Opinion

Reverend on Irreverence

Article in The Guardian

The Christians whose protests forced the BBC to drop its cartoon about the Vatican should lighten up.

Apparently, the prophet Elisha couldn't take a joke. And neither, it seems, can the 6,000 Christians who have successfully petitioned the director general of the BBC to scrap plans to show the Vatican cartoon comedy Popetown. Apparently, depicting the Pope on a pogo stick (with voice by Ruby Wax) surrounded by scheming cardinals is likely to offend believers and threaten their faith.

Well, I'm offended too. But unlike the 6,000, I'm offended by the implication that, as a Christian, I am a humourless over-sensitive wimp whose faith requires special protection. I'm offended by always being classed alongside the offended.

For being offended by the prospect of the Pope on a pogo stick is a transparent form of passive/aggressive manipulation - casting oneself as the hard-done-to victim while pulling all the strings. Using the mock innocent vulnerability of "being offended" as a weapon with which to make others do things your way is never going to win any friends.

Moreover, it is precisely because religious people get in a huff so very easily that they are so funny. The reason you can't stop sniggering in church is because of the perceived disapproval of others. Without the disapproval, there's nothing to laugh about. Ironically, therefore, it's the 6,000 outraged Christians and all the others like them that keep the writers of Popetown, Father Ted and The Life of Brian in business. The best way to become an object of fun is to act like the boot-faced Puritan relatives that went to stay with Edmund Blackadder.

At what point, I wonder, did Christians loose their sense of humour? Dairmaid MacCulloch begins his great work on the Reformation in the small English country church at Preston Blisset in Buckinghamshire. Looking up from behind the altar the priest cannot avoid noticing the carving of an ample early-14th-century arse directed straight towards him. Professor MacCulloch doesn't know its purpose but reminds us that "this was a religion where shouts of laughter as well as roars of rage were common in church, where the clergy waged a constant if perhaps sometimes half-hearted battle against the invasion of fun".

Ridiculing the church, the clergy, bishops and the Pope has a long history. For early Protestants, the ecclesiastical establishment represented by the Pope was perceived as an instrument of domination and self-serving power. In Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, the monastery librarian finds Aristotle's lost work in praise of comedy. Realising its potential to undermine the status quo, he poisons its pages. The moral of which is that the church is afraid of laughter because laughter is impossible to control.

It is little wonder that the earthier reformers used laughter as a weapon against the Vatican. Unlike many of today's Christians, the Luther who offered the Pope "a fart for a staff" cared little about giving offence. Not that causing offensive was the end purpose. For Luther, humour was a way to cast down the mighty from their thrones. Humour works to expose the pious, the pompous and the arrogant. Laughter is the sound of resistance.

The point being made here has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. Laughter seeks out those in power. And if power bites back against laughter, then we begin to glimpse the grim face of absolute control - which is why the divine, above all, must have a sense of humour.

The decision to withdraw Popetown suggests a religion that cannot laugh at itself, a religion of claustrophobic disapproval, a religion where control is smuggled in under the guise of sensitivity. OK, sometimes the laughter is cruel - but there are bigger issues at stake. For the ability to laugh at oneself is perhaps the most effective litmus test which detects healthy from dangerous religion.

Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal for the impotence of their gods. He sarcastically lays into their lifeless divinity: perhaps "he is meditating, or he has wandered away, or he is on a journey, or he is asleep and must be awakened". It's not side-splitting stuff, admittedly. But it suggests a scriptural licence for having a go at some contemporary idols of thought. Christians can't stop the laughter. And we shouldn't want to. For we really ought to be laughing back.  

Dover Arsehole

To the Melon Farmers, re Dover Arsehole Bishop of Dover joints Manhunt Witch Hunt

I feel I have to take the good Bishop's argument to pieces.

Firstly, at every juncture the Bishop refers to the characters on screen as people. These are not 'people' they are computer generated facsimiles which look like people.

