Opinion

Flawed Research

 Commenting on research outlined in news article

An article in today's Daily Mail reveals that a survey has found that adults who watched violence on television when they were children grew up to become violent members of society.

No doubt this will have John Beyer and other assorted pro-censorship campaigners biting at the bit but this survey is flawed.

The people who were investigated were those who were violent and or violent criminals who had watched violence on the screen during childhood but it did not prove that they would have not become violent had they not watched such programmes.

It suggested that these people did not come from violent backgrounds and would not have displayed violent detendancies before reaching adulthood. But this does not prove that one can become violent simply by watching violence on screen.

The survey also revealed that half the British population feel there is to much sex, violence and bad language on television.

But this is no reason for pro-censorship groups such as Mediawatch UK to be popping the champagne. Just because people feel that there is too much of something doesn't neccesarily mean they wish to see it banned or removed.

There are some people who think there is to much football on television but they do not think the best way to reduce the number of matches shown is by banning it's showing altogether.

What we have to remember that pro-censorship campaigners are not talking just about toning down or reducing levels of sex, violence and bad language on television, they are talking about removing it althogether.

That may seem great for those who wish to see television be a free choiceless totally family orientated zone with no adult programming, but for those of us who want a level of choice and free decision over what we watch it is shear hell.

Spanish Sex & Lucia

First of all, excuse my English. Here in Spain, we have no censorship at all and young people don't go killing each other neither are sexual obsessed. And Sweden, one of the most liberal countries, has also one of the lowest undesired pregnancy rates. Same for AIDS. Here, a film like Sex & Lucia was rated as "not recommended for minors" but it was only a recommendation and everyone could watch it without cuts. This movie, for example, had some full nude scenes and even two erections and nobody said that this was wrong. I think that people must be able to take their own decisions, and see the full versions of the films if they want. I don't understand this paternalism from the Government.

No Possibility of R18s on Satellite

Paul wrote to his MP, Michael Mates who then wrote to Patricia Hodgson with the following reply:

Thank you for your letter and enclosing a copy of a letter from your constituent in which he complains about the regulation of adult services on television.

Paul wrote to us in December and we replied setting out our policy on this issue. Paul wrote to us again to say that he disagreed. It was not clear from that letter that he expected a further response and I am sorry that we failed to respond as he expected. No discourtesy was intended.

 The ITC’s policy to which Paul objects is that ‘R18’ material (essentially explicit images of actual sexual activity) are not allowed in licensed services. This policy derives from the clear indication given when parliament passed the Video Recordings Act 1984 that such material was to be severely restricted. The Act decreed that ‘R18’ videos could only be distributed in licensed sex shops. There were then and remain now, a very small number of such shops – currently around 100 nationwide.

 Such videos are therefore very effectively restricted to adult purchasers appearing in person in these shops. Satellite television, by contrast, is currently available in around 50 per cent of UK households. To make ‘R18’ material available through this medium – notwithstanding its encryption – would be a very significant extension of distribution with the increased potential of children coming across the material.

 It is true that research does indicate that the British public is now very much less concerned in general terms about sexual material in the media than was once the case, and this is reflected in the ITC’s general policy. But it is far from certain that this means that the public wish to see the strongest and most explicit images available on television, even on encrypted services.

 Nor is there any indication from Parliamentary discussions on media content that there is any impulse towards this form of liberalisation in that quarter. The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the ITC to notify the Secretary of State at the DCMS of any foreign satellite service which breach UK standards of taste and decency. Over the years seven services have been proscribed by the Secretary of State as a result (and a further service is currently under consideration). The content of these services is not dissimilar to that of ‘R18’ videos. While this policy continues, there is clearly no possibility of considering accepting ‘R18’ standards on licensed services.

 I hope these comments clarify the ITC’s reasoning. It is an approach to which a minority does strongly object on the grounds of freedom of expression which it believes overrides all possible objections. We believe we are applying the views of Parliament and the majority of the public, in restricting the strongest material and think there remains a case for protection of children, notwithstanding that provided by responsible parents. Naturally we keep the application of these principles under review in the knowledge that society’s standards change over time.

