straight before someone takes them to court again to prove them WRONG and indeed, to be the lying rights abusing twats we know them to be!

IanG    [25380.   Posted 31-May-2009 Sun 15:16] View Near Messages
bleach, don`t remind me. I had a lengthy exchange with Craig Lepper of the BBFC about 6 years ago over their decision to ban the Hentai cartoon, "Spy of Darkness", for supposedly containing scenes likely to incite gang rape.

(see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/5A8B5476EC64E60980256D0500264117?OpenDocument)

Of course this belief in `potential harm` comes from `media effects` studies carried out in the mid 1980s and cobbled together in a BBFC report by James Ferman to try and justify his obsession with "stopping" sexual violence. The fact is, when these reports talk about any increase in "some men`s" propencity to do violence against women, they`re a) just following the "men in white coats syndrome" discovered in the early 60s and, b) display a very temporary (fleeting) and statistically tiny (typically less than 1%) increase in the punishment they metter out (by pressing a button - NOT raping someone). When interviwed, none of the men involved felt they were more likely to rape or abuse women as a result of watching "a diet of violent pornography". In fact, after publication of the Reece Commission Report, which claimed to have proven this link between on-screen sexual violence and real sex crime, the psychologists responsible for the (mis)quoted research (Dr. Donnerstein, Dr. Malamuth and Dr. Lintz) issued a statement which basically said "we could have got the same results if we`d had the men ride a bicicle for 20 mins" - i.e. raised adrenaline levels alone accounted for the subjects` increased aggression.

It is on the basis of this completely discredited, largely misquoted and plainly misunderstood research, that the BBFC make all such decisions to ban and cut material to prevent us seeing it.

The problem with `taboo` subjects is that individuals are left totally unprepared for the realities of life. We may teach our youngsters about the biology of sex when they`re 12 but, by not exposing them to the realities of sexual congress they`re left curious and eager to know what its actually like and tend to `give in to their sexual urges`. Whereas, if they`d been allowed to watch people `at it`, sex would assume a more natural and common-place position in their minds. Thus, they`d be able to make conscious decisions about who, where, when and if they`d like to have sex rather than be overcome by ignorance and inexperience of their biological impulses.

Alas, common fucking sense has no place in Government. Blind ignorance is apparently the best way to protect children from the dangers of sexual promiscuity according to the typical Brit who was also subjected to this illogical British bullshit while growing up. Human Culture used to be about passing on essenitial information to survive in your environment - what foods to eat, what tools to make, how to make fire, build a shelter, find water. These days Culture is all about passing on superstitious beliefs and polluting young minds with dangerous tripe that will more than likely result in premature death, ignorance and prejudice. British Culture is about preserving `British values` even though they`re clearly the cause of all of Britain`s problems!

IanG    [25377.   Posted 31-May-2009 Sun 00:59] View Near Messages
Will21st, "some more time"?

Well, its been 9 years since the High Court found the BBFC had been BANNING hardcore material for over 3 decades by completely misinterpreting what the law actually allowed them to do.

In all we`re now around 40 years behind what the rest of the free world are able to watch in adult "sex works" without misguided, overbearing, twisted, nanny shithead censors` interference. Gowd knows how many miles of film the BBFC have NEEDLESSLY (and illegally!) hacked out of films in that time.

"more time"? WHY? Is the rest of Europe in the grip of some sex spree crimewave? Are European kids (most of whom are able to view a lot stronger than R18 material from the age of 16!) sufferring from increased rates of pregnancy, STIs or sexual abuse? No? Are the over-protected, sheltered little darlings in Blighty sufferring these afflictions? You BET - in spades with bells on!

If the policies of this shithole nation are supposed to protect the health and morals of our kids, then they`re clearly FAILING and one can only conclude that it is a lack of access to porn and the imposition of puritan censorship that is the real danger to their sexual knowledge and health.

I`m afraid the folks we have making up the rules are not only a bunch of crooks but, they`re also totally fucking insane. They were all brought up with the British anti-porn disease - a mental disorder which makes human beings look upon their own bodies as something indecent, their sexual organs as something obscene and sexual intercourse as something depraved and morally corrupting. If you had a dog that displayed such symptoms you`d likely have it put down for its own good...!

