See also Religious Watch Forum

MichaelG    [27167.   Posted 28-Aug-2010 Sat 23:50] View Near Messages
Anyone fancy a laugh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1306470/The-Girl-Who-Played-With-Fire-review-No-spark-Swedens-gloomy-Noomi.html

Tookey gets it wrong again! After giving `The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo`, one of the most critically acclaimed movies this year, a feeble 2 stars, he now gets the knives out for the sequel.

"Once again, the origins of this piece in Scandinavian TV are evident."

Once again, Tookey`s world-class stupidity is evident. They`re based on a trilogy of books, you fucking halfwit.

"The murky lighting, dull camerawork and slack editing (especially obvious during the action scenes) aren`t of the quality you`d expect in a Hollywood film."

Er... perhaps because it`s a Swedish film, not a Hollywood film, with none of the excessive budgets or colossal salaries from the latter. Any real film critic would, you`d think, be glad of the chance to review something a little bit different to the norm. Not this juvenile minded cretin - he`s probably just upset because there weren`t any fluffy talking animals or toys that come to life in there.

And no review of `A Serbian Film`, Chris? What`s all that about then?

MichaelG    [27164.   Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 21:11] View Near Messages
Re: goatboy [27163]:

Didn`t know about this, thanks for the info. Very interesting point you make about the activities of the BBFC in relation to which political party are in power. Don`t know if we`re just seeing a number of particularly troublesome releases which they would have felt compelled to hack chunks out of regardless, or if they feel obliged to be a little more ruthless with the scissors now the Tories are back in power. Perhaps they`re still a little wary of the party who gave us the original VRA.

It`s also very interesting to consider that under CommuNuLabour, despite their overarching implementation of draconian, fist-clunking, stifling policies, one thing that did improve was the relaxation of censorship of entertainment, at least in some ways.

And no, that doesn`t mean I want the fuckers back in power...

MichaelG    [27162.   Posted 26-Aug-2010 Thu 12:08] View Near Messages
I`d just like to say a big `THANK YOU` to the BBFC for the heads-up about cutting the piss out of the `I Spit On Your Grave` remake - I really appreciate their transparency - and also for doing their bit to ensure that the distributor of this movie loses sales because no-one wants to watch something that`s been rendered incoherent by their excessive meddling and pruning. Dissuading movie fans from going to see the cinema release and from buying the DVD - the recession rolls on thanks to self-important, hand-wringing cunts like this.

I mean, what is the fucking point when I can order it totally uncut from the US Amazon site months before it gets released here anyway? The BBFC should just wind up right now and pack all their employees off to the nearest job centre...

Oh, and after his comments about `Medal of Honour`, Liam Fox can fuck right off too - the first member of the Coalition to royally get my back up. Every government has at least one, don`t they?

MichaelG    [27150.   Posted 22-Aug-2010 Sun 11:59] View Near Messages
taken them a while, but here we go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305164/Medal-Honour-Liam-Fox-outraged-video-game-play-Taliban.html

This is the first bit of controversial entertainment that anyone from the Coalition has called for to be banned!

"I am disgusted and angry. It`s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game"

It ain`t that hard mate. I bet it`s going to go down a storm in places like Luton and Bolton with young members of certain minority groups who idolise the likes of Abu Hamza and who jet off for summer holidays to remote parts of Pakistan to... er, `learn new skills`.

`I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.`

Yeah, they`re going to do themselves out of thousands of pounds of sales just because you said so....

If I were him, I`d be rather more concerned about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1305076/Iran-goes-nuclear-Fears-regime-plans-bomb-gather-pace-Russian-atomic-reactor-started.html

MichaelG    [27126.   Posted 12-Aug-2010 Thu 23:26] View Near Messages
Comedy hour in the Mail again, courtesy of Bel-fucking-Mooney:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1302594/Lady-Gaga-IS-poisoning-childrens-minds.html

Dear God... it`s about as interesting as reading the safety instructions on a bottle of Domestos. But a whole lot less useful or worthwhile...

MichaelG    [27085.   Posted 3-Aug-2010 Tue 22:35] View Near Messages
Re: Doodlebug [27082]:

Other than an off-the-cuff remark made by a Judge, is there actually ANYTHING to link this case even remotely with `Blair Witch`?

Nope, but that`s never stopped the Mail, has it?

MichaelG    [27073.   Posted 31-Jul-2010 Sat 11:53] View Near Messages
Diary: 4thought.tv...

Don`t you just love freedom of speech sometimes?

Hopefully this poisonous, wretched, nasty, medieval-minded cunt will end up doing himself more harm than good...

MichaelG    [27038.   Posted 20-Jul-2010 Tue 13:04] View Near Messages
Ready for the latest `growing social problem`, as highlighted by The Daily Mail?

Oh good...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1296282/I-dosing-How-teenagers-getting-digitally-high-music-download-internet.html

We should thank our lucky stars CommuNuLabour are no longer in office, as there`d no doubt be something being drafted up on the back of a fag packet in one of the House of Commons bars as we speak to deal with this. No doubt involving 3 years in prison for transgressors.

MichaelG    [27026.   Posted 18-Jul-2010 Sun 00:41] View Near Messages
Re: DarkAngel5 [27024]:

"How is he still in a job exactly?"

Because every time he manages to get himself bogged down in sleaze and scandal, the greasy little shit pulls the race card and he`s instantly off Scot-free.

I`m still completely baffled how he ever got to stay on as Chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee though. All he ever does is whine on about violent video games and abuse his position - hardly qualified, is he?

Moving on, Chris Tookey again proves what a complete helmet he is:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1295090/Toy-Story-3-Brilliantly-bravely-tackling-real-human-problems-grown-film-year.html

Tookey has obviously been so excited at the prospect of reviewing a wholesome `family` movie, he`s launched into a `War and Peace` length review on the Mail site. He`s been so busy working up this epic, in fact, that he doesn`t appear to have had time to review any of the other movies out this week, including `Inception`, `Predators` or the new `Twilight` movie, a task which seems to have fallen to colleague James O`Brien, who has been saddled with the task of reviewing every other movie out this week whilst Tookey is utterly consumed by the task of gushing out his weighty praise for `Toy Story 3`. Seems O`Brien was so knackered he didn`t get the cinematic joke that is `Mega Piranha`. Oh well.

Tookey, meanwhile, indulges in the journalistic equivalent of having a wank onto his computer keyboard:

"It dares to examine the grown-up idea that some day our lives will have run their course."

Exactly Chris, take the fucking hint, will you?

"Intelligent adults may notice that the movie is, at heart, about letting go and facing death."

So, Tookey noticed this, so therefore he must be intelligent, right? Gosh, we`re all really impressed down here, I can tell you. Get a life, you cock. It may be brilliantly made, and have certain themes which strike a chord with adults, but it`s not exactly Ingmar Bergman, is it?

Unless, of course, you`re an overly-sentimental, juvenile-minded fuckpuppet who can`t get his head around the plot of `Inception`, subsequently passing that one over to his colleague to cover (who also doesn`t seem to get it, going from the review), then trying to impress the Mail readership by waxing lyrical about the weighty, adult themes to be found in the latest Pixar offering.

"This could yet prove to be the most grown-up film of the year."

What, more than `Lebanon`? Or `The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo`? Grow up, you twat...

MichaelG    [27023.   Posted 17-Jul-2010 Sat 21:29] View Near Messages
Re: Publicity Seeking...

Oh will you please just fuck off, Vaz, you tiresome, irrelevant little cunt...

MichaelG    [27014.   Posted 14-Jul-2010 Wed 13:37] View Near Messages
Re: Mind if I Speak Candidly & freeworld [27011]:

WTF is going on in Scotland at the moment?

What an utterly pointless load of fucking drivel. Have you got to get permission now before you slip in (ooo-er!) a bit of innuendo into a conversation with your mates down the pub?

"Er, pardon me lads, but would it be OK if I told the one about the actress, the bishop and the Rabbi?"

It may well also be illegal to chat someone up if the question of "would you like to come back to my place?" was going to be broached at any point. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. And how the hell is this going to be policed, for fuck`s sake?!?!?

At least we all know now what the N in SNP stands for. Fascist cunts...

MichaelG    [27007.   Posted 9-Jul-2010 Fri 13:07] View Near Messages
Re: IanG [27005]:

`First Blood` was the first thing that sprang to my mind too.

Was wondering why the Mail hadn`t gone off on their usual irrelevant arc with this one, but I guess there`s still time. Perhaps they`ve been too busy elsewhere, like sticking the boot into poor old Christine Bleakley (a WAG who doesn`t fit the standard stereotype - that would never do), which didn`t take them long as she`s only been big news for a couple of months.

However, it would seem, going from this latest load of utter bollox from spiteful, poisonous fat bag Jan Moir, that `Twilight` is the new menace to society:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1293291/Twilight-Saga-Eclipse-twaddle--I-teens-love-it.html

Admittedly she ends the article on a positive note, but along the way we have these howlers to contend with:

"Bella must choose between Ed the Undead and Jake the Pecs, a decision that seems to be, if you think about it, a straightforward choice between necrophilia and bestiality."

Typical - you can`t win. You cop off with a werewolf and you`re into bestiality; shag a vampire and you`re a necrophiliac. What kind of tangled mess is going on in Moir`s head than enables her to read perversions like this into a teen movie about vampires?

"So she wants to be dead for ever in Edward’s arms, which could be interpreted as an allegory for suicide."

It gets worse. So `Twilight` not only encourages bestiality and necrophilia, but pushes teens towards suicide too. what a sick piece of vile filth this is, we`d better ban it right away.

Seriously, what can you do with people whose minds operate in this way? There`s clearly something not wired up properly in there...

MichaelG    [27003.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 13:32] View Near Messages
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293153/Ministers-signal-changes-unions-indefensible-use-members-cash-fund-Labour.html

Hilarious quote of the day has to be Jackboots Straw - "this is totally undemocratic". Priceless. Since when was democracy ever something he lost any sleep over?

Moving on, unless anyone has been living under a rock for the last week, they will doubtless have heard all about how fugitive gunman Raoul Moat has, well... er... disappeared into the wilds of my home county - Northumberland.

What surprises me most here is not how he`s managed to give a veritable army of plod the slip, but how the Daily Mail have not been forthcoming with any lurid tales of how Moat has been `inspired` to commit his alleged crimes by watching violent movies. Has Bullshit Blame Bingo finally been put to rest after all these years? Come on lads, there must be hundreds of cinematic offerings where someone shoots a policeman or his ex-missus and her new partner, or leads the cops on a wild chase through a remote and hostile wilderness...

MichaelG    [26962.   Posted 29-Jun-2010 Tue 22:50] View Near Messages
Here we go yet again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290573/Gunman-centre-hour-bank-siege-drunk-imitation-weapon.html

`In a scene reminiscent of the Clive Owen movie Inside Man, he allegedly put a gun to the head of one of his prisoners, threatening to shoot if they did not don boiler suits to confuse police.`

Is every crime in this country directly attributable to the influence of a movie? Seems the Mail think so. I`m actually beginning to think they have a none-too-bright movie geek on their payroll whose job it is to delve into his knowledge every time there`s a violent crime and link it with a similar scene in a movie. Come to think of it, it`s probably Chris Tookey...

MichaelG    [26892.   Posted 8-Jun-2010 Tue 11:10] View Near Messages
Re: On Deadly (and decidedly shaky) Ground:

Just so the Mail aren`t out on a limb on their own, the Torygraph have also gotten in on the act. I thought this was supposed to be an intelligent newspaper, not an adult version of The Beano, but it would appear I`m wrong on the strength of this bollox:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7806942/Derrick-Bird-watched-Steven-Seagal-film-before-massacre.html

"On Deadly Ground has gained a cult following in recent years due to the graphic and excessive nature of the violence."

Er... no it didn`t. If any Seagal movies could be classed as `cult`, it wouldn`t be this one, seeing as it was one of his bigger budgeted affairs and came at the peak of his career (which took something of a downward turn afterwards, if I remember rightly). Don`t think it was particularly well-received by his fans either.

As for `graphic and excessive violence`, it was passed after cuts totalling 1m 10s for cinema release, and may have been pruned by around the same again for it`s video release, so the BBFC removed a fair bit before passing it with a `15` cert. It`s arguably one of Seagal`s tamest movies in terms of violent content, so if sheer volume of `graphic and excessive` violence was the criteria for turning Seagal`s movies into cult hits, as the Torygraph seem to be suggesting, this would have been spurned in favour of earlier Seagal offerings such as `Out for Justice`, which would have been the logical choice for Bird Bullshit Blame Bingo given the shotgun fest in the final showdown in which at one point, Steve quite literally cuts a thug off at the knees with a well-aimed blast - it`s just a shame journos are so pig-fucking-ignorant about cinema or they would have spotted this.

And who the fuck is this rent-a-quote prick Professor Kevin Browne? `Expert` (self-proclaimed, I imagine) in forensic and child psychology, he reckons that that violent action films were fuelling crime.

"If you live on a diet of hit first and ask questions later, then you are likely to copy what that violent hero does..."

Really? I grew up on 80`s action movies and I`ve NEVER felt remotely inclined to copy anything I`ve seen in such fare. What a load of shit. I wouldn`t expect anything in the way of hard evidence from a forensic psychologist, but all he seems to have here is conjecture and his own twisted opinion.

More from this fucking clown here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5044409/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-and-Steven-Seagal-films-encourage-violence-says-expert.html

"In a wide-ranging attack, he also criticised Quentin Tarantino movies for using violence to "excite" the viewer in a tactic akin to pornography and video games such as Carmageddon, which encourages the player to mow down pedestrians.

He said children who do not even have a driving licence could be influenced and use their bicycles to target members of the public."

Is this goon doing a stand-up comedy tour or something? Any eight-year-old with half a brain would realise that attempting to run someone down whilst on a bike is just as likely to cause injury to themselves as their intended victim.

How do these people ever get work giving advice to the government (to say nothing of attaining the title and rank of Professor) when they`re blatantly as terminally stupid as this?

MichaelG    [26886.   Posted 7-Jun-2010 Mon 10:33] View Near Messages
Re: On Deadly Ground:

Just couldn`t let this go, so I`ve attempted to take the Mail to task over this blame game bollox. Posted this, it`s got less hope that a one-legged cat trying to bury a turd on a frozen lake of ever getting published, so in the name of posterity, here it is:

`Make your minds up!

Yesterday it was `On Deadly Ground` that Derrick Bird watched with his friend the night before his shooting spree. Today, it`s `Exit Wounds`, an entirely different Seagal movie.

What gives? Just realised the eco-friendly plot, moral messages and relatively mild violence in `On Deadly Ground` meant the movie wasn`t brutal or morally reprehensible enough to provide a remotely plausible media scapegoat or the requisite sensationalism for this type of violent crime story?

So you`ve `modified` the story, doubtless hoping no-one would notice, weaving in the way more violent `Exit Wounds` instead. The plot of `Exit Wounds` contains far more gunfights and shotgun-related mayhem than `On Deadly Ground`, so it`s bound to make a more convincing source of `inspiration` for Bird`s killing spree - isn`t it?

What exactly have you got against the movie industry that dictates that you have to attempt to link every violent crime in Britain with a piece of cinema?`

MichaelG    [26885.   Posted 7-Jun-2010 Mon 10:24] View Near Messages
Re: On Deadly Ground:

Well, make your fucking minds up!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284526/I-feared-son-gun-Derrick-Birds-mother-locked-saw-Cumbria-rampage-TV.html

Yesterday it was Seagal`s `On Deadly Ground` that Derrick Bird watched with his friend the night before the Cumbria shooting spree. Today, it`s `Exit Wounds`, an entirely different Seagal movie.

What gives? I think the eco-friendly plot, strong moral messages and relatively mild violence in `On Deadly Ground` just wasn`t quite brutal or morally reprehensible enough for a successful Bullshit Blame Bingo entry, so they`ve, er... `modified` the story, weaving in the way more violent `Exit Wounds` instead. The plot of `Exit Wounds` contains far more gunfights and shotgun-related mayhem than `On Deadly Ground`, so it`s bound to make a more convincing source of `inspiration` for Bird`s killing spree. At least for certain Mail readers and MediaSnitch members anyway.

"Bird watched the film at his friend Neil Jacques`s house and left looking like a `zombie` around 12.30am once it had ended".

Clumsily implying that watching the movie had the effect of `zombification` on him. Perfectly normal beforehand, mass-murdering maniac after. Yeah, right.

So, obviously nothing to do with bitter family feuds, financial problems, being the victim of a violent assault himself in 2007, being taken for a ride then dumped by his Thai girlfriend and having the threat of prison for tax evasion hanging over his head like an executioner`s axe. Nope, it was all the fault of that nasty, violent Mr. Seagal...

MichaelG    [26881.   Posted 6-Jun-2010 Sun 10:38] View Near Messages
Re: pbr [26880]:

`...wouldn`t it be funny if a bad thing happened that couldn`t be blamed on porn, television or video games?`

Indeed it would, but, it would seem, we`re still waiting for that to happen:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284376/Derrick-Bird-planned-Cumbria-massacre-9-months-ago.html

Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo - Entry 4,567:

"Further insights into Bird`s mental state were revealed today, as one of the last people to see him alive told how he watched a violent film the night before he went on a shooting rampage."

"Mr Jacques and Bird then watched violent action film On Deadly Ground, starring Steven Seagal, which features multiple killings."

What a relief! I had thought for a moment that this was just an isolated case where an apparently normal, everyday man just lost his mind and decided to go on a murderous rampage for no apparent reason. I`m so pleased that the Mail have managed to get to the bottom of his seemingly inexplicable sudden psychosis - I`m now certain that if he hadn`t watched `On Deadly Ground` that fateful night, all his victims would still be alive today.

I don`t wish to trivialise such an awful mass-murder of innocent people, but these tenuous attempts to somehow link a film (yet again) to a real-life tragedy in this grossly immature, directionless, pointless and over-simplistic fashion just stinks of manufactured, hideously insensitive, crass sensationalism for the sake of nothing more than selling newspapers.

It makes me wonder how they manage to get such info out of witnesses or associates. I mean, they must ask stuff like "do you know if he ever watched violent films?" as a matter of course, otherwise, how would anyone find out what he`d viewed the night before?

So pleased they`ve managed to get to the root of this awful crime though. If we ban all Steven Seagal movies, nothing like this will ever happen again...

MichaelG    [26878.   Posted 3-Jun-2010 Thu 23:12] View Near Messages
Re: emark [26877]:

Seems as if anyone`s to `blame` for the Cumbria massacre, it`s our friends at the Revenue:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283857/CUMBRIA-SHOOTINGS-Tax-drove-mass-murderer-Derrick-Bird-edge.html

Reckon we`ll now see an end to the bullying and intimidation perpetrated by these wankers on a daily basis? Perhaps all the threats of fines for errors and jail for undeclared monies will now be stopped... yeah right.

MichaelG    [26868.   Posted 31-May-2010 Mon 07:32] View Near Messages
Re: Council Bums:

`Councillor Gilbert Davidson, who chaired the licensing and regulatory committee meeting, said: The committee considers each advert on its own merits and, if necessary, takes a democratic vote on whether it should be approved. On this occasion, the majority view was that some of the text - and also the image, which showed a pair of bare legs from just below the backside - were not appropriate.`

So, what you can legally see at any age on any beach in Britain (on the odd occasions the weather is warm and dry enough) - legs and bikini-style bottoms - is deemed `not appropriate` by the increasingly prudish wankers at GCC. Oh, and the word `bum` is now offensive, is it? So, no more `Bums and Tums` aerobics classes in Glasgow then.

I swear to God, thepeople of Glasgow must think they`re living in some kind of Victorian timewarp - the only step left is to start fining people for leaving their piano legs uncovered...

MichaelG    [26866.   Posted 30-May-2010 Sun 00:09] View Near Messages
Had to laugh at this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1282484/Sex-And-The-City-2-Go-savage-Carrie-girls--theyre-safe-target-left-says-Liz-Jones.html

So, Liz Jones (up there alongside Olivia Lichtenstein and Jan Moir as one of my least favourite journalists of all time) is trying to convince us that the only demographic group who you can safely criticise these days without being lambasted (or worse) for it are middle-aged, affluent white women, the very kind that make up the four main characters in SATC.

Oh really? You should try living under the last government as a white, heterosexual, middle-class male. Criticism would have been the least of your worries, you`d be more concerned with trying to anticipate the next broad legislative swipe taken in your general direction.

Perhaps I`m the wrong sex to properly appreciate SATC, but I have never managed to grasp how these four vacuous, perpetually discontented, self-obsessed, materialistic clothes horses have managed to become such iconic characters to so many people. It really is quite depressing when you think about it.

And in terms of demographic groups deserving of our sympathy, I think the real-life counterparts of the SATC girls (amongst whom Liz Jones undoubtedly counts herself - likely the very reason for this worthless article in the first place) are probably hovering somewhere down the bottom of the list inbetween champagne socialists and militant feminists...

MichaelG    [26858.   Posted 28-May-2010 Fri 11:59] View Near Messages
Re: ID cards scrapped:

Not before time too. How much money did CommuNuLabour piss up the wall on this stupid scheme as they tried to implement it, against the wishes of virtually everyone in the country?

Surprisingly, not everyone is happy:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/28/blunkett_id_card/

I hope to God he`s joking...

Re: Nutter Spokesperson on JobCentrePlus...

Still not sure precisely what business Mediasnitch had getting involved in employment issues, but I had to laugh:

"...it`s hardly a meaningful job for life is it?"

Oh, like spending your every waking moment counting swear words on television, trying to deny adults the freedom to choose their own entertainment and going snivelling to OfCom every time you see something in the media that upsets you? Is that what constitutes a `meaningful job for life?

MichaelG    [26852.   Posted 26-May-2010 Wed 13:34] View Near Messages
Re: I Spit On Your Grave remake:

If the Daily Mail aren`t up in arms about this when they get wind of it I`ll eat every hat I own. And if Chris Tookey gives it a good review, I`ll travel down to London merely to show my arse in Selfridges` window...

Meanwhile, has anyone seen the candidates for new Communist Party leader? Are they having a fucking laugh or what? The Milipedes, Balls I can just about accept (even if not take seriously) in the absence of more worthwhile and feasible candidates, but DIANE-fucking-ABBOTT?!?!?!?!?!

Oh well, at least we don`t have to worry too much about them getting re-elected...

MichaelG    [26840.   Posted 18-May-2010 Tue 23:44] View Near Messages
Someone wake me up, I think I`m dreaming:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1279439/Red-Dead-Redemption-Groundbreaking-video-game-lets-players-relive-Wild-West.html

The Daily Mail, promoting a violent videogame from the makers of Manhunt and GTA? Whatever next?

Look for the follow-up story in a few weeks when the game has `inspired` 16 year-old Liam from Manchester to go on a sheep rustling spree...

MichaelG    [26837.   Posted 17-May-2010 Mon 11:49] View Near Messages
Re: Undesirable Comments:

Nick Forbes - "My concern is that it would have a big negative impact on the gay village and I`m concerned that it would destroy the concept of a safe area by introducing all sorts of undesirables".

Undesirables = heterosexuals, by the sound of it.

Are lapdancing clubs associated with violence, drugs etc.? I fail to understand the concept which seems to prevail amongst all nutters that these places are somehow a magnet for trouble. If they were, the police would be able to close them surely?

And please don`t take this as a homophobic comment, but with regard to the resident who has raised concerns that families on their way to the Metro Radio Arena may have to walk past the club, currently parents taking their kids to the Arena have to pass numerous pubs and clubs where men go to meet one another for casual homosexual encounters. Is it that much more unacceptable to have to walk past a club where ladies take off their clothes for money?

MichaelG    [26830.   Posted 14-May-2010 Fri 11:49] View Near Messages
Chris Tookey gets it wrong again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1278194/Lebanon-War-hell--heres-proof.html

OK, OK, I know it`s just his opinion, but his first line of attack (after moral issues) with a movie he`s not too sure about is to label it `unoriginal`. Exactly what he did with `Watchmen`, which, in his blissfully stupid ignorance, failed to realise that the source material pre-dates the other movies he accused the makers of ripping off.

`Lebanon` is largely based on the director`s first-hand experience of service in the Israeli army - how can this then be deemed `unoriginal`?

Empire - 5 stars

Tookey - 3 stars

After his ridiculous tirades against the Hit Girl character in `Kick-Ass`, his rather worrying obsession with paedophilia resurfaces in this review:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1274090/A-Nightmare-On-Elm-Street-Truly-rotten-remake-classic-horror-film.html

`As if bumping off scantily clad teens isn`t squalid and unsavoury enough, there`s the added ingredient of paedophilia.`

Wasn`t Freddy Krueger always a child molester/murderer, even in the original movie? I`m beginning to wonder if all those bloggers who made all those awful accusations against Mr. Tookey may have been onto something. Remember folks, this is the man who knows all about `classic schoolgirl poses`...

MichaelG    [26826.   Posted 12-May-2010 Wed 22:47] View Near Messages
Now this is interesting -the full transcript of the Conservative/Lib-Dem deal:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm

Point 10 - Civil Liberties

`The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

# A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

# The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.

# Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

# The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

# Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

# The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

# The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.

# The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.

# Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

# Further regulation of CCTV.

# Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.

# A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.`

I`ll believe it when I see it, but the prospect of not only a Great Repeal Bill, but also `A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences` is going to be a very welcome change. Don`t know if Julian Brazier`s still around, but if so, this should hopefully prevent him from attempting to wreak further holy havoc down at the BBFC...

MichaelG    [26821.   Posted 11-May-2010 Tue 22:46] View Near Messages
Re: DarkAngel5 [26818]:

Mr Brown said he had "loved the job, not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony, which I do not love at all." "No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous, more just - truly a greater Britain," he said.

With epic failure on every single one of these ideals, it`s safe to say the pleasure truly has been all Gordon`s.

It remains to be seen how Cameron performs in office, but I`m optimistic that a bit more stability might, almost paradoxically, come out of this coalition. It`s a new day, with a new government, but I guess the biggest reason to be cheerful is that we`re finally rid of that incompetent, unelected moron and his merry band of Stalinist freaks, so hopefully there`ll be a lot less legislative stupidity in the future like locking people up for looking at pictures, paying for sex, watching Manga, etc, etc...

MichaelG    [26809.   Posted 9-May-2010 Sun 09:38] View Near Messages
A while since this type of question has been asked on here, but does anyone know if this release of Hitchcock`s `Frenzy` is uncut?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Frenzy-DVD-Jon-Finch/dp/B00005N8BM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1273422542&sr=1-1

I know it was shorn of 19 seconds back in 1989 for it`s video release, but it would appear that the 2001 re-release is the uncut version, being that it`s slightly longer:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/SearchClassifiedWorks/?SearchView&Query=%28%20[Title]%20contains%20%22FRENZY%22%29%20and%20%28%20[Director]%20contains%20ALFRED%20HITCHCOCK%29%20and%20%28%28%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Film%29%20OR%20%28%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20Video%29%20OR%20%28%20[TypeOfMedia]%20contains%20DigitalMedia%29%29&SearchMax=50

Can anyone help with this?

MichaelG    [26795.   Posted 6-May-2010 Thu 23:09] View Near Messages
With Vera Beard and Fatty Smith getting a resounding pasting over the course of last night, there are at least a couple of reasons to be cheerful this morning. What is worrying me is the prospect of a hung Parliament... and the prospect of the Brown Menace hanging around in Number 10 like a bad smell.

Re: Four Lions:

Utterly and entirely predictably, we also have this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1273955/Fury-7-7-relatives-suicide-bomber-comedy-Four-Lions.html

Funny, isn`t it, how no-one demands the banning of the the very thing that caused the 7/7 bombings?

MichaelG    [26788.   Posted 4-May-2010 Tue 23:12] View Near Messages
Is it me? I just watched Dr. Who for the last 2 weeks as it just happened to be on as I was feeding and changing my baby daughter. Against everything I expected to feel about this programme, which I haven`t watched since I was a kid, I actually really enjoyed it! Decent acting, good plot and very good special effects.

What do I see in the Mail this morning? This...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1272542/Scantily-clad-vampires-pass-Doctor-Who--BBCs-idea-family-viewing.html

Yes, the programme is probably better now than it`s ever been, but as usual we have a load of whingeing cunts who are determined to wring everything good out of it so it`s `safe` for family viewing again. So the Doc`s new assistant is sexy - how is that bad? So the monsters are scary - aren`t they supposed to be?

Some people really need to have a stern word with themselves...

MichaelG    [26785.   Posted 3-May-2010 Mon 23:29] View Near Messages
How many times have I said, with regard to CommuNuLabour, that I wouldn`t put anything past them? Well, if this is true, the complete corruption of the British political system is now complete:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html

A few months back, I would have been on cloud nine at the moment, looking forward to Thursday`s Great Day of Liberation. Now, I just feel fucking sick to my stomach. Surely after months of trailing in the polls, if these cunts manage to secure another term, and in the light of these vote rigging allegations, there has to be some kind of severe action taken against them?