 

Thank you for your letter, which was forwarded to me by my MP Mr Mates. I feel that I now have a clearer understanding of your reasons for banning R18 material from broadcasting. This being the case I would like to take the opportunity to respond to your arguments with some further comments and questions. I do not intend to argue over points of opinion but I do wish to raise a number of issues, which I feel may have been overlooked and ask for clarification on some others. I have included parts of your letter in italics for reference.

This policy derives from the clear indication given when parliament passed the Video Recordings Act 1984 that such material was to be severely restricted. The Act decreed that ‘R18’ videos could only be distributed in licensed sex shops. There were then and remain now, a very small number of such shops – currently around 100 nationwide.

It was clearly not parliaments intention that the Video Recordings Act should apply to broadcasting. If broadcasting were considered a source of supply under this act then all material broadcast (with some specific exceptions) would legally have to be classified by the BBFC and this is clearly not the case as many unclassified works continue to be broadcast. The ITC are therefore under no legal obligation to prohibit the broadcast of R18 material on the basis of the Video Recordings Act.

Parliaments intention here was surely to permit adults to access R18 material whilst preventing access by children. Given that R18 videotape will be taken into the home, it seems reasonable to assume that Parliament must have been of the opinion that adults were responsible for keeping it out of the hands of children after purchase. In fact satellite broadcasting offers a preferable distribution medium as broadcasts can be securely protected from child access by means of encryption, subscription and PIN protection that is not the case with videotape. If the service were to be copy protected like sky pay per view, the level of protection afforded to children would be far in excess of what is currently available with R18 videotape purchased from sex shops. There is no evidence that Parliament intended to restrict the absolute quantity of R18 videos sold.

Such videos are therefore very effectively restricted to adult purchasers appearing in person in these shops. Satellite television, by contrast, is currently available in around 50 per cent of UK households. To make ‘R18’ material available through this medium – notwithstanding its encryption – would be a very significant extension of distribution with the increased potential of children coming across the material.

 You are right in saying that R18 video sales are effectively restricted to adults. The same would also be true of a subscription channel. I do not think that there is the remotest chance that a child would be able to subscribing to, pay for and watch an adult service without the knowledge of an adult. Whilst it is true that satellite television is widely available, it is reasonable to assume that only a small percentage of viewers would be likely to subscribe to such a service so the extension of distribution which you claim would be far less than you suggest. The encryption, subscription, PIN protection, late night broadcasting and adult supervision would provide a very substantial protection to children.

It is true that research does indicate that the British public is now very much less concerned in general terms about sexual material in the media than was once the case, and this is reflected in the ITC’s general policy. But it is far from certain that this means that the public wish to see the strongest and most explicit images available on television, even on encrypted services.

Concerning public attitudes, I refer you to your own report “Television on Trial: Citizens’ Juries on Taste and Decency” which the ITC published in 1998 where one of the 6 main findings from both juries was that Pornographic material could be shown provided it was legal and limited to pay-per-view or subscription channels. This would appear to be a flat contradiction of your statement above, as R18 material is quite legal. If previous trends continue, and there is no reason to assume that they won’t, it is unlikely that public attitudes will have become less liberal 5 years later.

 At the very least this should sound alarm bells over your presumption concerning what the public wants or is prepared to accept and provoke a further study to clarify exactly what current public opinion really is on this matter.

 In the above section of your letter, when you say But it is far from certain that this means that the public wish to see… did you mean ‘see’ as in watch or ‘see’ as in allow?

If the former, then it is hard to see what the issue is. People who don’t want to watch would not choose to subscribe and I imagine that the vast majority of current subscribers to an adult service that was upgraded to R18 standard would be extremely pleased with such a change.

If the latter, then I am surprised that you would even consider putting a ban on a subscription service on the basis of public opinion. A ban imposed on this basis would certainly fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998, which clearly states that any restriction of freedom of expression must be based on protection from harm. There is no mention of restricting freedom of expression based on grounds of public opinion. It is reasonable to consider Public opinion concerning open to air broadcasting, but it is hard to justify it at all when considering a specialist subscription services.

Nor is there any indication from Parliamentary discussions on media content that there is any impulse towards this form of liberalisation in that quarter. The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires the ITC to notify the Secretary of State at the DCMS of any foreign satellite service which breach UK standards of taste and decency. Over the years seven services have been proscribed by the Secretary of State as a result (and a further service is currently under consideration). The content of these services is not dissimilar to that of ‘R18’ videos. While this policy continues, there is clearly no possibility of considering accepting ‘R18’ standards on licensed services.