To appreciate just how mad these fuckers truly are you only need consider the FACT that you can quite legally have sex with a 16-year-old without being labelled a sex criminal. However, according to their latest pile of legislative incontinence, if you are found in possession of a drawing of say a fantasy Japanese sex cartoon character that simply "appears to be under 18", then you are to be carted off to jail for several years and treated like a child murdering sexual deviant for the rest of your days. And as phantom has pointed out on many occaisions, there is no such thing as a fair trial where pseudo child porn is concerned. I reckon its safer to shag 14-year-olds than be a Hentai fan in this CUNTry.

Of course, this cartoon nonsense `naturally follows on` from what that blind basturd Blunkett did while fucking up the Home Office. He decided that possessing pictures of topless 16 and 17-year-old Page 3 starlets from years gone by should be a criminal sexual offence - just to bring the UK in-line with the US policy on such images `naturally`.

IanG    [25330.   Posted 19-May-2009 Tue 07:21] View Near Messages
"Ofcom considered that although encrypted, the equivalent of R18-rated material (namely images of actual vaginal penetration) has the potential to cause harm to under-eighteens and children in particular."

BULLSHIT! MOST if not ALL `children under eighteen` masturbate on a regular basis - this is absolutely NORMAL teenage behaviour. If doing something does no one any harm then how can merely seeing anyone else doing the same cause any harm?

Ofcon NEED to provide HARD EVIDENCE of this supposed `harm` they claim exists else all their anti-R18 rules are in breach of the law. Freedom of expression requires PROOF of HARM and does NOT permit "any legally available material" to be suppressed. Banning publications etc. requires them to be declared obscene by a court. R18 is legally available material and is most definitely NOT obscene else it would not be legally available.

Hardcore material in R18 rated `sex works` was ONLY permitted by the High Court in 2000 because the BBFC and a host of child wellfare advisors could provide no such evidence of this supposed `harm` Ofcon claim exists. NOTHING has changed since 2000. R18 and explicit sex doesn`t suddenly change into something different simply by being aired on TV. People take R18 videos and DVDs into their homes because the law states this is the ONLY place R18 can be viewed by the general public. The means of delivery is irrelevant. The images appear on people`s own TVs whether on a video/DVD or from a satellite or cable service.

Anyone concerned about R18 on TV channels can and should take steps to protect themselves and their children from viewing such material (they are not forced to subscribe to such channels and they can remove the viewing card at any time) without interferring with the rights of all other adults in this country to view perfectly safe and legal sexually explicit material.



On the MPs expenses scandal...

I hear The Speaker is resigning as I write. This man should not be made a scapegoat for all the other thieves and fraudsters in Parliament.

I`m sure we`d all like to know how paying £6000 to his brother`s cleaner was essential and necessary to Gordon Brown`s Parliamentary duties...?

I`m sure we`d all like to know how many of these sorry cunts would have paid back what they`ve misappropriated if the Telegraph hadn`t exposed their fraudulent activities...? We know the answer of course - absolutely NONE of them, which makes them thieves trying to wriggle out of their criminal activities.

And I`m afraid the excuse "we know the expenses system is wrong but we stuck to the rules we invented" is rather like saying "we know murder is wrong but we gassed the Jews according to the rules we invented". Our MPs are supposed to be above moral reproach. They are supposed to know right from wrong no matter what their dispicable rules permit them to do. Flipping addresses in order to have the public fund a decorating spree, refurbishment or maintenance on your family property is fraud, plain and simple. Claiming for anything which is not absolutely essential and necessary to one`s Parliamentary duties is quite simply theft and is most certainly NOT within the rules!

It is extremely interesting to note that the `Green Book` rules also state quite clearly that "MPs should be aware that all expense claims will be published for public scrutiny". Why then did the House vote against complying with this particular rule when they`re so adamant they`ve been abiding by all these rules? We shouldn`t need an FOI request. We shouldn`t need a press leak. All expenses should have been a matter of public record since 1983 when these rules were introduced. MPs expenses were never meant to be a State secret but, of course, if you knowingly abuse the system then you might like to pretend they are.

It must be nice to have the power to think "anything that highlights the fact that the public can`t trust us is definitely not in the public interest"! Odd that because I think such information is vital to the public interest. In fact I KNOW that it most certainly IS in the public interest to know if this country is being governed by a bunch of self-serving thieves and untrustworthy fraudsters. Don`t you?