MichaelG    [26779.   Posted 3-May-2010 Mon 02:50] View Near Messages
Couldn`t resist the chance of going head-to-head with Tookey, so I`ve just posted this on the mediasnoops website:

"Mr. Tookey, you may have managed to find a handful of critics who agree with your dislike of `Kick-Ass`, but it has to be said that most are in agreement with the views of those at Empire and Total Film (like, REAL film critics who don`t seem to hate their job with a passion) and recognise and acknowledge its merits. Admittedly, it`s all subjective, but for a `respected` critic like yourself to be consistently so out of alignment with other, more respected critics with your star ratings, I`m beginning to doubt you could spot a decent film in a Fellini or Buñuel retrospective season (sorry if this perplexes you, but I like `classic` cinema as well as movies by Dario Argento, Lau Kar Leung, Jean Rollin and Fernando Arrabal, and I`m not too full of my own self-importance to admit it - please feel free to look up any of these directors if you haven`t heard of them).

Whist I find your being branded a paedophile for your views excessive and very distressing, and you do have my sympathy, I`m still able to spot exactly why this has happened following your review. If I may quote your own words to you, perhaps it will all become clear:

`As if that isn`t exploitative enough, she`s also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun.`

As you seem to know exactly what constitutes a `classic schoolgirl pose`, perhaps this would be a good opportunity to explain to your most vitriolic critics, and indeed the rest of us, precisely what you meant by making this statement. I, for one, really don`t understand what you are getting at - but then perhaps that`s just me not having paid enough attention to schoolgirls over the years to attain the expert status required in this field to be able to confidently recognise a `classic schoolgirl pose`. I`m sure this statement was made in perfect innocence, but can you understand now why people have leapt to the conclusions that they have? Just feel this needs clearing up, in case anyone else gets the wrong idea.

What also troubled me (rather more than Hit Girl`s character, it has to be said) is this:

`But in Kick-Ass, childish violence of the most extreme kind - hacking off limbs, shootings in the mouth, impalings and fatal stabbings - is presented with calculated flippancy, as funny, admirable and (most perversely of all) sexually arousing.`

Admittedly, violence often can be entertaining when presented in the right context within movies (and no, saying that does not make me a sociopath), but I have never met anyone before who is able to derive sexual arousal from depictions of graphic violence. Again, this gives cause for concern, unless, of course, your words just came out a little `wrong` again and that`s not what you meant - although a film critic for a national newspaper shouldn`t really have trouble making himself clear, should he? Please feel free to correct me at any point if something has become lost in translation here.

What really did irk me about your review was your desperate attempts to tenuously link `Kick-Ass` to child pornography, gang violence and even the murders of Jamie Bulger and Damilola Taylor. This is crass in the extreme, wholly unjustified and so long as there are people like yourself who are prepared to over-simplify complex social issues for the intellectually-challenged and divert attention away from the real causes of such problems, I guess we`ll never come any closer to solving them. Now that`s irresponsible.

Your particular brand of lazy, sensationalist, journalism-by-numbers has been tried and tested to the point of inducing nausea in most rational-minded adults, but I`m sure you still have a small yet appreciative audience for this kind of tripe within the ranks of the Daily Mail readership. By approaching cinema in this way, I suppose, you don`t have to concern yourself too much with getting out of your depth discussing matters such as plot and character development, cinematography, special effects, lighting, acting or the choreography of the action - the very things most fans of cinema would be looking for in a review of a film of this type.

Sadly, you decide to answer your rather less pleasant critics by... oh dear, another crassly sensationalist piece where you liken your situation (that of an adult with a well-paid, highly desirable and easy job which many people would part with limbs to call their own) to that of a troubled teenager, bullied online to the degree where they see no option left but to take their own life. Another complex social problem trivialised for the sake of shifting newspapers - you must be so proud of yourself. After you have used the internet and your freedom of speech to blast films like `Kick-Ass`, brand their creators irresponsible, sick, twisted and `evil` (your very own one word summing up of the film, if you remember), it`s a bit rich to start crying to anyone who`ll listen when similar treatment is doled out in your direction, wouldn`t you say?

If you haven`t the stomach for a bit of on-screen sex or violence, or for that matter a taste of your own brand of medicine, perhaps it`s time for a change of career. I, for one, would relish the chance to finally be able to pick up the Mail and be able to take their movie reviews seriously. It would seem that I`m certainly not alone."

I await his response with baited breath...

MichaelG    [26769.   Posted 29-Apr-2010 Thu 04:47] View Near Messages
Just to provide a little light relief in the face of the current technical difficulties:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1269651/How-I-fell-foul-internet-lynch-mob-Our-film-critic-dared-attack-movie-gained-insight-vicious-irrational-hatred-flourishes-net.html

The words `sticks and stones` spring to mind, but Tookey is convinced he seems to be the victim of a Cyber-bullying campaign after his ridiculous review of `Kick-Ass`. Aww, bless! Did the nasty internet people upset you? He seems to know about as much about REAL Cyber-bullying as he does about cinema, and he`s trivialising a very serious issue to even suggest he`s suffered the same kind of abuse that has led certain troubled teenagers to take their own lives.

`Many decided that since I had complained about the sexually suggestive treatment of a pre-pubescent girl, I must somehow be a paedophile.`

Well, Chris, if you will make statements about `classic schoolgirl poses`, it`s quite understandable that people may get the wrong idea.

What Tookey fails to grasp is that, just as he utilises freedom of speech to blast films like `Kick-Ass`, brand their creators irresponsible, sick, twisted and `evil` (his very own one word summing up of the film), others can use their freedom of speech to spell out to him what an utterly clueless moron he truly is. The truth hurts.

I posted this comment after the article, but once again, perhaps I was too critical of one of The Hate Mail`s beloved journos and it doesn`t look like they`re going to publish it. Here it is anyway:

`Mr. Tookey, you`ve spent years venting your spleen (with a very public platform from which to do it) against any movie which you feel is morally objectionable, rewarding such films with dreadful reviews, irrespective of the talent involved or the technical skill on display.

You clearly haven`t the stomach for your chosen career if you can`t handle a bit of on-screen sex or violence. Whilst I don`t agree with the nasty abuse hurled in your direction following your Kick-Ass review, the fact remains that you are paid to do something which I would happily do for free because I love cinema so much, yet all you seem to do is moan about having to sit through certain movies and take offence at something you`ve seen virtually every other week. The cumulative effect is wearing and irksome, to say the least.

Also, did you never stop to think that `Jimmy` from Edinburgh may have been joking when he said he`d taken his 5, 8 and 10 year olds to see the movie?`

Yes, folks, perhaps the funniest thing in this article is Tookey`s further demonstration of just how adept he is at missing the point, and what an utterly humourless individual he truly must be. Did anyone, apart from him, think for one minute that `Jimmy` had really taken kids this young to see the film? No wonder people are lining up in droves to take the piss out of this fool...

MichaelG    [26748.   Posted 26-Apr-2010 Mon 01:16] View Near Messages
Re: Threatening to make a Mockery of Justice (Harvey - 26745):

"The reports suggest the offence was that of intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress, which would be under Part 1 of the Public Order Act 1986."

With that in mind, I think we should maybe have a look at recent behavior from our very own Foreign Office in the light of this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268780/Pope-Benedicts-British-visit-Vatican-fury-Britains-dark-forces.html

It doesn`t surprise me in the least that a department of government presided over by that fucking halfwit Miliband has managed to turn a simple visit by a foreign dignitary into a huge diplomatic faux-pas and something bordering on an international incident.

Opening an abortion clinic? `Benedict` branded condoms? Blessing a gay marriage? I doubt even Prince Phillip could have caused half as much offence as this if he`d tried his very best. Notice how the apology was issued `on behalf of` Miliband too - nice to see the spineless little cunt isn`t bucking the CommuNuLabour trend of never taking responsibility for anything.

I`m by no means in support of prosecution and/or imprisonment for inciting `Religious Hatred`, but how come normal folks like Harry Taylor get hammered by the law for this, yet the chumps in the FO seem able to get away with deliberately offensive, incredibly immature and intentionally insulting behaviour towards a highly regarded visiting dignitary? With a potential souring of Anglo-Italian relations AND insulting just about every Catholic in the country in one fell swoop, the stakes seem significantly higher here than those attached to some unemployed depressive handing out homemade leaflets on the street.

Will anyone responsible face prosecution for this? Or even lose their job? Not likely...

MichaelG    [26741.   Posted 25-Apr-2010 Sun 01:15] View Near Messages
Unintentional comedy soundbite of the week time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1268575/Britains-Got-Talent-Topless-eaters-porn-actress-past.html

`Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch UK, said: ‘This show is watched by thousands of children. ITV push the boundaries and push them again. It’s an erosion of standards that we have to resist.’

Are there actually any standards left to be eroded on anything which Simon Cowell has a hand in?

MichaelG    [26729.   Posted 20-Apr-2010 Tue 00:59] View Near Messages
A new season is upon us, yet Daily Mail Bullshit Blame Bingo continues in exactly the same format as it always has:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267283/Gay-man-died-head-injury-teenage-girls-stamped-like-scene-Clockwork-Orange.html

Step 1: Select a current violent news story or court case for a violent crime
Step 2: Match, as tenuously as you like, certain aspects of the above with a scene from a violent movie
Step 3: (Optional) Grab a sensationalist soundbite from a random member of the general public, preferably someone who has trouble with their own shoelaces, to back up this link. Use the power of auto-suggestion to influence this if necessary.

Hey Presto! There you have it - a convenient scapegoat for all of society`s ills. Stanley Kubrick`s movie has now been getting the blame for influencing random violent crime perpetrated by multiple young thugs for, oh, nearly 40 years now. Isn`t this just a tad past its sell-by date?

I wasn`t aware that `Clockwork Orange` featured girl gangs or gay-bashing, but if the Mail says that this crime was `like a scene from `Clockwork Orange`, then it must be true...

MichaelG    [26723.   Posted 18-Apr-2010 Sun 23:59] View Near Messages
Re: Melonfarmers (Dave) [26722]:

If all that`s true then I`d vote for them.

The Star are trying to make out that the LibDems would subject us to a load of new laws which would hit hardworking families and give `the run of the country` to less wholesome individuals.

Hello? Isn`t that precisely what CommuNuLabour have been doing over the last 13 years?

Scrapping duty free shopping is utterly irrelevant. The exorbitant prices in most duty free shops I`ve been in means that only the terminally (no pun intended) stupid would be under the illusion that they`re getting a bargain when they pull out their wallet in these establishments.

Giving prisoners the vote? We`re being governed by liars, cheats, thieves and war criminals, so what`s the big deal?

As for "Home owners would be told exactly how to prune their hedges", who on earth is going to enforce this, and how? The Met`s newly formed `Hedge Unit`?

Given what has already transpired under CommuNuLabour rule, I hardly think this is worth anyone getting their knickers in a twist about...

MichaelG    [26717.   Posted 13-Apr-2010 Tue 01:57] View Near Messages
Time for another tale of disgusted Middle England:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265382/Slave-trader-Village-hall-used-professional-dominatrix-called-Mistress-Tia-secret-bondage-sessions.html

`A spokesman for West Mercia Police said the force would only investigate if it received a complaint.

He added: `It doesn`t look like anything illegal has happened here.

`If it is harmless and involving consenting people there is nothing that we can really do.`

`Nuff said...

MichaelG    [26707.   Posted 9-Apr-2010 Fri 05:38] View Near Messages
Re: Foot in the Mouth Fetishists at the UKIP...

"The UK Independence Party has shamed itself with a bad attitude towards an erotic film maker. Compare that with the Lib Dems who embraced porn film maker Anna Span as one of their general election candidtes.

Rob Ager was chairman of UKIP`s Liverpool branch until party chiefs found out about his films, which include scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation."

Two reasons for this IMHO, 1) As far as I know, Anna Span`s productions contain pretty much `vanilla` material i.e. nothing remotely `pervy` or which could be straying towards Dangerous Pictures territory. They`re well known for being `female-friendly` and cater as much to women viewers as men. Span is therefore seen as a `liberated`, independent woman.

2) Rob Ager is clearly a man, therefore any interest he has in erotica must render him a pervert, going from the gospel according to Harperson. Add to this the fact that his work includes `scenes of bondage, incarceration and flagellation` and we`re obviously dealing with a grade `A` sexual psychopath who shouldn`t be allowed out in public, let alone to represent the UKIP.

So, there`s another party I won`t be voting for. Just shows that `Independence` most certainly does not equate to `freedom`.

MichaelG    [26690.   Posted 5-Apr-2010 Mon 00:01] View Near Messages
"Quick, we`re going to lose the election! Let`s ban as much as possible before we do!":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263525/Labour-ministers-extraordinary-We-ban-zoos.html

`Charities minister Angela Smith said it was wrong to keep animals in captivity and called for a debate on whether the Government should close all Britain`s 400 zoos.`

Go girl! That should put another few thousand or so on the dole - well done! And what do you do with the animals? Ah, release them into the wild, of course. Where they can`t fend for themselves because they`ve been raised in captivity, so some of them may well starve to death. Genius.

`But last night colleagues slapped her down, saying her views were personal and not those of the Government.`

There really must be an election on the way. Since when was this an issue for CommuNuLabour? Harriet Harman and Keith Vaz both spend every day of her fucking misbegotten lives abusing their positions and attempting to conjure legislation which will enforce their twisted ideals on the rest of the country. Somehow, no-one up to now has felt the need to `slap them down` over getting their personal issues mixed up with Government policy. Well, apart from a few million voters who probably want to slap them down. Repeatedly. With a heavy, blunt instrument.

MichaelG    [26687.   Posted 3-Apr-2010 Sat 13:30] View Near Messages
Thanks Dave. I know, I just can`t seem to help myself! Like tonight for instance. I should be full of the joys of parenthood (I am, believe me!), but a small, vindictive part of me (no, not THAT part, stop tittering at the back) has just had a hankering for mischief at Chris Tookey`s expense tonight.

To remind him that words must always be chosen carefully, even when used in a rant, I posted this comment after his tirade at... sorry, `review` of `Kick-Ass`. Not at all optimistic about it getting published, so here it is:

`So, what have we learned from this review?

Empire and Total Film (like, REAL film critics who don`t seem to hate their job with a passion) gave `Kick-Ass` 5 and 4 stars respectively. Once again, Tookey is so far wide of the mark with his star rating that I`m beginning to doubt he could spot a decent film in a Fellini or Buñuel retrospective season.

More worryingly, we can glean from this that your resident reviewer finds extreme violence `sexually arousing` (his words, not mine) and also seems to know what constitutes a `classic schoolgirl pose` (his words again, I really don`t understand what he is getting at). For the benefit of every reader, would Mr. Tookey like to explain precisely what he means by these statements? It`s just that taken at face value, they do seem to give far more cause for concern than the content of the movie.

Just feel this needs clearing up, in case someone gets the wrong idea...`

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you self-righteous tosser...

MichaelG    [26685.   Posted 3-Apr-2010 Sat 06:55] View Near Messages
Re: Crime Against Cinema...

Either I`m becoming more and more psychic in my old age or Chris Tookey is becoming ever more predictable. Seeing as I`m not optimistic about scooping the National Lottery jackpot tonight, it must be the latter.

"But in Kick-Ass, childish violence of the most extreme kind - hacking off limbs, shootings in the mouth, impalings and fatal stabbings - is presented with calculated flippancy, as funny, admirable and (most perversely of all) sexually arousing."

Sexually arousing?!?!!? Is Tookey turned on by this sort of stuff?

"As if that isn`t exploitative enough, she`s also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun."

Lock up your daughters, Tookey not only finds extreme violence sexually arousing, but he also knows a `classic schoolgirl pose` when he sees one, the fucking pervert.

"Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?"

Sorry, but is there a bit in Kick-Ass where Hit Girl and a chum abduct a toddler and murder him? Am I missing something? Or is Tookey just a complete helmet?

I think it`s time he got out of the movie reviewing business because he`s beginning to look like a complete fucking joke, even to Mail readers (check the comments). Empire - 5 stars, Total Film - 4 stars, Daily Mail - 1 star. Hmmmm, now whose review do I trust the most?

Re: Hate Mail...

"Tory MP David Davies added: If you are trying to get money out of people for a good cause then it is not good to have people using humour like that."

If the money is forthcoming and it ends up going to a good cause (and not to having your fucking moat cleaned or a duck house built on your lake, like this Tory cunts swindling colleagues), then who really cares if a few expletives were dropped along the way? Like the language or not, at least Ross is doing something for a good cause and not fiddling the fuck out of public money while sitting there in holier-than-thou, infallible judgement of others.

On a much lighter note, I`ve just become a DAD!!!!!!

Devon Rose was born yesterday at 18.02pm, 8lb 1oz. Mum and baby fine. So, we have a new little Melonfamer to add to the ranks. First thing I`m going to teach her is NOT to read the Daily Mail...

Or join MediaWatch...

And how to finish her sentences properly...

MichaelG    [26667.   Posted 29-Mar-2010 Mon 22:10] View Near Messages
Great news, apparently scientists have discovered a way to bugger up, or even switch off, our built-in moral compass:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1262074/Scientists-discover-moral-compass-brain-controlled-magnets.html

I can just imagine the havoc someone could wreak if they were able to leave a handful of high powered magnets in stategic places at the BBFC and the offices of MediaSnitch.

Was about to suggest the same for the Houses of Parliament, but it would seem many of the residents there are in possession of what can only be described as a `selective` moral compass. Sure, they can take the moral high ground when it comes to videogames, internet porn or `dangerous` cartoons, but somehow they still see no problem with abusing the law, lying, stealing, embezzling, palm-greasing, etc, etc, etc.

Makes you think that perhaps the Houses of Parliament are already built on top of a powerful, natural magnetic field...

MichaelG    [26664.   Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 22:36] View Near Messages
Maybe slightly off topic here, but probably not when you consider the implications for, well, pretty much everyone if the Brown Menace manages to pull another term out of the bag. But if THIS is the ace up his sleeve, I fear it may actually have the opposite effect to what he`s hoping for:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261491/Blair-comeback-fight-Tories.html

LOVED this bit:

"The carefully-planned attack will also attempt to portray the Tories as a far-Right party with extremist policies."

Something which we`ve seen absolutely no evidence of at all. Brown`s government, on the other hand, have already introduced legislation which criminalises consenting adults who look at certain kinds of porn and criminalises people who look at `dangerous drawings`, to name but two bits of foul, draconian and utterly needless legislation. If that isn`t `extremist` policy, can someone kindly tell me what is?

What really gets me about this situation is the fact that Brown and Bliar have never been terribly comfortable bedfellows. Bliar`s boundless, calculated greed since he has left the PM position has meant that he has amassed a very sizeable personal fortune, trading off the contacts he made while in power (is it any wonder the likes of Hoon and Byers now think their recent behaviour is acceptable after Bliar`s trailblazing in this way?). It also means that a) he`s a pretty poor role model for the kind of grassroots Socialist voters CommuNuLabour count on, but more importantly, b) Bliar is such an eye-wateringly greedy cunt that it`s highly unlikely, given his past relationship with Brown and his distancing himself from the party, that he`s doing this as some kind of favour, without hefty financial renumeration.

Bliar comes with a hefty price tag. CommuNuLabour are so broke they`re now having to rely on the Unions for financial assistance. Someone`s picking up the bill for the services of this grinning, warmongering twat, and I`d wager it`s coming out of our pockets, indirectly or otherwise. Leaves a pretty nasty taste after the events of the last 13 years, doesn`t it?

MichaelG    [26656.   Posted 28-Mar-2010 Sun 05:36] View Near Messages
Here I go again, hogging the forum. If you want to blame anyone, blame Viv Pattison...

Re: BBC Filth...

"I`m very disturbed by what I was able to access", said Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch. "I don`t want these shows banned, just access to them restricted. It makes a mockery of the watershed."

Immediately after that, as soon as the touchy subject of parental responsibility and controls is raised, it`s back to:

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

The old saying about leopards and spots springs to mind. However, it might be worth pointing out to Viv that `banning` is an action, a verb, therefore it would be grammatically incorrect to refer to `banning` as a `blunt instrument`. The `blunt instrument` would have to be that which creates or implements the ban itself - either an object, a body or an organisation. You could refer to MediaWatch (or Pattison herself) as a `blunt instrument` - if they weren`t a bunch of snivelling, ineffectual cretins with about as much clout as a rolled-up paper hankie and actually had the power to make such decisions. Keep on dreaming, Viv.

Still, when you spend your entire life to howling for the suppression and censorship of culture and the arts, it`s not really surprising that you might end up a little, er... backward in some respects.

MichaelG    [26655.   Posted 27-Mar-2010 Sat 23:12] View Near Messages
Re: pbr [26654]:

"We are fighting for Britain`s future and we intend to win."

The only reason we are in the position where we have to fight for this country`s future is because of the meddling, bungling incompetence of this moron and his cohorts, who for the last 13 years have shown nothing but contempt for Britain, it`s values and it`s people, and have set the country firmly on a course of what can only be described as a `downward spiral`.

"Brown said voters faced a choice between "austerity" under David Cameron or "prosperity" under himself."

More neck than a fucking giraffe. So, if we re-elect them we`re going to see a complete change in Brown and his party are we? A rapid economic turnaround and the end of his fist-clunking, draconian nonsense. Whatever you say, Gordon...

MichaelG    [26653.   Posted 26-Mar-2010 Fri 23:13] View Near Messages
Re: DoodleBug [26652]:

The fools who are touting ClearPlay are some seriously deluded individuals. They`d have us believe that they aren`t censoring movies because "We are not altering the film at all" and no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created.

Perhaps not, but you can dress what they`re doing up by calling it `filtering`, or bang on about choice and viewer`s rights and all that, but at the end of the day, the system is still blanking out chunks of movies which OTHER PEOPLE, not you, or your family members, are making the decision to stop others from seeing. That is censorship, pure and simple.

I`m still struggling to work out who is going to pay around 60 quid a year to have the continuity of their entertainment ruined by this shite after the BBFC have age-classified and possibly cut it already.

On a lighter note, if anyone would like to cheer themselves with a bit of nostalgia and reminisce about the days when Sweden led they way in terms of sexual liberation and freedom instead of making criminals out of people who pay for sex, this might be worth a look:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scandinavian-Blue-Erotic-Cinema-Denmark/dp/0786444886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269668716&sr=8-1

MichaelG    [26643.   Posted 24-Mar-2010 Wed 00:54] View Near Messages
The `Kick-Ass` controversy rages on, fuelled, as usual by the Daily Hate Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1260169/Kick-Ass-premiere-Brad-Pitt-joins-Jane-Goldman-party.html

Seriously, what planet are these people on? Most of the controversy seems to be centred here around the use of one word - `cunt` - by an 11-year old girl. The usual tiresome voices are demanding an `18` certificate instead of the `15` it`s been given by the BBFC.

So, 15 year olds don`t swear, do they? They did when I was 15 and that was 25 years ago. And where is the sense in being legally able to look at a real `cunt` (no, not Gordon Brown), play with one, and stick your tongue or trouser snake inside one from the age of 16, but being banned from exposure to the word that describes it until you`re 18?

MichaelG    [26633.   Posted 21-Mar-2010 Sun 23:10] View Near Messages
Re: DarkAngel5 [26631]:

What gets me about this is that if the gaming mag guy had declined to go on the programme, this `debate`, or rather `debacle` likely wouldn`t have been able to go ahead, and they would have had to find something else to fill the slot, which would hopefully have been a little less upsetting to the retired, blue-rinsed gardening and cookery fans who make up the majority of the audience for this mid-afternoon tosh.

Once again, I`m getting really fucking fed up of people who have no interest in videogames, and even less knowledge about them, taking pot shots at the industry. The extent of the knowledge of the actress, the Sun editor, and indeed Titchmarsh himself, of the world of videogames probably amounts to what they`ve gleaned from Keith Vaz soundbites and Daily Mail scare stories - my guess is that none of them have been near a console in their lives, a statement likely equally applicable to most of the studio audience. They`re not really qualified to offer an opinion, let alone debate the subject on national television.

This almost sounds like the gaming mag editor was stitched up, to be quite honest. If it were me, I would probably have declined to go on the show, as I`d have a fair idea of what was coming. I`m all for fighting our corner, but getting into a no-win situation simply to fill an empty slot on a dumb light entertainment show could be seriously detrimental to the cause and put the videogame industry in an unnecessary bad light. We really don`t have to justify our hobby to these types of people.

Thanks for the YouTubelink, but I`m not going to watch it as it`ll just make me angry...

MichaelG    [26626.   Posted 19-Mar-2010 Fri 23:41] View Near Messages
Attention all parents!!

Are you too stupid to be able to comprehend a simple age ratings system?

Too feckless to concern yourself with your children`s viewing habits?

And just too fucking lazy to be bothered with keeping an eye on them all the time?

Or do you simply want to treat your children to a nice, inoffensive, family-friendly version of epic Holocaust drama `Schindler`s List`, where people don`t get shot in the head or put into gas chambers?

Well, here`s the answer to your prayers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1259333/The-DVD-player-censors-movies.html

`Ever sat down to watch a DVD with the family, thinking there`s nothing up ahead likely to cause embarrassment or shock, only to find the stars undressing or blasting each other`s brains out?`

Er... no, because the BBFC`s age rating system is so simple a chimp could follow it. I have yet to see a film with a `15` cert that I think is unsuitable for a 15 year old, ditto a `12` cert for a 12 year old. Much as I find a lot of BBFC decisions irksome and unfathomable, I generally don`t have a problem with their age ratings.

`ClearPlay bosses claim that many films - especially those that are rated 15 - lend themselves to such treatment because their rating is based on only one or two brief scenes which can be edited without spoiling the rest of the movie.`

Oh really? Anyone remember the good old days of the really scissor-happy BBFC under James Ferman? Anyone remember how utterly fucking incomprehensible his tinkering rendered certain movies? So clumsy were the cuts that you`d think sometimes that the film editor`s tools of the trade were a blunt axe and a roll of sellotape. Ferman`s personal issue with horse falls and martial arts weapons RUINED (a strong word, but completely justified) many movies for me, including `Legendary Weapons of China`, `Way of the Dragon`, `Conan the Barbarian` and `Ulzana`s Raid`. All had under THREE MINUTES cut out of them, and all, in certain key scenes, had their action rendered as incoherent as if they`d been directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky after he`d been on a 24-hour pub crawl.

Whether it`s some cackhanded, visually-impaired muppet locked in a room with a roll of film, a rusty hacksaw and some Pritt Stick, or a hi-tech, downloadable filter, the end results are going to be exactly the same. Your movie, and your enjoyment of it, is going to be fucked up!

But here`s the real kicker:

`To use the system households will have to pay about £1 a week to subscribe to an online scheme which allows filters for movies to be downloaded.`

So, let me get this straight. I`m going to pay up to £50 a year to have great fucking chunks hacked out of perfectly good movies which is going to render them incomprehensible? Can anyone tell me WHY I`d want to do this?

`Andrew Duncan, head of Clearplay International, said: `We know from our research that parents are concerned about inappropriate content but don`t like conflicts around censorship at home. Our system effectively ends the important but tiresome debates.`

So this is different to censorship, like... how?

`The company says the sort of films the system will work with include Love Actually, Atonement, The Matrix and Sweeney Todd. All contain scenes which ClearPlay bosses say can be edited without ruining the whole film.`

OK, try cutting the bone-crunching fight scenes out of the Matrix and see how watchable that is afterwards. And why the fuck are they talking about `Sweeney Todd` when it`s an `18` certificate? AND who the hell, apart from MediaSnitch members, would need the `offensive` bits cut out of `Love Actually` for them before they could relax and enjoy it?

I`m certainly not a fan of the `Dragon`s Den` TV programme, but if ever there was a need for their acid-tongued vetting and deconstruction of a `genius` invention before it was thrust onto an unsuspecting public, it`s with this monumental misfire.

The majority of people won`t be arsed about this full stop, those that do have mild concerns about sex, swearing and violence in movies they may be watching with their kids won`t be able to be arsed with the hassle of downloads and fannying on with the settings, people like me will think it`s about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike, and we know full well that this is never going to appease the pro-censorship nutters.

So, the point of this is what exactly?

MichaelG    [26621.   Posted 18-Mar-2010 Thu 12:19] View Near Messages
Being that Jonathan Ross seems to be behaving himself at the moment, The Daily Hate Mail, attempt to take a pop at the next best thing, i.e. Mrs. Jonathan Ross, yet again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1258732/Is-Mrs-Ross-trying-outrageous-husband-Jonathan.html

I really don`t know where the Mail are coming from here. One minute it`s:

"So, what could possess a mother-of-three to write a film whose heroine is a death-dealing child in a purple wig?"