Secondly, if those people playing these game are "allowing the worst parts of their personality to come to the fore" then, surely better they do it in the fantasy world of the game than on the streets. The justification for these games to be on sale therefore seems to be as an outlet for otherwise dangerous pent-up aggression which might result in real harm to real members of society.

Thirdly, I certainly hope we are in a society where human rights and freedom are our ultimate goal. We suffer enough degradation at the hands of moralists and would be do-gooders who care little for the rights of people to choose their own avenues of entertainment and pleasure.

In all, the good Bishop seems to have missed the point and clearly shows no respect for free will, which I believe he should recognise God gave us above all other animals.

Rights to Response

To the Melon Farmers

An interesting development in the OfCom Broadcasting Code consultation today.

OfCom's Sara Winter emailed me asking me to fill in a revised cover sheet for the consultation, which would give OfCom the right to publish my response on their website before the consultation ends (and giving me the option to specify that it not be published before the consultation ends). I decided to do a quick check to see if any other terms had been changed. They have.

Sara Winter did not mention that the cover sheet has also been revised to transfer all intellectual property in a response to an OfCom consultation to OfCom. This is not something that the DCMS at Westminster, or the Scottish Executive for example seek to obtain from responses to their numerous consultations.

If OfCom hold the intellectual property in someone's response, does that then mean that that person would require OfCom's permission to communicate that idea to other interested parties, for example via the Melon Farmer's website? If so, this would effectively allow OfCom to censor ideas that were inconvenient to its preferred outcome!

I haven't seen any publicity from OfCom that this change had been made to their consultation process, and don't find any legal basis for it in the 2003 Communications Act (where Section 16 relates to "Consumer consultations"). I have asked Sara Winter what is behind the change (below) and will let you know any response I get.

Dear Sara Winter,

Thanks for your email. I hope to be able to reply positively to it, and to send you a revised cover sheet to shortly, but first please send me answers to the following questions about the other change to the cover sheet.

I note that the revised cover sheet includes a change whereby OfCom seek to obtain a transfer of all intellectual property rights in the response from the respondent to OfCom. This is not a transfer of property requested in Department of Culture Media and Sport consultations, or Scottish Executive consultations.

Why didn't you mention this in your email? When was this change made to OfCom's consultation procedure? What is the legal basis for this change (as OfCom will be aware the Communications Act 2003 Section 16 "Consumer consultation" is silent in the matter of intellectual property in consultation responses)?

Please describe to me the reasons for this change, and the implications of this change for my communication of the content of my response to others.
 

Disfunctional Joined up Regulation

To the Melon Farmers

What a strange and confused performance we are witnessing from OfCom over the past month. Ofcom would appear to want to treat the influence of television on children as simultaneously very significant or nearly irrelevant depending on which case it is arguing.

In the R18 RIA OfCom's central point is that children should be protected from inappropriate content because of some significant effect R18 content might have on children imagining that they could both a) bypass existing PIN and adult verification mechanisms and b) have any interest in watching R18 content if they were able to do so.

Imagine my surprise then when reviewing OfCom's 24/07/04 ruling on curbing junk food advertising specifically targeted at children (which may not harm children, but it would be a very courageous argument to say that it did children significant good compared with advertising that promoted a balanced diet and healthy exercise). Quoted from the Guardian Online at www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1267441,00.html

The television watchdog, Ofcom, ruled out a ban on advertising junk foods to children yesterday, saying the role of advertising in obesity was small compared to that of other factors such as exercise and family habits.

Never mind adult public opinion Research among parents found a majority supported a ban on food ads during children's airtime and almost half supported a ban anytime before 9pm., and never mind informed opinion doctors [ie the BMA] have voted for a ban on all food ads aimed at children under 12 (let alone the recommendations of 2003's Hastings report or the Food Standards Agency recommendations to OfCom that adverts for food high in sugar, salt or fat be curbed).

The Food and Drink Federation chipped in in the same article with:

It welcomed the Ofcom report. "There's been an awful lot of emotionally-laden opinion on food advertising, and we are pleased this report takes an evidence-based approach. We agree a ban would be neither proportionate nor effective," the deputy director, Martin Paterson, said.