I`m afraid folks that all our Parliamentarians are complicit in this fraud. We can only think ourselves very lucky that it appears to be the few rather than the many that have been abusing this "wrong system". MPs can claim upto £22,400 per year on expenses - multiply that by 650 and it comes to a rather tasty £14.5 Million a year. We can only assume that the published year`s figures are absolutely typical of all the other 26 years this system has operated - a potential £377 Million of public money disappearing into MPs pockets and funding their lavish lifestyles.

We can perhaps speculate that MI5 had "insufficient resources" to prevent the 7/7 bomings because of the £14.5M set aside for MPs extravagent expense claims.

We can perhaps speculate that some of the 220 kids battered to death last year might have been saved if Social Services had been allocated some of that £14.5M the MPs set aside to fund their lavish lifestyles (£400 a month on food is easy to spend if you eat at Gordon Ramsey`s just once a week - at the public`s expense of course!).

We can perhaps speculate that some of our now dead soldiers might have been better equipped if some of that £14.5M hadn`t been set aside for our MPs fraudulent expense claims.

I`m not one to usually agree with the "if it saves one life" argument but, in this instance I think it might actually be applicable.

IanG    [25313.   Posted 16-May-2009 Sat 08:43] View Near Messages
"Meanwhile Nicola Williamson, Sainsbury`s music buyer, said: We felt that some customers might consider this particular album cover to be inappropriate if it were prominently displayed on the shelf. As such, the album will be sold in a sleeve provided by the publisher."

I`m sure many more customers will be put-off from buying this if the album is to be encolsed in the ubiquitous `plain brown wrapper` more commonly associated with the concealment of pornographic materials...

Of course Nicola Williamson `knows` precicely what artworks her customers want to see on CD covers and assumes she can speak for all of them without once consulting their opinions. She sounds remarkably like John Beyer, Ofcon and the BBFC don`t you think?

IanG    [25265.   Posted 4-May-2009 Mon 07:49] View Near Messages
"The new technology that GCHQ is developing is designed to work under the existing legal framework. It is an evolution of current capability within current accountability and oversight arrangements The Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 underpin activities at GCHQ - both existing systems and those we are planning and building at the moment. The purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in the legislation: national security, safeguarding our economic well being and the prevention and detection of serious crime."

Well if local authorities are anything to go on `serious crimes` include putting your bins out on the wrong day, dropping an apple core, or sending your kids to a school in an arbitrary catchment area your home isn`t quite in.


pbr, well if the Government and their pisspot censors think they can treat us all like kids then I reckon we ought to be able to use that against them don`t you?

As I`ve tried to point out many times, the law exists to protect our rights else why would any of us pay for its enforcement or abide by its rules? When the law starts to turn us all into suspects, when the Government strip us of our liberties and rights we all have a duty to ourselves not to be complicit - and that`s pretty much what was decided at the Nuremburg Trials and what International Law states.

I wonder where `civilisation` is actually heading. Much of what`s going on today is somewhat like the Victorians laying down the `Rules of Etiquette` in criminal law - "You used the wrong knife to eat your fish course. You will go to jail for 3 months and your name will be added to the Socialite Offenders Register for the next 5 years". You may laugh but imagine getting an on the spot fixed penalty fine for £100 "because you put your bins out on the wrong day" or "you did not close the lid on your wheelie bin properly" - the scary part is THIS IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING!!

IanG    [25262.   Posted 3-May-2009 Sun 06:28] View Near Messages
pbr, I wonder why it is that when public money is misappropriated for totally undemocratic, rights abusing purposes like spying on our every second of existence, this isn`t viewed as a crime every bit as disgusting as the abusive and secretive molestation of children?

Using our money to make virtual prisoners of the entire population is to my mind at the same level of abuse of power and authority paedophiles have over helpless children. It is simply a matter of relativity, of viewpoint and perspective - the abuse of power, the erradication of innocence, the invasion of privacy is on par with sticking your thumb up a 3-year-old`s fanny.

This is tantamount to rape. We the people have not consented to having our lives interferred with. The fact we don`t even know its going on is no different to being given a date-rape drug and getting bum-fucked while we`re unconscious.

What`s now going on in this once `free country` is undoubtedly criminal and, what`s really worrying, is that is all being done by those we`re forced to elect to supposedly uphold the law and represent our interests in the law. As I say, as I see it that`s about as close to being raped by your own mother as you can get.