It is quite clear from the 1990 Act and from the new communications bill that Parliament intended that the regulator should act independently to determine policy within a very broad framework that they supplied. If it had been parliaments intention to prevent broadcast of R18 material they could have inserted a clause to the effect that “R18 material must not be broadcast” in the new communications bill, which they have not done, they have past the responsibility for deciding this matter to you. It must also be noted that OFCOM will be charged with being a “light touch regulator”, identifying areas where regulation can be removed and that the standards objectives have been changed from “taste and decency” to “generally accepted standards”.

Whilst proscription of foreign channels on the grounds of taste and decency is still specified in the new bill, serious difficulties are already apparent. The further service that you say is ‘under consideration’ (The Satisfaction Channel) has been ‘under consideration’ for well over 2 years. If there was the remotest possibility of any real harm to children action should have been taken a long time ago, indeed it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government is wavering on this issue or has become so hopelessly entangled in serious bureaucratic difficulties as to make further progress impossible.

I hope these comments clarify the ITC’s reasoning. It is an approach to which a minority does strongly object on the grounds of freedom of expression which it believes overrides all possible objections.

You have clarified your reasoning - thank you. However there are still a number of issue that need to be addressed and I have asked some specific questions below.

As far as freedom of expression is concerned I do not think that many people believe that freedom of expression can override all possible objections, I certainly do not hold this view myself. I do believe that freedom of expression is extremely important and that any restriction of it must be for the purpose of protecting against clearly identified harm in a manner that is proportional to that harm. It is all too easy for minority groups to be trampled underfoot during episodes of media hysteria and moral outrage that occasionally sweep the nation. This is why I am particularly concerned about your statement about what the public wish to see.

We believe we are applying the views of Parliament and the majority of the public, in restricting the strongest material and think there remains a case for protection of children, notwithstanding that provided by responsible parents. Naturally we keep the application of these principles under review in the knowledge that society’s standards change over time.

It is reassuring that these matters will be kept under review and I look forward to the coming changes in the regulatory framework with interest.

Finally I would like to ask you some specific questions:

• Do you agree that the Video Recordings Act does not apply to broadcast television?
• Do you agree that a subscription, PIN protected, late night, copy protected service would provide greater protection to children than the existing arrangements with R18 videotape?
• Do you have any knowledge or information as to what the DCMS are currently doing concerning proscription of the Satisfaction Channel?
• Do you intend to undertake any form of investigation into public views on this matter or concerning the general attitude of the public to sexual material in the media?
• Is it reasonable to assume that you would review your current policy on this matter if the Government decided not to proscribe the Satisfaction Channel?
• Please can you clarify your statement concerning (what I suspect is) public opinion being used as the basis for imposing a ban on a subscription service? I am particularly interested in considerations under the Human rights Act.

 

Thank you for your letter of 4 February. This is, of course, a contentious issue with very strong feelings both for, and against, the right to have access to pornographic material.

In answer to your questions:

1                    The Video Recordings Act 1984 does not of course apply to television but, in that it sets standards for ‘viewing in the home’, logic and the need for consistency mean that its requirements must be taken into account.

2                    Theoretically, availability of such channels would make them available to half the population. Of course, the level of subscription would greatly narrow this access, but access would certainly be increased. We are not aware of any information on the extent to which ‘R18’ videos fall into the hands of children so it is impossible to know whether child protection is compromised in this respect.

3                    Your question about Satisfaction TV should be addressed to the DCMS.

4                    As you know, the functions of the ITC will be taken over by Ofcom later this year and it would be inappropriate for the ITC to make significant policy changes not resulting from legal necessity at this stage. It will be up to the new body to consider how it wishes to deal with this issue and whether research would be the appropriate mechanism.

5                    The ITC and/or Ofcom will consider the implications of the decision in the Satisfaction TV case when it arises. It would not be appropriate to speculate on a hypothetical outcome.

6                    Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, in dealing with Freedom of Expression, acknowledges that ‘this article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises’. It goes on to state that the right is subject to ‘conditions, restrictions or penalties’ which include ‘for the protection of health or morals’. It is clear that restrictions on the content of television services are compatible with the requirements of the act.