"Why does Jane Goldman think it`s clever to use violence and swearing as a punchline?"

"How depressing".

The next, the Mail website is packing trailers for the film and promoting signings of the comic book at Forbidden Planet, plus telling readers how they can go about getting free tickets.

You`re either shocked, disgusted and outraged, or you`re not. Which is it?

Nevertheless, I await Chris Tookey`s review of this with a mixture of lethargy, indifference and a sense of forthcoming Déjà vu...

MichaelG    [26620.   Posted 18-Mar-2010 Thu 11:54] View Near Messages
Re: In The Name of Trafficking...

Stripping to be banned in Iceland even though there is no evidence of trafficking

Christ, I hope Harriet Herman Goering doesn`t get wind of this - it`ll be a new and instant cause célèbre for her to get her venom-tipped claws into. Maybe THAT`S why no-one can find any trafficked women working as prostitutes - they`re all working in strip clubs and at lapdancing bars instead. 80,000 of them, I`d bet, in this country alone. At very least. It might even be double that. Especially if it sounds more shocking to the tabloids and is more likely to support the `need` for nasty, sweeping legislation.

I can feel another bout of CommuNuLabour legislative diarrhea coming on... `The Icelandic Model`, anyone?

MichaelG    [26615.   Posted 16-Mar-2010 Tue 13:27] View Near Messages
Re: Janus17 [26614]:

It makes you wonder what on earth the Daily Record were trying to achieve here. I can only assume that the nazis who are pushing for this draconian nonsense have some kind of mole planted at this rag so they can use it as a platform from which to launch their vile propaganda.

You don`t need to be a punter to spot this for the bollox it truly is. I`m as much for freedom of the press as I am for civil liberties, but when you`ve got a national newspaper being flagrantly abused in this way, it makes you wonder whether the two are actually compatible at all. Newspapers SHOULD be using their freedom of speech to protect our freedoms and civil liberties, not indulge in crass sensationalism so biased and false that it makes you seriously wonder whether they`re actually taking bungs from Glasgow City Council in order to pave the way for their nasty new law.

Utterly deplorable.

MichaelG    [26608.   Posted 14-Mar-2010 Sun 22:56] View Near Messages
Re: emark [26606]:

Interesting you mention tattoos, I guess if someone wanted to twist the law to suit their own agenda and had a personal issue with tattoos, they could conceivably argue that this was a form of `harm`. Similarly, body piercing could also be singled out in this way - after all, one of the recent DPA prosecutions made reference to images of `extreme piercing`.

"Mediawatch are idiots as usual, but ironically I think it`s good to bring publicity to this issue, to raise awareness of how stupid the law is."

It`s just a shame they don`t get it. Everyone WILL realise how stupid this law is... except for members of MediaSnitch, who obviously went to the trouble of trying to ensure its enforcement. If they were in possession of working brains, they might actually be dangerous...

MichaelG    [26605.   Posted 14-Mar-2010 Sun 09:04] View Near Messages
Very good point about boxing, dano! Perhaps we should call for the arrest all UFC combatants too...

MichaelG    [26602.   Posted 14-Mar-2010 Sun 00:35] View Near Messages
Several years after the likes of `Jackass` and `Dirty Snachez` first arrived on British TV, MediaWatch finally decide to get their knickers in a twist about something similar:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257800/Police-receive-complaint-TV-s-controversial-Pain-Men.html

So, what`s left when you`ve already had a whinge to Channel 4, who screened this show, and you`ve gotten nowhere, you`ve then gone snivelling to Ofcom and they`ve told you where to stick it? Most normal, sane people (not that that`s the type of people we`re dealing with here), would probably just give up and go and find something else to occupy their time, no?

MediaWatch, in their infinite wisdom, decide the best course of action is to get in touch with the police, citing violation of some 1861 Victorian (how very apt!) law, which apparently forbids people from inflicting ‘bodily harm’ on each other, even by consent.

Do these idiots never stop to think about anything? If this arcane law, if indeed it actually exists in the first place (after all, it wouldn`t be the first time MediaSnitch have lied about something in an attempt to get their own way), was anything anyone was remotely bothered about enforcing, no doubt police cells would currently be full of self-harming Goth kids and BDSM enthusiasts.

Can anyone guess what happened next?

"Yesterday, Scotland Yard said a criminal investigation was ‘not appropriate’."

That`s right, to complete a hat-trick of brushoffs, the police tell them to fuck off too! Hahahahahaha.

The only better result would have been charging the snivelling fascist cunts with wasting police time...

MichaelG    [26600.   Posted 13-Mar-2010 Sat 10:16] View Near Messages
Re: DarkAngel5 [26597]:

Easy tiger, I`m one of the good guys!

Perhaps I should have put that a bit better.

I don`t believe for one minute that any of the acts were influenced by the film, but if you have the mind of a tabloid hack or a free-publicity hungry MP who`s looking to fast track himself into a seat in the Lords, then certain, admittedly very tenuous assumptions and links can be made like the splashing with paint, the proximity to railway tracks, and even, if you`ve got a really twisted mind, the attempted insertion of batteries into the toddler, being that Chucky was a battery-operated doll. Please don`t blame me for mentioning these `links`, as these were true examples of the type of bullshit being flung around at the time by the likes of the Mirror, the Mail, and that worthless self-serving cunt David Alton.

Believe me, no-one was more exasperated or incensed than I was by the attempted scapegoating of this movie at the time. I wasn`t attempting to link the film to the crime in any way, I was merely saying that, in the mixed-up minds of certain people, some of the atrocious acts COULD be seen as resembling certain scenes from the film. I`m not saying I can see the resemblance, nor am I saying I buy into any of this well-past-it`s-sell-by-date rubbish any more now than I did when the story first broke 17 years ago.

Pick any violent crime at random and you will quite possibly find a scene in a movie somewhere, if you look hard enough, that bears a passing resemblance to that crime. That doesn`t equate to automatically having anything to do with influencing it - something I wish the numbskulls at the Mail would realise.

MichaelG    [26596.   Posted 13-Mar-2010 Sat 02:07] View Near Messages
Daily Mail Bullshit blame Bingo continues:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257614/The-police-sure-James-Bulgers-year-old-killers-simply-wicked-But-parents-dock.html

Two days ago it was all `Halloween`s` fault, now it`s back to `Child`s Play 3` and a new entry for `I Spit On Your Grave`...

...er, hang on a minute.

Anyone else see the flaw in this argument?

I`ve just pointed it out to the Mail. Just on the off chance it doesn`t get published, here it is:

`A well-written article highlighting the appalling upbringing Venebles and Thompson had is marred by yet another crass, sensationalist and juvenile attempt to link this dreadful crime to a movie. Any movie, it would seem, will do, seeing as it was John Carpenter`s `Halloween` the other day.

We will never get to the root of serious social problems so long as people are prepared to be able to handily offload the blame onto a convenient media scapegoat.

I`m also surprised that, seeing as the Mail were at the forefront of the campaign to ban so-called `Video Nasties`, Braachi seems oblivious to the fact that `I Spit On Your Grave` was withdrawn from rental shops in 1982, before Thompson and Venebles were born. It was not legally available in this country again until 2001, eight years AFTER the Bulger murder. Is there any relevance here whatsoever, considering it would have been chronologically impossible for the killers to have viewed, or indeed been `influenced`, by this film?`

I can understand the links being made between `Child`s Play 3` and the murder, as certain scenes in the film do bear a resemblance to some of the violent acts carried out upon Jamie Bulger, but with no evidence that either of the killers had seen the film, this is neither here nor there. However, HOW THE FUCK can a film be blamed or even mentioned when it would have been physically impossible for Venebles or Thompson to have seen it before the murder?

MichaelG    [26576.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 23:05] View Near Messages
Another day, another contemporary Pantomime villain created by the Mail for us all to boo at:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256307/Facebook-warning-Peter-Chapman-admits-Ashleigh-Hall-murder.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256793/I-posed-girl-14-Facebook-What-followed-sicken-you.html

Yes folks, it`s Facebook. A social networking site which allows friends to stay in touch and communicate is now the greatest threat facing 21st Century Britain. Won`t someone think of the children?

For a supposedly Tory paper, the Mail don`t half provide fuel for CommuNuLabour`s frequent bouts of legislative diaorrhea. What`s next? Banning under 18`s from social networking sites? The Social(ist) Networking Bill - I can see it now...

Meanwhile, CommuNuLabour find more more brand new public menaces upon which to unleash their legislative fury - dog owners and mums with buggies who go on buses:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256699/Mothers-use-buses-wheelchair-areas-buggies-labelled-anti-social-menace-Government.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256565/Plan-force-dogs-insured-penalise-responsible-owners.html

Microchipped dogs?!?! i can`t even imagine how they`re going to top this one. Do they actually want to win this election? They just seem to be pulling level in the polls then, in the space of one day, they announce more draconian bullshit which is set to piss off every dog owner and mum who has taken her baby on public transport, which probably translates as at least 3 million votes. Seriously, whose opinion are they asking in all these polls?

Finally, a little something for Viv Pattison:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256655/Popes-brother-confesses-hitting-choirboys.html

If even one innocent child is placed in a position where they can be harmed or abused by perverts hiding behind the teflon cloak of organised religion, we must ask ourselves "is it worth the risk?".

I just love the way that the God-bothering prick interviewed at the end of this justifies the abuse by saying:

`The Church is not the only place where there are these accusations, it occurs elsewhere and here it should also be of concern, to focus solely on the Church is taking it out of prospective. For example recently in Austria a survey showed that there were only 17 cases of abuse involving Church institutions whereas in other establishments there were 510.`

Only 17, eh? Well that`s all right then - sorry I even brought the subject up in the first place...

MichaelG    [26567.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 11:53] View Near Messages
The good news - The Daily Mail finally admit that `Child`s Play 2` may not have had anything to do with the Bulger killing:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256190/Revealed-The-horror-drawing-Jon-Venables-weeks-killed-James-Bulger.html

The bad news is that it appears to be all the fault of John Carpenter`s `Halloween` instead. They can`t just accept that the fucked-up home life this kid had was responsible for the way he turned out; there just has to besome kind of tangible, handily-blameable, Hollywood-produced trigger which set those dreadful events in motion. And if it isn`t attributable to one particular movie, fuck it, they`ll just find another one, no matter how tenuous it may seem. What a fucking revolting, irrelevant lavatory roll this newspaper truly is.

MichaelG    [26552.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 23:44] View Near Messages
Here we go yet again:

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

What, by wanting to have sex with them?

I`m at the stage now where I`m so fucking pig-sick of this that I can`t even be bothered to have a rant...

MichaelG    [26538.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 23:38] View Near Messages
As fully expected, my favourite newspaper has decided to fan the flames of the `Spartacus` TV series `controversy`:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1255093/Blood-orgies-nudity--The-Spartacus-epic-campaigners-battling-ban-British-screens.html

Another soapbox for `is it worth the risk?` Pattinson. It`s just a shame that they`ve had to resort to untruths just to add a little extra `shock, horror` factor:

"Ever since Caligula in 1980 - a movie so blue Oscar-winner Helen Mirren refuses to talk about it..."

Er... except on the full-length 156-minute feature commentary she provided for the most recent DVD release of `Caligula`. I`ve been good enough to post a comment pointing this out. Anyone fancy a wager on whether or not it gets published?

MichaelG    [26534.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 02:52] View Near Messages
Apologies if I seem to be hogging this forum at present, but fucking hell, is there something in the water supply at the moment that has the nutters crawling from the woodwork and foaming at the mouth?

Firstly, Vivienne Pattison needs to get herself a new catchphrase. This "is it worth the risk?" malarky is already becoming mighty tiresome.

"There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence on TV with violent behaviour at large and if there is the slightest possibility that explicit sex and violence on screen can cause this harm, is it worth the risk in the interests of entertainment?"

OK, once again, where are these studies and what is the harm? We`re all waiting...

I despair. It`s getting like a recurring nightmare from which you can`t wake up. Entertainment, civil liberties, the internet, private correspondence, private sexual practices - EVERYTHING seems now to be under constant scrutiny, subject to constant criticism by anyone and everyone and there`s not a day goes by when someone, somewhere, who has little or no business or interest in that which they condemn, howling for something to be banned or criminalised.

And just when you think things can`t get any worse, you get two so-called Liberal Democrat peers (oh, the irony!), proposing state filtering of the internet. Well thanks for `protecting` me, but please just fuck off. If I wanted this sort of shit I`d go and live in China or Iran.

I fully realise that fascist, draconian bollox coming from the mouths of someone supposedly standing for Liberty and Democracy (if you take the party name as representative of their basic ideals) is nothing new - I`ll never forget the self-motivated machinations of that twat David Alton after the Bulger case. But seriously, where does this news now leave people like us, who believe in individual rights and freedoms? Even the fucking Lib Dems can no longer be trusted not to attempt to implement legislation which would be better suited to a Communist regime if they attain power. I`m still going ahead with a tactical vote in an attempt to remove the Scottish Communist Occupation Force when (and if) the election comes, but the future is looking far from bright, pretty much whatever happens.

I guess when the situation looks as bleak as it does, the only thing left is to laugh about it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254697/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Browns-Britain-2015-Queen-fled.html

Then again, this is so spot on, it`s actually terrifying...

MichaelG    [26533.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 23:30] View Near Messages
The brutal clampdown on human sexuality continues:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254912/Sex-dungeon-discovered-sleepy-village.html

"Officers were alerted after neighbours reported `unusual behaviour` and `strange sounds` coming from the four-bedroom semi in Lee Mill, Devon.

Police arrived with battering rams to raid the home..."

So, no suspected guns or drugs, but plod arrives armed with a battering ram after a few `strange sounds` and a bit of `unusual behaviour` are reported.

"It`s fair to say we were not expecting to find a masochistic dungeon in sleepy Lee Mill. You don`t expect to find this sort of thing anywhere." - Detective Sergeant Stuart Gilroy

Really? Clearly not a copper with much policing or life experience, I`d say.

"One neighbour said: `It might sound funny but to be honest we are nervous about the place... I`ve seen traffic jams caused by people trying to go there. It`s disgusting. We just want them out and have a nice family move in."

I know, traffic jams are terrible. I find them `disgusting` too, especially when you`re stuck in one yourself(!).

You know, I wish we could, once and for all, get the law cleared up in this country so everyone is in absolutely no doubt as to what is illegal and what isn`t in terms of an individuals private sexual practices. To be honest, there shouldn`t be ANY legislation dictating rules to consenting adults who want to play with each other to in private (and make no mistake, this IS in private, despite what the curtain-twitching cunts who live in this `sleepy village` seem to think).

What`s most disturbing here is that three people have been arrested after reports of `comings and goings` (no pun intended) and `strange noises`. No-one seems to know what they`ve been arrested for, and they have been bailed while police carry out `further enquiries`, which likely means they need some time to string some shit together which they can attempt to make stick. My guess is that the only line the filth can take here is attempting to pin the `brothel` tag on the place, as it`s almost certain that money would have been changing hands here. My guess, though, is that as this is a BDSM establishment, it`s unlikely there`d be any real sexual activity taking place. So, how can you charge someone with running a brothel if no-one is having sex there?

Once again, the BDSM Community feel the bite of the law. If this was some kind of gay sex club, I doubt plod would have touched with a bargepole - whether money was changing hands or not.

I`m beginning to think that reading the Daily Mail is some kind of masochistic experience. Perhaps I`m suffering from something along the lines of `Mary Whitehouse Syndrome`. I know I`m going to be appalled and outraged when I look at the site, but somehow I just don`t seem to be able to stop myself...

MichaelG    [26532.   Posted 2-Mar-2010 Tue 22:49] View Near Messages
Re: Melon Farmers (Dave) [26528]:

"Just supposing these loons somehow got their way and eliminated sexuality and body image issues.

So that everyone was judged on the merits of their minds...."

Judging from some of the minds these loons are in possession of (if indeed they do possess anything in this field at all), then they want to pray this never happens...

MichaelG    [26522.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 23:11] View Near Messages
Hands up anyone else who saw this one coming:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1254384/Jonathan-Rosss-wife-Jane-Goldman-causes-outrage-film-featuring-foul-mouthed-11-year-old-assassin.html

Both Total Film and Impact magazines this month warned everyone to steel themselves for the inevitable media backlash. Naturally, the Mail would have to be leading the charge. So handy for them that one of their favourite targets is linked, albeit indirectly, to `Kick-Ass` - as Jonathan Ross`s wife Jane Goldman was the writer of the movie.

"Frank Furedi, professor of sociology at Kent University, criticised the film industry for not distinguishing between what is suitable for children and adults.

‘This promotes the idea that infantilising adulthood is okay and that we are no longer expected to draw lines between us and kids,’ he said."

God , they`ve really got the bit between their teeth with the `let`s protect the children` argument at the moment, haven`t they?

"Isn’t there a limit to what we can ask children to do on screen?"

Funnily enough, I was actually reading an interview in Impact magazine with Chloe Moretz, the 13 year-old American actress who plays Hit Girl in `Kick-Ass`. Her mum chaperones her everywhere and helps her pick roles. Chloe herself seems very down-to-earth and also seems to have a good grasp the themes of the film. Most importantly, she demonstrates a wisdom beyond her years and a clear understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality that would put most Daily Mail journos and sociology professors to shame. On her use of the `c` word, she stated that she would never use, or be allowed to use, such a word in real-life, stating that she would be "grounded for years".

I kind of wish the BBFC had made this an `18`, but thinking about it, it`s not the certification that the nutters seem to have a problem with.

I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website.
I must stop reading the Daily Mail website......

MichaelG    [26519.   Posted 28-Feb-2010 Sun 00:42] View Near Messages
Must. Stop. Reading. Daily. Mail. Website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254248/PETER-HITCHENS-More-sex-education-means-teenage-pregnancies--always.html

It`s little wonder we`re plunging headlong back into some kind of sexual dark age when we have fucking pea-brained, moralising twerps like this who are so horrified by anything to do wih sex that they refer to sex education as `smut`. Let`s just keep kids in the dark about sex, let them make their own mistakes and fuck up their lives. Or better still, like Hitchins and Liz Jones, let`s terrify them into thinking that it`s `dirty`, that they should be ashamed of even thinking or talking about it. Let`s make them deeply afraid of their own bodies and sexuality.

Why can`t people see that it`s attitudes like this, at which most of the rest of Europe must be pissing themselves with laughter, which leads us to have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe?

Moving on, but just down a few lines to this worthless individual`s opinion of Tim Burton`s new version of `Alice In Wonderland`, I find my piss fermenting itself into pure sulphric acid yet again:

"The serial weirdo Tim Burton has instead been let loose on this classic, and appears to have turned it into ‘Willy Wonka meets The Lord Of The Rings’."

So, an undoubted creative genius whose films have won awards and constantly dazzle their audiences with surreal, wildly original premises and imagery is simply a `serial weirdo`. How kind. Clearly there is no room for originality or quirkiness in Hitchins super-orderly, sterile, fun-free world. He`d get on so well with Martin Salter - they could rant about `weird people` to each other till the cows come home.

"Who needs this? Does anyone really want to see it?"

No-one `needs` movies - they`re simply there to entertain. And I really want to see it, as it happens. So fuck off, you moronic, tiny-minded, poisonous, fascist prick. No one is dragging you to a cinema with your arm up your back, forcing you to watch it...

MichaelG    [26516.   Posted 27-Feb-2010 Sat 01:11] View Near Messages
Looks like `The New Puritans` are completely locked on to a new target:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1254145/LIZ-JONES-How-pop-porn.html

It`s a bit rich Liz Jones accusing male music video directors of a lack of originality when all we seem to get from her and her Mail cohorts are bullshit pieces like this which seek to add to the stifling repression of living under CommuNuLabour in 21st Century Britain.

"Common themes? ...Girls lying prone, and who look as though they have been or are about to be raped."

Have I missed something (again)? This is a new one on me.

"Women filmed in dark, wet alleyways, inevitably dressed as prostitutes"

How, pray tell, is a prostitute supposed to dress? Especially these days I imagine it`s not something that girls who do this for a living want to scream from the rooftops.

"This is because parents are powerless to police all these images and their dangerous messages. MTV - which pumps this stuff out all day long - and You Tube are just too powerful."

What exactly is the danger?

"As well as a moratorium on sexually explicit videos on television, stricter measures need to be introduced as to what can be viewed by children on the internet, because the safeguards are laughable."

Here we go again. Tell you what, why not just put fucking Mandelson in charge with his `Digital Economy Bill`, so we can not only enjoy Chinese-style government filtering of material right here in the UK, but also allow this reptilian creep to elevate himself to the level where he is in a position to ingratiate himself still further with his rich, gay American entertainment mogul mates? (Come on Liz, I thought the Mail was supposed to be a Tory paper!).

"When I asked Shakira, the Latin American superstar, how she can square being sexy, wearing skimpy clothes, with her charitable work championing children in the developing world..."

Oh please. Shakira is known worldwide as a beautiful, sexy, powerful and rich woman. Her fame, largely attributable to this, allows her to do charitable work to help underprivileged kids. I don`t see Liz Jones contributing much in this respect, but she`s quite prepared to have a pop at someone else`s supposed hypocritical methodology for doing a good deed. What a fucking dreadful bag. And what is so wrong with `being sexy`?

The nonsense continues:

"These days, Madonna`s early videos seem positively quaint. Even the Spice Girls were preferable to what we have on offer today: at least they sang about power."

`Justify My Love` seems quaint sat next to a Shakira or Beyoncé video? The Spice Girls sang about `Girl Power` but they still wore revealing outfits, and did any of them have the first idea what the notion of `Girl Power` was actually all about? Beyoncé, going from her music, seems to have a much more coherent idea about independence (she even did a song called `Independent Women` for fuck`s sake).

"Where are the Carole Kings, the Tracy Chapmans, even the Bjorks of today?"

Er... Florence and the Machine, La Roux, The Dead Weather, Goldfrapp, Little Boots, The Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Right under your nose, actually. perhaps if you took your head out of your own arse for five minutes, you might be able to see some of them.

It`s no wonder CommuNuLabour really get the bit between their teeth when it comes to repressive new legislation when they`re justified and supported by chin-stroking, moralising nodding-dogs like this, who have a national platform from which to broadcast their narrow-minded, prudish and illiberal nonsense. I`m going to have to stop looking at The Mail`s website. It just makes me angry.

MichaelG    [26512.   Posted 25-Feb-2010 Thu 23:55] View Near Messages
`The New Puritanism` continues unabated:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253831/Explicit-pop-videos-banned-9pm-watershed.html

`Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos said videos of women in skimpy outfits that turn them into `decorative objects` were unsuitable before 9pm.`

`She added that the placing of jobcentre adverts for lap dancers could lead to the `normalisation` of the trade as a `viable career choice` and should be banned.`

`Photographs of airbrushed models should carry a rating to show how much they have been touched up, while the use of models who appear to look under-age to advertise products in a sexual way was also criticised.`

`The trend for sexy children`s toys should end, she warned, singling out Bratz dolls in fishnets.`


You know, if this load of 22-carat shite is so important to the `healthy development` of children, how come we`ve managed without it up until now?

It makes me feel as though I could piss a hole in sheet metal knowing that this worthless piece of shit report has been commissioned by this even more purposeless government and paid for out of taxpayers money.

`She said: `I want my little girl, indeed, all girls and boys, to grow up confident about who they are and about finding and expressing their individuality and sexuality, but not through imposed gender stereotypes or in a way that objectifies the body or commodifies their burgeoning sexuality.`

You know, I`m going to be a dad in around 4 weeks. I want my little boy or girl to grow up confident about who they are and about finding and expressing their individuality and sexuality. I don`t want them to be so brainwashed by claptrap like this that they end up being ashamed of themselves every time they look at their bodies or think about sex. I don`t want them to feel afraid of erotically stimulating images, or end up thinking that anything to do with the human body is `dirty`.

The only thing Papadopoulos missed was that we should all be wearing burkhas, sex outside of marriage should be punishable by stoning to death and piano legs should be covered up. But no doubt that will all be covered in her next report.

I feel like buying this stupid moo a one-way ticket to Iran...

MichaelG    [26500.   Posted 22-Feb-2010 Mon 12:28] View Near Messages
Looks like we have another case of Mary Whitehouse Syndrome on our hands:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1252786/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Bafta-fawns-Tarantino-But-stomach-churning-film-giving-nightmares.html

Does anyone in the western world these days actually not understand what they`re getting into when they sit down to watch a Tarantino movie? Apparently not, and even though this silly twat was warned with a `V for Violence` before the film, she still chose to sit through it. If she has such a nervous disposition as to actually have nightmares after watching a violent movie, you`d have thought that she`d give this sort of stuff a wide berth.

Not when she has a column to write, apparently.

"True, they had a `V` for violence warning in the airline entertainment guide. But this also suggested that these were high-quality, well-reviewed films."

Er... they were, going from the talent involved and the reviews from PROPER film critics (i.e. not the pathetic, lily-livered, perpetually-offended, shrinking violets who make up the film review team at the Mail).

"There was no indication of quite how disturbing were the images I was about to see."

Apart from Tarantino`s worldwide infamy and... er, the `V for Violence` warning(!). And if it was that offensive and disturbing, why did she feel the need to sit through ALL of it, then ALL of another violent movie immediately afterwards?

"But this isn`t how such films work on people`s psyche. Their main danger is that they have in general a desensitising or brutalising effect - and may indeed inspire a few disturbed individuals to commit acts of violence themselves."

A `main danger` we still need to see actual proof of, despite being almost 40 years on from similar accusations being levelled at Kubrick`s `A Clockwork Orange` upon it`s 1972 release.

"Next time I fly, I`ll stick to a book."

We live in hope. Perhaps then, we won`t have to read another piece of poisonous, directionless, anti-cinema drivel like this. Somehow, though, I very much doubt it - as the thrill of being appalled, even though they know perfectly well what`s coming, is clearly just too great for some people to resist.

MichaelG    [26488.   Posted 18-Feb-2010 Thu 11:32] View Near Messages
Re: Extreme Piercing...

I knew it was only a matter of time before this vile law started to be twisted and abused. It`s not enough to do this guy for the bestiality imagery, for which it sounds like they had him bang to rights. No, they have to start trying to twist the wording of the legislation and the facts of the case to try and get the two to conveniently fit together, just so they can stick it up the accused just that little bit further.

The law says:

`An act which threatens a persons life;
An act which results in or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breast or genitals;`

It does not fucking say anything about "likely to cause injury to body parts"!!! Six reasonably firm strokes with a cane will do that, admittedly not `serious` injury, but that little adjective seems to have been conveniently left out of this case. Are we now to assume that spanking movies are all going to be outlawed? Or any stuff which depicts even minor injury?

Also, is it now going to be a simple as dropping in the words `extreme` or `severe` in there to justify prosecution? How do you judge `extreme` or `severe`? And as phantom rightly points out, bondage in itself does not constitute anything life-threatening or likely to cause serious injury. Bondage is usually carried out by someone with a reasonable amount of experience in its application, therefore they know precisely how to bind someone without putting them in danger.

As for `extreme` piercing, isn`t having the clitoris pierced quite `extreme`? I hope to God it was something more serious than this.

What really irks me here is this idiotic statement from the judge "These are serious offences because the making of images of these sort must be discouraged."

What utter tosh!!! WHY must the making of such images be discouraged when, going from the description, they don`t actually seem (apart from the bestiality), to be in contravention of the DPA as it stands? W-H-Y must the making of such images be discouraged when we supposedly live in a free country where such sexual practices are not illegal and sexual minority groups are SUPPOSED to be protected from persecution and discrimination by the law?

Even more of a piss boiler is this:

"Laura Plant, prosecuting, told the court that the man had in his possession both still and moving images downloaded from the internet. She added: It`s mostly horses and dogs I`m told..."

TOLD?!?!?!?!? So the prosecution haven`t even seen the fucking evidence? What kind of a joke shop has the UK legal system become when you can mount a prosecution without seeing the evidence?

I absolutely despair. Martin Salter should be tarred and feathered for making this possible, the rotten, scruffy cunt...

MichaelG    [26481.   Posted 17-Feb-2010 Wed 00:24] View Near Messages
Take cover, everyone, Vernon`s back!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1251531/Underage-drinking-bigger-problem-white-middle-class-families.html

Everyone`s favourite political blunt instrument has now been made the Schools Minister... God help us.

`The widespread adoption of European drinking attitudes across Middle England will dismay the Government.`

Er... the Europeans don`t have the alcohol-related problems we have over here, so why is this such an issue?

Ahh, of course. It`s the white, middle classes, isn`t it? The root of all evil as far as CommuNuLabour are concerned...