IanG    [25255.   Posted 1-May-2009 Fri 17:08] View Near Messages
Compare and contrast:

"Fitzpatrick said: Many of the most serious collisions are caused, or their consequences exacerbated, because of someone driving well in excess of the speed limit. Research shows that one in seven people are extreme speeders. These people are playing Russian roulette with their lives and those of others and they must be hit by the full force of the law."

vs.

http://www.carbibles.com/speeding_facts.html

"What this means is that in 7.3% of the accidents, speed was one of many factors, and in only 6% of the accidents was it a definite causal factor. Look at the top 4 factors and you`ll see that they can generally be categorised as the old police adage of "driving without due care and attention." More to the point, if you take into account "loss of control" accidents (which covers a multitude of sins including wheels coming off the vehicle, black ice, etc) then according to the report, only 4% of all accidents are caused by loss of control of the vehicle with excessive speed as the primary contributing factor."


Oh, and on speed camera effectiveness "at saving lives"...

"At 29 major motorway and road works sites, recording Personal Injury Accident details for an exposure of 4,176 million vehicle kilometres:

1. GATSO-style wet-film speed cameras increase the accident rate at road works by 55%
2. GATSO-style wet-film speed cameras increase the accident rate on open motorways by 32%
3. SPECS-style digital speed cameras increase the accident rate at road works by 4.5%
4. SPECS-style digital speed cameras increase the accident rate on open motorways by 6.7%"

Good to know your Penalty Notice revenues are all in a good cause eh!!!

So why do speed cameras increase road accidents? It couldn`t be because they distract drivers from what`s going on around them "at accident blackspots" and divert their attention to the fucking speedometer could it? I think it might. The ONLY reason road fatalities have fallen VERY SLIGHTLY since the automobile was invented is because cars are now designed not to kill pedestrians and are fitted with airbags that cushion the passengers in a collision. Also, the roads are so fucking congested these days that accidents are inevitable - mostly when coming to a standstill - and, delays add to the prepencity to speed to make up for lost time AND cause increased levels of frustration and aggression. It is in fact a fucking miracle the accident rate isn`t increasing exponetially (perhaps it is - we only have the massaged Government/thuggy police figures to go on after all...!).

IanG    [25181.   Posted 9-Apr-2009 Thu 09:45] View Near Messages
phantom, "What adds further to the whole unease is the question whether the BBFC have got in touch with the CPS regarding prosecution. I get the impression that there are UK persons involved here, which would possibly call the DPA onto the scene..."

Yes, but, only to find that the participants are protected from prosecution within the DPA clauses.

Nikki Flynn is untouchable. Moreover, she CAN place clips from this video on her website to be viewed by all and sundry. British visitors may be liable under the DPA but a successful prosecution is to my mind extremely unlikely - the material simply is not `extreme` enough (indeed, the CPS have decided not to prosecute such material in the past for fear of losing in court). The IWF will not be ordering a take down either - they`ve already stated they don`t want to get involved with `extreme porn`. The only option left to the authorities would be a full-on prosecution under the OPA which, as I`ve said many times, this type of spanking and humilliation just isn`t `extreme` enough for UK juries to return a guilty verdict under the proper test for `obscenity`.

Now, Freedom of Expression may well not extend to obscenity, however, everything else is most certainly protected speech and, as such, the BBFC simply cannot arbitrarily decide to ban any material from sale or distribution based on their twatty nanny guidelines - just ask the High Court...who`ve already had to explain to the BBFC that without PROOF OF HARM the BBFC cannot do anything but place material in an appropriate age restricted classification - in this case 18 or R18 seems most appropriate.

Let me point out that we only have the BBFC`s word that the CPS `would` prosecute various `obscene` or `harmful` activities - which seem to make up about 30% of MOST mainstream porn films the BBFC classify. Is this remotely credible? Is a 1/3 of all porn on sale all over the free world actually obscene or harmful? The BBFC/CPS are clearly talking bullshit! I know in my bones that IF the BBFC/CPS ever DARED to try and prosecute any of the material the BBFC routinely decides to hack and ban, they`d end up looking like the very silly nanny wankstains they truly are. It is time we had another Lady Chatterly`s Lover type landmark case, another Judicial Review of what the BBFC are really allowed to ban without FIRST providing concrete proof of harm or an obscenity verdict decided by a jury of the people. Pure fucking hearsay doesn`t cut it - and that`s ALL we`re getting at present, as was the case in 2000 when the BBFC got well and truly put in their offcious little place and were told in no uncertain terms by the High Court that if they couldn`t provide real proof of harm then they COULDN`T BAN ANYTHING!

