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

 phantom    {28261.   Posted 5-Feb-2012 Sun 08:55}       
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/02/top-totty-beer-parliament-ban

Interesting what sort of things `disturb` a Labour MP.

Thousands of workers on pay freezes and others losing their jobs and what are Labour MPs like Kate Green concerned with? Sexist beer. Ah well.... up the workers!

Now before anyone here is incredibly rude and states that feminists only ever object to any such matters because they never qualify as `top totty` and are just enbittered and envious, let me just state that such slurs are puerile and don`t help your argument.

So let`s not stoop to that.

Meanwhile, on a completely unrelated note. Let`s take a look at an MP. Let`s say... er.... Kate Green.

http://www.kategreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kate_Green_2.jpg

To change the subject completely - again.
Doesn`t Paul O`Grady look healthy these days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_O%27Grady,_April_2009_cropped.jpg

Mind should ITV ever seek to replace him, there`s always someone I could recommend as a replacement....

 pbr    {28260.   Posted 5-Feb-2012 Sun 05:32}       
@Dave

In anime it`s quite common that after boardcast you get extra animation added to the DVDs (now more commonly the BDs), this can be decensoring which can be things like taking "steam" out of scenes or removing or lessening comic censor bars etc... in the main feature itself and also the addition of little skits at the end of each episode (or pooled on the menu screen I suppose), in the case of IK:DD I would imagine it was a skit they took out, although I`ve not seen either the original IK:DD or this cut one to be sure.

HYSG is quite similiar to IK:DD, where the latter is some buxom and a few not so buxom girls replacing the angry old men of the Tale of the Three Kingdoms HYSG is the same but set in the Sengoku Jidai... in essence they`re rather bawdy comedies where clothes have an inexplicable habit of falling off or apart.

It`s not the first time I`ve been puzzled by a cut/non-cut decision at the BBFC in this field and I wonder how much it has to do with the censor actually watching the piece, given these cuts are always given under the "likely to encourage interest" label...

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28259.   Posted 4-Feb-2012 Sat 22:27}       
Hi pbr

I don`t reall know enough about the genre to comment, but I did notice that there weren`t any cuts to Ikki Tousen itself. The BBFC cuts were only to the DVD extras. So perhaps both of these series are similarly uncut.

 pbr    {28258.   Posted 4-Feb-2012 Sat 14:33}       
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/search/?searchwhere=db&q=samurai+girls

Here`s a curious one... seems the BBFC didn`t require any cuts to the ecchi series Hyakka Ryouran Samurai Girls...

Given that cuts were required for Ikki Tousen`s latest series that`s interesting...

 phantom    {28257.   Posted 3-Feb-2012 Fri 18:01}       
Melon Farmers (Dave) [28256]

`However in the meantime the gov asks Ofcom/ATVOD to bluff it out anyway and try and impose their bollox rules based on Euro law.`

`Bluffing it out` seems to be quite the fashion among the censorship industry these days.
After all, that`s exactly what the BBFC are doing regarding the Peacock case.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28256.   Posted 3-Feb-2012 Fri 12:24}       
IanG

The letter I linked from Ed Vaisey to Ofcom/ATVOD is very illuminating and more or less answers all your questions and confirms your views.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/me_atvod_11a.htm#Morally_Impaired_Plot_15376

Ofcom and their experts reviewed whether hardcore seriously impairs kids, and they decided it didnt.

However Ofcom said that perhaps the authorities should take a better safe than sorry approach and ban it anyway.

Now they then agreed that because of the lack of serious impairment the Euro law underpinning the ATVOD ban is open to challenge because its bollox. And so the governemnt will soon get round to banning it with its own law.

However in the meantime the gov asks Ofcom/ATVOD to bluff it out anyway and try and impose their bollox rules based on Euro law.

So it is not really ATVOD`s fault necessarily, the government told them to do it.