MichaelG    [26472.   Posted 14-Feb-2010 Sun 12:13] View Near Messages
Re: Synod in a Fantasy World...

It shows just how little the General synod know about videogames when the recent release `Dante`s Inferno` was conspicuous in its absence from their irrelevant, directionless and utterly futile little tirade this week.

I`m playing this at the moment and it`s chock full of material guaranteed to twist the knickers of your average God-botherer; nudity, insane levels of violence and gore, demons, apocalyptic and disturbing visions of hell, plus a religious undercurrent. Yet somehow, they missed it. Shame.

Re: Small Ads and the Small Minded...

I knew Harman and Baird couldn`t leave this issue alone for more than five minutes. I can`t wait for the day when they can no longer play with the law like it`s their own personal train set. Not long now. They clearly don`t give a fiddler`s fuck about even trying to win the election with timewasting, repressive, hateful bilge like this being their only pursuit.

Once again, it shows a staggering lack of knowledge about the inside workings of the UK sex industry that they think that banning newsapaper ads is going to make the slightest difference. It may have the effect of making the Daily Sport bankrupt (more sterling work in times of recession, well done girls, if this actually happens), but other than that, I can see their latest actions being about as potent as a fart in a wind tunnel.

Even as an outsider, it isn`t hard to tell that most sex-for-money transactions are made possible via the internet. Maybe Harman should try gettting Punternet banned first... oh no, I forgot, she`s already tried that, hasn`t she? Hahahahaahahahhaaha....

I can`t wait to see the back of these retarded harridans in the Spring. Hopefully then their campaign against heterosexual male sexual freedoms will be limited to placard waving outside seedy establishments in the pouring rain. Which is about as far as it should ever have gotten in the first place...

MichaelG    [26467.   Posted 12-Feb-2010 Fri 09:51] View Near Messages
Re: Synod in a Fantasy World...

Er, pardon me for asking, but what the fuck have videogames got to do with the Church of England?

"Why is it acceptable, indeed lawful, to portray the killing and burning of a woman in Fatality, the sawing up of a woman in Mortal Combat, playing football with severed heads; the chainsaw killing of a man in Saw III, rape, torture and so on? I have all these terrible games collected and if anyone has the courage to watch it, please do so."

Didn`t know there was a Saw III videogame???

"We are in a great muddle over regulation and the cost… can be seen in the rising crime statistics year by year. To control this material by expecting parents to control their children with warnings is like King Canute`s performance with his waves. This is not just a matter of conscience and morality. It`s a public health and an economic issue."

Great. Another fucking idiot who cannot comprehend a simple age ratings system. The only muddle is in the minds of pea-brained, hand-wringing cunts like this. I know what an `18` cert means on a videogame cover - can someone please tell me how this is so fucking complicated?

And no, the cost CANNOT be seen in rising crime statistics. That`s to do with the Communist Party turning the law into a sick joke where violent criminals have more rights than their victims, bolloxing up the economy and plunging more people into poverty which leads to more crime and also handing out Visas to violent foreign criminals without proper background checks, to name but a few of the myriad of REAL reasons for violent crime in society being on the rise.

As for being a "...public health and an economic issue," show us some fucking evidence that videogames are a health hazard and we might start taking these ludicrous accusations seriously. But yes, it IS an economic issue - start banning adult themed games and watch the booming UK games software industry suddenly take a nosedive and all the talented developers piss off to America or the Far East where their work is better received. Precisely what we need in a recession, you stupid, God-bothering prick.

And the day a representative of the church is qualified to lecture us on economic issues, when all they have done over the years is steal and hoard wealth which isn`t theirs, is probably the same day I`ll go ice-skating in hell, my arrival heralded by a squadron of flying pigs in a neat `V` formation. I`d sooner be turning to Dick Turpin for his opinion.

Perhaps it`s time for us gamers to be asking the church why they are so preoccupied with fictional violence with no proven effects in terms of influencing real-life violent behaviour when their own brands of brainwashing poison have led to real murder, rape, torture, hatred and violence for thousands of years...

MichaelG    [26463.   Posted 9-Feb-2010 Tue 14:47] View Near Messages
Oh, the irony!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249590/Admirers-Harriet-Harman-Rear-Year-bid.html

The fact that Harman is packing something behind her that looks like it should be bringing up the rear of a policeman`s horse notwithstanding, this is so funny on so many different levels.

Is it an attempt to wind her up? If she wins, she will be the victim of rampant sexism, which will be pant-wettingly funny as it`s going to have the effect of boiling her piss into something resembling pure, undiluted suphuric acid in about 5 seconds flat. Or could it be a dig at her... well, just generally making a complete arse of herself on a daily basis?

Who knows, but methinks someone is having a laugh at this horrible bag`s expense. Either way, come around May-time, it`s going to be a case of "Harriet `love`, I`m dying to see you go, but I`d really rather not watch you leave, if it`s all the same to you..."

MichaelG    [26459.   Posted 7-Feb-2010 Sun 02:06] View Near Messages
Is it just me, or could this be one of the nuttiest, most pointless articles the Daily (Hate) Mail have ever produced?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1249017/LIZ-JONES-Honour-killings-What-weve-young-Emma-just-shameful.html

In what kind of deranged parallel universe can a success story like that of Emma Watson be likened to an innocent girl being murdered in some backward Islamic shithole? What a sick and twisted mind Liz Jones must truly have.

Couldn`t help posting a comment, not optimistic about it getting published, so here it is:

`This is perhaps the barmiest piece of journalism I`ve ever read.

Emma Watson is rich, beautiful and successful. Much of this is not what `we` have done to her, but what she has managed to do for herself. She seems confident, smart and very much unspoiled by her success.

How then, can her story be compared to that of a girl buried alive by her own family because of the backward, hateful ideals imposed by their religion?

This has EVERYTHING to do with Islam (I don`t see teenage girls in non-Islamic countries being scarred with acid or buried alive for bringing `shame` on their families, do you?) and absolutely nothing to do with `our cult of worshipping only women who are barely adolescent`, a situation which seems to exist solely in the mind of this particular journalist.

It might also be worth pointing out that Emma Watson is actually coming up to 20 years old. Not exactly an `adolescent` any more, is she?`

MichaelG    [26444.   Posted 3-Feb-2010 Wed 23:58] View Near Messages
sergio, any more details on this?

MichaelG    [26440.   Posted 2-Feb-2010 Tue 00:07] View Near Messages
Re: Dave and Ian G:

Never liked Ian Duncan Smith anyway, so this comes as no surprise.

"We are driving children to lose their childhood, and some video games are incredibly violent, like Grand Theft Auto. They are meant to be 18 but nobody cares what it says on the label.”

Another broadly sweeping statement - "nobody cares". How the fuck does he know? And what`s the answer? Ban every game with an `18` certificate?

Worryingly, `Call me Dave` has big plans, it would seem, for Smith:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/31/david-cameron-plans-iain-duncan-smith-comeback-115875-22007662/

Putting a prick with ideas like this in charge of `Social Justice` does give serious cause for concern.

As to the alcohol problem, Smith`s genius connection between the price of alcohol and consumption (did you work that one out all by yourself or did Mummy help you?) indicates clearly that he thinks a huge hike in prices is the answer. Which, if it actually works, and doesn`t have the gun-to-the-foot outcome of sending the wanna-get-wasted generation out in search of cheaper, less legal means of getting off their tits, is going to mean:

Less people buying alcohol = less revenue for the government

Just as well Duncan Smith isn`t going for the Chancellor`s job.

Also, if he seriously thinks ANYONE in Westminster has even the slightest concern about upsetting the electorate, then, pray tell, where the fuck has he been for the last 13 years? In that time, CommuNuLabour have displayed nothing but utter contempt for the people of this country by hammering us with nasty, unnecessary, repressive legislation at every hastily-grasped opportunity. He`s obviously observed absolutely nothing and learned even less from the appalling example set by fist-clunking morons like Brown.

Clearly Smith, like so many other politicians, is far too lazy to try and get to the root cause of WHY people seem to want to drink so heavily in Britain. My guess is that it`s at least partially attributable to his kind spending the last 30 or 40 years dreaming up new ways to make life intolerably shit for everyone.

You could reverse much of this `binge-drinking` culture very easily if you had half a brain (which would be half more than Duncan Smith seems to be in possession of) and a little bit of courage to take a hard line with the irresponsible morons who threaten our freedoms with their idiotic behaviour. Simply raise fines for being drunk and disorderly, increase prison sentences and fines for violent drunken behaviour, stop people being able to cash giros in pubs, reduce opening hours and make people pay their own medical bills for alcohol-related illness/injuries. The answer`s not in prohibiting anything or penalising the vast numbers of responsible drinkers in sweeping, across-the-board price rises. It lies in reversing the current CommuNuLabour, nanny-state created mentality where people no longer seem interested in being responsible for their own actions or behaviour.

As for "They are meant to be 18 but nobody cares what it says on the label" with regard to videogames, it`d be simpler and more effective than banning things if you MADE people care what it says on the label. If Sharon from Doncaster feels compelled to buy her little 10 year-old Liam GTA just to keep him quiet, then slap her with a £1,000 fine. Harsh? Maybe, but it means the rest of us who actually do take notice of age ratings don`t have to suffer because of stupid, feckless, irresponsible cunts like this.

I was going to vote Conservative just to use my vote in the best possible way to ensure a thumping defeat for this unelected Scottish oaf, but with the likes of Brazier and Duncan Smith making up the numbers, I`m really not so sure it`s a good idea.

Then again, what`s the alternative?

MichaelG    [26436.   Posted 27-Jan-2010 Wed 13:37] View Near Messages
Re: emark [26435]:

Couldn`t pass this opportunity up without posting a comment on the site, here`s what I posted, but I have doubts as to whether it`ll be published:

`A perfect summing up of this wretched individual that he a) thinks that people are going to be impressed by an MP (a supposed public servant) name -dropping his `celebrity` friends at the first opportunity, and b) that a name like Trisha`s is actually worth dropping in the first place.

A nauseating creep of the highest order. I look forward to this forthcoming General Election for any number of reasons, but one of the first and foremost is that I never have to set eyes on this hateful, intolerant, ridiculously-barnetted, gurning cretin again once it is over.

By the way, I`m one of those harmless `weird people` (Salter`s words, not mine) who is into mild BDSM and horror movies, who is still unsure as to whether his very lifestyle has been threatened with criminalisation by the ludicrous misfire that is the Dangerous Pictures Act, which the pig-ignorant Salter campaigned so hard for without a clue as to it`s implications.

He can rot in hell, as far as I`m concerned...`

Get some of that, you scruffy, self-important, fascist twat!

I`m sure the comment will be deemed `offensive` or `inappropriate` by the moderators, but I`d like to know who was `moderating` this rotten cunt`s behaviour when he decided to abuse the law by twisting it in an attempt to criminalise people whose sexuality his tiny, pea-like mind couldn`t come to terms with...

I wouldn`t trust him to stack the shelves in my local Somerfield, the cunt...

MichaelG    [26433.   Posted 25-Jan-2010 Mon 15:01] View Near Messages
Re: IanG [26432] & Unsafe Research:

I find it staggering that a pedantic fuckpuppet like Tongren is given column space for his `findings` in a national newsapaper when to any normal human being over 4 years old possessing half a working brain would be able to tell you that imitating anything you see in a movie could well result in serious injury.

Meanwhile, as we sit and debate how accurate depictions of the potential consequences of a disregard for ludicrous contemporary `Elf` and Safety (sorry) policies are, another 400 people lose their lives in Nigeria as a result of the absolute nemesis of civilised behaviour - `organised` religion - rearing it`s fuck-ugly head to cause division, intolerance, pain, violence, suffering and mass loss of life YET AGAIN!!!

When the hell are we going to wake up, grow up and identify the real problems which plague societies the world over and, more importantly, leave this barbaric, childish, poisonous drivel back in the Middle Ages where it belongs?

MichaelG    [26409.   Posted 14-Jan-2010 Thu 12:48] View Near Messages
Re: Shaun [26405]:

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

I wasn`t talking about censorship, I was talking about age restriction. It`s two entirely different things. The reason I`m relatively comfortable with age rating is that it gives the pro-censorship lobby less ammo for the case of banning everything or cutting our entertainment to pieces (`protect the children` - it`s always their first line of attack).

I`m not disputing that Dismore is doing this to make a name for himself - he`s not the first and he certainly won`t be the last. But at least he`s not howling for things to be taken out of circulation completely (remember David Alton - ALL `18` cert videos to be banned after the Bulger case?).

And, if an 18 certificate on `Modern Warfare 2`, `Texas Chainsaw Massacre` or `Antichrist` means that adults are free to view them uncensored, then I don`t have a problem with that. It`s better than the alternative. Or have you forgotten the dark days of James Ferman?

MichaelG    [26404.   Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 23:44] View Near Messages
Oh, and here`s a big fucking surprise...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243002/MPs-want-cut-jail-population--putting-28-000-offenders-streets.html

Thanks in no small part to the 3,600 or so brand new criminal offences CommuNuLabour have imposed upon us over the last decade or so, we are now on course to have the the highest incarceration rate in western Europe by 2014.

Makes you proud to be British, doesn`t it?

MichaelG    [26403.   Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 23:36] View Near Messages
Re: Shaun

Despite Dismore`s resemblance to a nazi extra from `Allo` Allo, I do think that age rating anything which has sexual or violent material in it isn`t such a bad move. It gives less ammunition to rather more worrysome Tory colleagues like Julian Brazier who, given half the chance, would likely press for all such things to be banned outright.

Certainly I feel that UFC material should be age rated, especially when far less violent and less easily imitated fictional fight scenes in, say, Jackie Chan`s `Dragon Lord` are deemed as only suitable for people over the age of 18.

I reserve judgement on your `Hobson`s Choice` statement though, at least for now. I`m inclined to agree, as I think Cameron`s lot are far from perfect (the worst excesses of the expenses scandal were still perpetrated by members of his party, and let`s not forget that aforementioned cretin Brazier still occupies space on their benches), but surely now, after years of Marxist fist-clunking and utterly ruinous governance, just about ANYTHING must be better than what we have at the moment.

Re: Vaz (again!):

Has Vaz actually read the Byron report? From what I remember, the recommendations merely stated that there should be clear age ratings on videogames (which there already are, and have been for several years). I don`t seem to remember anything about great big, fuck-off Government Health Warnings emblazoned all over the cover at a size which obliterates all other information, including the game title and the name of the developer.

Is it therefore surprising that software companies aren`t giving Vaz their full support? Would you spend millions developing a project which you couldn`t properly promote because you were forced to cover up your fabulous sleeve artwork with doom-laden warnings about the utterly mythical dangers to people`s health that your product may pose?

Also, in order to warrant such a warning label, it have to be PROVEN that videogames are harmful. There`s no disputing the fact that persistent and sustained tobacco smoking can be, and frequently is, fatally harmful. Videogames on the other hand, well... let`s just say evidence is somewhat thin on the ground. Vaz is never specific about HOW games can actually be bad for you, which speaks volumes.

"There has been a huge leap forward since I first took up this issue, along with others, after young Stefan Pakeerah, from Leicester, was stabbed to death in a park in Leicester in circumstances similar to those found in a video game watched by his killer, Warren Leblanc. I know that the judge in that case said that there was no connection, but the mother of the young boy stabbed to death felt very strongly that there was."

So, the judge`s evidence-based conclusions, arising from police findings which revealed that the owner of the game was actually Stefan Pakeerah and not his killer, are worthless in the face of nothing more than the feelings of a hysterical, grieving parent mourning the death of one of her children. A parent who, quite frankly, should have been paying more attention to the type of material she allowed her son free access to.

It`s getting like fucking `Groundhog Day` this is. How many times must Vaz be told the truth about this case before it actually starts to sink in? How many times has he completely failed to grasp the very basic concept of age ratings on games? And why, in God`s name, are people with obvious mental health problems allowed into such lofty positions of power?

MichaelG    [26400.   Posted 13-Jan-2010 Wed 13:08] View Near Messages
Re: Video Recordings Bill & Keith Vaz...

I pray that the general election will have the effect of making this nauseating little creep disappear from our lives for ever.

`Tireless advocate`? I think `tiresome` is the word. Surely even his fist-clunking colleagues must be utterly sick of hearing this monotonous drivel by now.

"One of the concerns is that when people buy video games, there is not sufficient notice on those games that they have adult content".

Has he seen the fucking size of age ratings on video games these days? Obviously not.

"Players shoot and stab people in a video game, and that is different."

No, Keith, people shoot and stab PIXELS in a video game. and that, I think you`ll find, is completely different.

Now for the real side-splitter:

"...there were some very interesting comments from the Front Benches about their commitment to ensuring that the thriving and innovative video games industry in the United Kingdom, and particularly in London, survives. I am not against what is being proposed, and I have never been in favour of censorship; I have always been very clear that those who are aged 18-plus should be able to buy and watch whatever video games they want."

BUT...

"If a young person gets hold of Modern Warfare 2, for example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the game. That is why the Russian Government have banned Modern Warfare 2; they felt that in an age when we are trying to educate our children about the need to understand the dangers of extreme violence, we should not place in their hands, under the guise of entertainment, games that allow them to act in a violent way."

So, adults should be able to play or watch whatever they want and Vaz is against censorship, yet he whinged incessantly (and still is) about Manhunt, applauded the BBFC for banning the sequel and here applauds the Russian stance on banning Modern Warfare 2?!?!? WTF?!?!?

Still, interesting to learn that Vaz has got two children. He`s never mentioned that before - LOL!!!

MichaelG    [26357.   Posted 27-Dec-2009 Sun 09:56] View Near Messages
Looks like just the usual bellyaching, sergio.

Never mind, if anyone is feeling a little down with the onset of the post-Chritmas blues, this should cheer you up. I certainly got a chuckle out of it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1238620/Straw-leads-Labour-Fearless-Five-want-Brown-ousted-Election--Mandelson-sulks-arch-rival-Balls-increases-influence-PM.html

`The Fearless Five`, eh? Pardon me, I think I`ve just pissed myself. Straw, Harman, Miliband, Darling and Johnson - `Fearless`?!?!!?

`Feckless` would be a more fitting alliterative adjective I think.

Seriously, if this lot are the cream of the political crop, CommuNuLabour are in more trouble than we thought...

MichaelG    [26355.   Posted 24-Dec-2009 Thu 05:44] View Near Messages
Re: Me [26354]:

Just as I thought.

MichaelG    [26354.   Posted 23-Dec-2009 Wed 08:35] View Near Messages
Re: Shaun [26353]:

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

Perhaps, Shaun, but I doubt it. More likely sergio`s post before it was amended sent him running for the hills (or his mum). He`s probably unlikely to return now. Good in a way, because I`ve yet to meet one of the pro-censorship kind who are actually able to see the other person`s point of view - it`s always their way or nowt at all. The `off` button on the remote is never enough for these people; they want whatever it is that offends them out of circulation completely.

Initially, I thought Mr. Average may be different, owing to the fact that he claimed he just wanted to be made aware of which comedians used expletives or blasphemy and which didn`t, suggesting to me that he didn`t mind someone turning the air blue as long as he didn`t have to listen to it. Which would have been perfectly acceptable. However, this kind of gave it away:

"But most of your contributors seem hell-bent of destroying any morality, any standards in the life of our society."

He`s been upset by the swearing on the site, bless him. Again, that would have been fine - just log off and don`t come back if it upsets you. But no, he couldn`t help himself, he just had to post and have a pop at us for "destroying morality".

As I said in my response, morality and standards are self-set and, to any other individual, quite intangible. I`d love Mr. Average to return and tell us precisely why he thinks that WE, the established posters on an anti-censorship website, should conform to HIS prudish standards.

Come on, Mr. Average, I won`t swear again till after Xmas, I promise! I invite you to prove me wrong and show us all on here that you are capable of seeing someone else`s point of view and are able to engage in rational, intelligent debate with an open mind...

MichaelG    [26351.   Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 10:40] View Near Messages
The irony is that Mr. Average has likely given himself that name because he, like John Beyer in his time, has deluded himself into thinking he represents the man in the street, and his frankly prudish views on swearing are commonplace.

Mr Below Average might be nearer the mark...

MichaelG    [26347.   Posted 22-Dec-2009 Tue 02:37] View Near Messages
Mr Average [26342]:

Without meaning to be in the least bit facetious or patronising, perhaps your needs would be better catered for here:

http://www.mediawatchuk.org.uk/

They have a whole section devoted to swearing in the media, so I`m sure that any comedians who are a bit hard and fast with the expletives will get a mention, giving you the heads-up you seek. They even tally up swear words on TV programs for everyone... now then, what were you saying about `sad`?

In case you hadn`t noticed, this is an ANTI-CENSORSHIP website. So unless you`re looking for an argument or are trying to wind people up, it`s a bit pointless posting on here bemoaning the fact that your fellow posters are a little more tolerant about the use of foul language, or a little more liberal in their own use of it than yourself.

And for the record, no-one is trying to tear down anyone or anything on this site. Sure, we may rant, rave and use foul language on occasion. What`s most upsetting is that you have little interest in the serious issues discussed on here, like this government wishing to imprison innocent people for whatever reason they`ve manage to come up with this week, or certain politicians creating harmful legislation just to satisfy their own agendas or publicise themselves. You get upset over a handful of words, but don`t seem to care a jot about liberty or individual freedoms.

Now that`s sad.

As for morality, well, you have yours and I have mine, and both are self-determined. We still live in a free country (just about). I don`t wish to destroy anyone else`s morality or standards - each to their own. However, I don`t want my own morality or standards dictated by someone else - I`m more than capable of finding my own `happy place` for myself. I feel you don`t want your morality dictated by others either - you`ve got your own stance totally worked out. Why is it that your standards, your morality, is of more importance than mine? Why is it you feel you must be catered for by the media, whereas myself, who finds certain uses of bad language in the right context quite amusing, should have to endure censorship simply because of your sensibilities?

You might want to stop reading here, because my next topic is about to make me swear. However, without wishing to offend, I will, just this once, blank out my expletives, just in the hope of spreading a bit of festive tolerance and understanding. You never know, some of it might rub off on you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237470/Priest-advises-congregation-shoplift.html

Right lads, hit the shops and fill your boots, pockets, coat lining, sleeves, bags, whatever. The good Reverend has said it`s OK, so it must be.

"The Rev Tim Jones said in his Sunday sermon that stealing from successful shops was preferable to burglary, robbery or prostitution."

Prostitution? So, let`s get this straight... Two adults entering into a consensual arrangement where one pays the other for a sexual service is less preferable than an individual stealing someone else`s property without their consent? What planet did this f****r just arrive from?

"Others are tempted towards prostitution, a nightmare world of degradation and abuse for all concerned"

Yet another person who has probably never met a prostitute in his life.

But back to the real issue:

`My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift`

There you have it. B******s to the law, the priest`s said it`s OK. Mind you, considering the amount the church has nicked from all and sundry over the years (all for the `greater good`, naturally), it`s little wonder he`s so comfortable with the concept of theft. Guess he won`t mind when someone half-inches any valuables from his church, then?

If this were a videogame we were discussing which had a shopflifting theme, the usual accusations of `condoning, encouraging, promoting, glamourising, endorsing` shoplifting would be flying left, right and centre. This f****r has gone one better. Imagine the hoo-haa if a movie or game opened with the line "Go out and try shoplifting, kids! If you can`t get by otherwise, it`s OK!"

So back we come to morality. The priest`s `standards` say it`s OK to shoplift, even though the law and the majority of people don`t agree. Do we change the law, just to pander to the priest? Do we all change our view of shoplifting, just to pander to the priest?

MichaelG    [26315.   Posted 8-Dec-2009 Tue 23:13] View Near Messages
Re: emark [26313]:

It was only a matter of time before the DPA gave rise to a truly ludicrous court case - didn`t think it would happen this quickly though.

"That is not all. Mr Holland is also accused of possessing an extreme pornographic image that could result in serious injury to a person’s genitals."

True enough, I guess. Anyone remember that old book `Tiger In Your Bed` by Claude Balls?

Meanwhile, I`m surprised no-one has picked up on this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234115/Church-leaders-anger-Ann-Summers-horny-XXXmas-campaign.html

Apparently the The Very Reverend Chris Dalliston, Dean of Newcastle has become most upset by Anne Summers Xmas campaign window display. So upset, in fact, he has been forced to walk past the shop every morning on his way to work(!)

"Newcastle City Council received a complaint about the display, but chiefs say although they have deemed it `inappropriate` they have no powers to force the shop to take it down."

No prizes for guessing who made the complaint, but that aside, I`d mourn the state of things when local Councils are granted powers to take down `inappropriate` things. `Inappropriate` has now become my most hated word in the English language as it`s the first means of attack for the nutter brigade. If it were `illegal`, then that`s a different matter, but what the fuck does `inappropriate` mean? Inappropriate to whom? Inappropriate to what circumstances? How do you measure somethings levels of inappropriateness?

Can`t this lot just either shut up, fuck off or both? if it`s breaking the law, fine, go ahead and make a complaint. If it`s merely `inappropriate`, then just wind your fucking neck in and ignore it. Seemples.

MichaelG    [26310.   Posted 7-Dec-2009 Mon 23:02] View Near Messages
Re: dano:

I seem to remember Prince Charles having a go at `video nasties` too, back in the late 1980`s. A shame he didn`t seem to know that they`d been banned under 1984`s VRA, or that we were one of the most heavily censored countries in Europe at the time.

Never mind, Charlie seems to be something of an expert in sounding off about things he doesn`t seem to know anything about. Also seems to be rubbing off on his missus...

MichaelG    [26308.   Posted 6-Dec-2009 Sun 00:21] View Near Messages
Now we really are into Orwell territory:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233361/Equality-snoopers-files-sexuality.html

I shudder to think how this information could be (ab)used. Mind you, they`d be pretty much stuffed if everyone who was asked about this gave the same response of `mind your own fucking business`, wouldn`t they?

MichaelG    [26302.   Posted 30-Nov-2009 Mon 14:26] View Near Messages
Dear oh dear...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232138/Chief-executive-hired-minister-promote-women-business-bullied-female-colleagues.html

Irony of the situation notwithstanding, isn`t this a case of more men needing to be employed in positions like this because women can`t be trusted to run things on their own?

Sorry if I`ve just been a sexist pig, Harriet `love`...

MichaelG    [26299.   Posted 30-Nov-2009 Mon 00:24] View Near Messages
Here we go again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231735/LAUREN-BOOTH-Beyonc-unleashes-inner-gangsta--s-sisters-pay.html#comments

Grade `A` fucking rubbish, all the way.

`Referring to the images children are exposed to – including those in Beyoncé’s latest promo video – the Duchess mused that she could ‘never understand how they can get away with making those things’.

Has Camilla ever actually seen a hip hop video? Even if she has, her opinion is worth what here exactly? Irrelevant flatulence.

`She was of course referring primarily to hip-hop and gangsta-rap videos featuring black men with guns and ever younger ‘models’ being bent over for their pleasure to pounding bass. Guns are wafted around with the careless abandon of Audrey Hepburn’s cigarette holder in Breakfast At Tiffany’s.`

Er... sorry, but isn`t the depiction of guns a no-no for anyone who wants to get their music video on to television?

`Camilla is right about this trash. With its disturbing references to multiple partners (gang rape, anyone?) and betrayal, and the constant images of women, it should never – NEVER – be shown to children under 14.`

Multiple partners = gang rape. Hmmmm. News to me. So every woman who now has multiple partners is a victim of gang rape. Every lone man who has multiple partners is guilty of gang rape. Was Booth fucking high when she wrote this or something? And why does she think that this shouldn`t be shown to those under 14? It`s a bit of a random age which seems to have been plucked form the air. If it`s that offensive and disturbing, then surely it should be rated `18`, no?

Are the Mail ever going to stop giving space to losers like this? The arguments seem to get less coherent and rational by the week...

MichaelG    [26263.   Posted 25-Nov-2009 Wed 00:54] View Near Messages
Just when you think nothing surprises you anymore...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230680/What-kind-country-arrests-innocent-people-boost-DNA-database.html

It also costs £200 just to apply to have your name removed from the database. A veritable licence for this bunch of rotten Communist cunts to shaft innocent people and screw yet more money out of everyone...

MichaelG    [26262.   Posted 24-Nov-2009 Tue 23:36] View Near Messages
Re: Enemy Combatant Nutters:

`Nutter rights groups played various games to see if any broke humanitarian laws that govern what is a war crime. The study condemned the games for violating laws by letting players kill civilians, torture captives and wantonly destroy homes and buildings.`

Oh, for goodness sake, wind your necks in, you bunch of chin-stroking, hand-wringing tossers!

