See also Religious Watch Forum

STICKY:  ChiefCensor       
- Please no spam, libel, slander, etc
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
- Islamic and races issues should be debated in the Religious Forum

 MichaelG    {26576.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 23:05}       
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...

 axis45    {26575.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 14:13}       
Re Venables

If its true its not surprising that Venables is getting done for child porn considering that he sexually abused and tortured a child.
It dosent take a genuis to work out that Thompson and Venables were themselves brutally abused judging by what they visited on the poor Bulger kid.
It dosent take a degree in psychology to add one and one together to get two.

But why the hysteria? Hysteria is often defined as an irrational loss of self control due to overwhelming fear.I believe its because in this case there is an epidemic of child abuse in the uk that noone wants to talk about because so many are at it.We are onstensibly a child beating,child hating,child abusing country who cannot face the fact of what we are.Travel to almost any country in the world and its hard to find a country where kids are ignored,neglected and villified like in the uk.Even in poor countries like parts of asia their parenting skills and emotional involvement with their kids would put most brits to shame.


Of course what they did was terrible,awful but an appropriate response is terrible sadness,loss and reflections,not those on tv and in the media screaming to hang these boys,they were 10 years old at the time of the offence.

The Daily Mail is a classic case [allegedly] written by child abusers for the [alleged] child abusers of middle england,whose favourite sport is to send their beloved little johnny off to public school so he can get buggered by the games master.Thats why the Mail is so popular here because it panders to the fears and hysteria of [alleged] middle england child abusers always paranoid that they are going to be found out.

The Mail spends so much of the time covering the arses of its readership and causing divertions so others dont pick up the scent.Case in point the Brand/Woss affair where the Mail went fucking ballistic because of the incestual overtones hinted at by the entire Grandfather/Grandaughter Sachsgate debacle.


thought for the day; you know your fucked when orla guerin turns up

 Spiderschwein    {26574.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 13:02}       
RE: Teenage boys are all sex crazed maniacs.

Reality check, people... ogling women (or men, if that`s your bag) is entirely healthy and normal. It livens up my daily trudge down the M4 to see, as I pull into my office car park in Middlesex, a tasty young woman sashaying along in a power suit and heels.

Of course, I don`t wind down the window and shout, "tits oot" because that`s crass (and wouldn`t succeed in getting her tits oot anyhow.) But I might start whistling the Leisure Suit Larry theme as I pull up next to Mr Foster`s Mercedes. And I don`t "accidentally" pinch her bum if she gets into the lift with me because that`s cruisin` for a slap and/or being fired for sexual harassment. But none of this is to say I wouldn`t idly wonder about said posterior.

And before you say anything about objectification of women and how it reduces them to targets for male lust... you`re wrong. Just because I find a work colleague tasty doesn`t mean I think she`s no good at her job or I think less of her as a person. I shouldn`t have to tell anyone here that I treat everyone I run across in my job with all respect due to them regardless of any sex, race, disability, sexual orientation, religion, age, etc. etc.

Humans have a ridiculously powerful sex drive. This is part of the human condition. But most humans are perfectly capable of controlling said urges all by themselves without the intervention of some Fleet Street arsewipe or Islingtonite policy wonk. The more we accept, as a society, that sexuality, both male and female, is part of life and not something that must be landed on with both feet whenever it rears its ugly head, I am convinced the stronger we`ll become.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 bleach    {26571.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 08:13}       
RE: Child`s Play
I think it`s pathetic how the media always scapegoats. The reality is society is fucked and the Government aren`t doing anything to change it. Why Child`s Play 3 is it because Chuckie looks like a child; fuck knows. The latest scapegoat is videogames namely Manhunt, COD 3, God of War etc.
Anyway, I`m sure everyone`s heard but Jon Venables is in a bit of trouble for child porn offences: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/07/jon-venables-sent-back-to-prison-over-child-porn-offence-115875-22090622/

 dano    {26570.   Posted 9-Mar-2010 Tue 07:19}       
More Viv Pattison Spartacus bollox.....