The final para of the letter sums it up

"In these circumstances [that serious impairment is not likely], and given the wider policy context, it seems to us that these issues would be best addressed comprehensively in the Communications Review. We would appreciate it if Ofcom, with ATVOD, would take any steps necessary in the interim period to ensure that children remained adequately protected under the ATVOD rules, in the knowledge that we could bring forward Regulations in the short term if it proved necessary to support this position".

 IanG    {28255.   Posted 3-Feb-2012 Fri 11:50}       
phantom, I only mentioned religious bullshit, gratuitous violence and sexual violence as possible sources of `serious impairment` because that`s what`s written into the various pieces of legislation and EC Directives that apply to OFCOM and ATVOD. Both bodies however seem to skip past these suggestions and land solely on consensual adult porn as being the thing they should block access to.

I wonder how ATVOD categorise and distinguish `serious impairment` from `mild impairment` or, indeed, `no impairment`?

 phantom    {28254.   Posted 3-Feb-2012 Fri 05:08}       
IanG [28253. Posted 2-Feb-2012 Thu 14:14]
`I take it the brainless dickheads at ATVOD haven`t considered the FACT that so-called `children` of 16 years can quite legally see and do all the things they might see on a `tv-like` hardcore website?`

A good point. But then you don`t seem to realise that everyone under 18 has a pacifier in their mouth, wears a bib and strangely resembles Bambi.

`I`d really like to know how these mindless fuckwits can get away with ignoring and, indeed, over-ruling the decrees of the High Court, that only 12 years ago decided that all the available evidence pointed to the fact that the "risk of harm to children from viewing hardcore material is INSIGNIFICANT".`

Not familiar with said ruling. But ruling or not, the censorship lobby do generally not base their views on science or law (no matter what they claim) but on their beliefs and the popular view that porn corrupts the young. - Any which way you turn it, there is no denying that the latter is the prevailing view among the public.

`Clearly, an insignificant risk doesn`t amount to serious impairment or, indeed, ANY type of impairment. As I pointed out some time ago, if we had evolved to suffer any type of impairment from seeing folks bonking then the human race would likely already be long extinct.`

True, but then I think if you`d ask folks on the Clapham omnibus I think they wouldn`t necessarily field impairment as their chief worry, but a loss of innocence. I guess that`s a slightly more complex issue than merely one of impairment.

`As it is, ATVOD have completely ignored the very real threat that bullshit religion, gratuitous violence and sexual violence might genuinely have on young developing minds.`

Frankly, I`d prefer it if they continue ignoring those `threats`. Thank you very much. Why `gratuitous violence` or `sexual violence` are `very real` threats in your view I don`t know.
I think it`s important not to simply exchange one form of prurience for another.

I believe it`s imperative that one does not succumb to seeking to divert censorious impulses from one`s pet subject onto someone else`s.
That`s playing divide and rule.

Censorship is wrong. Full stop.

People or no more likely harmed from seeing `explicit material` such as Emmanuelle sucking on someone`s penis, or from `gratuitous violence` in a Quentin Tarantino movie.

And as for `sexual violence`, beware ending up in the camp of those arguing that sick Guatemalan snuff movies are corrupting our young. For that`s the mire in which Messrs Lepper and Salter reside.

`These people simply cannot be trusted to regulate in a sensible and, indeed, law-abiding manner. As usual they`ve been allowed to impose their own mindless, evidenceless `concerns` on the masses without once checking that the supposed `rules` they`re creating would pass legal muster.`

Well, we definitely agree there.

My feeling is that the censorship industry is sensing a chink which they seek to further exploit. Remember Regina v Perrin? A case they like to quote - selectively. After all, there is much they don`t like about it also. Namely the fact that the jury cleared Perrin for material contained in the membership area.

However, increasingly our censorious compatriots seem to be focusing in on debit cards. In short, they are trying to unpick the defence that if something is in a membership area it is safe to publish, - so undoing that part of the Perrin case.
With this they are seeking to achieve the claim that everything is `available to children` and therefore must be banned, because some tiny percentage of under 18s might have debit cards. The obvious solution - to stop these debit cards - is clearly not one they would ever entertain.