Precisely how does a game, which is composed only of coloured pixels on a screen, break humanitarian laws when there are clearly NO HUMANS present?

Seems to me the people who don`t seem to be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality are videogame critics and phoney `researchers`, not the gamers themselves...

MichaelG    [26251.   Posted 22-Nov-2009 Sun 00:30] View Near Messages
Ohh, hasn`t Lady HaHa become all jovial and witty all of a sudden?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229960/Harriet-Harman-laughs-crash-charges-Henry-hands-joke.html

You can tell there must be an election in the not-too-distant. Harriet not only has shelved her anti-male tirades for the last couple of weeks, but is demonstrating her knowledge, and perhaps even appreciation, of one of the heterosexual males greatest passions - football.

I think most people are still going to be pretty enraged by the fact that a) she obviously knows she`s going to get off with her driving offences, and b) she obviously doesn`t take the fact that she has broken the law even remotely seriously...

MichaelG    [26242.   Posted 20-Nov-2009 Fri 11:16] View Near Messages
Re: Me [26239]:

I can`t help thinking myself that this `disgusting behaviour` may well just be a hysterical overeaction to the age old `i`ll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours` or `doctors and nurses` games kids have been playing with each other for decades, if not centuries.

But now, in the age of CommuNuLabour`s sexual Stalinism, this is likely no longer acceptable, there will have to be an explanation, a scapegoat and legislation to stamp it out or criminalise those `responsible`...

MichaelG    [26239.   Posted 20-Nov-2009 Fri 00:01] View Near Messages
Won`t somebody think of the children?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229358/Childhood-ought-protected-warns-MP-reveals-young-pupils-staying-late-watch-pornography.html

`I believe that childhood ought to be protected.`

In other words, `I believe the rights of adults should be pissed up the wall, blanket bans should be imposed and yet more laws should be created to criminalise people for viewing pornography`, most likely.

Another name to add to the nutter ranks...

MichaelG    [26238.   Posted 19-Nov-2009 Thu 15:49] View Near Messages
Re: pbr:

No mention there of leaving the scene of an accident, I see.

Still, no doubt one of Harriet Potty`s legal mates will argue that the jail sentence could "irreparably and permanently" damage her ability to carry out valuable constituency work in the future.

And she`ll get off scot-free.

So she can carry on with her valuable constituency work of trying to turn every white heterosexual male in the land into a criminal.

But only until early next May...

I wonder if one of the dole scum down her local job centre will have the decency to steal her 22-carat gold pen that she will be using to sign on after her now inevitable political demise next year? It`s a very pleasant thought...

MichaelG    [26234.   Posted 19-Nov-2009 Thu 00:29] View Near Messages
Just to follow on from my last post, how about asking the London Jewish Forum to explain this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229036/Rabbi-traded-cocaine-sexual-services.html

"A wealthy rabbi financed a drug dealing operation in which girls were given cocaine in exchange for sexual services"

Why not get your own fucking house in order, you sanctimonious cunts, before starting to take huge and unjustified swipes at harmless entertainment? Oh sure, he`s just one Rabbi, and not representative of the faith as a whole, blah, blah. Probably in much the same why every Catholic priest who`s ever been arrested for interfering with children is similarly not representative of the faith as a whole, despite the numbers who have been exposed over the years.

Now ask yourself, in much the same way, if ONE crime was linked with Modern Warfare 2, what do you think would happen?

The fact is, this Rabbi`s faith has provided a cover for for him to dabble in multiple vices, probably led him to think he would avoid suspicion and get away with it because he was a `pillar of the community` and all that, and quite possibly corrupted him into acting the way he did in the first place. Perhaps then, it would be best to ban the faith outright. Just to be safe, you understand.

After all, if it can potentially cause harm, is it worth the risk?

MichaelG    [26230.   Posted 18-Nov-2009 Wed 11:18] View Near Messages
Re: Call of Nutter Duty:

Pardon me, but what the fuck does the content of `Call of Duty` have to do with; a) the Chief executive of the London Jewish Forum, b) the British Muslim Forum and c) the RETIRED Bishop of Hulme?

I couldn`t give a flying fuck about whether or not the latter plays World of Warcraft or not. This has NOTHING to do with any of them. They`re about as representative of the 26 million gamers in this country as I am of the League of Hungarian Cabinet Makers, so the whole sodding lot of them should stop their collective chin-stroking and hand-wringing and just mind their own fucking business. Getting their own houses in order so that their beliefs are not promoting division, intolerance and violence would be a good start.

Perhaps gamers forums should respond by asking some questions of their own, like quizzing the London Jewish Forum as to why the Israelis keep fucking up the Middle East peace process, or asking the Muslim Forum why, if they`re so concerned about violence, do members of their religion feel the need to fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off western hostages to further their cause? What`s good for the gooose...

As for Keith-fucking-Vaz, has he actually got a working brain in his shiny little head?

"This has the potential to damage your health"

Er... evidence, please? How exactly can it damage your health? What can it do to you? Give you cancer? Rickets? Square eyes?

And has Vaz only just now started to think about checking what games his 14 year old son is playing, even after he`s been ranting about age ratings for the last fuck-knows-how-many years?

I frequently have to pinch myself to believe what I`m actually hearing from these idiots...

MichaelG    [26221.   Posted 16-Nov-2009 Mon 13:44] View Near Messages
Re: Call of Nutter Duty:

What a complete cunt this Michael Laws sounds! Never though I`d say this but Keith Vaz seems like a much more preferable option when compared with this odious, pig-ignorant, fascist gobshite. even Nick Griffin would likely be embarrassed by this utterly repellent outburst.

"Gamers are a very unusual group of people. If mass murder was ever to be committed in this country, it would be committed by a gamer."

Really? If I were in the mood for a wager, I`d take that bet and go with Islamic extremist or general religious nutjob over a gamer every time.

Another moron who can`t see past the end of his nose, but would have us believe he possesses the gift of second sight...

MichaelG    [26203.   Posted 11-Nov-2009 Wed 14:56] View Near Messages
Re: Modern Warfare 2:

The Daily Snail just won`t give up on this one, will they?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226588/Call-Duty-Political-storm-brutal-video-game-allows-killing-civilians-airport-massacre.html

Bless `em, they`ve even had one square-eyed teaboy blasting his way through the levels just so they could nab a screengrab of that `hugely controversial` airport sequence. The horror.

Worse still...

"Hundreds of parents have bought their children a video game containing `shocking` violence despite its 18 certificate"

Gasp! Stop me if you`ve heard this one before, but I was 11 when I saw `Enter the Dragon`, 14 when I saw `Evil Dead`, `The Exorcist` and `Texas Chainsaw Massacre` and somehow, miraculously, amazingly, I haven`t parted company with the rails and gone on to become a serial killer/cannibal/nunchaku-swinging menace to society or been possessed by an ancient Mesopotamian demon. Odd that, isn`t it? Despite coming from a broken home and being subjected oftimes to what would now be classed as domestic violence and neglect, I am still able to run my own business and hold down a marriage. Who`d have thunk it? Not Keith Vaz or Viv Pattison, that`s for sure...

`Critics accuse the game of trivialising terrorism...`

Great, we can now add the word `trivialising` to spice up the threadbare repertoire of `condoning, endorsing, promoting, glorifying and encouraging`. I know what`s a damned sight more worrying than `trivialising` terrorism though. That`s having a cunting government (sorry, Tourettes is kicking in again!) who have the nerve to start wars with extreme religious groups in foreign countries who are quite prepared to kill themselves to further their cause, then grant visas and benefits to their members and relatives of members, who are subsequently free to enter our country and plot murder and mayhem by way of reprisal. `TRIVISALISING` FOR FUCK`S SAKE?!?!?!?!? Who gives a fiddler`s fuck about `TRIVIALISING?!?!?!?!!?!? I`m a lot more worried about people being allowed to come into contact with that rotten, pig-faced twat Abu Quatada (who somehow STILL hasn`t been deported) than I am about people playing `Modern Warfare 2`. I hardly think the Bethnal Green branch of the Taliban are going to be frothing at the mouth at the prospect of playing this when players are taking the role of American Special Forces, are they?

`A shop assistant at the Game computer store in Coventry said: `Managers told us not to sell it to anyone who looked under 21 but if they were with their parents we had to sell it to them.`

Why then, don`t the staff of Game just do exactly the same as the staff at Tescovo do with alcohol, and just refuse sale on even the slightest suspicion that the person buying the over-18 product is buying it for someone underage? Or better still, why doesn`t that stupid little shit Keith Vaz turn his attention to putting fines in place for shops who knowingly sell games to parents buying for their kids, or, better again, fine the irresponsible idiot parents? Instead of his usual directionless droning and whining, surely this would be a step in the right direction? Ah, but that would instantly kill off his opportunities for political grandstanding, wouldn`t it? I doubt he has the initiative to find something else with the potential mileage he has managed to wring from the games industry, so such a course of action would never do.

As for Vivienne Pattinson, I was initially concerned that Beyer had a rather more savvy and clued-up replacement for us free thinkers to contend with. On the strength of her Sun soundbite, I needn`t have worried:

"There are numerous studies linking exposure to violence in entertainment with violent behaviour."

Really Viv? Which studies? Come on, we`re all ears. No really, we are...

"Bearing in mind the cost to society - and the misery of the victims of violent behaviour - if there is the slightest possibility that violent games can cause harm, is this worth the risk?"

OK, right back atcha, baby:

"Bearing in mind the cost to society - and the misery of the victims of violent behaviour - if there is the slightest possibility that religion can cause harm, is this worth the risk?"

Your move...

"We know that violent games with 18 Certificates are being played by children. Do we really want to find that we are training a new generation to be killers?"

Oh please, please just fuck off, you imbecile. Without proper firearms training, access to REAL firearms, proper explosives training, access to REAL explosives, and a cause which makes people want to kill, maim and murder their fellow human beings (WOW! We`re back to religion again! Isn`t that astounding?), how are videogames `training` future killers? This is perhaps the single most potent pile of utter, undiluted horseshit I`ve ever heard - and that really is saying something.

Great stitch-up job by the Sun though, in getting her to provide a bit of unintentional comedy right in the middle of a shameless plug for the game. I bet she hasn`t felt this much of a dork since she was at school. That is, assuming she`s smart enough to see it. Somehow, I have my doubts...

MichaelG    [26195.   Posted 9-Nov-2009 Mon 23:06] View Near Messages
Good find, emark, more details here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/11/vaz_v_watson_modern_warfare_2.html

It`s about time someone took this irksome little shit to task over what is essentially tantamount to a personal vendetta against the games industry, fueled by lies, complete obfuscation of the issue and a staggering lack of information and knowledge about the industry. Good for Tom Watson, who has just stated:

"Everything that comes out of Parliament in relation to video games is relentlessly negative. There are thousands of people employed in this industry, there are 26 million people playing games. We should have a much more balanced view of the industry, indeed we should be supporting them through difficult times."

A plain, unbiased, lie-free, honest, commonsense view? From an MP? Maybe there is some hope for British politics after all. Vaz`s response?

`...he was concerned by the way the manufacturers of the game were glorifying violence.

"Nobody is trying to stop anyone over the age of 18 purchasing this game," he said. But he said government, manufacturers, retailers and parents all had a responsibility to work together to protect children.`

Yes, let`s just repeat the same old shit, parrot-fashion, we hear every time this argument comes up. We`re absolutely no further forward on this issue thanks to Vaz than we were several years ago when the Manhunt controversy blew up. If indeed, "Nobody is trying to stop anyone over the age of 18 purchasing this game", then what was the point in raising the issue in Parliament? Surely he expected some kind of action to be taken, no? Well, given his outstanding track record of getting decisive political action taken on the issue of violent games (LOL!), perhaps not!

And I swear, if I hear this drivel about `protecting children` one more fucking time. It has an `18` certificate. What else can be done to `protect the children` other than an outright ban?

There are 26 million gamers in the UK. A substantial chunk of these will have attained voting age within the last few years. Every time there`s anything said about the games industry from government, it`s always Vaz, starting a well-publicised, ill-informed bunfight. He has positioned himself as the absolute nemesis of the industry simply to further his own career. I`m going to very much enjoy playing my part in tearing that career apart at the seams come next May, and I imagine just about every voting-age videogame enthusiast is going to be feeling exactly the same way.

Fucking hell, this has even got me thinking about joining Facebook - something I vowed never to do!

MichaelG    [26193.   Posted 9-Nov-2009 Mon 13:26] View Near Messages
Harriet Herman-Goering attempts once again to implement her `final solution` for Britain before her time runs out:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226357/Harman-declares-war-middle-classes-plans-higher-council-capital-gains-tax.html

Does she actually realise there`s an election on the way very soon, or does she just have an uncontrollable urge to commit political career suicide? Or is she just completely fucking insane?

The comments on this story are priceless - I can`t find ONE even remotely in support. If Harm-man now isn`t the most hated woman in Britain, can someone please tell me who is? And no, neither Jordon or Kerry Katatonia have got a look in. At least their clueless kind have the decency to only be a danger to themselves...

MichaelG    [26192.   Posted 9-Nov-2009 Mon 11:49] View Near Messages
Yes, I`m sure Vaz`s anti-videogame tirades make him feel better about himself and help him sleep better at night. Despite the fact he`s supported a war that has led to thousands of cases of the kind of real life carnage he unfathomably finds so utterly unacceptable when depicted within the realms of pure fantasy.

I can`t wait to see the back of this flatulent, irritating little oaf next May...

MichaelG    [26190.   Posted 8-Nov-2009 Sun 11:18] View Near Messages
Re: dano [26189]:

Full lowdown (apart from the dodgy visa wangling, shady business deals and expense fiddling, naturally) on Keith Vaz is here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/keith_vaz/leicester_east

And yes, he did vote very strongly for the Iraq war, and also, funnily enough, very strongly against an investigation into it...

MichaelG    [26186.   Posted 8-Nov-2009 Sun 00:10] View Near Messages
Re: Keith Vaz & Modern Warfare:

Thought this greasy, expense-fiddling little toad had been quiet for a while. This must be his idea of electioneering - hardly surprising really, considering it`s the ONLY thing he ever seems to do (apart from wangling visas for foreign mates).

"I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks."

Quite amazing that, considering the game hasn`t been released yet and Vaz is about as likely to play it as John Beyer is. Ahh, the CommuNuLabour gift of second sight... if only we all had it. Hope he can forsee the monumental pasting his rotten party has coming in just a few months time.

"I will be raising this issue in Parliament on Monday."

Good for you, you corpulent, self-important, nauseating little shit. I look forward to the government doing absolutely fuck all as they always do about this `important` issue. This is one of the most eagerly anticipated games of all time, so I think it`s going to take a little more than the personal prejudices of one sad little man to halt its release. What Vaz may well end up doing, that is if he hasn`t already with his tiresome tirades, is lost CommuNuLabour the votes of a few million British videogame enthusiasts. It`s not just kids who play videogames.

Predictably, the Mail have waded in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/newsn/article-1225926/New-game-lets-players-kill-civilians-terror-attacks.html

`Outrage` indeed. The only person who seems to be outraged is Vaz, who has based his entire career on this sort of thing. Shame the comments probably aren`t along the lines of what they were hoping for...

Re: Olivia Recommends...

Let`s not forget that this is exactly the same Olivia Lichtenstein who, several years ago, went out with a Chippendale and could be seen occasionally cavorting around in Hugh Hefner`s swimming pool. Meaning she`s had her fun, but she`s damned if she wants anyone else to have any - and she`s perfectly happy to switch into `concerned parent` mode to help her cause. A revolting hypocrite who wouldn`t be out of place within the ranks of New Labour.

Finally, thinking of taking up jogging? This should dissuade you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226069/At-Gordon-Brown-runs-election--early-morning-jog-round-park.html

Imagine strolling through the park and seeing this sweaty, grimacing oaf bearing down on you. I wouldn`t wish a heart attack on anyone, but...

MichaelG    [26138.   Posted 21-Oct-2009 Wed 23:28] View Near Messages
Re: Tarkus:

Still hunting then! Going to be a tough one this, I can tell...

Moving on, can someone tell me how the fuck this happened?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222054/Blair-EU-president-month.html

Is there any democracy left anywhere nowadays? I find it absolutely staggering how incredibly easy it seems to have been for this grinning, pious, scheming, warmongering, God-bothering twat to slither his way into the most powerful job in Europe, and deeply upsetting to think that this has all been shadily and hastily decided between senior politicians without any involvement from the electorate of any European country.

"The ex-PM insists he is not campaigning for the job - even though he is the officially approved candidate of the British government."

How on earth can you land a job like this WITHOUT campaigning, with NO democratic election to decide and an inquiry looming into a messy, still-ongoing war which YOU started?!?!?

The only thing worse than this would be re-animating Hitler and giving the post to him...

MichaelG    [26135.   Posted 21-Oct-2009 Wed 13:38] View Near Messages
Re: sergio [26134]:

"Erotic art is designed to sexually stimulate ... museums should be licenced just like sex shops ..."

Good point, but why stop there? Naughty underwear is designed to sexually stimulate, so therefore all high street shops which sell it, from Marks & Spencer to La Senza, should also be licensed.

Re: dancing monkey [26133]:

You beat me to it dude, well done! Truth be known this would probably have snookered me anyway...

Re: Janus17 [26128]:

What`s the betting the Grauniad don`t do the follow up article to the woman whose world has collapsed because he husband looks at internet porn? You know, the one where he gets so sick of her shit, their boring sex life and her persistent attempts to emasculate and humiliate him that he leaves her to go on a whistle-stop, round-the-world tour of the sleaziest hotspots the planet has to offer and ends up spending the rest of his life with Thai dominatrix twins he met in a Bangkok dungeon?

MichaelG    [26132.   Posted 20-Oct-2009 Tue 21:41] View Near Messages
Hi Tarkus and welcome to the forum!

Really struggling with your movie title - it sounds like it could be a Jesus Franco effort, but the mention of Copenhagen suggests that the country of origin may not be Spain or Italy. Not sure from your description if the movie was hardcore or softcore?

Do love a challenge when it comes to film, so I`m determined to solve this one for you!

MichaelG    [26127.   Posted 20-Oct-2009 Tue 11:10] View Near Messages
In case anyone hasn`t read it yet, here`s that Jan Moir article about Stephen Gately`s death that`s had everyone up in arms:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

Really surprised that they haven`t taken this down yet, given the shitstorm. I`m by no means easily offended, but I found this article to be one of the most staggeringly offensive, vile and poisonous pieces of pure bilge it has ever been my misfortune to read. I`m fully aware that Jan Moir is entitled to her opinion and, given her career, we often have to put up with it whether we like it or not. However, this prurient, hypothetical codswallop is, in no uncertain terms, suggesting that Gately`s `sleazy` gay lifestyle is somehow to blame for his demise and that civil, same-sex partnerships are something to be concerned about.

In the light of this, we seem to be facing increasing problems arising from the freedom of the press Vs. the freedom of the individual. Jan Moir is yet another miserable excuse for a journalist who seems to think that living in a country which enjoys freedom of the press is enough reason to write whatever crap she likes, regardless of the consequences. This is truly vile journalism, crass, insensitive and moralising and I hope it lands the fat, venomous old pig responsible for it squarely in court.

MichaelG    [26108.   Posted 15-Oct-2009 Thu 23:00] View Near Messages
Good old Arnie Schwarzenegger:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220509/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-gets-tough-libel-tourists-UK.html

Then again, maybe not:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220664/California-set-ban-energy-guzzling-big-screen-TVs.html

I was massively in favour of Arnie`s ban on libel tourism the other day, seeing it as one in the eye for the CommuNuLabour regime, who we all know have absolutely no respect for free speech or personal privacy. Couldn`t help thinking after Harman`s demands a couple of weeks back to Arnie (allegedly, I still don`t think it went down in anything like the way she painted it: "Now then Arnold, I demand that you ban Punternet, and if you don`t `I`ll be back!`" - yeah, right!), this is his way of expressing that totalitarian, fascist scum, who have no right to interfere in foreign legislation, can take their Constitution-defying demands, shove them up their arse and set fire to them. It`s a definite dig at our worsening record on freedom and privacy and likely a shot across the bows to Harman, likely meaning "don`t be telling me how to run my manor, `love`!".

Such a shame that, only a few days later, he`s gone and blown it by dreaming up a load of repressive bullshit legislation which CommuNuLabour would be proud to call their own, and may well have adopted themselves had we not been a few short months away from an election (watch this space if they defy all odds and get in for another term). A ban on TVs over 40" will mean around a quarter of TVs will now have to be pulled from stores - fucking genius move just as the world is starting to emerge from recession.

I`m also sure it`s more than a little hypocritical of a man who has made much of his fortune from movies suddenly seeking to deprive true fans of cinema from enjoying their movies on a decent home cinema system...

MichaelG    [26095.   Posted 13-Oct-2009 Tue 11:06] View Near Messages
Another one in the eye for the CommuNuLabour scum:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220134/Far-right-Dutch-MP-Geert-Wilders-wins-appeal-exclusion-UK.html

It`s just a shame that po-faced, swindling sow Fatty Smith isn`t still at her post to squirm in the face of being overruled...

MichaelG    [26088.   Posted 12-Oct-2009 Mon 11:13] View Near Messages
Vivienne Pattinson has her first chance to prove she`s not another bible-fondling, perpetually offended MediaWatch clone who resorts to lies and `studies` no-one else seems to know about, and manages to piss it straight up the nearest wall! Well done.

BTW, has anyone actually followed the link to the Express story:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/133417/Ban-this-violent-film-says-Tory-MP-

Have you seen the picture of Brazier?!?! Is he trying to look like a 1930`s spiv bookmaker or something? Seems as though these moral morons have more than little problem co-ordinating a basic wardrobe - Salter was exactly the same...

MichaelG    [26047.   Posted 4-Oct-2009 Sun 03:27] View Near Messages
yes, barriejohn, it`s certainly a case of one rule for the Commie scum and another for the rest of us.

I`m just staggered as to how utterly fucked Harman`s moral compass seems to be. She wants a website shut down that actually helps, protects and advises working girls, yet offers nothing herself that would do anything of the sort except fist-clunking nonsense which everyone knows would only serve to drive the industry further underground, making it way less safe for everyone, including the women who work in it. All the while she claims that she wants to stop the exploitation and commodification of vulnerable women, yet lords it over a party whose idiotic immigration policy (or lack of it), allows the very kind of criminal gangs AND vulnerable women free entry into the country which can only have the effect of generating a virtual recipe for exploititive prostitution to flourish.

Now, our moral saviour quite happily drives her car whilst using her mobile, proving very quickly precisely how dangerous it potentially is (and how shite women drivers are - LOL!) by ramming into another vehicle. Had the situation been slightly different, she could have killed someone. Her disgustingly self-important response shows exactly how little regard she holds for the law when it comes to its application to her horrible self and how trivial the safety of others is when held in comparison to the clearly far more pressing business of nattering away to one of her champagne socialist chums or feminazi cronies on her mobile.

She makes me want to vomit, and I personally can`t wait for the day when her disgusting face and unfettered, flatulent mouth are no longer in a position to enrage us on what has become a virtual daily basis...

MichaelG    [26044.   Posted 3-Oct-2009 Sat 23:28] View Near Messages
I imagine with the arrival of this little bombshell this morning, Harriet Harm-man is quite possibly now the most hated woman in Britain, if she didn`t already hold the title after this weeks antics:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217974/Im-Harriet-Harman--know--What-Minister-allegedly-told-witness-crashing-parked-car.html

I don`t suppose much will come of this (it never does when politicians are concerned), but it`ll be nice to think that this detracts still further from her already strained popularity and credibility.

Shows her mindset perfectly - the government spend a significant amount of money telling us how dangerous it is using a mobile whilst driving, yet she obviously feels she doesn`t have to live by the same laws as the rest of us. Laws are obviously just for the little people and Harriet is clearly so important that she doesn`t have to stop the car to make a phone call or even stop after she`s crashed into something. How`s that for `Equality`?

`I`m Harriet Harman - you know where you can get hold of me.`

Firmly by the fucking throat would probably be the best place...

MichaelG    [26036.   Posted 2-Oct-2009 Fri 22:07] View Near Messages
Re: Labouring for a Miserable Britain... Harriet Hatemen takes aim at Page 3 Calendars...

WOW! Our favourite man-baiter really is on a roll at the moment isn`t she?

I find it staggering that in times like these, THIS and Punternet are the most pressing matters that she feels require her urgent attention. She`s an embarrassment to her party and a complete liability. Her own agendas have completely consumed her to the degree that, as a politician, she is as worthless as an ashtray on a motorbike. I imagine most of her Peckham constituents are feeling pretty short-changed by now.

this latest flurry of activity is either calculated to propel her towards the party leadership position following the inescapable election battering next year (which she herself has played no small part in making almost inevitable) or she`s just trying to push through as much of her feminazi nonsense as possible before she`s out on her ear in a few months time.

There is also, of course, the distinct possibility that she`s just gone completely stark-raving mad...

MichaelG    [26028.   Posted 1-Oct-2009 Thu 23:56] View Near Messages
I imagine that Harman`s demands for Arnie Schwarz to `terminate` Punternet will yield exactly the same results as her pathetic posturing earlier this year about how Fred Goodwin wasn`t going to get his pension.

She couldn`t be more out of touch with the voting public if she had despatched her latest `cri de couer` from the arse-end of the Solar System. All the things she apparently holds so dear, are an irrelevance to all but her particular brand of not-enough-to-do, comfortably off, champagne socialist, self-serving, hand-wringing twat.

The very sight of this hypocritical, clueless, sexist bigot is now enough to make me regurgitate my last meal, and I`m literally counting the hours and minutes until her hateful countenance is no longer in a position prominent enough to insult and offend in the manner we`ve all become way too accustomed to and so utterly, utterly fucking sick of...

MichaelG    [26026.   Posted 1-Oct-2009 Thu 22:02] View Near Messages
Re: Spiderschwein [26023]:

You`re very right, my friend. All CommuNuLabour have left is the `at least we`re not Tories` reasoning, which, highly ironically, years of their own brand of hateful, fist-clunking, intolerant, swindling, incompetent nastiness has rendered completely obsolete and irrelevant as a coherent or worthwhile argument now anyway.

Every policy they seem to dream up seems to alienate another huge cross-section of society. Their latest talk about hostels for single teenage mums, whilst, it has to be said, is not an idea completely without merit, is likely to go down like a lead balloon with an entire generation of feckless chavs who have come to understand that all they need to do to get a free house and benefits is to get pregnant. They`re not going to be too happy when all that is taken away and they`re bunged into the 21st century equivalent of 19th century workhouses for `fallen women`.

Who is left to actually vote for CommuNuLabour now? Is there anyone in this country who, outside of the benefits brigade, a few asylum seekers and their champagne socialist chums, has not been ripped off, legislated against or pissed off by this nasty bunch of reptilian Communist scum?

Now, after Harman`s outburst earlier in the week, we now have this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217454/Miliband-accused-slur-comparing-schoolboy-Tories-failed-speak-Nazis.html

All they have left is hollow grandstanding, lies, slander and slurs. We`re now witnessing the venom-spitting, flailing death-rattle of a seriously wounded, cornered animal with no chance of survival. I for one can`t wait for the chance to lend a hand in putting it out of its misery.

Just a few short months left now. Make the most of it, you rotten cunts...

MichaelG    [26019.   Posted 30-Sep-2009 Wed 22:55] View Near Messages
Absolutely disgusted by Harriet Hermann Goering`s latest bout of sabre-rattling, but not in the least bit surprised.

Spiderschwein, her badmouthing Osborne is typical of her behaviour. I don`t think she actually can see her own hypocrisy because she is one of `the elite`, therefore none of the rules she demands or the accusations she flings around are applicable to her - they`re just for the `little people`.

It`s strange how she still accuses the Tories of rampant sexism within the party, yet rather oddly it was their party who spawned the first female politician and the first (and only, so far) female PM. Much as I still dislike Thatcher for the damage she caused, at least she was, in many respects, a competent leader. I reckon Harman`s complete lack of this particular quality is the reason she has to fall back on all this faux-equality bollocks because she simply isn`t competent enough to make it as leader on her own terms. `Sour grapes` would be the term to use.

I do feel sorry for Arnie if he actually did find himself on the other end of the phone line to this screeching titwitch, but something tells me even she doesn`t have the nerve to ring up a politician in another country and demand changes to their legislation. I`m sure it sounded mighty impressive to all the gathered CommuNuLabour sycophants and cronies nonetheless.

Thinking about it, Arnie would have a huge back catalogue of cool kiss-off lines from his many movies to quickly end any conversation with the revolting Harm-man, how about:

"Hasta la vista, baby" (Terminator 2: Judgement Day)

or

"Let off some steam, Harriet" (Commando)

or

""You are one ugly muthafucka... (Predator)

MichaelG    [26003.   Posted 29-Sep-2009 Tue 23:15] View Near Messages
On a bit of a roll this morning, but get ready for a real chuckle:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1216940/Gay-TV-presenter-Graham-Norton-given-official-warning-homophobic-joke-lesbians.html

Graham Norton is `homophobic`! Priceless...