Research meanwhile does not offer clear guidance. The Citizens’ juries to which you refer involve only 32 people and the stimulus material shown consisted of excerpts from the Playboy Channel and the Adult Channel, both of which they found acceptable. The recommendations that you quote, that pornographic material is acceptable provided it is legal and on subscription or pay per view, has to be seen in this rather limited context.

It is undoubtedly true that, as more sophisticated systems for restricting access are introduced, the sort of case you make for making explicit material available on television screens becomes more compelling. It is however an issue that arouses strong emotions and, as I have indicated, I do not believe that this is the moment to consider what would be a significant change of policy. It will be for Ofcom to evaluate what ‘generally accepted standards’ might mean in this particular context.

To Patricia Hodgson

Thank you for your letter of the 14 February. As you stated in your letter this is a very contentious issue, it is therefore very important that all aspects are fully and carefully explored.

I believe there remain serious inconsistencies in some of your reasoning for the R18 broadcasting ban. That being said, it does appear from your last response that the most appropriate body to consider many of these issues is now Ofcom. With this in mind I will be writing to them later in the year.

There is however, one final point concerning public opinion and the Human Rights Act for which I would still very much like some further clarification on from the ITC at this point in time.

You are quite right to point out that Article 10 of the HRA does permit the restriction of freedom of expression on the grounds of protection of heath and morals. It must also be borne in mind that several legal cases have established the principle that restrictions for the protection of health and morals must be proportionate to the harm caused (Handyside v UK 1976). More recently the BBFC failed in their attempt to overturn the Video Appeals Committee ruling permitting hard core pornography in R18 videos, as they were unable to provide unequivocally that any harm would be caused and that in any case it was highly unlikely that children would see them. (R. v Video Appeals Committee 2000).

The issue here is your contention that public opinion should be the arbiter of what is appropriate for a subscription service. Public opinion is just that, an opinion, regardless of how many people hold that view. My question to you is, what proof of harm do you have? And if the answer is none or very little how can you consider that a ban is justified as proportionate to the likely harm and therefore compliant with the HRA?

In view of subscription, encryption, PIN protection, late night broadcasting and adult supervision, very few children would ever be likely to see this material. Therefore any harm caused must be very great indeed in order for a ban to be considered proportionate. In this case some evidence of harm should surely be available considering the wide availability of far stronger material on the continent and elsewhere.

 

Thank you for your further letter of 16 February.

In response to your specific question, I would only say that the ITC programme Code has been rigorously reviewed in the light of the Human Rights Act and the Convention. We are satisfied that it is fully compliant and that, in reflecting the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990, it is perfectly in keeping with the HRA for the ITC to secure that every licensed service includes nothing in its programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to be offensive to public feeling.

The Commission does, I am afraid, take a different view of these matters from yours and, as we have debated the issue very fully, I think we must regard this correspondence as closed.

 

Despite the closure, I am very encouraged by her response. She has specifically pinned the argument on the taste and decency requirement in the 1990 Broadcasting act. She must be fully aware that the taste and decency requirement in this Act will be repealed, and replaced with generally accepted standards when the new communications act comes into force later this year. This therefore leaves the door wide open for Ofcom to remove the ban.

'This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning'.

 

I've just been reading Patricia Hodgson's (ITC C.E.O.) answers to the
questions raised by Paul.

As usual the ITC have decided to interpret the law as they see fit. In
answer to Paul's 6th question where he asks "Please can you clarify your
statement concerning (what I suspect is) public opinion being used as the
basis for imposing a ban on a subscription service? I am particularly
interested in considerations under the Human rights Act."

Patricia Hodgson replies "Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, in dealing
with Freedom of Expression, acknowledges that this article shall not
prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or
cinema enterprises. It goes on to state that the right is subject to
conditions, restrictions or penalties which include for the protection of
health or morals. It is clear that restrictions on the content of
television services are compatible with the requirements of the act."

The act states this article shall not prevent states from requiring the
licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. Fair enough,
you need a licence to broadcast or run a cinema but, where does it state
that the terms of that licence can contravene the terms of the act? Clearly
it doesn't and, therefore, any restrictions on what can be broadcast under
the licence MUST be justified in terms of harm, NOT on public (or the ITC's)
opinion.