 IanG    {28253.   Posted 2-Feb-2012 Thu 14:14}       
I take it the brainless dickheads at ATVOD haven`t considered the FACT that so-called `children` of 16 years can quite legally see and do all the things they might see on a `tv-like` hardcore website?

I`d really like to know how these mindless fuckwits can get away with ignoring and, indeed, over-ruling the decrees of the High Court, that only 12 years ago decided that all the available evidence pointed to the fact that the "risk of harm to children from viewing hardcore material is INSIGNIFICANT".

Clearly, an insignificant risk doesn`t amount to serious impairment or, indeed, ANY type of impairment. As I pointed out some time ago, if we had evolved to suffer any type of impairment from seeing folks bonking then the human race would likely already be long extinct.

As it is, ATVOD have completely ignored the very real threat that bullshit religion, gratuitous violence and sexual violence might genuinely have on young developing minds.

These people simply cannot be trusted to regulate in a sensible and, indeed, law-abiding manner. As usual they`ve been allowed to impose their own mindless, evidenceless `concerns` on the masses without once checking that the supposed `rules` they`re creating would pass legal muster.

I would hope NO ONE pays ATVOD`s unjustifiable fees and force ATVOD to take people to court so that the real guardians of human rights and freedoms get to rule on ATVOD`s completely insane and unnecessary interference with our rights to view whatever we want whether we posses a credit card or not.

 braintree    {28251.   Posted 31-Jan-2012 Tue 17:19}       
Pretty sure that Ofcom are quite clear that broadcasters can show films as long as they don`t exceed the 18 rating. I believe this was clarified during the campaign for allowing R18 onto cable and satellite. The Babe channels are unclassified material so Ofcom can jump on them but if C5 showed an 18 film Ofcom really would not have a leg to stand on providing the broadcaster issues the appropriate warnings and its scheduled in a suitable slot. However , I think the ease of access to porn via the internet means that viewers are not as keen to see it as they once were so the channels don`t want the bother of potential Ofcom interference for something that`s not really going to be a standout screening anymore

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28250.   Posted 31-Jan-2012 Tue 09:20}       
dancing monkey

I don`t think the main broadcasters can show films like Emmanuelle anymore. Several years ago Channel 5 did indeed show these films. But In 2007 Ofcom started getting heavy about them.

They drew the line at one `erotic thriller` in this decision from December 2007.

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/ow07.htm#Ofcom_Ramp_Up_the_Censorship_4858

This more or less bans Emmanuelle and the likes. Although of course it is still open to debate the issue if broacasters want to give it a try.

Just being softcore is certainly not a vlaid argument, it fails all the time when Ofcom are having a whinge at the babe channels. Lots of totally non explicit scenes are declared to be `sex works` by Ofcom.

 dancing monkey    {28249.   Posted 31-Jan-2012 Tue 08:22}       
Phantom, my point about Hammer is that those films were shown on TV in the 70s - a few years after they were made. As I said, I don`t really pay much attention to what films are on TV anymore, so I`ll struggle to name too many recent examples. Kill Bill 1 and 2 I think were on the BBC too. And isn`t the black and white footage in the original film?
The Devils, of course, is still 18 rated.
Dave, you are right of course - though lots of broadcasters, including Channel 5, regularly broadcast softcore movies. I think it was Channel 5 that also showed Emmanuelle. I believe they do not qualify as `sex works` anymore because of their narrative content and non-explicit nature. So I think the restriction is only for edited hardcore, gonzo porn etc, that few channels outside the adult section would bother with anyway.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28248.   Posted 31-Jan-2012 Tue 04:42}       
Press release from the BBFC

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has passed VISONS OF ECSTASY at 18 without cuts

VISIONS OF ECSTASY is a 19 minute short film, featuring a sequence in which a figure representing St Teresa of Avila interacts sexually with a figure representing the crucified Christ. When the film was originally submitted to the BBFC in 1989, for video classification only, the Board refused to issue a classification certificate. This decision was taken on the grounds that the publication of the film, which the issue of a BBFC certificate would permit, might constitute an offence under the common law test of blasphemous libel.