Here's demanding equal treatment with the FDF in expecting a proportionate, evidence-based and non emotionally-laden treatment of R18 material on specialist services subject to proper PIN and adult verification controls. We should also remind OfCom in consultation responses about how little influence even material on television specifically targeted at children has on children in OfCom's own opinion.

OfCom also seems to be protecting the wrong interests again (remember "Ofcom exists to further the interests of citizen-consumers" from its own website?). It's primary goal is to protect the interests of consumers of broadcasting, above protecting the interests of broadcasters. The Guardian cites OfCom's research as saying that a ban on junk food advertising to children would be a bad thing as it would disproportionately affect television revenues!

So encouraging our kids to eat stuff not supported by medical and nutritional experts is ok as long as Independent Television advertising revenues hold up?

Is junk food advertising to minors really consistent with the TWF directive requiring that nothing is included in television broadcasts which might seriously impair the physical development of minors?

If I knew of a disfunctional regulator, who would I turn to to get that regulator regulated?

I have to agree 100% with John's remarks about Ofcom's protection of advertisers at the expense of children's health.

In a recent "Inventions that changed the World" broadcast on BBC2 re Television, a study revealed that a child's metabolism is LOWERED while watching TV, thus resulting in an increased likelihood to obesity.

Several other studies have linked anti-social behaviour and other disturbing trends in children that watch TV for excessive periods (upward of 2 hours per day).

The link between obesity and anti-social behaviour is reasonably clear to anyone who understands human child development. A child needs parental contact to physically learn how to behave as a human being. If this contact is replaced with attention-grabbing TV shows, not only does this onslaught of information shut down the child's metabolism to divert blood to the brain in order to assimilate the information but, it also affects the child's perception of normal human behaviour. Children who watch excessive amounts of TV are known to be less imaginative and more aggressive with shorter attention spans. Real life just isn't exciting enough for these children, which then leads to problems later in life such as binge drinking and other delinquent behaviour. TV is extremely bad for kids full stop.

A summary of these studies is available here: www.screenblock.com/data.htm

If Ofcom were really concerned about child welfare they would issue a public health warning to parents that too much TV viewing was a serious health risk for their children. They would also instigate an immediate ban on junk food advertising as a precautionary measure against obesity. Indeed, there would be little reason to restrict TV programming for adults if children were simply not allowed access to TV before a certain age. Sometimes it is very necessary to be cruel to be kind indeed, such a ban on TV viewing is clearly supported in the HRA and the TWF Directive for protection of a child's health and psychological development. Perhaps TV should not be broadcast between 4pm and 8pm to allow families some real 'quality time' together?

Explicitly Unreasonable Fine

Letter to Ofcom

Regarding XplicitXXX and their massive unfair fine.

May we please know the identity of the competitor of this channel which "complained" that XXX broadcast explicit material ?

I think given that no viewer complained, and the channel had clearly made a mistake, 50,000 pounds fine is a bit harsh, and the name of their accuser should be a matter of public record as it would be in the public interest.

I wouldn't be surprised some of these Adult channels don't go to a regulator in another EU country (one which properly cares about the Human Right to free expression) given the STUPIDITY and ineptness of Ofcom in dealing with these broadcasters, and the restricted material they are allowed to to broadcast which falls FAR SHORT of the expectations of their paying viewers..

Ofcoms job is to SERVE the public, not to be control freaks. Fines should only be imposed when there has been a complaint, NOT to serve the interests of the competition, trying to encourage Ofcom to almost bankrupt the broadcaster.

Who regulates this kind of regulator I wonder ? It is clear that someone is needed to do the job.

Letter to Xplicit

I heard about the £50,000 fine Ofcom have levied against you for broadcasting 'simulated sex' during a freeview slot some time ago.

I do recall writing to you about the explicitness of your free view in November last year (when I became a subscriber) for slightly different reasons.

However, I thought has just occurred to me in that, you may better use that
£50,000 to contest the fine on the sheer illegality of Ofcom's actions...