MichaelG    [26002.   Posted 29-Sep-2009 Tue 23:09] View Near Messages
Right on cue, here`s something for the new head of Mediasnitch to get her fangs into:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216924/Tate-Modern-display-nude-picture-10-year-old-Brooke-Shields-alongside-giant-pornographic-images.html

LOVE some of the comments:

"Oh.My.God. And we wonder why adult men want to get with CHILDREN!!!! Whether its in a night club, on the internet or an art gallery. Stop giving the perverted creeps images, it`s brainwashing them to think it`s okay."

Adult Men = Perverted Creeps. Hmmmmm. Harriet Harman decided to use a false name for her post, I see.

"I thought the Sexual Offences Act 2003 made it illegal to produce sexualized images of under 18`s. But to be honest; this doesn`t suprise me at all; the UK has been ruined by rampant liberalism."

I`m sorry, is this the same UK I live in? The same UK that insists every adult is vetted before they can even take a friends kids to school? The same UK that locks people in prison for looking at the wrong kind of naughty pictures or drawings? Idiot.

Brooke Shields was 14 when she did `The Blue Lagoon` (although much of her nudity was provided by a body double), but was only 12 when she appeared nude in Louis Malle`s `Pretty Baby`. Both of these movies have been passed uncut by the BBFC, have been around for decades but managed to attract not a great deal in the way of controversy.

However, one still image of her aged 10 is enough to kickstart a media shitstorm. `Rampant liberalism`, my arse...

MichaelG    [26001.   Posted 29-Sep-2009 Tue 22:48] View Near Messages
I`d love to know how the `mediasavvy` Pattison is going to successfully repackage and popularise the same old hateful, repressive and reactionary bilge that define MediaWatch to make it more acceptable to the masses. We`re living in a time where people can happily pick up copies of insanely violent DVDs like `Martyrs`, `Saw` and `Hostel` with their weekly shop in Tescovo - and they`ve become used to it. But I guess that Mediawatch have never been bothered about `the masses` anyway.

One thing`s for certain, whoever is in charge at Mediasnitch, they aren`t about to actually start concerning themselves with the reality of `what the people want`. It`ll always be all about their tiny band of blue-rinsed, bible-fondling members, scanning the Daily Mail for spurious links between real-life crimes and dumb 80`s horror movies and totting up the swear words for the weeks TV programmes, all the while telling us that they represent `the people`.

My main worry is that Pattison is well-versed enough in the art of spin to actually start having a serious influence over government and their policy. Much as Beyer tried, he just couldn`t get the hang of this one...

MichaelG    [25971.   Posted 23-Sep-2009 Wed 22:55] View Near Messages
Re: Symbolic Gesture...

`In light of the game possibly containing a swastika, Activision Blizzard has decided to recall the game Wolfenstein from stores in Germany according to Kotaku.`

A swastika? In a game set in Nazi Germany? Surely not!!

Whatever you do, don`t mention the war...

MichaelG    [25954.   Posted 20-Sep-2009 Sun 02:34] View Near Messages
Re: Unequal to the Task...

What a surprise, Harman makes herself look like a complete fucking idiot... AGAIN!

`Corporate entertainment of any kind is not deductible for corporate tax or VAT purposes.`

Now, anyone know why the Deputy PM, who recently has taken it upon herself to tinker away with all kinds of employment legislation, wasn`t actually aware of this? A pretty fundamental oversight, I`d say...

MichaelG    [25953.   Posted 18-Sep-2009 Fri 22:33] View Near Messages
I could also slightly alter Harm-man`s question to pose another which is rather more pertinent and still hasn`t been properly addressed:

"Why should you be able to get tax relief for furnishing your own home, feeding yourself and your family or building a personal property empire at the expense of the taxpayer?"

Naturally this isn`t directed at Harm-man herself, as she`s so fucking stinking rich anyway she doesn`t need to fiddle her expenses.

Also, if male members of staff going to a lapdancing club with their male colleagues is discriminatory against women, then I propose that, on the same grounds, groups of women should be stopped from having Virgin Vie and Anne Summers parties and that all `girly` nights out drinking should be banned. Stag and Hen parties should be subject to legislation which stipulates that they cannot take place unless there are at least three members of the opposite sex present... etc, etc.

She makes me feel as though I could piss napalm every time she opens her irrelevant, illogical gob, but, at the same time, with her in such a prominent position in government, the chances of CommuNuLabour getting re-elected are virtually nil. I guess we should all be thankful for that...

MichaelG    [25950.   Posted 18-Sep-2009 Fri 10:36] View Near Messages
Sigh. Lady HaHa`s off again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214368/Harman-pole-axe-sexpenses-Minister-targets-tax-relief-lap-dancing-visits-City-firms.html

`Why should you be able to get tax relief for a night out at a lap dancing club where effectively you are discriminating against women employees in doing so?`

Why are you discriminating, exactly? Is there a `no women allowed` rule at lapdancing clubs? Women can, and do, go in if they wish.

`It`s wrong, both in excluding women in the workplace, but is also part of a larger industry of exploitation of women and selling sex, so we have to look at it in both respects.`

You don`t `have` to look anything you fucking silly cow. It`s harmless entertainment and it`s helping to keep the economy going. You know, the economy? That thing that actually helps pay your wages (fuck knows what for, though), and that thing which your rotten government have spent the last 11 years tearing to pieces.

I bet that if a female business`person` entertained a group of female clients with a night out watching the Chippendales, Harm-man would find that to be perfectly acceptable.

How many months of this shit have we got left again?

MichaelG    [25941.   Posted 15-Sep-2009 Tue 23:19] View Near Messages
Ban the news!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213672/Three-primary-school-pupils-arrested-copycat-sex-attack-boys.html

MichaelG    [25912.   Posted 10-Sep-2009 Thu 22:26] View Near Messages
Once again in CommunNuLabour Britain, guilt is assumed automatically:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212637/Now-Big-Brother-targets-helpful-parents-1-4-Britons-vetted-giant-new-child-protection-database.html

Oh well, looking on the bright side that`s about another 11 million people who WON`T be voting for this shower next year...

MichaelG    [25895.   Posted 6-Sep-2009 Sun 22:34] View Near Messages
Re: Chucky`s Back...

I know, if we all go out into the street and set fire to a pile of cheesy 1980`s horror movies, nothing like this will ever happen again. Sigh.

It beggars belief that the Mail are wheeling this one out again. Isn`t this case controversial and shocking enough without having to crassly sensationalise it further? And in tenuously linking the case to the `Child`s Play` movies, the Mail once again dilute the issue of violent, feral kids and their revolting parents and effectively throw the real culprits (the parents and social services) a lifeline to divert responsibility elsewhere.

In case we had forgotten, all we had linking `Child`s Play` to the Bulger case was the fact that Venebles dad had rented the movie a month before the crime and the conjecture of the trial judge, Mr Justice Morland, who suggested that `exposure to violent videos` may have influenced the boys` behaviour. So, no real evidence that either of the killers had seen the film.

This time around, all we have is this:

`From the age of six and seven, the Doncaster attackers were allowed to sit through Child`s Play videos while their mother smoked cannabis, a relative claimed.`

Without wishing to appear snobbish, I think given the social standing of this particular family, anything any relative says is to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

MichaelG    [25869.   Posted 30-Aug-2009 Sun 06:02] View Near Messages
Well Shaun, I can honestly say that`s the first comment I`ve ever had published by the Mail. Was beginning to think they didn`t like me!

Given the rarity of this particular event, I`d better check last night`s lottery numbers sharpish!

MichaelG    [25867.   Posted 29-Aug-2009 Sat 22:39] View Near Messages
Perhaps we should ban model railway building now as well:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209999/Railway-buff-beat-sick-wife-death.html

MichaelG    [25866.   Posted 29-Aug-2009 Sat 22:37] View Near Messages
Oh dear, VERY slow news day at the Mail today, it would appear. Only one thing for it then:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209968/Cherie-Blair-son-join-firm-linked-violent-game.html

Shock! Horror! The wife of the former PM AND her son have become directors of a computer gaming firm which has been involved in a controversial violent video game.

"There have been claims that perpetrators of massacres in the US and Germany have been fans of the game."

There have been `claims` about a lot of things, including `Manhunt` inspiring the Pakeerah murder and the `Childs Play` movies inspiring the Bulger murder. Doesn`t make them true though, does it?

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.

The resulting report stated: ‘The broader cultural context in which young people live – the music they listen to, the films they watch, the video games and sports they play – are important in articulating values, defining what is `cool` and fashionable, and legitimising social norms.’

That`s actually pretty true, I think, but this isn`t the same as tipping someone over the edge into going off on a killing spree, is it?

And is a `social norm` for most kids dressing in combat fatigues, picking up an assault rifle and going off to the Middle East to shoot seven shades of shit out of nasty, swarthy terrorist types?

Ahh, I forgot, CommuNuLabour have made that possible for all kids of school-leaving age. Join the armed forces and you can shoot as many `terrorists` as you like. How`s that for `legitimising a social norm`?

Posted a comment, any takers on a 5-1 bet for it not getting published?

MichaelG    [25864.   Posted 27-Aug-2009 Thu 10:54] View Near Messages
Well done, Shaun, but can you please tell me the secret of getting a comment published on the Mail`s website? I`ve had God knows how many attempts and never once been published...

MichaelG    [25862.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 22:22] View Near Messages
Shall we ban burkhas now?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209006/Jewellers-robbery-Oxfordshire-burka-clad-man--150-000-designer-watches-stolen.html

Nope, didn`t think so. The new government-endorsed stocking mask for the fashion-conscious crook...

MichaelG    [25861.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 22:15] View Near Messages
Here we fucking go again:

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

if you`re unsure as to the real reasons behind complex social problems, you can always dumb it down for the masses by resorting to the same old scapegoats you`ve been using for years - movies and the internet.

It`s universally acknowledged that football hooliganism was at it`s worst in the 70`s and 80`s. Back then, there had been no literature written or movies made about the subject. It was Alan Clarke`s `The Firm` in 1988 which was the first cinematic outing to cover the subject. So, we have the period stretching from the early 70`s to the late 80`s where it was impossible to blame anything but the morons involved and long-standing tribal rivalries for the rise in violence, although I`m sure controversial favourites like `Clockwork Orange` will have been attemptedly linked in the past.

Nowadays, we have a convenient explanation for the sudden flare-up the other night. Truth is, it`s not sudden at all, just suddenly more high-profile. Hooliganism has never gone away. A few years back in 2000, rival Newcastle and Sunderland fans hacked chunks out of each other at some ungodly hour on the Shields ferry. In 2003, I myself nearly got locked into the God-awful pub at King`s Cross by the police because a load of rival fans (Portsmouth and Middlesborough, if I recall) decided to take refuge there after a ruckus outside the station. Around ten years ago, journalist Donal Mackintyre went undercover with a firm of Chelsea hooligans, with predictably frightening consequences.

Now, because some sensation-hungry journo wants to sell papers and wow his audience with his understanding of a decades-old social problem and the fact that he`s got the reasons for it all worked out, the finger gets pointed in the usual direction:

"But a fair proportion of those involved were far too young to have been there at football violence`s 1980s peak. Not too young, though, to be revved up by the ludicrous hoolie-porn of the Green Street franchise and the others of its genre."

Most hooligan movies, and I think I`ve seen just about all of them, do come with a moral message. The violence in `Green Street` leads to the death of one of the main characters, a character who leaves behind a wife and child. This is also the case in `The Firm`, which also shows in graphic detail the dire consequences of leaving Stanley knives around young children.

I`m not going to pretend that such moral messages are going to be taken in or understood by the moronic, knuckle-dragging apes who are involved in this sort of thing in real life, but then nor am I going to pretend that the absence of movies like `Green Street` would have made any difference to the events at Upton Park earlier this week. Unlike some juvenile oaf who actually gets paid to write this crap.

And it looks as though the moral minority have a new term to play with. `Torture Porn` is sooooo 2008. `Hoolie Porn` is where it`s at in 2009. Rolls eyes in utter despair...

Just to show everyone how easy it is, I`m going to pick a random story from a newspaper and find a movie which could have `inspired` it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209143/CCTV-hunt-girl-gang-launched-vicious-unprovoked-stiletto-attack.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073778/

There you go! So simple a child could do it, and, going from the levels of intelligence on display in Richard Pendlebury`s article, it probably did.

Mind you, the actions of the girl gang in the second story could just as easily be attributable to professional man-baiter Harriet Harman...

MichaelG    [25857.   Posted 26-Aug-2009 Wed 11:53] View Near Messages
For those of you who couldn`t contain themselves any longer, the wait for my reply from the BBFC regarding their decision to ban `Grotesque` is here:

`Dear MichaelG

Thank you for your lengthy email.

Our classification decisions are not made to "pander" to certain individuals, as you suggest. They are made in line with published Guidelines and the available research evidence. Our Classification Guidelines are a product of both experience and an extensive public consultation process which is repeated regularly. Over 8,700 people contributed to the most recent revision of the Guidelines. These are available on our main website - http://www.bbfc.co.uk.

We actually do provide a `definition` of what we mean by harm in our Guidelines. It can include encouraging a dehumanised view of others or reinforcing unhealthy fantasies, among others. Indeed, you provide further definitions in your email by quoting our press release.

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. You are advised to look at the research conducted by Donnerstein, Malamuth, Check, and Linz amongst others. We have also consulted with experts in relation to individual works.

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. The film lacks any significant narrative or other thesis to justify its theme or the inclusion of such images. It should also be borne in mind that GROTESQUE was judged to be in breach of both our publicly endorsed Guidelines and our policy on sexual violence. Our consultation with the public has indicated that the majority do have very serious concerns about works which eroticise and endorse sexual violence. (We consult a wide range of people, including regular cinema-goers and DVD watchers.) GROTESQUE is, in our view, one such work. Our decision is a reflection of these significant public concerns as well as the proper discharge of our statutory duties under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The fact that we have passed many "challenging, controversial" works - including all those films cited in your email - is surely testimony that we take our function seriously and do allow UK adults to be free to choose their own entertainment, within the law.

We do not expect everyone to agree with our decisions, but we hope they understand the reasoning behind them. Thank you for expressing your views to us.

Yours sincerely,

J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)`

`Lengthy email` suggests to me it was a fucking chore reading it... really sorry about that, I`m sure. No surprises here really.

"encouraging a dehumanised view of others or reinforcing unhealthy fantasies..."

I`m sorry, but I still don`t buy the `encouraging` argument. To me, that implies that the filmmaker deliberately set out to push people towards the type of behaviour on view in their work. Which we all know is bollox. As is the stuff about `reinforcing unhealthy fantasies`. What is a `healthy fantasy` when it`s at home then? Is that a fantasy which is approved by, and not legislated against, by the government? "Sorry sir, only government-approved fantasies are allowed in Britain these days!" I`d rather be a fucking criminal than have my sexual identity determined and approved by some fuckpuppet like Harriet Herman-Goering or Vera Beard.

"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 haven`t read the stuff they mention, would be interested in a link if anyone can find one. However, if these aggressive responses were likely to give rise to something more serious and dangerous (i.e. `harm`), surely the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan would therefore have a higher rate of sexual offending than us, owing to the free availability of such material in these places. But they don`t.

Much as i do applaud the BBFC for their passing of works like `Martyrs` and `Irreversible` which Commandant Ferman would never have passed in his day, their nonsensical approach to porn and certain movies like `Grotesque` still tells me that they have a long way to go before they can even attempt to justify themselves in my eyes.

Won`t do much good, but I may fire some of these points I`ve made right back at them...

MichaelG    [25854.   Posted 25-Aug-2009 Tue 22:49] View Near Messages
Looks like that reptilian creep Mandelson is forging ahead in his attempt to impress rich bum chum David Geffen:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208839/Illegal-downloaders-internet-cut-new-Mandy-plan.html

Currently, seven million Britons illegally download material from the net. That`s one in twelve of the population.

Once again, in times of deep recession, CommuNuLabour find more ingenious ways of further deepening the crisis. Imagine taking internet access away from potentially one in twelve families or individuals in the UK; that`s around seven million people who suddenly can`t engage in online retail, banking or numerous other activities which benefit the economy, and millions less in terms of revenue for UK service providers. Absolute genius, let`s have a big hand for the snake in the suit.

And all this just so that fawning prick Mandelson can implement some blatantly obvious, reciprocal back-scratching with the super rich Hollywood gay mafia while he still believes he has the authority (who exactly gave him that again?). Doubtless this will be incredibly advatageous when he starts calling in favours once he joins the back of the dole queue next May.

Why do millions have to continually suffer because of the personal ambitions and agendas of these worthless cunts?

Don`t forget, there`s still time to implement this latest batch of ill-advised lunacy before the election...

MichaelG    [25839.   Posted 24-Aug-2009 Mon 22:21] View Near Messages
Re: emark [25837]:

It is sad that a newspaper of the Times standing has to resort to the hoary old `We Must Protect The Children` argument. Indeed, there are much deeper issues to explore here.

It`s quite laughable to me that this story is being pushed in a way that would have you believe that dodgy porn DVD sellers are jostling for space and trade with drug dealers outside schools and in parks, desperate to flog smut to underage kids.

`Error leaves children unprotected under 1984 Video Recordings Act `

Unprotected from what? I saw ` Enter The Dragon` at 10, `The Exorcist` and `The Evil Dead` at 14 and my first soft porn at around 15, but amazingly, I haven`t needed psychiatric help as a result. We`re back to the `harmful` issue again, and the more you look at it, the more rickety and fragile the argument becomes.

Incredible too that the Mail haven`t picked up on this story...

MichaelG    [25833.   Posted 22-Aug-2009 Sat 06:11] View Near Messages
on the subject of the `Grotesque` ban, and taking my lead from IanG`s excellent last two posts, I thought I`d email the BBFC and try to elicit something more by way of justification and proof of harm which led them to ban this film. This is what was sent:

`Dear BBFC,

I was very surprised by your recent decision to ban outright the Japanese horror movie `Grotesque` and have been reading with interest the press release which supposedly justifies your decision. I have certain issues regarding one part of your statement which I feel requires something further in terms of clarification. After all, the decision has effectively denied adults living in an allegedly `free` country their right to choose for themselves whether they wish to see this film or not.

Taken from your press release:-

“It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to Grotesque, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public."

I would like to ask how exactly the BBFC define the term `harm` and precisely your criteria for assessing the `risk of harm`. Surely your guidelines ought to be able to name the specific harm this movie may cause and precisely who might be affected and in what way? If there is a real risk of harm, then I am sure that case histories exist which prove that such material has this power. I am aware that the 1984 The Video Recordings Act makes clear that harm is not to be interpreted narrowly as behavioural harm, but may also include more insidious risks, and the Board follows this approach in having regard to, for instance, moral harm and possible desensitisation. However, I would also like to know precisely how something as utterly intangible as `moral harm` is assessed and also how you are able to judge levels of desensitisation. Surely you can justify these measures further and offer something in terms of an explanation when something as important as civil liberties and freedom of expression are being placed in jeopardy by some of your decisions?

I most sincerely hope that you are not becoming confused by the power of the moving image to shock, which it frequently can, and the power to harm, for which there is little or nothing in terms of actual, concrete evidence.

With regard to certification of this movie being `unacceptable to the public`, I would like to respond by stating that the section of `the public` who usually object most vociferously to your decisions concerning videogames, DVDs and cinema releases are more often than not the type of people who have little or no interest in the material in question. In all too many cases, they have not even witnessed for themselves that which is deemed so offensive or unacceptable, so it is perfectly safe to assume that such people are in no position to pass judgement or make demands for censorship.

I`m sure I do not need to remind you that there are a very large number of people in this country who are passionate about film and who contribute a great deal of money to the British economy by purchasing DVDs and going to the cinema. Many of these people appreciate (I`m not sure if `enjoy` is the right word!) challenging, controversial cinema. These people, as adults, ought to be able to make their own decisions about what they watch. Yet it`s a sad fact that much of BBFC policy seems to be determined by the apparent fear of what the brigade of incessantly complaining busybodies who are slowly strangling British culture to death might have to say about some of your decisions. I refer of course to individuals like the loathsome John Beyer of Mediawatch and MPs Julian Brazier and Anne Widdecombe, who, as a prime example of exactly what I am referring to, were quick to condemn your recent decision over Lars von Triers `Antichrist` without having seen the film for themselves. Here is another particularly laughable example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

The notion that the BBFC pass a movie uncut after scrutinising it very carefully, then are expected to review or reverse their decision just because someone with nothing better to do with their time, who hasn`t viewed the material in question, decides to complain about it pretty much makes an absolute mockery of the whole rating system. Their `offence` simply HAS to be manufactured or feigned when the thing that allegedly causes offence to them is something that they haven`t viewed for themselves. Why should their views even be given the time of day, let alone placed as higher priority than people who wish to see and judge controversial material for themselves?

Having recently watched the controversial French horror movie `Martyrs`, it has become apparent to me that cinema has been moving in some very exciting, groundbreaking and challenging directions over the last few years (witness `Irreversible`, ` Martyrs`, `Hidden`, Inside` and `Funny Games` as just a few notable examples). I think it`s crucial that certain examples of art are allowed to shock, to repulse and to give their audience a good shaking up every now and again. It`s all too obvious from the pathetic and predictable racket coming from the likes of the people mentioned above that they have little interest in art of any kind, with cinema probably ranking lowest of all in their estimations (probably as it is the art form which, by it`s nature, is often the most controversial). Therefore, the rest of us who actually appreciate cinema as an art form and who pay good money to regularly view it should be spared not only their tiresome tirades, but also not have to endure unnecessary censorship of what we enjoy as a result of the meddling of these uncultured, censorship-crazed louts.

In short, the REAL fans of cinema who buy thousands of DVDs, film magazines, books deserve better than this, and those in this group who are over the age of 18 deserve the right to see `Grotesque` if they wish. I think it`s time your policies started to take into account the people who actually watch the movies you pass and keep the entertainment industry afloat in this country, rather than simply pander to the same old bunch of loud-mouthed individuals who have made a profession out of feigning offence and complaining at the top of their voices at every given opportunity.

I look forward to your comments.

Yours sincerely,

MichaelG`

Not expecting miracles, but I`d like to think it`ll ruffle a few feathers at very least...

MichaelG    [25832.   Posted 21-Aug-2009 Fri 04:02] View Near Messages
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html

`Foreign Secretary David Miliband today condemned the public rejoicing in Libya over al-Megrahi`s release before launching a thinly veiled attack on the SNP for releasing the dying terrorist.`

`He said: "Obviously the sight of a mass murderer getting a hero`s welcome in Tripoli is deeply upsetting, deeply distressing."`

Oh, so you don`t think terrorism is justifiable any more Dave, or is it only deeply distressing because it isn`t in the name of Communism?

Twat...

MichaelG    [25829.   Posted 19-Aug-2009 Wed 11:12] View Near Messages
Re: Grotesque:

"...giving the film a rating would involve a `risk of harm` to those viewing it."

What kind of harm? That it might shock or offend some people?

Interesting to note that on the Daily Mail website, the comments following the article about the banning of `Grotesque` are far more against the ban than for it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207606/British-censor-bans-sexually-sadistic-Japanese-horror-film.html

Nevertheless, with the long shadow of the DPA looming over this country, I doubt I`ll be taking the risk of importing this, as a BBFC ban will serve to inform HM Revenue and Customs that this is a movie they should be keeping their eyes open for. Being that it`s `harmful` and all that...

MichaelG    [25823.   Posted 17-Aug-2009 Mon 12:31] View Near Messages
Re: Easy Offence on Special Offer at Tesco...

Can someone please explain to me how a supermarket which quite happily stocks magazines with near-as-dammit nude girls on the cover like `Loaded`, have suddenly come over all bashful when faced with the `15` rated `Lesbian Vampire Killers`?

Is the mere sight of cleavage now enough to cause offence? Or the word `lesbian`?

By censoring the word `lesbian`, I`d say that was discriminating against lesbians. Clearly there`s something in that word which the bosses at Tesco find unacceptable.

When and where is this insanity going to end?

MichaelG    [25821.   Posted 17-Aug-2009 Mon 11:50] View Near Messages
Re: cor [25819]:

I`m not really disputing your opinion, as that is what it is. You are just as entitled to it as I am to mine.

I do however, wish to point out that I am not some kind of moralising simpleton who sees everything in terms of black and white.

"Since you seem to have the morality all set out in your head about this, tell me; what is the difference between piloting a plane into a financial building hoping to disrupt a country and firing a depleted uranium rocket into a financial building hoping to disrupt a country. except for the fact that the first one requires some self sacrifice and doesn`t fuck up the air for decades to come? cause they both feel like acts of `terror` to me and my country`s responsible for one of them."

Perhaps if I give you an answer to your question of "no difference whatsoever", which really is my honest opinion and is more than likely the answer you wish to hear, you will understand that I have no more love for this country`s thuggish foreign policy, or that of the Americans, than you do, and I hold just as much contempt for their disregard for innocent human life as I do for some fanatic who detonates a device on a packed bus or train.

Initially, I made my point because Miliband is a deluded socialist idiot whose stupid comments I found both staggering and offensive. I essentially have a problem with innocent people being hurt or killed, regardless of the circumstances, the perpetrators, or the cause. If to you this makes me some kind of self-righteous clown who doesn`t understand complex moral or political issues then I`m really sorry you feel that way. But please note that just because we have had a slight difference of opinion, I am not about to leap to the conclusion that you yourself, by arguing your case and disagreeing with me as you have, are somehow condoning the loss of innocent human life.

Which, it has to be said, is somewhat more courtesy than you have extended in my direction.

MichaelG    [25816.   Posted 16-Aug-2009 Sun 23:59] View Near Messages
Re: cor:

History isn`t my strongest point, but if I remember rightly, the French resistance didn`t go around blowing up innocent civilians. I think for me that kind of marks the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter.

I guess this sums up the way I feel better than I can:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1206975/STEPHEN-GLOVER-So-Mr-Miliband-thinks-terrorism-justifiable-That-makes-grade-A-chump-I-thought.html

Moving on, are we all ready for another totally harmless group of people who CommuNuLabour have suddenly decided to declare war on? Oh good...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206901/Mandelson-launches-crackdown-file-sharing--just-days-meeting-record-producer.html

`The business secretary plans to criminalise the estimated seven million people - one in 12 of the population - who illicitly download music and films over the internet.`

`In what critics describe as a gross attack on civil liberties, those flouting new laws could see their internet accounts suspended and face fines of up to £50,000.`

`Parents could even be thrown off the net even if it is their children are caught downloading tracks upstairs in their bedrooms, not them.`

Well, this one should alienate a few more million voters.

Now then... just a few days ago, this odious, slimy creep is swanning around the Rothschild villa in Corfu with David Geffen, the billionaire US entertainment mogul. Next thing he announces is this, despite never having expressed any interest in criminalising such people before. Once again, the worrying CommuNuLabour trend of targeting the end user comes into play (read "we can`t be arsed or don`t have the juristiction to target the people behind it, so we`ll just round up anyone we can get our filthy, fascist hands on who is even slightly involved").

Mandy can mince around on holiday with his rich gay friends until the cows come home as far as I`m concerned, and whilst I don`t agree with illegally downloading material from the internet, I certainly don`t think people should be barred from using it or be faced with a fine so heavy it would probably financially ruin them for something so trivial.

What I have a much bigger problem with is this twat abusing our legislative process by making up laws just to ingratiate himself with his rich mates...

MichaelG    [25814.   Posted 16-Aug-2009 Sun 00:09] View Near Messages
Following on, is anyone else having a more than a little bit of trouble with the mere appearance of a swastika, in whatever context, now being deemed `offensive`?

Yesterday saw a American white supremacist stopped from entering the country to attend the Red, White and Blue Festival. Preston Wiginton, a close associate of BNP leader Nick Griffin, was turned away at Heathrow because officials believed his presence would stir up racial tension.

Now I`m not defending the bilge promoted by the likes of Griffin and Wiginton for one minute, but I`m becoming pretty tired of seeing anything to do with the BNP, or nazis, leaped upon with both feet by our Communist oppressors, to the ridiculous degree where the very sight of a swastika is enough to cause offence. It`s as well that the vast majority of the general public in this country are blissfully unaware of the mass murder, torture and genocide perpetrated by NuLabour poster boys such as Stalin and Mao, which far surpasses in terms of numbers anything the nazis managed during WWII. We`ve as much right, if not more, to be `offended` by the sight of a hammer and sickle as we have a swastika.