What really annoys me is that Hodgson believes that this is justified on the
grounds that the ITC are respecting the statement for the protection of
health or morals (this was obviously slipped in by the VLA/Mediawatch
lobbyists). Are the ITC justified in restricting content and, are their
restrictions compatible with the HRA? Clearly NOT. The high court made it
quite clear to the BBFC that hardcore material is no longer obscene and so,
the Government have to permit it's sale (albeit through sex shops). This
decision flew right in the face of the VRA and the BBFC have since had to
relax almost all of their rules. My question to the ITC then is this, how
can something that is already accepted and available in the community (by
law) suddenly corrupt morals or damage one's health if it becomes available
via TV and satellite?

The answer, Patricia, is that it can't and, your organisation, however
well-meaning, is most definitely breaking the law!

Quite frankly I don't give a monkey's how long the ITC have left to run,
they should amend their policy immediately. If OFCOM decides 'generally
accepted standards' doesn't include porn then they can (try) to ban it.
Right now the ITC are acting illegally and this must end.

 

I have been reading the discussions on the Melon Farmer's site concerning ITC restrictions on 'adult content' on adult channels.

John Glover's major rebuttal appears to be thatR18 videos/DVD's are only allowed to be sold from licensed premises in the UK.

Isn't it the case that this is because of the Video Recordings Act, rather than direct legislation against such material?

And isn't it also the case that broadcast services are exempt from the provisions of the VRA?

Assuming I have interpreted this correctly doesn't that mean that the ITC's position is based upon a mis-interpretation of current law?

Just a thought.

 

Dear Ms Hodgson,

I wish to complain, in the strongest possible terms, about the ITCs continued and completely unjustified ban on the delivery of hardcore pornography on UK adult satellite subscription services. I have read your defence of this policy in response to queries raised by visitors of the Melon Farmers web site and find your arguments to be a matter of opinion rather than fact. Furthermore, I believe that the ITC are indeed in direct conflict with Article 10 of the HRA, rather than upholding this Article as you claim.

You have stated that your review of the ITC Programme Code found it to be in keeping with the terms of the HRA. I have to disagree. Nowhere in the HRA is there any provision for any censorship to be based on terms of good taste and decency or that which may cause offence to the public. Such clauses are no longer acceptable as the basis for censorship as they are open to interpretation. I, along with many other people in this country find censorship to be distasteful and offensive, where do we fit in to your Programme Code?

The HRA deals with definable terms namely proof of harm to both morals and health. What you call offence is in no way damaging to anyones moral or physical health and is therefore not included under the terms of the HRA. How you can attempt to draw parallels between something which may cause mild embarrassment through to total outrage (i.e. cause offence to someone) with something which has the power to damage or corrupt a persons moral or physical wellbeing (i.e. cause harm to someone) is extremely dubious. I have to conclude that your review was not thorough enough and does not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps you believe causing offence to someone is the same as committing an offence against someone? I believe the ITC are guilty of committing both types of offence. I am deeply offended by your attitude toward the public in treating us like idiots and, I believe you are committing an offence by not conforming to the terms of the HRA.

In the year 2000, the High Court made a ruling against the BBFC regarding the legal status of consensual adult pornography. The High Court found that pornography was not obscene and, to ban it for reasons of potential harm to children would be disproportionate on the grounds that no actual proof of harm could be shown. I might add that this decision was made prior to the incorporation of the HRA in to UK law and it set a precedent that is required for correct interpretation of the HRA, a precedent that you seem to have completely ignored in your interpretation of Article 10.

Under the terms of Article 10 it is necessary to provide proof of harm in order to legally censor or ban any subject matter. As pornography is no longer judged to be obscene, it cannot corrupt or deprave in the eyes of the law, to all intents and purposes it is harmless. Therefore, any justification of a ban on the grounds of protection of morals or health, as you claim you uphold under Article 10, is not legally sound. Contrary to your belief, this clause does not grant you carte blanche to proscribe and censor channels as you see fit. The law no longer recognises pornography poses any threat to morals or health so there can be no grounds for you to enforce any type of censorial protection. This clause most certainly does not extend to causing offence to public taste and decency because causing embarrassment or outrage is definitely not harmful indeed, to feel outraged, ones morals must be intact. Furthermore, to argue the case on the grounds of potential harm to children would fare no better than the BBFCs attempt, the legal precedent has already been set and, quite simply, the argument cannot be justified. Indeed, it is far less likely that a child could gain access to such channels than say a videotape or DVD, parents can apply their own PIN number protection to such material in the receiver and, of course, they would have to subscribe to the service in the first place.