IanG    [25139.   Posted 2-Apr-2009 Thu 17:14] View Near Messages
phantom, you beat me to it. I`m sure Joanne Guest, Jodie Marsh, Lousie Glover et al. would love to know from which country they`ve been trafficked. I`m sure these ladies would confirm the only substance abuse going on in porn these days concerns lipstick, mascara, peroxide, fake tan and the odd bucket of leg wax.

I don`t know what planet Dianne Abbott landed from but I think Tubeforreason comes from the same place - planet Troll maybe?

Of course The Sun, Star and Sport have always been bottom shelf rags, and throughout most of my formative years they contained exactly the same type of topless pictures as those magazines at `kids eye level`.

Abbott is clearly deranged and completely out of touch with reality. Let`s hope the rest of the viewers now understand what a bunch of lunatics are at the helm...

IanG    [25128.   Posted 1-Apr-2009 Wed 16:32] View Near Messages
pbr, the pictures of breasts the boys were shown were either of older (post breast feeding) women or somewhat mis-shapen, odd sized, saggy and small tits. There wasn`t one photo of the average (dare I say `normal`) set of pert teenage tits on show bar the surgically enhanced pair. Now I generally hate false boobs and much prefer a nice and natural shape irrespective of size but, given the choice out of those `weird` ones on show even I would have picked the fake ones as the most appealing. It was a LOADED QUESTION. What 14-year-old (indeed any red blooded male) is going to pick a pair of malformed or saggy 40-year-old tits above a pair of well-balanced, pert, pink, round and firm 19-year-old model`s boobs?

IanG    [25088.   Posted 28-Mar-2009 Sat 22:06] View Near Messages
emark, yet again it seems drawing a picture of myself and the rest of my biology class watching a sex education film featuring (I think) the couple from The Joy Of Sex bonking (which most of the progressive schools in the mid 1970s used to show us 12-year-old kids what sexual intercourse actually entailed) would make me a criminal apparently. Unfuckingbelievable!

I really don`t know what happened after 1979 and Thatcher`s hatchet came down on school spending and the CPA 1978 came into action. Until then there was no worry over kids seeing people having sex (even in close-up XXX detail...for education purposes of course ;). There used to be a couple of `For Schools` sex ed programmes on TV at about 10am most weeks - I distinctly recall watching `Living and Growing` when I was off sick from school - these programmes contained scenes of real naked people (mostly pregnant women breast feeding and giving birth) and lots of drawings and diagrams of the changes little boys and little girls went through at puberty.

It seems likely all this type of once perfectly acceptable and informative material is going to become taboo - just why we know not, it certainly didn`t turn me or my mates into chlid abusers.

IanG    [25063.   Posted 23-Mar-2009 Mon 07:39] View Near Messages
"When a chance to remove a probable cause exists, it must be used, he insisted: The world would be no poorer if there were no more killergames."

Maybe not, but then I was playing cops n robbers, cowbys n indians and such like from around 8 years of age and these `killer games` never did me or anyone else any harm.

I suppose the world would be no poorer if there were no religions, no Governments and no wars. The probable cause in these cases are of course nutters who believe they know better or know something the rest of us don`t.

One thing is for certain, you won`t stop people getting upset or angry and wanting to take revenge on those they believe are responsible for their unhappiness by banning `killer game` or `killer movies`.

School masacres are a symptom of human social problems that are not improved by Governments or police and other such twittering dogooders making outcasts of perfectly normal people on the basis of the games they like to play or the pictures they choose to look at. Indeed, these twittering dogooders are a bunch of mindless cunts that the world most definitely would be a lot better off without.

IanG    [25036.   Posted 20-Mar-2009 Fri 01:09] View Near Messages
pbr, it is absolutely obvious that Howarth and Prentice, not to mention most of the Commons, are totally oblivious to the actualities of the rest of the world. They seem completely unaware that, according to their unfounded, prejudiced and bigoted beliefs, tens of millions of Japanese people should apparently be behind bars because they`re all nasty paedophiles. Of course the Japanese authorities can tell and paint a very different picture. Indeed, if this "horrific" material did what messers Howarth and Ms shit for brains Prentice say, then Japan would not be the safest nation on earth for women and children to go about their lives unraped and unmolested.

