Hot Movies icon Free Sample Minutes
Hot Movies

 BBFC People: John Taylor

Adult DVDs
Internet Video
LicensedShops
Store Reviews
Online Shops
Adult Mags
Gay Shops
New + Latest
Sex Machines
Sex Machines

 Vice President of the BBFC: 1998-2000

  Home  UK Nutters
  Index  World  Liberty
  Links  Media Info
  Forum  BBFC Shopping 
   
Sex News
Sex Shops List
Sex+Shopping


30th January
2011
 Updated: 

Past BBFC Bigwig Convicted of Fraudulent Expense Claims...

Hot Movies

Internet
Video

Free Sample Minutes

Hot Movies

 

 
Moral high grounder corrupted by too much sex and violence?

Permalink

John TaylorLord Taylor of Warwick has been found guilty of making £11,277 in false parliamentary expenses claims.

He claimed travel costs between his Oxford home and Westminster, as well as subsistence for living away from home whilst in London. He was actually living in a flat in London.

A jury at Southwark Crown Court found him guilty by an 11-1 majority verdict.

He has been released on bail pending sentencing at a date to be confirmed.

Taylor was a former vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification serving from 1998 until 2000.

He was actually appointed during moral times when the Government were keeping a close eye on BBFC presidential appointments. This was to ensure a bit of Jack Straw imposed morality after James Ferman had started the hardcore legalisation ball rolling by passing a few hardcore snippets in R18 videos.

So much for their selection of moral high grounders.

Offsite: The Warlock of Warwick

30th January 2011. See article from telegraph.co.uk

Lord Taylor of Warwick, the first black Conservative politician to take a seat in the House of Lords, faces jail after being convicted of expenses fraud.

The Telegraph can reveal the full extent of his spectacular demise. For as the net was closing in on him, Taylor went ahead with a marriage – including a lavish ceremony and reception at the House of Lords – that was to last just 24 days.

In a remarkably candid interview, Taylor's ex-wife Yvonne Louise, a wealthy evangelical Christian from Florida, tells of their wedding, their bizarre honeymoon and subsequent divorce.

Taylor, also an evangelical Christian, employed as his official wedding photographer the nephew whose damning evidence helped to secure his conviction. The photos of the ceremony, which took place in December 2009 but which are made public for the first time today, show Taylor smiling for the cameras. But his grin masks the scandal about to engulf him.

...Read the full article

 

17th July
2010
  

The Moral High Ground...

Hot Movies

Internet
Video

Free Sample Minutes

Hot Movies

 

 
Ex Vice President of the BBFC charged with fiddling expenses

Permalink

John TaylorLord Taylor of Warwick is the sixth parliamentarian to face charges over the expenses scandal. He is facing charges in relation to claims of £11,000.

It follows disclosures in December that he had allegedly registered a house in Oxford belonging to the partner of his stepbrother's son, without his knowledge or consent.

The peer is accused of declaring the property owned as his primary residence in order to claim second home expenses. Taylor has lived in Ealing, West London, since 1995. Peers who live outside the capital can claim £174 a night tax-free to cover the cost of a hotel or a second home.

The 57-year-old peer resigned from the Conservative Party hours after the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that he was facing six charges of false accounting in relation to claims for overnight subsistence and car mileage between March 2006 and October 2007. He will appear before Westminster Magistrates Court next month.

John Taylor was Vice President of the BBFC for 10 years until retiring in November 2008.

 

5th May
1999
  

A Censor's Life...

Hot Movies icon

Internet
Video

Free Sample Minutes

Hot Movies

 

 
John Taylor, Vice President of the BBFC

Permalink
John TaylorNice girl, pity about her guts hanging out. I've just watched a film where a Californian teenage girl had a bad day. She was kidnapped, raped, stabbed and disembowelled. Not quite the American dream.

Believe me, I've seen worse during my first six months as vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. Our task is to decide what films and videos are suitable for viewing by the public. We can ban, cut and classify. The big issues are sex, drugs, and violence. There's a lot of it about.

I wouldn't choose to watch these films for fun. I get my thrills from party political broadcasts. When I started the job, I worried that watching Hollywood horrors would gradually pollute my brain. If anything, it has made me less tolerant of obscenity and brutality. But you have to develop mental strategies to protect yourself. My experience as a criminal law barrister helps. (Also, as the black Conservative parliamentary candidate in Cheltenham in 1992 I lived through an episode which could be described as X-rated!)

When I was first appointed to the board, I was warned there were no set guidelines for coping with disturbing films. Censors have different personalities and their own ways of dealing with things. Anyway, you don't get chosen for this kind of work if Bambi gives you nightmares. But while I must concentrate on the screen and make notes where appropriate, there is another world going on in my head.

For example, when someone's bloodied head is blown off by machine-gun fire on film, I remind myself it's only a special effect. Furthermore, this trickery seems pathetic compared to the simple, beautiful reality of the brilliant yellow flowers on display in the viewing room. And no gruesome film image can match the splendour of a waterfall as it cascades down a mountainside into a river. The mental image of the rushing water cleanses, sustains, quenches and refreshes. You watch the film but you are not soiled by it. This is not daydreaming or losing concentration. It is my way of reminding myself that, despite the warped imagination of some film makers, good is a more powerful force than evil. A prayer or two helps as well.