If you require further proof that the laws you are imposing are no longer valid, it has been some 2 years since your recommendation to proscribe SCT (which can now be received by 50% of the population via a Sky mini dish) yet, the Government still has not acted. This is a clear indication that the Government has recognised and accepted that all prior legislation regarding taste and decency included in the Broadcasting Act 1990 has been superseded by the proof of harm requirements of the HRA 1998. The Government and the ITC no longer have the right to censor TV on such flimsy grounds as taste and decency.

The ITC has therefore been imposing an illegal ban on the broadcast of pornographic material since the year 2000 when the HRA was ratified, a situation that obviously cannot be allowed to continue any longer.

You have stated that you do not think such a radical change in policy would be right so soon before OFCOM take over your responsibilities. I would concur that, in respect of free-to-air broadcasts, this would not be a prudent move. However, for specialist adult subscription services, I believe that such a change would not only be acceptable but is in fact necessary and, must be implemented immediately in order to fulfil your role within the law. Your own consultations with the public have shown that such material is already deemed to be acceptable viewing albeit via specialist subscription services. As pornography is widely available in the community it is clearly generally accepted and, for the reasons set out above, it will no doubt have to be allowed under OFCOMs guidelines. You will not be setting an unfair precedent by making this change now. Indeed, I think you could only be accused of falling in line with current legislation.

I would just like to add that this is not an issue of what you or the Government believe the public want or should be able to see on television, it is a matter of what the public has the legal right to view. As such, you are currently breaking the law with your insistence on continuing a completely unjustified ban against perfectly legal and harmless material. The parallels between the sale of pornography via licensed sex shops and adult subscription TV channels are obvious. To allow sale via one and not the other simply cannot be justified logically or legally. I fail to see how watching a pornographic film beamed from a satellite to my TV can pose any greater risk to my moral wellbeing than watching the same film on the same TV from a pre-recorded video. The ITC seem to think the law allows them to make some distinction, it does not and, I think I have shown quite clearly that your interpretation of Article 10 is corrupt.

Please, I beseech you, do something in the spirit of taste and decency on this matter and show some respect for the publics views, not to mention the law, and lift the ban.
 

RE: Encrypted adult channels and "R18" material

Thank you for your letter of 12 May 2003, about the content of encrypted adult services. It is clear that you are very familiar with our position on this issue, as set out in letters from the ITC to other correspondents, and posted on the Melon Farmers web site.

Your central point is that the ITC Programme Code is in breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. I can only say that the Code has been rigorously reviewed in the light of both the HRA and the European Convention and is believed to be fully compliant. In reflecting the requirements of the Broadcasting Acts, ITC must secure that licensed services include nothing in their programmes which offends against good taste and decency, or is likely to be offensive to public feeling.

I realise that you take a very different view on this issue, and that you are unlikely to be persuaded by further debate. I am sorry if this reply comes as a disappointment, but the ITC has no plans to change its policy on this matter.

 

Just a small point but I do not recall referring to consensual adult pornography as R18 material. I did not ask that R18 material be made available on UK subscription channels, I asked you to recognise that you were breaking the law with respect to the HRA and, in doing so, to lift the ban of, as your Code puts it, real sex on adult subscription services.

In your reply you have stated yet again that your rigorous review found the Code to be fully compliant with the HRA. However, as I pointed out, this is only a matter of opinion and, I stated several facts, which you have failed to acknowledge and which clearly show that your Code cannot be compliant with the HRA. These being: 1. The act requires proof of harm not standards of taste and decency. 2. UK law does not recognise pornography poses any threat to morals or health and is therefore permissible under Article 10. 3. Surveys conducted by the ITC (and BBFC) show the overwhelming majority of the public believes such material IS within standards of taste and decency.