The point(s) are as follows:

The law of this land does not permit censorship under Human Rights legislation except where:

...restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. (HRA 1998, Art. 10, 2)

Assessment:

a) UK law contains no prohibition against, or requirement for, any material to be excluded or censored except where it has been deemed 'obscene' by a Court of Law. Explicit 'simulated' or real sex is therefore not eligible for censorship by any statutory means.

b) There is no evidence that sexual material can 'impair the morals or psychological development' of anyone, including children and indeed, there is a wealth of evidence to contradict any notions that it can 'corrupt' anyone of any age (see Kutchinsky 1991 & Diamond 1999 below).

c) The ECHR have already decreed that "A [broadcast] licensing system cannot be used to restrict any legally available material" (Groppera AG v Switzerland (1990), Autronic AG v Switzerland (1992)). As the High Court ruled that consensual adult material was perfectly legal within the UK in June 2000, there are no grounds for Ofcom to impose any restrictions on the broadcast of this material via their 'code' as part of your license conditions. Indeed, the fact Ofcom impose any restrictions via the license code is clearly illegal under ECHR case law.

Conclusion:

Ofcom are clearly in breach of several fundamental aspects of UK and EU legislation and ECHR case history (ECHR case history has to be applied by any and all public bodies when interpreting issues of UK legislation and interpretation).

As I say, I believe your £50,000 would be better spent fighting this decision by Ofcom. The public and broadcasters alike have suffered enough Fundamental Rights abuse under this 'nanny' State regime.

Research Reports:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/kutchinsky.pdf

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Media Games

Open letter to David Blunkett

As the trade organisation representing the computer and video games industry, we have been very concerned recently about the misleading and disingenuous reporting about the effects of playing interactive games software. In particular, the tragic case of Stefan Pakeerah's murder by Warren Le Blanc in Leicester, which was linked by some parts of the media and by Mr Keith Vaz MP, to a video game called "Manhunt", published quite legally by one of our members as a BBFC 18+ rated game. We will continue to uphold the legal right of this member and others to target their product at the burgeoning adult market for computer and video games in an honest and legal manner.

As you will know, despite many research projects into the effects of screen violence, some of which have been undertaken by eminent academics in their field, no link with violent behaviour has been found. Furthermore, I would like to reassure you that ELSPA members, that includes all the companies responsible for the distribution of computer and video games in UK, fully conform with both the letter and spirit of the law and the strict Codes of Practice our members must adopt on enrolment. ELSPA, on behalf of all its members and the members themselves, take its responsibilities extremely seriously in the context of these matters.

As a matter of fact, I feel sure you will already be aware that less that 1% of computer and video games published and distributed in UK attract an 18+ BBFC Rating and that in excess of 65% of all games are suitable for all ages.

It was unfortunate that Mr Vaz should speak out so irrationally against the companies concerned with the development and distribution of Manhunt and indeed our industry in general. Had he taken time to check with the Leicestershire Constabulary, he would have been informed that they do not and have not ever linked this brutal crime with any video game.

The UK computer and video games industry has a large stake-holding in the global market worth $20 billion. Some of the most successful games in this valuable market are produced in UK, employing many thousands of people and it is very much in the vanguard of "Creative Britain". The economic and cultural value of the interactive entertainment software industry is well recognised by many Government Depts as a major contributor to the UK economy and increasingly a cultural factor, as illustrated by the international Games Festival in Edinburgh later this month. In addition, London will host the first European trade event, European Games Network (EGN), in September this year and London is also the location for an international conference, "The Games Summit", held annually in June. A major exhibition for consumers, entitled "Game Stars Live" will take place concurrently with EGN at Excel, Docklands.

As a matter of interest, you may not be aware that our industry charity, Entertainment Software Charity (ESC), of which I am a Trustee, has funded specialist Schools status for eight schools across the country this year. In addition, we have also recently confirmed with the DfES that the games industry will fund the building of a new "City Academy" in Paddington, London. I hope you will recognise this as another illustration of levels of responsibility we attach to the status of our industry.