"Why is it entertaining to watch people being slashed like that with blood everywhere? In no place in society would that be acceptable other than on television. It doesn`t even add to the storylines."

Oh yes. TV should only be allowed to show what Vivienne Pattison and Mediawatch UK think is acceptable for entertainment.

Proof that this really is about Mediawatch UK`s continued desire to get stuff they don`t like banned just because they don`t like it.

 pbr    {26569.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 16:58}       
Keep being late to the party here...

"likely to encourage an interest in sexually abusive activity (for example, paedophilia, incest or rape)…"

1, performer is over 18, dialogue in one instance refers to someone younger than her... okay... maybe...

2, incest is a sexually abusive activity...? interesting... I had a criminal law lecturer who used to love incest... as a matter of academic interest you understand... ;) it is an interesting topic of course...

3, ...where`s the rape? O_o

 DarkAngel5    {26568.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 15:35}       
@MichaelG

It was "Childs Play 3" that was being blamed for the Bulger killing back in the early 90s.

 MichaelG    {26567.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 11:53}       
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.

 dano    {26566.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 11:02}       
Re: Vivienne Pattison and Spartacus: Blood and Sand:

Unlike Beyer Pattison winges about TV programmes not because of the offence they might cause viewers but the harm they may cause to children and wider society.
Beyer used to call for certain shows to be banned because he thought viewers might be offended by bare breasts, arses and full on sex scenes. But Pattison seems to want these shows banned because she think they will "corrupt" viewers and turn them into rampent violent sex crazed beasts!

As for the Daily Mail...hang on is anyone believing they are remotly bothered about the wellbeing of girls, women or teenage boys? Or are they just bothered about people looking at sex?
Maybe Mediawatch UK are changing their tactics, now focusing on trying to get things they don`t like banned not because they are personally offended by them but because they think they might destory the fabric of the nations morals.
They want to come across as not being fun hating killjoys but as concerned crusaders who are doing it for "our own good".

Re: Teenage boys, porn, sex objects etc etc:

Teenage boys are amongst the most marginalised and maligned social groups of our society. They are being cast as violent yobs and criminals and now the government and the anti-male domestic violence lobby is holding them up as sexually obsessed, porn crazed girl abusers.
The message being sent out by the anti-sex wing of the feminist brigade as that male sexuality is wicked and dangerous and young male sexuality is a threat to women!

 Shaun    {26565.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 10:50}       
if they can revoke them they`d better have a bloody good reason.

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

 DarkAngel5    {26564.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 09:20}       
@Ian G

Does this mean the Video Recordings Act is being amended, so the BBFC can revoke previously issued certificates?

 axis45    {26563.   Posted 8-Mar-2010 Mon 04:00}       
Well well well my favourite rodent David Milipede,foreign secretary,now appearing at the Iraq enquiry,joking and grinning his way through a bunch of half baked pat questions that wouldn`t challenge the intellectual rigour of a child with learning difficulties.
What do u think of this david? What do u think of that? Can we suck ur dick Mr.Miliband? Excrutiating to watch by any standards but worse because the Chilcott enquiry is simply providing a forum for NL war criminals and their apologists to eulogise ad nauseum with regards to the propoganda they spout.
If they are not to be confronted then why bother?



Some of his assertions were so offensive i can barely bring myself to repeat them.

One example is how he grinningly asserts in that unbearably smug and self congratulatory tone that he now wants to see the rule of law in Iraq and not to have issues decided by guns and bullets?? And the UK is now more respected in the region? Yes its true the cunt did actually say that.

He reminds me of a smug posh sixth former at a school debating society,with not even the remotest grasp on his subject and completely removed from the implications of his assertions.Vile odious creature.