One thing should be crystal clear. You don`t protect children by making them criminals for painting pictures of their own sexual fantasies. In fact all studies show that you can turn innocent children into serial rapists and child molesters by denying them any ability to explore their own inherant sexuality and inate sexual curiosity. The narrowminded prigs that make up Parliament and the insane laws of this sexually repressed land they created are indeed the greatest threat to children known to man.

The Nazis demonised the Jews. NuLabour have chosen to demonise the Japanese for their erotic pop art and, all the people around the world that enjoy it.

IanG    [25012.   Posted 13-Mar-2009 Fri 08:52] View Near Messages
phantom, you`re probably correct. I think we can sum up the censorial nature of successive British Governments under the heading of "protecting cultural purity". It is the Nazi fascist mindset. Imprisoning people in one country for possessing or viewing material which is deemed completely harmless (indeed, helpful) in another (i.e. Japan) is a clear indication that Human Rights and human values/nature are not being protected but are in fact being violated `for the sake of Britishness`.

These new criminal offences for possessing certain `images` are a form of cultural clensing every bit as dispicable and illegal as exterminating Jews and homosexuals or, slaughtering your Tutsi neighbour.

I don`t think it necessary to stone people to death for adultery, but obviously those dictating Islamic culture do. I don`t think it necessary to criminalise the possession of modern Japanese pop art but, obviously the people dictating British culture do.

Locking people away for abusing children is entirely justifiable in terms of protecting vulnerable children. Locking people away for not abusing any living thing is simply insane. But then that`s the problem with this cuntry - its run by the totally insane monsters that believe they`re British and need to protect Britishness rather than understanding that they`re ordinary Human Beings and have a DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY (are you listening Jack?) to protect Human Rights.

IanG    [24980.   Posted 9-Mar-2009 Mon 19:04] View Near Messages
I`m likely to make several posts concerning the following as this Howarth bloke has really and truly pissed me off. The gaping chasms in his `reasoning` and the leaps in credibility he makes over them are truly astounding.

So, here`s round one...

"George Howarth: ...The fact that it is not a real child in the image—that it could have been conjured from the person’s imagination—does not make it any less a paedophile activity. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman say, for example, that what the elderly gentleman who seems to have been evoked may do with an image that he has conjured up from his imagination in the privacy of his own home as part of a paedophile activity, will not lead to other things? It seems self-evident that if somebody can get gratification from that sort of activity, it may be but a short step towards involving real images of children and real activities. I honestly think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong in principle as well as in terms of interpreting the Bill."

Now, would anyone like to tell me if drawing or sculpting `Leda and the Swan` is, to paraphrase dear George, a "beastial activity"? Does it `naturally follow` that people who draw images of women shagging swans will likely `progress` to shagging swans themselves? I don`t think so. Nor do I believe for one moment that people who draw visual JOKES such as Bart and Lisa Simpson bonking are a) into incest or b) into kiddy fiddling.

Quite obviously, the people making `judgements` such as dear George`s above, must have had a sanity, let alone humour, bypass.

I`d love to know why George wants to label me a paedophile and throw me in jail for drawing a picture of myself and my first `proper` girlfriend having sex for the first time when we were both 16. Is this really evidence of "paedophile activity"? It seems this `law` would also make it illegal to draw an image of another event in my life - where my 15 year-old brother decided to burst into my bedroom while that same girlfriend (now aged 17) was giving me a blow job. Again, would such an image really be evidence of "paedophile acitvity"? And what I wonder would George make of a drawing of myself and my childhood sweetheart, `Mel`, playing `mommies and daddies` when we were just 10-years-old...? These are not "paedophile fantasies", these are MY MEMORIES. How dare anyone claim that depicting any of these REAL LIFE events in paint or pixels is evidence of "paedophile activity"? The FACT is no one was being abused, no one was ever `psychologically damged`, indeed, every sexual encounter in my entire life has been 100% consensual. As far as I`m concerned (and I`m sure all those involved would agree), all these sexual events in my life were perfectly normal and natural milestones on the path we call growing up. Aparently, dear George has a major probolem with that simple fact.

So why I wonder must I or anyone else be prevented from sharing pictorial depictions of such harmless and natural events with others? I mentioned knives in an earlier post but I have a better example. Some people use their hands to beat and strangle folks to death...but we don`t throw everyone with a pair of hands in jail on the premise that they `might` use them to commit murder do we...!