The problem is, violence is not only on screen. A combination of the war in Kosovo, Jill Dando's murder and nail bombs have created a confused and insecure atmosphere in Britain. Because I knew Jill as a friend and had worked with her, the awful impact of her death hit me hard.

Violence has been the feature linking the stories dominating our headlines recently. I fear that by exposing society, especially the young and impressionable, to a constant diet of screen violence we have created a harsher society where violence is accepted as a way to solve problems.

Even in America there is a growing recognition that the drip, drip effect of screen 'designer violence' on teenagers who have access to guns is relevant to incidents like the tragic shooting of children in a Colorado school. Film is an influential tool in the advertising industry. Such a persuasive medium can work for good and bad. Video presents the biggest problem. It is an excellent teaching medium. A video can be stopped, replayed, slowed down, fast-forwarded - a great instruction manual in how to punch, kick, stab and shoot. A pounding soundtrack, raising the adrenaline levels, can greatly multiply the impact. You don't believe me? Just look at the blockbusters in which Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis became household names. They don't earn millions of dollars per film reciting poetry. Hollywood has no social responsibility, it produces whatever will earn the big bucks.

Last year, the Home Office published The Effects of Video Violence on Young Offenders. The report showed that offenders preferred brutal entertainment and identified with violent role models. In watching action films, they often skipped from one frenzied scene to another, so the consequences of thuggery were not observed.

Vinnie Jones, the former hard man of soccer, won plaudits for his menacing performance in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Now he's set to become a Hollywood tough guy. Are you happy with him as a role model for young people?

Clearly violence has a number of causal factors. But we cannot afford to ignore the significance of film and video. The next film we have to view for video release is that old family weepie, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

BBFC logo

BBFC

British Board of Film Classification

The BBFC is an independent company tasked with UK film, video and games censorship. It is funded through classification fees.

The BBFC role is different for cinema,  home media and online.

For cinema the BBFC historically represented the interests of the film industry to ensure that film makers avoided legal issues from obscenity law etc. BBFC cinema ratings are advisory and the ultimate censorship responsibility lies with local authorities. In the vast majority of cases BBFC advice is accepted by councils. But advice has often been overruled to ban BBFC certificated films or to allow BBFC banned films.

For home video, DVD, Blu-ray and some video games, the BBFC acts as a government designated censor. BBFC decisions are enforced by law via the Video Recordings Act of 2010.

For online films the BBFC offers a voluntary scheme of reusing BBFC vide certificates for online works. The BBFC will also rate online  exclusive material if requested. Note that the Video Recordings Act does not apply online and content is only governed by the law of the land, particularly the Obscene Publications Act and Dangerous Pictures Act.

The BBFC is due to relinquish responsibility for video games in late 2011. The Video Standards Council will take over the role and ratings will be provided using Europe wide PEGI ratings and symbols.

BBFC Directors:
- John Trevelyan 1958-1971
- Stephen Murphy 1971-1975
- James Ferman 1975-1999
 - Robin Duval 1999-2004
- David Cooke 2004-present

BBFC Ratings:

-  U: Universal: Suitable for all

- PG: Parental Guidance: General viewing, but some scenes may be unsuitable for young children

- 12A: Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may see a ‘12A’ film in a cinema unless accompanied by an adult. [cinema only]

- 12: Suitable for 12 years and over. No-one younger than 12 may rent or buy a ‘12’ rated video or DVD. Responsibility for allowing under-12s to view lies with the accompanying or supervising adult.. [home media only]

- 15: No-one younger than 15 may see a ‘15’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 15 may rent or buy a ‘15’ rated video or DVD.

- 18: No-one younger than 18 may see an ‘18’ film in a cinema. No-one younger than 18 may rent or buy an ‘18’ rated video.

- R18: To be supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons of not less than 18 years. Hardcore pornography is allowed in this category

- Rejected. The BBFC has the power to ban the sale of home media. A rejected cinema film may be shown with permission of the local authority.

Not that rejected home media is banned from sale. It is not generally illegal to possess. However criminal law makes it illegal to possess child & extreme porn.

Websites:
BBFC
Parent's BBFC
Student's BBFC
Children's BBFC

Melon Farmers Pages:
BBFC News
BBFC Guidelines
Latest UK Cuts
Recent Bans: BBFC
Videos Bans: BBFC
Cinema Bans: BBFC
 



BBFC People
Archive
 Confessions of a Censor by Ros Hodgkiss
 Sinful Days in Soho by Maggie Mills
 The Ferman Chainsaw Massacre
 Ferman on Porn Hard questions
 Ferman Looks Back on almost a quarter of a century
 Ferman's Farewell to The British Film Academy
 Whittam Smith: Do R18s harm our children? (May 2002)
 Whittam Smith Interview on Talk Radio
 Why I Passed Lolita for Cinemas by Andreas Whittam Smith
 Whittam Smith on The Exorcist
 Whittam Smith on Happiness and life, the universe and everything
 Duval Speak Duval's false claims of 'sadistic' sex in R18 videos (Feb 2000)
 Tea with the Censor An interview with Robin Duval
 Robin Duval Idiots at the BBFC
 Jim Barratt Toes the BBFC line
 Richard Falcon An interview with an emphasis on horror (March 2002)
 A Censor's Life John Taylor, BBFC Vice President (May 1999)