It`s also a bit off when CommuNuLabour allow hardline Muslim clerics such as Hamza and Quatada to remain in the country for years, preaching their particular brand of hate, yet turn away the likes of Wilders and Wiginton. Let`s not forget that the abuse doled out to Jews by Islamic fundamentalists is often far more harsh than anything the BNP have publically expressed.

Like it or not, the BNP are an officially recognised political party, and recently thousands of British people have voted and elected two BNP EU MEP`s. It is now a part of British politics, and you don`t really have to look too hard to find the reasons for this.

I`m reminded of Al Pacino`s drunken restaurant rant in `Scarface` - "you people need someone like me, so you can point your fuckin` fingers and say "that`s the bad guy"". Gordon, Harriet, Straw and their contemporaries are probably glad that they have figures like Griffin who can be publically vilified as the villains of the piece, as it diverts attention handily away as they go about their foul work. They`d be outraged at the accusation, but many CommuNuLabour MPs have a lot more in common with fascists that they`d care to admit.

Oh, and right on cue, here`s that gormless little prick Miliband:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206833/David-Miliband-There-circumstances-terrorism-justifiable.html

A senior NuLabour politician praising to the rafters a hardline Communist (and even Stalinist) bomb-maker like Joe Slovo - what a surprise! however, considering that Dave is the son of the Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband, this is probably one case in which you can blame the parents.

Just because Slovo opposed apartheid does not make his actions or involvement with the ANC justifiable. The deaths of innocent people to further a `cause`, however worthy, make the perpetrators no better than the oppressors. A shame Millipede is clearly too fucking stupid and blinded by the pap his dad was peddling to realise this. Essentially, terrorism is OK then if it is perpetrated in the good name of Communism, as this moves it away from mindless, barbaric murder into the lofty realm of freedom fighting. More Marxist adolescent fantasy politics from CommuNuLabour - do grow up you silly little cunt...

MichaelG    [25813.   Posted 15-Aug-2009 Sat 23:10] View Near Messages
Re: Whingeing Basterds...

Hate to say I told you so. Now either I`m blessed with psychic powers that enable me to predict the future, or the incessant snivelling to ASA every time something with a hint of controversy surfaces has just plumbed new depths of pointless predictability.

"The Advertising Standard Agency (ASA) has received complaints from the public over the adverts, which features the `controversial` title and swastikas emblazoned on the posters."

Well there`s a fucking huge surprise. A movie set in nazi Germany features A swastika (not multiples, if you actually bother to look at it properly), which replaces the first `O` of the word `Inglourious`. Not exactly `emblazoned`, is it?

And surely a swear word ceases to be a swear word if it has an incorrect spelling, no?

I`d just love to know what motivates these people and if they ever stop to think of the bigger picture. So let`s just say that they manage to get the poster, as it stands, banned. The film is already on general release, so by the time people get round to taking it down everywhere it appears, millions will have already looked at it, thousands will have seen the film and its theatrical run will be as good as over anyway. An exercise in complete futility.

Secondly, I just noticed the other day that Tescovo (state approved supermarket where the idiotic staff ask forty-something adults for ID when buying alcohol then refuse sale because their wife isn`t carrying any, and give you looks as though you`ve just farted if you dare to ask for one of their carrier bags... sorry, I digress) had the original for sale for a bargain £3.99, calculatingly repackaged to look almost identical to the artwork for Tarantino`s new version. Doubtless some fucking halfwits will buy it thinking they are getting the new 2009 version which has just hit the cinemas, but has anyone else ever noticed that whenever there`s a remake of an old movie, some shifty basterd (sic) attempts to pull a blatant con trick by re-releasing the original version in fancy new packaging so that someone who hasn`t done their homework will easily be fooled into buying it thinking they`re getting the brand new blockbuster? Surely if anything should be banned, it`s this kind of legalised sham.

To further complicate this issue the re-released original has the correct spelling for the title, plus a larger swastika. If the moral minority get wind of this and lodge a successful complaint, this movie will have to be pulled and repackaged before it can be released again. Now that`s really going to help the economy, isn`t it?

Meanwhile, across the pond, in another English-speaking country, with, I might add, a far bigger proportion of puritannical Christian rightwingers within the population, advertising is free to use the full film title, Inglourious Basterds on TV and poster campaigns. Doubtless if anyone piped up with a complaint over there, they`d swiftly be told where to shove it. Depressingly, it would seem whingeing, snivelling , telling tales and feigning offence are now as `British` as Fish and Chips and Red London buses. Thank God there aren`t many survivors left who fought for our freedom in two World Wars to witness this pathetic spectacle...

MichaelG    [25809.   Posted 12-Aug-2009 Wed 22:03] View Near Messages
Proof that the lunatics really have taken over the asylum and are making up the rules:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206119/Council-impose-18-certificate-films-smoking.html

So let`s get this right, there`s no law to say that a child cannot see an adult smoking for real as long as it`s not a public, indoor place, but this bunch of fucking fascists simply have to have a law meaning that anyone under 18 cannot see a fictional movie in which some character sparks up a fag. It`s not as if Bogart turns to camera in the middle of `Casablanca` and says "Hey, kids! You should try smoking - it`s cool!", is it?

This really does beggar belief. I don`t know what`s more distressing; the nth degree control freakery which wouldn`t be out of place in nazi Germany, the active discouragement of cinema revenue during a horrific recession or an approach to the arts from a city council that leads you to think they`re about as cultured as your average football hooligan.

Moving on, I`ve noticed that whilst the after-the-watershed TV spots for Tarantino`s `Inglourious Basterds` have been deemed so offensive that the latter word has to be deleted, yet there doesn`t seem to be any problem with putting it up on posters in high streets where anyone can see it. At least not yet - how long do you reckon before some snivelling shit lodges a complaint and they have to be taken down?

MichaelG    [25805.   Posted 12-Aug-2009 Wed 10:42] View Near Messages
Re: Extreme Arrest:

A Reading Pensioner, eh? The relevant constabulary must be so proud of themselves.

Granted, if child porn has been downloaded, he should be arrested, but Detective Constable Alastair Bagshaw of Loddon Valley `Serious Crime` Team seems unconcerned with that and only makes reference to this individual`s downloading of violent porn, which does make me wonder if there actually was any child porn involved at all. Surely child porn is more of a reason to raid someone`s home that `extreme porn`, no? So why didn`t the rozzer think it was worth mentioning?

Oh sorry, I forgot, it`s all `as bad as...`, isn`t it?

One thing`s for certain, in the same week that a man was hacked to death in front of his own family in a London pubs beer garden, brutal race riots erupted in Birmingham and an armed gang robbed a jewellers in broad daylight on one of London`s busiest shopping streets, I`ll sleep a lot safer in my bed tonight knowing that this particular `Dangerous Pictures` pervert is safely locked up...

L-O-fucking-L...

MichaelG    [25800.   Posted 10-Aug-2009 Mon 13:57] View Near Messages
Here`s a statistic which really does give cause for concern, more so than anything concocted by the Home Orofice anyway:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205607/Shock-figures-reveal-Britain-CCTV-camera-14-people--China.html

MichaelG    [25798.   Posted 9-Aug-2009 Sun 23:38] View Near Messages
Re: sergio:

Caught red-handed, it would appear. It never ceases to amaze me how bogus statistics and dubious `facts`, no matter how many times they are discredited or proved wrong, are still wheeled out time after time by CommuNuLabour liars as irrefutable proof that some kind of legislative action must be taken.

Being that there actually isn`t a pay gap unless you compare part-time female workers with full-time male workers, you have to ask yourself what the hell Lady HaHa is actually playing at. I mean, if there already is as-near-as-dammit equality in the rates of pay given to men and women, then what on earth is the point of campaigning for it? Another complete WASTE of taxpayer`s money and a senior ministers time, it would seem.

But then, it looks as though timewasting is something Harman excels at (I knew we`d find something eventually), especially when supposedly `running the country`:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205269/Harriet-Harmans-Go-Home-Early-Week-What-really-got-charge.html

Yes, in between all those self-promotional media interviews, Harman still found time to start late and piss off early most days, do her shopping, and give her mother a guided tour of No.10. Oh, and she also managed to create a three-day window where no-one appeared to be running the country by pissing off on holiday to Italy well before Mandelson returned from his hoilday.

I hate her more with each passing second...

MichaelG    [25793.   Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 13:36] View Near Messages
Very much looking forward to seeing Tarantino`s new movie this month, however, it seems as though I have been mistaken as to it`s title.

You see, I have been under the impression for months now that it was called `Inglourious Basterds`. Silly me, I`ve just caught an ad for it, after the watershed, on Comedy Central, which tells me that I`m completely wrong and it`s actually called `Inglourious ......`.

I can`t tell you how silly I feel. I`m either a complete moron and I don`t know half as much about film as I think I do, or the word `Basterds`, even spelled incorrectly, has been deemed by the powers that be to be so offensive that it cannot be viewed on an advert even after the watershed, yet it can appear quite legitimately, and BBFC approved, in a PG cert movie.

Looks like I`m just going to have to watch my step when buying my cinema ticket for the movie. If I dare to utter the word `Basterds`, even spelled incorrectly, in my local cinema foyer when asking for my ticket, I`m fully expecting to be piled upon by several burly rozzers and carted off to a CommuNuLabour re-education camp for such an outrageous breach of the peace and use of offensive language in a public place.

Maybe if it`s retitled `Inglourious Heterosexual Male Basterds` it`ll offend fewer people...

MichaelG    [25790.   Posted 6-Aug-2009 Thu 10:28] View Near Messages
Let`s all laugh at Lady HaHa... again!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1204657/My-womanifesto-With-Gordon-holiday-Harriet-Harman-launched-anti-male-blitzkrieg--really-like-PM.html

So absolutely bang on the money it`s priceless...

MichaelG    [25782.   Posted 5-Aug-2009 Wed 10:59] View Near Messages
Re: phantom [25775]:

I`m ususally very sceptical when it comes to conspiracy theories, but in this case an exception wouldn`t be out of the question at all.

Maybe it`s coincidence, who knows? However, I really don`t think that in crazy, mixed-up Harrietworld, there`s any differentiation between non-consensual violence and BDSM. It`s all nasty, horrid, misogynistic men beating up and bullying poor, defenceless women, therefore it must be legislated against in order to stamp it out. I`m sure in her mind, any violence against women is wrong, even if it`s just a mild, fully consensual spanking.

What blissfully ignorant Harm-man doesn`t seem to get is that in a much higher percentage of BDSM relationships, it is the female who takes the dominant role and the male the submissive. Anyone wishing to put this to the test, log onto fetishlink.com or alt.com and compare the number of female submissives and dominatrixes. I don`t want to get into the whole psycho-analytic reasoning behind it, but, in a nutshell, from what I read about it in my younger days, much of it stems from a reversal of normal gender roles i.e. men who, in their `normal` lives have to be tough, decisive and `in-charge` of things (be that the household, or managerial/directorial role in the workplace) do enjoy being able to relinquish that completely within the realms of sexual fantasy. Similarly women who may not get to wield any kind of authority elsewhere relish the control and power that stepping into the boots of a dominatrix gives them.

So, paradoxically, if Harm-man does have it in for the BDSM crowd by lecturing about and promoting non-violent relationships, she`s actually doing considerable damage to a scenario where, more often than not, women definitely have the upper hand and an element of complete control (even she doesn`t have the neck to ban BDSM where there is a female submissive involved but allow female dominatrixes to continue regardless, so it has to be all tarred with the same Communist brush).

So, all this shite about empowering women and making them more equal is actually having completely the opposite effect in this case. Obviously the silly moo is completely unaware of this...

Oh, and just as an appendix to the rather mysterious bust-up Lady HaHa had today with the Home Office over rape legislation, apparently the proposed changes were shelved because they didn`t go far enough for Harm-man`s liking. The very thought of what she could possibly have in mind chills me to the bone...

MichaelG    [25774.   Posted 4-Aug-2009 Tue 23:41] View Near Messages
When the cat`s away...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204308/Harman-new-clash-Home-Office-plans-boost-rape-conviction-rate.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204359/In-week-Harriet-Harman-takes-charge-feminist-initiative.html

So, men can`t be trusted to run things on their own, eh? As Harman proves now beyond a shadow of a doubt, it`s not a case of either men OR women not being trusted to run things on their own, but rather a case of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, be they men or women, who to place in any position of power is roughly equivalent to installing a great white shark as general manager at your local swimming pool.

Harman`s week as acting PM in Brown`s absence has seen her displaying all the restraint and responsibility of the proverbial kid in a sweet shop, as she blatantly abuses this position in a crass display of political grandstanding (does she have any idea how utterly stupid she looks?) and also to step up her feminazi blitzkreig against the male population of Britain.

What`s more alarming is the news of the Government`s attempts to boost rape conviction rates, something which Harman is clearly so excited about that she can`t keep her trap shut about it. If it makes her this enthusiastic, it`s got to be bad news for men in general somehow...

MichaelG    [25773.   Posted 4-Aug-2009 Tue 21:48] View Near Messages
Re: Phil Woolas:

So, you earn citizenship points by being involved in politics, but it must be the kind of involvement that CommuNuLabour approve of. Therefore, canvassing for any other party probably won`t cut it, nor will actively standing against CommuNuLabour policies or legislation.

CommunNuLabour are now so unpopular and have managed to alienate just about everyone in this country, that the only hope they have of getting anyone to support them is bribing random Johnny Foreigners with promises of British citizenship. Sad, desperate, flailing attempts to avert the inevitable.

Only around nine months of Communist lunacy left...

MichaelG    [25770.   Posted 3-Aug-2009 Mon 23:27] View Near Messages
Balls by name, bollocks by action...

Room for another Harman Howler? Thought so...

`Referring to the U.S. bank which sparked the global turmoil, Miss Harman told GMTV: `Somebody did say... and it wasn`t me... that if it had been Lehman Sisters rather than Lehman Brothers then there may not have been as much.`

`If it had been`, `somebody did say`... are we supposed to believe that the financial crisis could have been avoided off the back of hearsay, conjecture and pointless hypothesis concerning the gender of the people involved?

I can barely look at this halfwitted excuse for a human being now without spiralling off into a state of barely controllable rage. Is any white, heterosexual man in the country ever going to vote Labour again after being forced to listen to this same old irrelevant, spiteful tripe every time Harman opens her stupid mouth?

MichaelG    [25768.   Posted 3-Aug-2009 Mon 10:18] View Near Messages
Re: Harriet Herman-Goering:

Another outright classic from our wonderful INequalities minister - men, apparently "cannot be left to run things on their own".

Really `love`? I`m a man and seem to have made a pretty good job of singlehandedly running my own business for the last five years. On my own. But then, what the fuck would this harpy know about actually running a business? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, `dear`.

Being able to `run things` successfully has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with actual, relevant ability, but I guess a shallow, talentless, egregious, self-important, twisted chancer like Harman, who is clearly lacking in ability of pretty much any description, naturally needs something to else to fall back on.

I can`t wait to see the back of this hag next year...

MichaelG    [25754.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 23:17] View Near Messages
Now the union Jack flag is deemed `offensive`:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202882/Banned-police-Union-Flag-badge-backs-troops.html

Seems as though all this has kicked off because one person lodged a complaint saying it was `offensive`. Doesn`t even seem to be a reason why it is considered offensive... absolute insanity.

MichaelG    [25748.   Posted 28-Jul-2009 Tue 11:41] View Near Messages
Re: Antichrists Beyer and Widdecombe...

`John Beyer, its director, said: There are explicit scenes of masturbation, real sexual activity, mutilation and part of it are filmed in black and white to accentuate the theme of darkness. I would call upon every local authority to watch this film and if they are unhappy with what they see, they should withdraw it from cinemas straightaway.`

Didn`t he just fucking retire?

Six to four says that titwitch Widdecombe hasn`t actually seen the film either...

MichaelG    [25735.   Posted 26-Jul-2009 Sun 03:02] View Near Messages
Reassuring to see CommuNuLabour continue hammering nails into their own coffin after another humiliating defeat in last week`s by-election:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202173/Secret-Labour-tax-having-patio--Millions-homes-assessed-council-charge-hammers-middle-classes.html

Keep `em coming, lads, the political wilderness is just around the corner...

MichaelG    [25713.   Posted 24-Jul-2009 Fri 10:20] View Near Messages
Re: Political Guidance... Another parliamentary committee to consider video games policy

Christ, can`t they find anything better to do with their time?

"...cross-departmental representatives will be tasked with considering changes in policy to help the industry."

Help the industry? Oh look, a flying pig!

This will be all about age ratings, compulsory certificates and quite possibly censorship of controversial titles.

And what`s the betting that greasy little troublemaking shit Keith Vaz manages to worm his way onto this committee? Of course, he knows all about videogames and their age ratings. Well, he must do, he has two children. As he never misses an opportunity to tell us...

MichaelG    [25709.   Posted 23-Jul-2009 Thu 22:43] View Near Messages
Re: Sausage Head Advert Censors...

"However, although it was not sexually explicit, the innuendo was sufficiently strong to present a problem if it was heard by older children."

Present a problem? What kind of problem? Oh, I see, perhaps they might have a bit of a snigger with their mates, and we couldn`t be having that in this humourless, grey, PC-ruled toilet of a country, could we?

"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."

For fuck`s sake, what harm could possibly be caused here? I just don`t get it.

If innuendo is harmful to children, then all Carry On movies, James Bond movies and episodes of `On the Buses` should be withdrawn from shops immediately, re-classified 18R and sold only in licensed sex shops.

I`d better stop there, there`s a risk of giving the powers that be ideas...

But you want `harm`? How`s about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201625/Cheating-wife-face-honour-killing-acid-poured-lovers-throat.html

Bleating religious sheep (I`m assuming it`s them, it usually is) want suggestive sausage ads banned and go out of their way to make sure this happens, yet at the same time, in the same country, an innocent man is beaten, stabbed, burnt and forced to drink sulphuric acid by... a gang of religious sheep whose stupid, backward, intolerant beliefs contradict their victim`s chosen lifestyle.

No ban on the cause of this horrific attack forthcoming anytime soon though, is there?

What a fucked up country we live in...

MichaelG    [25695.   Posted 21-Jul-2009 Tue 10:27] View Near Messages
More CommuNuLabour repression, the Chinese must be so proud of us:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201171/Police-given-powers-enter-homes-tear-anti-Olympics-posters-Games.html

Perhaps in the run up to next year`s election, the police will be given the powers to enter your home and tear down `Vote Liberal` or `Vote Conservative` posters too. That is, if the Great Unelected Dictator actually allows us an election...

MichaelG    [25691.   Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 11:31] View Near Messages
Cheers guys, might just have to order one at a time from now on. Grrrrr....

MichaelG    [25688.   Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 10:49] View Near Messages
I`ve gotten my second package of DVDs through from Amazon.com (the American site) this week, and for the second time I`ve been hit with a fucking daylight robbery customs charge of 16 quid by those greedy cocksuckers at Revenue and Customs!

Does anyone know a way around this? It seems to be getting worse. Even individual DVDs are now getting slapped with a charge almost every time - it`s getting to the point where it`s costing you double the price it was when you ordered it.

A surprisingly helpful character at the Post Office told me last time that getting it sent as a gift means you usually don`t have to pay customs charges - anyone know if this is true?

MichaelG    [25686.   Posted 20-Jul-2009 Mon 10:16] View Near Messages
Seems as though Hart`s stupid opinions aren`t going down to well, even in middle England - check out some of the comments online after his article...

MichaelG    [25683.   Posted 19-Jul-2009 Sun 23:08] View Near Messages
More from the `AntiChrist` controversy - guess from which corner this time?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

What does it take to get a film banned these days? How about living in Iran or China? Don`t let us stop you, off you go...

"They have given the film an 18 certificate. As we all know, this is meaningless nowadays in the age of the DVD because sooner or later, thanks to the gross irresponsibility of some parents, any film that is given general release will be seen by children."

So, because some parents are `grossly irresponsible`, we should just ban things to save them the trouble of supervising their kids properly.

"You do not need to see Lars von Trier`s Antichrist (which is released later this week) to know how revolting it is."

Er, actually, yes you do. It`s called first hand experience, and without it, you`re in no real position to judge, or even offer your opinion. He speaks of `horrors the like of which I have never witnessed` in his review. Precisely. He HASN`T witnessed them.

"I haven`t seen it myself, nor shall I - and I speak as a broad-minded arts critic, strongly libertarian in tendency. But merely reading about Antichrist is stomach-turning, and enough to form a judgment."

A broad-minded, strongly libertarian arts critic whose first reaction when faced with a controversial movie is to start screaming for it to be banned. Go figure.

This article just keeps getting better:

"It doesn`t shock or surprise me in the slightest that Europe now produces such pieces of sick, pretentious trash, fully confirming our jihadist enemies` view of us as a society in the last stages of corruption and decay."

He`d definitely be much happier being a film critic in Afghanistan, seeing as he clearly shares the views of the Taliban. Fuck it, I`d even buy his ticket for him. One way, naturally.

"As soon as it`s released on DVD, Antichrist will harm children anyway, deeply and irrevocably. But when did this principle of protecting only children arise anyway? What about harming adults?"

Harm children AND adults? Er, how, exactly?

"If I were to see Antichrist, I don`t believe for a moment that it would incite me into copycat violent behaviour or make me a danger to others."

OK, so you`re saying it actually won`t harm you then?

"But it would poison my mind and imagination, with explicit, ferocious scenes of sexual violence that would stay with me for ever."

Oh, I see. He can foretell all this without actually seeing the movie. Amazing.

"Isn`t that good enough reason to ban it, or at least demand extensive cuts?"

No film should be cut or banned just because it has the power to shock. Here`s yet another case of a pussy film critic who can`t get a proper critic`s job on a movie magazine, hasn`t the stomach for his profession, likely dislikes most contemporary cinema (even though he offers scant praise in the direction of `Bruno`, just to show how `libertarian` he is in the face of another controversial movie) and secretly wishes he had the power to cut or ban like the BBFC.

Oh, and in response to the utterly pointless question "What DOES it take for a film to get banned these days?", just tell the BBFC it`s a porn movie featuring sexual violence. That ought to do it...

MichaelG    [25659.   Posted 8-Jul-2009 Wed 21:38] View Near Messages
Bernie Ecclestones recent comments give our friends at the Mail another chance to have a go at Max Mosely:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198430/STEPHEN-GLOVER-Fascism-sakes-removal-gruesome-pair-public-life-come-soon-enough.html

Whilst I fully understand that Max`s dad was undeniably a fascist, it seems the Mail cannot help themselves in attempting to brand Max himself as a chip off the old block:

`Now Mr Ecclestone has revealed political views which would have made him highly popular with Sir Oswald Mosley, and doubtless commend themselves to his son.`

Has Max ever come out with anything that would indicate he shares these hardline political views? Don`t think so. So what`s left?

`As for Max Mosley, he has something of his father`s cruel, hard, fanatical look.`

Oh, I see. He has that `look`, does he? He looks a bit like his dad (how remarkable), so he therefore must be a fanatical fascist too. Makes perfect sense.

However, I think we all know the real reason why pondlife journos like Stephen Glover just can`t leave Max alone. Yes, we`re back to that `sick Nazi orgy` with five `hookers` again, and Glover just can`t seem to come to terms with the fact that Max successfully defended his right to a certain degree of privacy in his life:

"The judge, Mr Justice Eady, delivered a bizarre summing up.

He said that if it had been a Nazi orgy, he would probably have found in the paper`s favour, since Mr Mosley was a public figure, and `the people of all races and religions` with whom he had to deal in his job might have been offended.

As it was, he believed there were no Nazi connotations, and awarded damages to Mr Mosley.

This was a morally bankrupt judgment. If a Nazi orgy can be offensive to people, and therefore can justifiably be revealed by a newspaper in the public interest, so, surely, can a non-Nazi orgy.

Nazi or non-Nazi, the perversions were extreme and degrading.

In either event, Mr Mosley is a public figure whose antics might shock `the people of all races and religions` whom he encounters."

So fucking what? 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?

Perhaps the most telling comment in this pointless article is Glover`s statement that Ecclestone `does not look like a man whom you would rush to introduce to the vicar`s wife`. This outdated, fantasy concept of genteel middle England and what constitutes `Britishness` is the same deranged notion that has led us to the DPA, Dangerous Drawings and numerous other rotten bits of CommunNuLabour legislation. Perhaps Glover needs to stop watching crap like `The Vicar of Dibley`, get out more often and meet some real people...

MichaelG    [25648.   Posted 6-Jul-2009 Mon 10:46] View Near Messages
Oh look, something new for the government to ban:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197747/Boy-14-fighting-life-plunging-30ft-free-running-stunt.html

Stand by for tried and tested soundbites; `growing social problem`, `protect our children`, `no place in our society`...

MichaelG    [25634.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 08:54] View Near Messages
Re: emark [25633]:

As cor has just put it:

`In fact this method is teaching kids that they have the right to go through life without being insulted, without having the right to disagree with any official standards, its creating another generation of `complainers` that will invoke tighter restrictions on free speech and free expression.`

This is exactly the problem I have with this. What happened to advice like `just ignore them` or `rise above it` - the kind that I got when I was a kid? Now the message seems to be `go running away, crying and telling tales when someone calls you a nasty name or something offends you - it`s the right thing to do`. Is this advice going to help future generations overcome crisis or adversity? Somehow I think not.

I also stand by my comments about the `I love gay people` bandwagon. Surely you must be able to see this for the crass, vote grabbing, fake `concern` it truly is? If not, perhaps this might convince you:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197146/Labour-minister-smear-row-claiming-deep-strain-homophobia-exists-Tory-party.html

Both parties are practically falling over themselves all of a sudden on an issue neither seemed massively fussed about beforehand, and an election coming within the year? Call me cynical if you wish...

MichaelG    [25632.   Posted 5-Jul-2009 Sun 08:14] View Near Messages
Re: emark [25630]:

I`m not for one minute suggesting that bullying is a joke. But you have to ask yourself just how far CommuNuLabour are going to take this - down to 14 year olds? How about 12? Or 9? Or why not just go all the way down to primary school level? It has to be across the board, no? Otherwise it won`t work. Now try explaining to an eight year old why he`s in deep trouble for calling his mate a `puff`, when he`s too young and too far away from sexual maturity to understand the meaning of the word.

Problem is, nobody who creates the rules and regulations we all have to live by these days seems to have the slightest idea where to draw the line. Does playground banter and mild pee-taking count as `bullying`? To me, that IS a joke - it`s not bullying. By insinuating that I think bullying is a joke suggests to me that you don`t think there`s a difference and it should all be ruthlessly stamped out in traditional `clunking fist` NuLabour fashion. I experienced a lot of piss-taking when I was at school, much of which now would probably be seen as `bullying` by the PC brigade. None of it, however, prepared me for the real deal I experienced at work for years starting when I was around 19. With that in mind, and the fact that my experiences led me down the route of counselling and medication, please don`t think I`m being dismissive of the serious and damaging effects of REAL bullying. I understand better than most, believe me.

My point is that you need to be able to tell the difference, and I have little confidence that Ed Balls is going to have a clue where to start.

Of course it isn`t nice to call other kids nasty names. My parents taught me that too. But kids are kids, kids take the piss out of each other, and I do believe that a bit of ribbing can be invaluable in toughening kids (and adults) up. We just have to be able to differentiate between banter, said in jest and without malice, and downright nasty, vindictive, calculated bullying.

Let`s just see where CommuNuLabour decide it best to draw that line, shall we?

Re: Beyer Steps Down...

Get in! Lets hope with the dwindling bunch of Mediasnitch members, they are unable to find a suitable replacement.

Makes you wonder what he`s going to do with himself now though. I mean, what possible kind of employment would you be suitable for after wasting years of your life doing THAT?

MichaelG    [25628.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 22:39] View Near Messages
The frantic scramble to be seen on the `I love gay people` bandwagon continues; common sense, it would seem, is not a requirement in taking part:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197549/Balls-bans-childrens-gay-jibes-government-cracks-sexual-bullying.html

So what are you going to do, Ed? Put every 11 year-old in jail who jokingly calls one of his mates a `puff`?

Maybe we could have all school playgrounds, corridors and classrooms bugged, so we can root out this `sexist and sexual` bullying.

Not called `Balls` for nothing, I see...

MichaelG    [25620.   Posted 4-Jul-2009 Sat 02:10] View Near Messages
Re: pbr {25619]:

Dear oh dear, this is just embarrassing:

"...and a reasonable person looking at the writing would think that any portrayal of such person or animal was realistic."

You can have realistic depictions in visual images, granted, but how can you have a `realistic portrayal` in a written work which everyone KNOWS is fiction?

What is wrong with these people? Can`t they just leave the law alone for five fucking minutes without trying to stick their own personal stamp on it, without, I might add, the slightest consideration of the implications?