I put it to you again that you are in fact maintaining a totally illegal and unjustified ban on the transmission of real sex. The points set out above are a matter of fact not opinion. In whose opinion is your Code found to conform to the HRA? Who on your review panel had such little understanding of the English language that they could construe standards of taste and decency to mean protection of health or morals? I will make the point again, if you are to afford us protection from anything, there must be a recognised and real threat from something. These are the only permissible interpretations of the clauses under Article 10, which states clearly that to ban or censor any material there needs to be proof of harm.

If you still wish to fall back on the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990, then may I point out that you are to maintain standards of PUBLIC taste and decency. All surveys you have conducted on public taste and decency since 1998 have shown that the public is in favour of this material being available on adult subscription services. By ignoring public opinion you are not even obeying your original guidelines. As a Government appointed body, created to uphold standards of taste and decency surely, your first priority should be to ensure you act within the law!

My final point is this, making pornography available on adult subscription services in no way compromises standards of public taste and decency. Only members of the public who want to view this material will subscribe to such channels. I fail to see how anyone could be offended by what I or, anyone else chooses to watch or, subscribe to, in the privacy of his or her own home. It never was in your remit to dictate what public standards of taste and decency were or indeed are. You accuse me of disagreeing with your views when in fact I am simply exposing your disassociation from the public s views. The public has spoken but the ITC appear to have developed deaf ears and inflated egos (absolute power corrupts absolutely). You are not right in your assumption that your personal (or even the ITCs) opinion outweighs that of the public and, as such you cannot be permitted to carry on acting in this dictatorial manner. According to your last survey you are completely out of tune with more than 75% of the people in this country.

As far as I can see you have failed to conform to the HRA 1998 and the Broadcasting Act 1990 based on my 3 points above. Im afraid that without supplying any proof to support your claim that the ITC Code does conform to the HRA, you leave me no option but to take this matter higher. I have already raised some of these issues with the DCMS and I will be writing in more detail to my MP highlighting the blatant disregard that you have shown for true public opinion and the law. I cannot see how you can defend your position, which you openly admit is based on your opinion, when you are faced with such overwhelming contradictory evidence based on the facts.

As I see it, there is only one course of action left open to you and, no matter how much you dislike it, you will have to bow to the will of the people. Lift the ban now and stop the pretence.
 

I note your points, but as I have stated in previous correspondence, we stand by our Code and this view has not changed.  I therefore feel that here is nothing further to be gained in continuing this correspondence.

Naked Bollox

To Hilary Benn

I am given to understand that section 70 relating to Exposure, in the Sexual
Offences Bill, will make it an offence to appear naked in public and, if one
is 'reckless' enough to expose one's self where children may be present then
this will be deemed a sexual offence.

Has any provision been made for public nudist beaches or similar areas where
nudity is intentional and one knows and intends other's will see even if
person's are under 16 years of age? Furthermore, any intentional exposure of
one's genitals will become an offence if one is 'reckless' as to whether
anyone will be offended even if no one is actually offended, is it now going
to be an offence to relieve one's self behind a bush?

Madam, this aspect of the bill is nonsense. Why is it an offence to appear
in one's natural state anyway? Every other living creature on this planet
seems to go about it's business completely as nature intended without
causing anyone any offence. Why are we deemed to be so different?

Surely, Exposure to INTENTIONALLY cause offence for sexual gratification is
THE offence, not, as this bill so simplistically states, any 'intentional
exposure'. Just where would the law stand on Billy Connely's naked Comic
Relief jog around London (recently re-broadcast on his birthday/tribute
show)? No one appeared to be offended, bemused maybe but no one took
offence. Being naked is not in itself a sexual act. We all own a body and
we have all seen a member of the opposite sex naked (even children). What
about the more liberal minded parents who see nothing wrong with the naked
human form and parade about the home in a state of undress while their young
children are present? Are these people now sexual offenders?

Just because it is the norm to wear clothes in Britain should not exclude
anyone's right to choose not to wear clothes. We can see in other cultures
around the World, especially in warmer climates, that clothing is an
optional extra. It is therefore a basic human right to go naked. Naked is
our natural state and, I believe, if clothing were not almost a necessity in
our climate then, we would accept nudity as our natural state. To make it
an offence to expose any part of the body, genitals included, shows a
blatant disregard for the most basic of human rights.