I would really like to see cunts like Milipede and all the scum electorate who voted in Blair again in 2005 sent to live with their families in a specially constructed town in rural dartmoor and have the US airforce bomb the shit out the place daily for a few weeks so they can experience how the other half live.

 IanG    {26562.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 22:19}       
Anyone else spotted this?

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

Schedule 1

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

 IanG    {26561.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 15:21}       
I once said the BBFC were sick and twisted. I stand by what I said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 emark    {26559.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 06:24}       
"Well if that`s the case why doesn`t she just go right ahead and be one if she thinks men are that bad. Perhaps some men these days might think (or even say) it`s better to be gay than be subject to the daily whims of a hideous frigid, prudish controlling harridan, or failing that just remain single."

Yes, indeed - I mean, I never had a girlfriend when I was a teenager. People don`t have a right to be given a relationship (at all, let alone with Mr Perfect), not to mention that if there are problems with their sex life, they should try communicating with their partner about what they like. I don`t think there`s a problem in saying "these boys watch porn and are crap at relationships" - but the point is, it`s the boys to blame. Either communicate, find someone else, or be single - it`s not up to the Government to pass censorship laws just so a teenager can have a sexual relationship with Mr or Mrs Right.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {26558.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 05:43}       
Sergio

Here it is

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/66f3534914e4e8e0802576d50060cc36?OpenDocument

The BBFC have just updated the entry with a long justification of the ban.

I also have spotted that there seems to be a cock up in the dates in the BBFC database. It looks like a fair few weeks all got lumped together to one date in January. Maybe explains the blip in the stats of so many R18s in January.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 sergio    {26556.   Posted 7-Mar-2010 Sun 04:50}       
[26515] Paul B said it was rejected by BBFC. I can`t find it in BBFC search.
MY DAUGHTER`S A COCKSUCKER
Anyone else know where to look?

BBFC cuts for Feb 10
Number of items= 76
No. Cuts=6
Cuts ratio=7%

Pissing off the BBFC.
STREET PISSING VOL.2
Cuts made to images of sexual activity (masturbation, fondling of breasts and buttocks) occurring either in the course of, or immediately following, urination in order for the work to achieve a `R18` classification. Cuts made in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

 pbr    {26555.   Posted 6-Mar-2010 Sat 15:31}       
@IanG - I`m going to play Captain Obvious and suggest a dildo, then I`ll get me coat :)

dictionary.com offers the following definitions:


sex object
 
–noun
a person viewed as being of little interest or merit beyond the potential for providing sexual gratification.
Use sex object in a Sentence
See images of sex object [< I lol`d]
Search sex object on the Web [< I lol`d again]
Origin:
1925–30

sex object
n. A person regarded primarily as the focus of sexual attraction.

Main Entry: sex object
Function: noun
: a person regarded especially exclusively as an object of sexual interest


So... there you have it... basically by being reminded of the fact that [most] people do occassionally want to have sex with other people, people will forget that people are more than something to make your special places happy... obv.


@MichaelG

I read that Littlejohn article... I tried to find it funny or insightful or indeed anything other than well... you know... wouldn`t want to say something defamatory coz we know how that turns out here *rolls eyes*

In amongst the droning laissez-faire rantings and xenophobic drivell I did spot one sentence which did bring a smile to my face "Lord Chief Justice Keith Vaz"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somone should present that recent study to the Daily Mail.

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

 MichaelG    {26552.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 23:44}       
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...

 Shaun    {26551.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 18:09}       
"artistic crap" ?

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

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

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


Keep an open mind folks.

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

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

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

 bleach    {26550.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 16:28}       
@sergio
"Maybe he is just another `artist` with his head up his own backside, now, why can`t `porn` be `self expression`?"
I think a porn film such as The Devil In Miss Jones is artistic, even more so than some pretentious twaddle that gets classed as an art-film. Just because a film is difficult, don`t make art. Obviously some horror such Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Romero`s Dead Trilogy and The Thing are all classics up there with Your Citizen Kanes. I`d argue that with Colin Wilmhurst.

"Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things."
Anyone know what he meant by other bad things, I don`t.

"So, horror and porn are BAD THINGS, eh? Not as bad, I wager, as your crappy £600 rom-com. There are many reasons to oppose the VRA, but saving you money isn`t really one of them. Piss off."
I agree. But I do think there should be an alternative or at for low-budget films. Also, based on colin`s comments he could have dug his own grave and alot of other filmmakers by almost requesting streaming media carry a BBFC certificate.

 sergio    {26549.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 15:03}       
` I find it offensive that we are all presumed to be working and making films in the world of violence and pornography, and cast out of being able to express ourselves via the medium of film just in case.`

Maybe he is just another `artist` with his head up his own backside, now, why can`t `porn` be `self expression`? Horror movies and porn are bad things seems to be his assumption.

Maybe his attitude is a bit retro but dvd seems to be dying, although I am not too sure of the legalities why doesn`t he just stream his artistic crap?

He is not a threat to main stream media? Who is he kidding?

 braintree    {26548.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 14:21}       
Not sure where to post this info , but the news story regardng the extended Die Hard is not really news.
The additional scenes mentioned were all available on the original R1 a decade ago

 Shaun    {26547.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 07:34}       
well, dancing monkey I would respectfully but vehemently have to disagree with you.

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

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

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

 dancing monkey    {26546.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 06:19}       
You know, Colin Warhurst almost had me until I read "Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things."

So, horror and porn are BAD THINGS, eh? Not as bad, I wager, as your crappy £600 rom-com. There are many reasons to oppose the VRA, but saving you money isn`t really one of them. Piss off.

 Melanie-H    {26545.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 06:16}       
[26506]
Thanks to both Janus17 and Harvey for the feedback re:Ammendment to the Justice Committee - Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

A brief update - Several submissions have been made to the proposed bill including those from Margo MacDonald, UK Network Sex Work Projects and Teela Sanders. All submissions can be found

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/criminaljusticeandlicensing/Stage2submissions.htm

Margo MacDonald`s office states :

"The committee has decided to take further written and oral evidence on the prostitution amendments
(also on other amendments, and it may be that Stage 2 will have to be given a formal extension). There
was no opposition to this in the committee or from Trish Godman who was present. A couple of MSPs said
very strongly that what is needed is research evidence, not opinion! The date given for the amendments to be considered in the committee is 2 weeks hence i.e. 16th March."

Following the recent resignation of Steven Purcell due to ill health, Councillor Jim Coleman is now the acting leader of Glasgow City Council - highly likely he now believes it was an `act of God` and the `crusade` to rid Scotland of any sexual pleasure/titilation must continue.

 sergio    {26544.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 03:21}       
Children will copy anything so therefore ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255483/Parents-anger-class-seven-year-olds-shown-graphic-sex-cartoon-school.html


Harvey, get your facts right (thumbs nose)!

`Mr Justice Hooper dismissed the test case brought by the BBFC, saying that the risk of the seven videos involved being seen by and causing harm to children was, on the present evidence, insignificant`

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/arloh11.htm

 Harvey    {26543.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 18:43}       
IanG [26542]

"It`s 10 years since the High Court ruled that hardcore porn was not a danger to children."

Err... not quite.

The 2000 ruling was that the *sale* of hardcore porn videos in licensed sex shops was not harmful because the *risk of them being seen* by children was insignificant.

If someone had suggested that Spartacus should be broadcast at a time and place where there was a liklihood that children would be watching, Pattison might be making a valid point. But they aren`t - so she isn`t.

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

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

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

 Paul B    {26541.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:55}       
MichaelG @ [26533] If I lived in the area I`d be wanting to know the address, not thinking that they should be leaving!

 hobosoup    {26540.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 05:00}       
This article is from www.xbiz.com

might be worth forwarding to Ms. Patterson.