It seems to me George Howarth and Maria Eagle have particularly dirty one track minds. They seem to only wish to see the worst in people. They seem incapable of imaginig scenarios where their beliefs fall flat on their stinking arses. These people only `know` what they believe, and what they believe is clearly putrid, peurile tripe. They have been conditioned by their anti-porn, `British` upbringing to foam at the mouth like Pavlov`s dogs whenever they hear the words sex and children in the same breath. These are not rational people, they are dangerously psychotic individuals in positions of supposed `authority`.

There is nothing `wrong` or `dangerous` in having bizarre fantasies. Our dreams and fantasies are a means to act out dangerous or anti-social scenarios WITHOUT endangering ourselves or others around us. We don`t put dogs down simply because they dream of chasing sheep or ripping foxes limb from limb despite these actions being against the law. We were all `children` under 18 once. There is no reason on earth why we cannot imagine having sexual encounters with people of any age. Indeed, as Jenny Willmot keeps asking, if such fantasies actually help prevent `some men` going on to abuse real living children, then preventing this harmless avenue of release could spell disaster for the protection of real living children. As we know only too well, just about every prohibition ever introduced has had exactly the OPPOSITE effect to that which was `intended`. We`re supposed to learn from history lest we keep repeating the same insane mistakes over and over and over again. It`s a pity our political halfwits only `know` what they believe because, quite clearly, they still believe prohibitions actually do what they `say on the tin`.

I do hope someone can explain to Ms Eagle that she`s not "closing a loophole" (of this Government`s own creation). She is in fact opening a very large and probably botomless can of worms.

IanG    [24945.   Posted 7-Mar-2009 Sat 10:06] View Near Messages
SasaMisa, it is quite obvious that none of the people in the committee (or Government/Parliament) are remotely aware of just how much `underage` cartoon porn is out there. I`d say this law has the potential to criminalise millions of innocent surfers - I come across dozens of lolicon images daily (if not hourly) yet, I have no inclination whatsoever to abuse/groom/molest/murder children as a result.

It is also clear that this law aims to outlaw 99% of H-Anime - anything with `schoolgirls` and `fantasy animals` (read tentacle monsters or sex-crazed alien invaders) will fall foul of the wording. WHY? To what end?

Sure, "some" people might use this type of material to affirm their deviant fantasies but, then again "some" people use knives to kill - we do not ban the possession of knives (in the privacy of your home) on the basis that some deranged nutters `might` use them to stab and kill people.

The whole argument is deeply flawed. Maria Eagle is quite obviously obssessed if not possessed by dark fantasies - she is projecting her psychotic machinations upon the whole world in typical paranoid schizophrenic style.

You yourself highlight the first real bone of contention. What is "underage" sex? Is there really a `legal` age of consent (set by mindelss politicians) or is ths notion the principle cause of the wider `problem`? Human biology actually dictates when young people CAN and DO start having consensual sexual relationships (and have the babies to prove it). An adult is any creature mature enough to reproduce - full STOP!

Thousands of supposed `children` under 16 years are having perfectly consensual sex despite the law stating they`re all child rapists, victims and abusers. Many so-called `children` began exploring their OWN inate sexuality as young as 13 or 14 years (maybe even younger?). Is anyone really going to prosecute that 13 and 14 year-old that hit the headlines a few weeks ago? No, of course not. Why? Because no court would, could or indeed, should be interferring with the natural process of growing up. These kids have got it hard enough without the heavy hand of legal moralising bullshit branding them sex offenders.

So why is it commonsense prevails when something `not quite socially acceptable` happens yet, all commonsense, not to mention hard fucking evidence, falls by the wayside in the face of moral outrage? IF Maria Eagle`s imaginings were remotely based on reality then indeed, Japan would not be the safest country on earth for women and children to go about their lives unraped and unmolested but, it is. It most definitely is and, Interpol have the information and criminal statistics to prove it! (Pity we the public can no longer be trusted with such info. though...I wonder why...?).

Anyway, they will pass this shit into law as they did the DPA. MILLIONS of hapless surfers are going to be made sex criminals in the blink of an eye, and no one on this sexually-deranged island gives a flying fuck, and those that do are too fucking timid to stand up for what is clearly right and what can be shown to be the absolute truth of the matter!

This country needs an enema!