Surely common sense must be brought into play here, or else we`ll be finding ourselves arrested in Waterstones for buying De Sade or Bret Easton Ellis books.

What`s next? Dangerous Music?

MichaelG    [25617.   Posted 3-Jul-2009 Fri 10:41] View Near Messages
Everyone ready for a good old belly laugh?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197146/Labour-minister-smear-row-claiming-deep-strain-homophobia-exists-Tory-party.html

`This Government is committed to standing at your shoulder in the fight for equality and we are guided by one very simple principle when it comes to LGBT rights: you can`t legislate love.` - Gordon Brown.

Can`t legislate love?!?!? Certainly hasn`t stopped your fucking poisonous party from trying by launching that foul legislative shrapnel grenade known as the DPA in the general direction of the BDSM Community, has it? What a fucking prick.

Yes, it`s all well and good if you`re gay, lesbian or transgender, isn`t it? Everyone else can either just fuck off or go to prison if their kind of alternative sexuality does not fall within the narrow guidelines of approval set out by the Communist Party.

I really don`t know how the Brown Menace gets to sleep at night coming out with two-faced bullshit like this...

MichaelG    [25605.   Posted 1-Jul-2009 Wed 23:36] View Near Messages
Re: Shaun [25604]:

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

As soon as I read about this, I suspected that this would be the case. How many times have Beyer or Brazier whined about movies which you know for a fact they haven`t seen? I remember Brazier, in his attempts to bring the BBFC under government remit a while back, claiming that the 9 minute rape scene in `Irreversible` must have been glamourizing rape purely because of the length of the scene(!). Clearly he hadn`t viewed it...

The notion that the BBFC pass a movie uncut after scrutinising it very carefully, then have to review or reverse their decision just because some snivelling tosser with nothing better to do with their time, who hasn`t viewed the material in question, decides to complain about it is going to make an absolute mockery of the whole rating system.

But then, perhaps that`s the idea. The more complaints and appeals the BBFC receive will perhaps be seen as indicative of the ineffective, out-of-touch status of the BBFC, reflective of a genuine demand for stricter censorship and will lead to the introduction of a tougher, more `publically accountable` body, run by our ever-so `publically accountable` government. Result? State censorship, my friends...

I guess all we can do is, as phantom suggests, use the system to our advantage by lodging a complaint every time the BBFC cut or refuse to classify something. May not work, but it`s worth a go. After all, anyone can appeal or complain, not just the nutters...

MichaelG    [25584.   Posted 27-Jun-2009 Sat 01:35] View Near Messages
Re: Janus17:

Just had a look on the fakecharities.org website and there`s some fascinating stuff on here. Check out the full list:

http://fakecharities.org/

Effectively, CommunNuLabour are bunging OUR money in the direction of any lobby groups/organisations which are in support of their numerous agendas, ranging from climate change to higher alcohol prices. Camouflaged propaganda might be a good term for it, although I can think of other less polite names.

Personal favourite (after `Eaves` of course) has to be this:

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/living-streets92.php?searchresult=1&sstring=living+streets

A pressure group wanting urban speed limits reduced to 20mph receives £438,213 (67% of total income) from the taxpayer. If it achieves its aim, there will be a huge rise in speed traps to enforce it, ergo a huge rise in speeding convictions as motorists attempt to adapt to the change, meaning a significant increase in revenue from speeding fines going to... the government!

Also, ever wondered why it seems so difficult to deport migrants and asylum seekers, even when they`ve broken the law? Here`s why:

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/migrant-helpline98.php?searchresult=1&sstring=migration

Total £10,025,226 (96% of total income) received from the taxpayer. So it isn`t courts and judges fucking up the program when it comes to removing these people from our country, as various immigration or Home Office officials will tell you. It`s this government bunging £10million of taxpayer`s money to an organisation whose sole purpose is to assist these people in remaining in Britain and to resist the `unjust and inhumane` nature of UK immigration laws.

No, you really couldn`t make it up. Hideous, wasteful, self-promotional scams, perpetrated under the radar by this most revolting government in a time of national financial crisis. Absolutely deplorable.

MichaelG    [25577.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 23:26] View Near Messages
Oh, the irony:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195280/MP-couple-dubbed-Mr-amp-Mrs-Expenses-face-having-main-home-repossessed--unoccupied-SEVEN-months.html

Just shows that no-one is safe from CommuNuLabour policy, not even their own kind. Especially amusing that it should happen to possibly the biggest pair of fraudulent, swindling cheats in the party.

But isn`t it scary that the state can do this? If you go and live abroad for ten months, the Communists can seize your property and let it to whoever they choose. Naturally, you won`t see a penny of rent, and the double irony is that while you go to live abroad for a bit, they`ll probably let it to some Afghan asylum seeker and his six kids, paid for yet again by the taxpayer.

What might happen if you had 11 months in hospital? Could you return and find someone else living in your home? Or how about if you owned two properties, made your living from renting one out, but couldn`t fill it with a tenant for a year? Once again, legislation doubtless conceived on loo roll while that self-righteous, arrogant, fat twat Prescott was taking a dump.

Yet again, in CommuNuLabour Britain, the state own everything, including the roof over your head which you work 25 years to pay for. I`ll probably laugh my nuts off if these two crooks end up impaled on NuLab policy, but it still won`t take the nasty taste away left by this vile measure.

Sorry about this, but here`s yet another quote from 1984 which illustrates perfectly that we`re almost there in terms of a full realisation:

"Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."

With the DPA, perhaps we don`t even have that anymore...

MichaelG    [25575.   Posted 24-Jun-2009 Wed 14:11] View Near Messages
Re: freeworld [25571]:

Cheers dude, just put this on my wish list on Amazon and will buy it soon!

Some of the related items sound like interesting reading too, ever heard of or read any of these?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007229704/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i3?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0007293399/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i4?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1906142343/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i5?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0FCA0FQVS77FS204ACMF&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467198433&pf_rd_i=468294

Re: BBFC:

`82% of recent film and DVD viewers thought the BBFC was an effective regulator` & `The same people agreed with 99% of the classification decisions for the films they had watched`.

Think this might shut Beyer up for five minutes with his constant whining about the BBFC being out of touch with public opinion and not taking into account what the majority of the public want?

OK, maybe five minutes was a bit optimistic. I`d be happy to settle for two and a half...

MichaelG    [25564.   Posted 23-Jun-2009 Tue 10:18] View Near Messages
Pass the sick bag:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1194865/LITTLEJOHN-Praise-Gord.html

Another pompous twat who thinks all he has to do to make him a model citizen is turn up at church once a week. No point in keeping your beliefs to yourself when you can broadcast them on national TV, is there Gordo?

MichaelG    [25563.   Posted 23-Jun-2009 Tue 10:07] View Near Messages
Re: pbr {25560]:

Comedy genius notwithstanding on the part of the person who lobbed the pack of bacon, I agree that this may not have been the correct response. But, without raising issues of freedom of speech, were the protests in the same way `correct`? It seems a bit rich when you deliberately set out with the intention of issuing inflammatory remarks in public then running crying to the rozzers about `being offended` when said remarks elicit exactly the response you were hoping for, no?

I also think that your statement about pelting them from the rooftops is somewhat misleading. As far as I know, the only object launched in the general direction of the protesters was the aforementioned single pack of bacon - not exactly the rocks and burning oil that the phrase `pelted from the rooftops` brings to mind!

The point I was getting at, which perhaps I didn`t make clear enough, was that there were people cautioned (and possibly even arrested, I don`t remember) by the police for vocally venting their anger in the direction of the protesters. The protesters themselves, despite spouting deliberately and clearly incendiary remarks and displaying intimidating behaviour, were not in any way interfered with by the police. And this is not the first time this has happened. The Mohammed cartoon protests, involving the burning of flags and incitement to murder and terrorism, were also free from police intervention, yet members of the public who shouted abuse back at the nutters were again singled out by the police.

The police can talk bollocks about `Community Cohesion` all they want, but the fact remains that `offence`, and the automatic right to be shielded and protected from it, seems to be solely the privilege of certain minority groups. The rest of us don`t seem to have the same rights - one rule for one set of people and a different rule for another. Surely the crux of the problem lies with people being unequal in the eyes of the law, (despite what we`re told) and not with how certain people respond to carefully calculated belligerence.

MichaelG    [25559.   Posted 22-Jun-2009 Mon 22:58] View Near Messages
Re: phantom [25558]:

A good point, very well put, my friend.

The problem as I see it is that nowadays, we`ve almost gotten to the point where I sincerely believe that `offence` is simply feigned by certain people because they know that simply by saying "I`m offended!" means that there`s a fair chance that some kind of action will be taken on their behalf.

Naturally, this arrangement suits the likes of Beyer and Brazier perfectly. However, the distinct lack of activity on the part of the BBFC when they pipe up amuses me - seems like we have a couple of little boys who`ve cried wolf once too often.

Also, and this is a problem that can be traced right back to Mary Whitehouse, their `offence` HAS to be manufactured or feigned when the thing that allegedly causes offence to them is something that they haven`t viewed for themselves. It`s very existence offends them, merely because some newspaper or Christian periodical has told them that it`s controversial.

The Sikh attack on the theatre showing Beshti and the trouble caused by the Mohammed cartoons are prime examples of just how twisted things have become. If you`re offended and you belong to one of the officially endorsed, government-protected minority groups, then it`s perfectly acceptable to illustrate to everyone just how upset you are by baying for murder or resorting to violence, intimidation and vandalism. The personal safety of other people and adherence to the law are now of lesser importance than being `offended`. Even worse was the recent shameful display by Islamic loons in Luton, who were able to freely stand, intimidate and insult war veterans and their families while the police idly looked on. However, what was absolutely not allowed by the thought police was any kind of retort which may have offended the nutters; one person was actually arrested for throwing a packet of bacon at them for crying out loud!

Like yourself, I see myself as a grown up, and the days of running to the teacher in the playground because someone called me a nasty name are well behind me. Yet if I were that way inclined, I`m entirely the wrong colour or religious persuasion to be able to pull it off successfully. Ironically, I find that in itself highly offensive.

At the moment, however, I find nothing more offensive than this man and his sustained and continuous attempts to resist the democracy we as a nation are entitled to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194860/Gordon-Brown-From-serve-master--The-British-people.html

"We have learned our lesson"? Piss off, Gordon...

MichaelG    [25557.   Posted 22-Jun-2009 Mon 14:17] View Near Messages
Re: Antichrist:

"From the accounts I have heard of Antichrist, this does seem to be one more example of how the BBFC has given up on trying to regulate material which the majority of the public feel is offensive."

Big difference between regulation and censorship, but Brazier seems unable to see it. The movie has been regulated - it`s been given a certificate which means only adults over the age of 18 are allowed to see it. If that`s not regulation, perhaps Brazier can tell us what is? Merely banning something does not equate to regulation.

Also, can someone please explain to me how the majority of the public feel this film is offensive when it hasn`t even been released yet? Surely you actually need to experience something for yourself before you`re in any position to comment on whether or not it is offensive, no? So how can the `majority of the public` feel that Antichrist is offensive when they haven`t EVEN FUCKING SEEN IT YET?!?!?!

Forgive me, I`m completely forgetting for a second the way in which tiny minds like those of Brazier and Beyer operate. We all know by now that in their world, all you need to determine whether something is going to offend you is a bible in one hand and the latest issue of the Daily Mail in the other.

Having just minutes ago finished watching the controversial French horror movie `Martyrs` (highly recommended, but please approach with extreme caution), now might be a good time to get something off my chest. Cinema has been moving in some very exciting, groundbreaking and challenging directions over the last few years (witness `Irreversible`, ` Martyrs`, `Hidden`, Inside` and `Funny Games` as just a few notable examples). I think it`s crucial that certain examples of art are allowed to shock, to repulse and to give their audience a bloody good shaking up every now and again. It`s all too obvious from the pathetic and predictable racket coming from the likes of Brazier and Beyer that they have no interest in art of any kind, with cinema probably ranking lowest in their estimations (probably as it is the art form which, by it`s nature, is often the most controversial). Therefore, the rest of us who actually appreciate cinema as an art form and who pay good money to regularly view it should be spared not only their tiresome tirades, but also not have to endure unnecessary censorship of what we enjoy as a result of the meddling of these uncultured, religious yobs.

That`s a given, and to be honest, the likes of Beyer and Brazier are so toothless these days in terms of influencing BBFC policy that they`re almost laughable. However, I have certain issues with so-called `film critics` nowadays who work for national newspapers. In so many cases, I simply fail to see how they get into these jobs. All too often, these people seem to either dislike their work intensely or even be repulsed by what they have to sit through (must be such a tough job).

For example, check out this chump`s `review` of the aforementioned `Martyrs`:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/film_reviews/article5975629.ece

Does being offended to the point of not being able to sit through the full movie somehow make you more highbrow? How can you award it 2 stars when you haven`t even seen it all? Seriously, this irks me intensely. Twats like this get paid a considerable amount of money for doing something which I would happily do for free because I love cinema so much, and all they can do is sit there and fucking moan about it or, worse still, not even bother to see out the full 95 or so minutes because it`s all a bit too distressing for them. Absolutely shameful.

Then you get this cunt:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194007/Transformers-Revenge-Of-The-Fallen-What-metal-racket.html

"The film seems to be aimed at extremely small boys, yet there are explicit references to sex and drugs that are wildly inappropriate in a movie with a PG certificate."

If you`re getting offended by `Transformers`, then I`m afraid it really is time to find yourself a new profession. Is Beyer up for retirement anytime soon? Looks like we`ve just found a perfect replacement.

Thank God we actually can still read proper reviews by real film critics (i.e. people who actually like cinema) in places like `Empire`...

MichaelG    [25550.   Posted 21-Jun-2009 Sun 10:19] View Near Messages
Re: Beware of Computer Repairers...

I`d agree with emark in that my suspicion would immediately fall onto a mainstream computer store like PC World (other snivelling, tell-tale computer shops are available) for reporting this guy as they`ve done stuff like this before. Granted, they did everyone a favour by grassing up a vile creep like Gary Glitter, but nevertheless, questions do need to be asked about quite how their employees are qualified or trained to be in a position to spot an `extreme` image. Even familiarity with the wording of the law may not be enough, being as it`s so vague.

Interesting comments from the Judge in this case though:

"Computers are a substitute for socialising and social skills. But nothing will be gained by sending you into custody, because you wouldn’t survive because you would be vulnerable. Support and assistance is needed."

Which begs the question as to why custodial sentences were deemed necessary for this `crime` in the first place - surely sending people to prison requires something more serious than viewing something "grossly offensive and disgusting", or which might cause carefully measured, purely hypothetical offence to the constituents of some career-minded, sabre-rattling cunt like Martin Salter?

I also wonder how heaping the shame, stigma and humiliation that inevitably accompanies the placing of someone on the SOR is in any way supposed to support or assist this individual, who in the Judge`s own words already has `low social skills`?

As we`ve all maintained for so long now, this is a ghastly, unnecessary law devised by a morally bankrupt, evil government. Hopefully too many more people won`t fall foul.

Moving on, a classic quote from Crash Gordon today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194475/Brown-resign-New-Year-party-new-Election-leader-claim-Labour-insiders.html

"To be honest, you could walk away from all of this tomorrow," he said in an interview published on Saturday. "I’m not interested in what accompanies being in power."

No, it`s just a fucking hassle having to explain yourself to the electorate all the time, isn`t it? It`d be much better if you could just concentrate on the power and not concern yourself with what accompanies it.

I really must stop quoting bits from 1984, but this is just so apt:

`The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.`

Can`t he just go now while we still have a slim chance of clawing some democracy back for ourselves?

MichaelG    [25442.   Posted 11-Jun-2009 Thu 22:45] View Near Messages
More CommuNuLabour legislation founded on dodgy statistics and lies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192472/Harman-caught-exaggerating-pay-gap-sexes.html

MichaelG    [25441.   Posted 11-Jun-2009 Thu 13:31] View Near Messages
Anyone else think Fiona McTaggart bears more than a passing resemblance to the psychotic dwarf from the movie `Don`t Look Now`?

MichaelG    [25439.   Posted 10-Jun-2009 Wed 11:36] View Near Messages
Re: Pandering to Man Haters...

Oh yes, after all the recent setbacks, the CommuNuLabour legislation machine is well and truly up and running again.

`During a House of Commons debate on the revised wording, Miss Mactaggart mentioned a meeting she had with Tim Brain, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on prostitution and sex crimes. Having initially said that the new offence would be too complex to effectively police, he now feels, according to Miss Mactaggart, that the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording.`

A complete U-turn by Tim Brain after his initial grave concerns about the workability of this law - and all we have as proof is McTaggart`s word on this? I don`t fucking think so. If this were the case, Brain needs to start growing one. But McTaggart has proven time and time again that she just can`t be trusted over this issue and will use every underhanded trick in the book to realise her twisted vision, bare-faced lies included.

`For the purposes of this section “force” includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.`

Seriously, what the fuck is McTaggart on? Drugs? How on earth can `exploitation of vulnerability` be classed as force, and how can this possibly be proven in a court of law? Everyone can be classed as vulnerable in one way or another, especially in a recession and under this reprehensible government. With vague, catch-all wording like this, we might as well just go back to the complete ban that this nasty little gnome-faced witch was so hellbent on in the first place. But then that`s clearly what she still has in her poisonous, vindictive little mind, isn`t it?

MichaelG    [25436.   Posted 9-Jun-2009 Tue 21:54] View Near Messages
And, right on cue:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191930/Six-Scotland-Yard-officers-accused-waterboarding-drug-suspects.html

Back to the Great Dictator for a moment, here`s the brand new,`changed` Gordon we`ve all been hearing about for the last couple of days:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191898/Brown-pledges-rebuild-Britains-democracy-signals-end-past-post-polls.html

Now why am I suddenly very nervous when I hear talk of `dramatic reform of the voting system` from CommuNuLabour?

Reforms of the voting system, discussed behind closed doors by whispering CommuNuLabour members of Brown`s new `National Council for Democratic Renewal` (how fucking sinister does that sound?) - how is this supposed to rebuild Britain`s democracy, for crying out loud?

Of course, the original and still the best way to restore democracy is to do away with unelected Prime Ministers and have an immediate general election. Now then, why do you think he`s not so keen on that particular idea?

This is just a cheap, knee-jerk stunt by Gormless Clown attempting to potentially lessen the monumental pasting the Communist Party have got coming their way at next year`s general election. That is, if he hasn`t reformed the voting system to the degree where the general public are no longer allowed to vote by then...

MichaelG    [25435.   Posted 9-Jun-2009 Tue 21:26] View Near Messages
Re: emark [25454]:

I`ve seen plod doing this sort of thing at festivals and on nights out in Newcastle (rarely, mind you), but to do this at a train station where all kinds of people will be coming and going, regardless of the time of day, is completely OTT.

Imagine the fear and intimidation seeing a dozen rozzers dressed up like nazi stormtroopers, backed up by a barking Alsatian, could instill in little old ladies who`ve gone on the train to visit a relative for the weekend. I`m surprised no-one had a heart attack. I do appreciate the practicality of modern police uniform and kit, but do the kind of coppers you see on a daily basis have to resemble something from a dark, futuristic videogame or members of a tactical SAS assault team? What is this look designed to do if not intimidate?

And efficiency? They`ll waste thousands of pounds telling you utter shite about `The Policing Pledge` one minute ("Always treat you fairly with dignity and respect..." - yeah, whatever), then the next have the nerve to pull off a thuggish, chaotic, grossly disorganised and inconvenient stunt like the one you just mention just to demonstrate their increasing powers under CommuNuLabour rule.

And, as I think has been discussed on here before, it is NOT illegal to take pictures of, or film the police, despite what they tell you...

MichaelG    [25433.   Posted 9-Jun-2009 Tue 10:35] View Near Messages
Good news! Now that all this political crisis is over(!), our beloved politicians can get back to doing what it is that they do best - banning stuff:

http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/225855/diff/2/3

As for being for or against `legal highs`, it makes no difference to me, so I really couldn`t care less. But it does say something about the nature of CommuNuLabour that after the monumental thumping they`ve just had at the polls this weekend, a virtual Cabinet meltdown and almost 2 months of solid scandal over expenses, one of the things that`s top priority for them is turning something currently legal into something illegal...

MichaelG    [25431.   Posted 8-Jun-2009 Mon 22:17] View Near Messages
It now looks as though the Great Dictator is going to see out nothing less than the absolute full time he has left in office, not that I expected anything less:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191380/Brown-lives-fight-day-PM-tells-MPs-hell-change-ways-Labours-poll-meltdown.html

If there were any doubt remaining as to Gordo`s utter contempt for the voting public and the democratic political process, I think this should see it off. Notice how this clod seems to think that all it takes to stay in office and weather the storm is to placate his angry, backstabbing, self-important colleagues with a few empty promises. We, the voting public, do not even come into the equation.

The writing`s unmistakeably on the wall for Gordon and CommuNuLabour after the pounding given to them in the local and Euro elections. The party have never been this unpopular since 1910, and voters want a change of government. Like, now. Perhaps he still doesn`t get it (in which case he really should be locked away in an institution for the mentally ill), perhaps he`s gotten it all along and fully realises that a General Election would finish his career as PM. But ultimately, the decision as to who runs this country lies with US. To be denied that decision in times like these will do nothing to quell the public`s rage or boost CommuNuLabour popularity.

Perhaps I`m asking a bit much to expect an unelected leader to have any true respect for or understanding of democracy, especially given Gordon`s hardline Socialist roots. One thing I do know is that another year of this painfully protracted administration is only going to make matters worse. MUCH worse.

And the very fact that Gordon isn`t calling an election should be more than enough to prove to his dim-witted, conniving colleagues that he is absolutely incapable of changing his ways...

MichaelG    [25412.   Posted 5-Jun-2009 Fri 22:30] View Near Messages
With all the election results now in, CommuNuLabour have managed to score... nil points! How this unelected muppet of a PM can still believe he has the right to cling to power after such disastrous results and half his Cabinet resigning over the last week is completely beyond me.

I think this current situation not only speaks volumes about Brown, as he displays all the stubbornness and endearing qualities of a stain in your carpet which refuses to go away, but also about his wretched Cabinet. He has surrounded himself with a bunch of self-promotional, greedy, opportunistic, career-driven creeps, so there can`t really be any surprise over their treachery and desertion of the sinking ship as soon as the chips are down. The notion of MPs being servants of the people is now about as credible to me as the existence of little green men living on the moon.

But do we really have to endure another year of what is turning out to be one of the most painfully protracted and damaging terms in office this country has ever seen?

MichaelG    [25411.   Posted 5-Jun-2009 Fri 10:33] View Near Messages
I`m sure there`s a few fellow posters following the election results and... ain`t it fantastic?

Labour are getting a severe pasting and at the rate they`re going, they may not gain or retain any seats at all. Gordon`s response?

`I will not waver. I will not walk away. I will get on with the job. I will finish the work.`

What work, Gordon? Fucking up the economy? Establishing Communist rule?

What the hell is it going to take for this moron to get the message? For goodness sake, you`ve fucked it up, nobody wants you as PM, now please just get out and let someone else have a go...

MichaelG    [25405.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 22:11] View Near Messages
Re: phantom & freeworld:

Apologies for the little Tourettes outbust over Mr. Streeter`s idiotic notions, but I really have had it up to the proverbial back teeth with morons like this (God-bothering or otherwise) trying to dictate what the rest of us should or shouldn`t be doing with our lives.

I do agree, phantom, that there are certain individuals within the Conservative Party whose very public bible-thumping and vociferous moralising gives me cause for concern. Last time it was Julian Brazier and his ill-conceived plans to bring the BBFC under government remit (doubtless so he could re-populate its board of directors with like minded religious sheep who would cut or ban anything which depicted pillowfights, waterpistols or undraped piano legs). Streeter seems to be cut from very similar cloth. However, these individuals seem to carry significantly less clout within the Conservative Party than the dangerous elements within CommuNuLabour, and whilst I appreciate that some of them may rise quickly through the ranks if the Conservatives attain power, I`m unconvinced that Cameron would back them to the hilt over issues of unjustified or unnecessary censorship.

No surprise that Streeter voted for the Iraq war. After all, they`re all non-Christian heathens over there, aren`t they? He`s probably still mourning the end of the Crusades.

Of course, Gordon the Great Unelected Dictator is devoutly religious too. And what an inspirational, upstanding character he has turned out to be. A crooked, incompetent, expense-fiddling, warmongering, fist-clunking fascist, presiding over (and in full support of) a bunch of fraudulent, greedy, corrupt scumbags. Even in the face of deepening financial crisis and his party going into meltdown, he still doesn`t have the sense, decency or courage to do the right thing and call an election. What a guy.

As for banning religion, freeworld, I`m all for that. Still the number one cause of conflict, violence and division in the world as it has been for thousands of years. Number of people PROVEN to have committed acts of violence as a direct result of being exposed to a movie or videogame? Er... none? Number of people PROVEN to have committed acts of violence as a direct result of being exposed to religion? Oops... sorry, I`m going to have to pop out and buy a much bigger calculator...

Despite Mr. Streeter being a Conservative, I`m still longing to see a monumental pasting delivered to CommuNuLabour today in the elections. I have to admit that I`m revelling in the party`s suffering at the moment. It`s been a long time coming and it`s very richly deserved...

MichaelG    [25401.   Posted 3-Jun-2009 Wed 11:13] View Near Messages
Re: Clear Link...

Hasn`t this tiresome little cunt got something better to do given the current political climate, like maybe covering up his fraudulent expenses claims?

"There`s a clear link for some young people. There`s no doubt that for certain young people violent video games and films is a very serious negative influence."

WHERE IS THIS FUCKING LINK THEN??!!?!?!? PLEASE SHOW IT TO US!!!! Oh, that`s right, we can`t see it can we, because it only exists in a small minority of tiny, twisted, messed-up, walnut-like minds...

I tell you what makes a contribution to my predisposition to be violent. Having to listen to clueless, flatulent fuckpuppets like this trying to remove the right of adults to choose their own entertainment or trying to make a name for themselves by clinging to a distinctly vague, past-its-sell-by-date notion, never once supported by any real evidence (even the government commissioned Byron report) that fictional violence leads to real-life violence. I swear to God if I hear this load of fucking horseshit one more time...

This is Plymouth? Nah, mate. THIS IS BOLLOX.

MichaelG    [25382.   Posted 31-May-2009 Sun 23:17] View Near Messages
It`s official; the Queen is no longer Head of State in this country. No, it would seem The Brown Menace has now taken on that responsibility:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189846/Gordon-Brown-says-make-possible-Queen-attend-D-Day-commemorations.html

All part of the Communist Party manifesto, no doubt. Undermine the Queens authority to the degree where she appears completely subjugated to the PM. Careful though, Gordon, as the Head of State, the Queen still has the constitutional right to dissolve Parliament, such as in the eventuality of Britain having a corrupt PM who refuses to stand down(!).

"If the Queen wanted to attend these events, or if any member of the Royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible."

The Supreme Being has spoken, therefore it will be so. Who the fuck does he think he is? I`m no royalist, but it has to be borne in mind that HRH was a serving member of the armed forces in 1944, many years before Gordon was wanking himself off over Marxist literature in his university digs. She has way more right to attend than this arrogant, dictatorial lunatic.

Gordo and his disgusting government have shown nothing but contempt for the memory and the huge sacrifices made during WWII, evident in actions from the refusal of rights of settlement to the Gurkhas, the aptly named Ed Balls charging a poppy wreath to the taxpayer and the revolting Frank Cook attempting to reclaim a £5 donation made during a Battle of Britain memorial service.

Apologies if this seems to be going off topic a bit, but it`s all part of the same problem that spawned unholy, bastard laws like the DPA. I yearn for the days when all we seemed to worry about on here was stuff like how many minutes had been cut out of `Cannibal Holocaust`...

MichaelG    [25370.   Posted 27-May-2009 Wed 11:32] View Near Messages
The Brown Menace unveils his plans for a reform of the political system. Not that he`s copying Cameron or anything.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1187577/Me-Now-Brown-backs-voter-recall-powers-pledges-reforms-political-system.html

"Gordon Brown today pledged to consider the idea of a U.S.-style `recall` law for MPs that would allow voters to oust them if they stepped out of line."

Ironic indeed that an unelected dictator, whose rise to the top job in politics was completely unimpeded by any degree of public consultation or decision (fortunately for him) is actually giving this consideration. Notice the key words, `PLEDGED to CONSIDER`. Not a promise then, just a promise to consider.

Can`t see Gordon-is-a-moron `considering` this for very long though, bearing in mind that if the general public already had any degree of control over this type of thing, he and most of his merry band of crooked Communist chums would have been turfed out on their collective ears long ago.

Roll on 2010...