The Board is required, as part of the terms of its designation under the Video Recordings Act 1984, to seek to avoid classifying any work that might infringe the criminal law. Therefore, the Board had no alternative at the time but to refuse a classification. The Board’s decision to refuse a classification to the film was subsequently upheld by the independent Video Appeals Committee.

In 2008, section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. This means that the BBFC is no longer entitled to consider whether the publication of the film might comprise a blasphemous libel.

The BBFC has carefully considered VISIONS OF ECSTASY in terms of its current classification Guidelines. These reflect both the requirements of UK law and the wishes of the UK public, as expressed through regular large scale consultation exercises. With the abolition of the offence of blasphemy, the Board does not consider that the film is in breach of any other UK law that is currently in force. Nor does the Board regard the film as likely to cause harm to viewers in the terms envisioned by the Video Recordings Act.

The Board recognises that the content of the film may be deeply offensive to some viewers. However, the Board’s Guidelines reflect the clear view of the public that adults should have the right to choose their own viewing, provided that the material in question is neither illegal nor harmful. In the absence of any breach of UK law and the lack of any credible risk of harm, as opposed to mere offensiveness, the Board has no sustainable grounds on which to refuse a classification to VISIONS OF ECSTASY in 2012. Therefore the film has been classified for video release at ’18′ without cuts.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28247.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 21:01}       
MichaelG

Here`s a follow up that Daily Mail games story you mentioned

http://gamepolitics.com/2012/01/30/daily-mail-bbc-anti-game-story-based-fabricated-quotes

A story by the UK`s Daily Mail newspaper and the BBC that tapped an expert claiming that games were turning children who played them in to the wee hours of the night in to zombies has been debunked. The expert cited in the story says that the quotes attributed to him were completely fabricated.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28246.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 19:03}       
The subcategory of 18 rated films noted as `sex works` are in fact banned by Ofcom who deem that they can only be shown on encrypted channels with PIN and age verification.

Otherwise, 18 rated films are fine for TV.

So is The Notorious Bettie Page considered a sex work?

Presumably not by the BBC

 phantom    {28245.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 18:38}       
phantom [28242]

Well, first off. Consider me surprised. Really.
Actually, surprised in several ways.

Firstly I`m surprised other 18 certificated films have been shown on the Beeb. Especially if it was - as you say uncut.

Alright, if it`s the Devils or some other thirty or forty year old movie that once agitated Mary Whitehouse, I`m far from shocked.

When it comes to such a thing as Pulp Fiction my surprise is more that it was ever certificated as an 18! True, not as surprised as with Bettie Page, but nonetheless...

And I do recall seeing Tarantino`s Kill Bill on terrestrial. But in a way, that proved my point as it went to black and white as some moron had decided that it was likely to cause problems that way....

As such I`m not claiming there is an embargo on terrestrial for movies certificated 18.
As said, I`m aware of Clockwork Orange screenings etc.
But I`ve always been under the assumption that the broadcasters have a habit of taming them down.

So what you say about Saw 3 surprises me a lot.

I`ve since remembered that `Secretary` was also on terrestrial. But don`t honestly know whether it was ever screened by the Beeb.
Again I doubt there was really much you actually could cut in that movie.

Then again, Secretary, Pulp Fiction and Bettie Page do all three have something in common which may in fact be what terrifies the BBFC much more than it appears to worry broadcasters.... Fetish.

Anyhow, why do I think the BBC`s screening of something the BBFC deem an 18 certificate significant?
Simply as we all know that the Beeb (more so than other broadcasters - such as Channel 4) has regulators and politicians breathing down its neck.

For them to screen something the BBFC designated an 18 in the seventies I don`t see as a significant step... In fact, I don`t think Hammer movies are still deemed 18 on their DVD release, are they?