This bill has to make a clear distinction between deviant sexual behaviour
and normal or non-sexual behaviour. Just because someone may be offended by
sex or nudity should not make having sex or being nude a sexual offence. It
is the intent that matters. The intentional exposure of the genitals should
not automatically constitute a sexual offence unless there is some
associated HARMFUL sexual intent. I know of several people who have
'flashed' in public, usually to a group of friends, for no other purpose
than to raise a laugh, are these people now to be considered a danger to the
public? It should also be noted that men expose their genitals
intentionally and, quite often in public, every single day. Unless a public
urinal has now been deemed a 'dwelling', it would seem going to the loo
would constitute an offence under this bill.

Please, make sure this bill gives normal people the right to behave like
normal people. Yes, please legislate against abnormal and dangerous sexual
behaviour, but allow us, the general public, some basic freedoms. It would
seem to me that under section 74, everyone who has sex outdoors or in the
backseat of a car will now be deemed 'sexual deviants'. Are teenagers who
get a bit 'touchy feely' in the disco to be branded sex offenders? This
bill contains some VERY worrying clauses and how The Lord Falconer of
Thoroton can say it conforms to the HRA is beyond any plausible explanation.

If this bill goes through as is, we could see the whole populous in the sex
offenders register. Sort it out! We are only flesh and blood, we have
desires and weaknesses and sometimes we give-in to those desires without
consideration of the consequences. What should be clear in this legislation
is that, if this behaviour is consensual and NOT INTENDED to be offensive
then it is NOT a sexual offence. Unfortunately, you seem to have excluded
any possibility of a defence against prosecution by the excessive and
inexcusable inclusion of the word 'reckless' in all instances where
'passion' would get the better of most people. I'm not sure if this was
your intention or not but, I can see many normal people falling foul of such
open ended, all encompassing and despicable law.

I feel there is little place for this type of puritanical legislation in
Britain today. I thought the HRA precludes Government imposing 'moralistic'
legislation, which this bill clearly contains, without first justifying the
need. Has there been a public consultation on what behaviour people would
and would not find offensive? If this bill actually stuck to the real issue
of sexual offences (rape, child abuse etc.), rather than restricting sexual
freedom and practices then, you would find very little argument from myself
or anyone else.

I hope you can see there are some instances where this legislation conflicts
with what many people would consider perfectly normal behaviour. Naive I
may be but, I thought the law exists to protect our rights not, to strip
them away and turn us into criminals. Next to eating and sleeping, sex is
something we have to do to survive. If a couple like to do it in the woods
or in a car then I say let them, as long as they don't deliberately set out
to harass or cause offence who would actually be harmed?

I'm sure you are very busy but I would like to hear your views on why you
believe some aspects of this bill are necessary.

Government Howler

Dr. Kim Howells.

On the BBC web site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2652747.stm) it states:

Pontypridd MP Dr Howells, who last week linked "boasting macho idiot
rappers" with rising gun crime, told the Independent newspaper he was
not advocating censorship

I sincerely hope not! We have ENOUGH of that already. Most of it...
(with the exception of protection of children and animals)
...is quite unjustified in fact.

You may well take the point that most European countries do not need
the kind of pre-censorship of films and heavy television regulation
that we have in this over regulated country. You might also take the
point that disproportionate censorship is a violation of the Human
Rights Act.

Blaming the media for society's ills is nothing more than
scapegoatism. A simple deflection from real ills, that a possibly
inept government cannot deal with. Try giving children something
worthwhile to do with their spare time; decent youth clubs for
example; rather than to consider censoring their computer games.

It might seem very good to you Mr. Howells, but we don't live in the
late seventies or early eighties any more. Wiser more educated media
aware people now consider these issues for themselves, and can see
them for what they are. Unnecessary and disproportionate, and a
deflection from the real issues and problems of society.

Baying Beyer

How typical of John Beyer to use the terrible shootings in Birmingham to further his and his shameful group Mediawatch UK in their quest to impose censorship on us all.

The truth is that what happens in every day society does not concern Beyer. He is more concerned with the imposing of more control on our free viewing habits.In his eyes if he does not approve of it we cannot watch it.

To use the death of two innocent girls to further his campaign is disgraceful.