MANOA, Hawaii — As the use of porn increases, sex crimes usually decline or do not increase at all according to a study done by a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society.

And men who watch X-rated movies have better attitudes and are more tolerant toward women.

What’s more, the study suggests that there’s a higher correlation of sexual offenses like rape, by those offenders who had a strict, repressive religious upbringing that prohibited viewing porn.

According to the study, “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review,” published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 by Milton Diamond, professor of anatomy, biochemistry and physiology, “Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged `obscene`) and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased."

Diamond’s study goes on to say that some people argue that ready access to pornography disrupts social order, encourages rape, sexual assault, and other sex-related crimes. And even if pornography doesn’t trigger a crime, it contributes to the degradation of women by causing men to want their women to act out misogynistic fantasies.

Many even adamantly believe that pornography should become illegal, the study said.

But the professor`s research contradicts the claims of anti-porn crusaders.

Diamond said that to examine the effect this widespread use of porn has on society, researchers have often exposed people to porn and measured variables such as changes in attitude or predicted behaviors, interviewed sex offenders about their experience with pornography, and interviewed victims of sex abuse to evaluate if pornography was involved in the assault.

“Surprisingly few studies have linked the availability of porn in any society with antisocial behaviors or sex crimes. Among those studies none have found a causal relationship and very few have even found one positive correlation," he said.

Diamond quoted FBI stats that report despite widespread and increasing availability of sexually explicit materials, the incidence of rape declined markedly from 1975 to 1995. This was particularly seen in the age categories 20–24 and 25–34, the people most likely to use the internet.

"The best known of these national studies are those of Berl Kutchinsky, who studied Denmark, Sweden, West Germany, and the United States in the `70s and `80s. He showed that from approximately 1964 to 1984, as the amount of pornography increased, the rate of rapes in these countries either decreased or remained relatively level."

The report continued, "Later research has shown parallel findings in every other country examined, including Japan, Croatia, China, Poland, Finland, and the Czech Republic. In the United States there has been a consistent decline in rape over the last two decades."

Diamond`s study added that no community in the U.S. has ever voted to ban adult access to sexually explicit material. "The only feature of a community standard that holds is an intolerance for materials in which minors are involved as participants or consumers,” the report stated.

The study said that although the police sometime suggest a high use of porn by sex offenders, the claim is meaningless because nearly all men have at some time used porn.

“Looking closer, Michael Goldstein and Harold Kant found that rapists were more likely than non-rapists in the prison population to have been punished for looking at pornography while a youngster, while other research has shown that incarcerated non-rapists had seen more pornography, and seen it at an earlier age, than rapists. What does correlate highly with sex offense is a strict, repressive religious upbringing.”

Another researcher quoted in Diamond`s study, Richard Green, also reported that both rapists and child molesters use less pornography than a control group of "normal’ males.”

As far as porn`s negative effect on women, Diamond’s research pointed out that studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men who didn’t see those movies. Furthermore, studies by other investigators, both male and female essentially agreed. "There was no detectable relationship between the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes."

"No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography — by any definition — has had a cause-and-effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women," the research reported.

“There is no doubt that some people have claimed to suffer adverse effects from exposure to pornography — just look at testimony from women’s shelters, divorce courts and other venues. But there is no evidence it was the cause of the claimed abuse or harm,” the study stated.

The professor concluded that any freedom can be misused and sometimes spawn illegal activities whereby those who do are punished and incarcerated. But that doesn’t mean that the freedom of the majority should be restricted. “In the United States, where one out of every 138 residents is incarcerated, just imagine if pornography were illegal — there’d be more people in prison than out,” Diamond said.

 Shaun    {26539.   Posted 4-Mar-2010 Thu 04:00}       
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.
I must not read the daily mail web site.


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

Honestly!

So I just thought I`d share that one.

 MichaelG    {26538.   Posted 3-Mar-2010 Wed 23:38}       
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?