But for the Beeb to show something which has only 6 years ago been decided an 18 by our moral guardians I think is quite a thing. - Especially when it`s the movie which seems to have baffled more people than ever, regarding its certification....

 dancing monkey    {28244.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 17:19}       
In fact, the only restrictions on any broadcaster are no films banned by the and no R18.

 dancing monkey    {28243.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 17:18}       
Phantom - I don`t watch much TV these days, but Pulp Fiction, for one appeared on the BBC. Falling Down for another. Bucket loads of Hammer horror as far back as the 70s, as well as films like Get Carter. And The Devils, Last Tango in Paris...

I watched Saw 3 on Channel 4 and it was uncut. As was A Clockwork Orange. I believe sometimes cuts are made for early evening viewing, but late at night? Hardly ever.

I`m genuinely surprised you didn`t know this. There has never been an embargo on TV channels showing 18 rated material.

Anyone else want to back me up on this?

 phantom    {28242.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 13:52}       
dancing monkey [28241]

`Can you explain what you mean?`

Well, I`m aware of channel 4 et al having shown 18 certificated movies, but not the BBC.
If you know of the BBC having broadcast hundreds of 18 rated movies, then please can you name an example? For none spring to mind.

As for cuts, I understand that some films such as Clockwork Orange or such from the Saw series, etc have been shown by other terrestrial broadcasters, but I believe that cuts were made in order not to incur the wrath of regulators.

But Bettie Page is the first I can recall ever being on the BBC.
If I`m wrong I`ll be happy to stand corrected.

The fact that the BBC broadcast it and that it seemed to be uncut (although that is simply a guess of mine - as I had not seen it before) does beg the odd question or two. After all, This movie is a recently certificated work (the novie was released 2006). So not something poo-pooed in the 1980s which is now being shown, as it has long since lost its ability to shock.

To my mind this seems to show the state broadcaster completely ignoring the BBFC which may say a thing or two about the BBFC`s current standing.

 dancing monkey    {28241.   Posted 30-Jan-2012 Mon 04:12}       
Phantom - I`m not quite sure what you`re trying to say here. The BBC and all other broadcasters have shown hundreds of 18 (and before that, X) rated movies for as long as I can remember. Why would this one be different? And why would it be cut?

Can you explain what you mean?

 MichaelG    {28240.   Posted 29-Jan-2012 Sun 10:47}       
More unsubstantiated, anti-gaming bollox from the masters:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093413/Generation-children-zombies-late-night-gaming-sessions-claims-charity.html

Yawn...

 phantom    {28239.   Posted 29-Jan-2012 Sun 09:37}       
Btw, did anyone notice the screening of `The Notorious Bettie Page` on the BBC this weekend?

And there the BBFC was telling us it`s an 18 certificate.

Now true, it`s supposed to be the most dubious 18 certificate of all times, but it is one.

There are various theories about why it got the 18 certificate.
The fact that it actually depicts some very light fetish. That the BBFC is still too afraid of even a hint of bondage. Or that the name Bettie Page is just still `too notorious` for the quaint little BBFC.

I personally think it`s that the censorial nitwits recognise some of their own traits in the pontificating panelists of the senatorial hearing and thus want as few of the population to see it too.

But I do wonder, is this in fact the first screening of an 18 certificate movie on the BBC?

And is the screening of it a snub to the BBFC?

I very much doubt there were any significant cuts in the BBC broadcast. Let`s say there seemed very little to cut...

 MichaelG    {28238.   Posted 28-Jan-2012 Sat 18:02}       
Re: phantom [28237]:

Couldn`t disagree with any part of that bud, spot on!

`Repellant` it may be (if you`re a Victorian minded spunktrumpet with their head implannted firmly up their own posterior), but that doesn`t make it illegal.

Also, I`m sure there is a link, albeit tenuous, between organised crime and prostitution, but to just whitewash ALL people in the industry with the same brush is staggeringly niaeve, overly simplistic and wholly inaccurate.

And yes, I`m all for implementing charges of wasting police time - might get these fuckers doing something positive with their time instead of the usual snivelling and troublemaking...

 phantom    {28237.   Posted 28-Jan-2012 Sat 14:16}       
Janus17 [28235]

Wow, that deputy mayor really is quite something.

`It strikes me that reviewing human beings in the same way as a restaurants is repellent.`

Er... really? So, let`s take two London football clubs then, shall we, `Ms` Malthouse.
So, which is the better striker, Didier Drogba or Robin Van Persie?
Or is it in fact obscene to rank the two as they are human beings? (which are bought and sold on transfer lists, I dare add)

And finally this gem:
`The thing people forget is that the world of organised prostitution is also a world of organised crime, drug dealing and abuse. Anything like this that tries to sanitise it is revolting.`

Who says this? I know I don`t. I also know plenty of people who think no such thing. So just what is this statement based on?
One cannot help but suspect that it has no source. In fact it`s from the same source as Messrs Lepper and Salter`s statements regarding the DPA: so-called `common sense`.

I cannot for the life of me see what law that book is supposed to breach. It simply seems to be harassment by those who have the power to do so.

I think that anyone who sets the police on someone purely for the purpose of political gain should themselves face charges of wasting police time and, if necessary, do some porridge to cure them of the habit.

 sergio    {28236.   Posted 28-Jan-2012 Sat 10:17}       
Fire extinguisher insertion into vagina not obscene!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/panorama/transcripts/transcript_02_11_98.txt
(of course it is an assumption that the `orafice` is a vagina, could also be anus ... or mouth!??? ... what about earhole???)

Gathered from http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/defending-obscenity.html

`The crux of obscenity law is that it bans the depiction of acts which, in themselves, are not illegal`

Isn`t that wrong? OPA doesn`t ban the depiction but the selling/viewing/publishing to/for inappropriate person(s)?

 Janus17    {28235.   Posted 28-Jan-2012 Sat 00:35}       
Hi everyone, been a while since I posted on here, but you all may find this interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092560/A-Guide-Working-Ladies-London-book-investigation-police-star-ratings-guide-sells-500-copies-Amazon.html

It`s taken the Daily Hate Mail and the filth a while to cotton onto this guy, hasn`t it? For the uninitiated, George McCoy has been around for a very long time now (well over 10 years, maybe even closer to 20) and has published many field guidebooks on the subject of escorts, massage parlours and working girls.He used to be quite discreet about his `activities`, claiming he only used to visit massage parlours for `massages` (of course you did, George!) and, whilst there were rumours that sexual services were exchanged at these places for cash, he was quick to point out in a written disclaimer in all his books that he couldn`t possibly comment on that as he had not had any personal experience of such things taking place (of course not, George!).

Over the last few years though, George has been getting a bit more upfront about what he does, a fact illustrated by the title of the book at the centre of this controversy. He`s been reviewing escorts and working girls for some time now.

But what a fucking waste of police time! He`s visiting ladies and paying for sex, which as long as it`s not taking place in a brothel, or there are any third parties involved, is NOT illegal. George has been doing what he does for more than long enough now to realise this. As for putting his exploits and reviews in a book which is for sale to the general public, he`s not making any money directly from the ladies in the industry, so he can`t be prosecuted for that either. Quite what those investigating think can be gained from this (other than pissing public money up the wall) is beyond me...

 phantom    {28234.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 16:41}       
Yes, it may indeed be that the urge to censor, the urge to deny others the sight of things, may in fact be some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder
If I recall correctly, it`s not too long ago that some psychologist suggested that the urge to watch things with the aim of taking offence (and then complain) may in fact be a disorder (a form of moral mania).
So it seems fair to infer that those who feel unable to live in a world in which others aren`t denied something are in fact victims of some psychological failing.
After all, who`d call them sane?

 IanG    {28233.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 09:28}       
Aye, the hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven.

What we have folks is a bunch of misanthropes masquerading as caring individuals/bodies/charities etc. These people don`t give a fuck about anyone or anything but their own fucked-up beliefs.

What`s wrong with women being portrayed in a sexual manner? What`s wrong with women appearing to be sexually attractive, dominant and empowered? How exactly does this demean women? Surely, exposure to such images of women desensitises men to any uncontrollable sexual urges they may experience?

Of course censors only play the desensitisation card when it suits their purposes. Others only play the sexualisation card when it suites their purposes. Well, they can`t have it both ways.

It is clear to me that some people simply despise other people`s bodies, attitudes and sexulity. As I say, these folks are clearly misanthropes - they hate everything about themselves and everyone around them. Yet when these miserable, insane, hateful fucks take `offence` at the slightest hint of normal human behaviour - esp. if it revolves around sex - they cry to the pisspot `authorities` to have their anti-human agenda enforced by pseudo `laws` presented as `guidelines`.

It is also clear from the actual number of complaints the various `regulators` receive that the gob shite misanthropes are a very small minority indeed and, moreover, that the general public do not share their narrow-minded, body-hating, anti-sex views.

Of course the only way to combat easy offence is to bring up our children with open minds, accepting of people`s inherant sexuality, differences and rights to express themselves freely and openly. We cannot make progress until we free ourselves from the religious dogma of sexual repression and misanthropic shits that dare to claim they care one iota about our rights, liberty, thoughts and feelings.

There is no evidence whatsoever to back-up the BBFC/CPS`s claims that images etc. can `corrupt and deprave`. Reasonable people don`t believe it happens, science can`t prove it happens. Only those that wish to deny the rest of us our right to see material they think is `not nice` choose to believe in such nonsense. And at the heart of their argument is the belief that `some people` cannot be trusted and, that they`re doing us all a favour by `protecting` us from these untrustworthy characters. Of course the only people that might be `affected` in the way the BBFC/CPS etc. claim are utterly psychotic and so far gone that no amount of censorship could ever protect the public from their psychotic behaviour. How else do we explain the nutters roaming the streets if the BBFC`s interventions have had the desired effect upon `some people` in society?

Any chance of progress in this society is now dead because we have a bunch of misanthropic fascist morons acting as `regulators` who`ve been created to pamper to the insane whims of a minority of similarly minded misanthropic fascist morons who only need to `feel` a bit `upset` by something to have all our rights and freedoms crushed by their pathetic beliefs.

 phantom    {28232.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 06:47}       
DarkAngel5 {28231}

"Now, is it my imagination or are these domestic violence charities just a bunch of dull humourless fucks? I seem to recall a similar charity refusing to accept a donation from a group of women who had posed for a "calender girls" style calender as they said they were opposed to pornography.

I mean, just what the hell is wrong with these people?"

You mean to say that you don`t know that rock band posters of skimpily clad girls (who are more attractive than the complainants) have a long record of promoting domestic violence?
And it`s a well known fact that dangling metal balls between your legs can unduly influence some more suggestible men to go and beat up their wives.
Ts, do you know nothing?

Next you`ll be telling me the sight of nun-chackos doesn`t induce a blood frenzy in some youngsters. After all, who could forget the many nun chacko blood baths of the 1980s...

I am however bitterly disappointed at the lady Gaga complaint not being upheld. The deluge of rapes which is now no doubt going to take place because of this lapse will be unimaginable.
Shame on the ASA.

Where is Anne Widdecombe when you need her?

 DarkAngel5    {28231.   Posted 25-Jan-2012 Wed 13:59}       
Just reading about the ASA having a go at Steel Panther`s advert (one of my fave bands at the moment). I see the chief complainant was some domestic violence charity.

Now, is it my imagination or are these domestic violence charities just a bunch of dull humourless fucks? I seem to recall a similar charity refusing to accept a donation from a group of women who had posed for a "calender girls" style calender as they said they were opposed to pornography.

I mean, just what the hell is wrong with these people?

 phantom    {28230.   Posted 25-Jan-2012 Wed 13:22}       
Lol. Fantastic.
So the Peacock case never happened. Or else it is meaningless.
At least so think the CPS and the BBFC.
In short, their word to the industry is; come on then if you think you`re hard enough. We will only give way if forced to.

One isn`t really surprised. Did we really expect them to be grown up about it?
One can sense them sulking from here. They`ve just lost, so they`re going home and taking the ball with them....

Nobody in their right mind can possibly think there is no need to review the guidelines.
After all, if not what was all that talk about meeting with the CPS about?

Clearly they have met and have decided all they can do is tough it out.

Puritans never give way for they are convinced they have right on their side - always.
Also, where really can they go from here? Their edifice to moral purity has been smashed to smithereens - in court.
They were openly mocked. Remember, four fingers good. Five fingers bad.

So for now, they`ve simply decided on a policy of `don`t mention the war`.

It never happened.
Stick your fingers in your ears and repeat after me. `Lalalalalalala.....!`

Good to know that this country leaves the delicate matter of film classification in the hands of people of such maturity.

So someone will have to put up the money to challenge them. Naturally they hope this will be some time - given that it makes little economic sense. (Spend money to be able to distribute to the uk dvd market? ever heard of online...)

But it will happen. Reality tends to come knocking sooner or later.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28229.   Posted 24-Jan-2012 Tue 21:38}       
Thanks Sergio
A significant development indeed

 sergio    {28228.   Posted 24-Jan-2012 Tue 03:35}       
Email from BBFC

Thank you for your email.

The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is incorrect.

There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.

Yours sincerely,


J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

------
Email from CPS is awaiting.

---
interesting leveson hearings on 24 jan 2012 morning - Jonathan Heawood (PEN), John Kampfner (Index on Censorship) `the wall of silence...`

 phantom    {28227.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 16:16}       
Harvey {28223}

`It`s all very well calling the BBFC, but if a distributor accepts the cuts without demur, surely they are accepting the BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?`

Or the distributor simply accepts the BBFC`s ability to execute its malign power without the need to account for their actions.
After all, if all they need to justify their decisions is to point to their own guidelines.

I trust that`s how Bashar Al Assad is doing it right now. And he`s doing it by the book. But not breaking any rules, of course. Merely following certain guidelines. His own.

So please let`s not decry the victim (and the distributor is the victim here) for not fighting back. The censorship industry holds all the aces.
They don`t go to prison for ignoring rules. The distributor does.

It seems that until they come to some decision regarding the future line in the sand, they are simply pretending the Peacock case didn`t happen.

Truth be told, they can do it. Because they can.

Sure, one can launch a judicial review (should one have the cash spare) but how long will that take? By that time the BBFC and the CPS might have decided to change their `internal guidelines` anyhow...

And I wouldn`t expect them to be answering questions on when they meet and reach decisions. Cults don`t work like that.
So just wait for the white smoke to appear...

 sergio    {28226.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 08:57}       
[28225]
I have now. I find it funny that the CPS has a page http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_the_month/successes_of_the_month_-_january_2012/

Then I search for Michael Peacock and I get `Sorry, no results found`

Of course they don`t want to advertise their failures.

----------
Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm

The last paragraph by Jo Glanville is interesting:
`"In future, obscenity cases should be referred directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution is triggered." `

 ING    {28225.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 05:22}       
Sergio

Have you asked the B.B.F.C for the date when they meet with the C.P.S. regarding the O.P.A. ?

 sergio    {28224.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 02:32}       
`BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?`

Surely, you mean `the BBFC`s interpretation of the CPS`s interpretation of the OPA?`?

 Harvey    {28223.   Posted 19-Jan-2012 Thu 16:41}       
MF [28222]

The test will be whether the distributor challenges the BBFC cuts.

It`s all very well calling the BBFC, but if a distributor accepts the cuts without demur, surely they are accepting the BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?