I hope you will accept that we felt it necessary to put the record straight in respect to these tragic events and that are pleased to be in a position to be proud of our industry's successful achievements and the standards of responsibility we have adopted.

OfResponse

To the Melon Farmers re the Ofcom contents consultation

I'm broadly supportive of your aims in the current OfCom consultation, though I don't personally want to see stuff beyond the R18 guidelines, and believe this should be restricted to PIN protected, encrypted, adult verirified subscription Sky services to protect the interests of those who don't want to channel surf into such content by accident even in a house where there is a legitimate subscriber.

I do not support or in any way want to encourage anything depicting actual or simulated sexual violence, child or animal abuse, or the causing of serious harm, even if such harm is consensual.

I have responded to the OfCom consultation, including several points raised by your site.

I offer a couple of further ideas for people's responses which I haven't seen elsewhere on your site or links from it below.

1) Restricting Sky related services just means that UK consumers will use a different legal means to access R18 content (internet, unrestricted satellite, mail order from abroad, personal imports). In turn these will divert income, tax and employment from the UK, to firms and authorities in places without the UK's arcane limitations.

2) A 4 digit PIN is internationally deemed secure enough to protect billions in ATM and credit card transactions. Why not by OfCom to protect underage and unwilling viewers from accidental channel surfing into R18 content? Sky gives 3 strikes and you're locked out for 10 minutes. To try all combinations would thus take 24 days of continous "hacking" (no sleep, no break longer than the 10 minute lock outs). From this to break a pin by chance would take on average 12 days of uninterrupted attempts, hardly something a child could cover up (or physically do given the need for sleep, requirement to be at school etc). If 4 digits is the most that existing digiboxes and operating software can take, then additional security could be offered by mandatory re-sets every 90 days or so (balance of hassle for legitimate users, and frustration to someone trying to break a PIN by testing each number in turn). If the current box could offer a 6 digit PIN with updated software, that would take on average > 3 years of continuous trying to break.

3) OfCom have not demonstrated the proposition that "R18 standard material is also effectively prohibited" that it makes in section 43 of the RIA, although this may be its preferred position.

4) RIA Section 44: There are more services currently showing R18 standard and stronger material in the UK (at least 6 listed on your pages) than have been proscribed in the whole of UK broadcast history (5).

5) RIA Section 45: The existence of a market for adult services is demonstrated by the fact that more "adult" channels broadcast on Sky (22 in Ofcom's own 2003 PSB consultation) than those devoted to either mainstream movies or sport in that consultation (the channels that official Sky marketing is based on), and the same number as devoted to popular music (what my 10 and 12 year old kids actually want to watch if you can ever tear them away from the also smaller number of cartoon and kids channels). I believe the number of "adult" channels on Sky has increased since the PSB consultation to 29? Similarly the belief of the "adult" broadcasters in a market hungry for stronger material is evident from all the misleading freeview promotional material they show proclaiming their services to be "the strongest available", "uncut" etc.

6) RIA Section 58: It is perfectly true to say that many European Union member states allow transmission of R18 standard material and the RIA should have been left at that. Whether the UK is or is not "brought into line with Europe" is a totally separate and highly emotive issue that has no place in this consultation. I have suggested to OfCom that the OfCom consultation code be revised to ensure that questions illicit single issue responses, rather than leaving themseles open to being accused of seeking to gain a particular response to a side issue by attaching it to something that respondents may just have a negative knee jerk reaction to.

This badly formed proposition opens up any negative response to Option 2 to challenge however. Which issue were respondents negative about, euro-conformance or R18 broadcasting?

7) RIA Section 59: It would considerably help your cause if the Liberal Democrats would answer the consultation in line with their policy document published on your site. I cited their policy in my response regarding the status of current public opinion. Fancy sending a letter to your contacts at the party to see if they have done so?

8) RIA Section 60: The experience of print media in the UK does not back up the assertion that the availability of stronger material will displace all current "adult" material. Despite wide availability of far more explicit R18 standard material from a wide variety of news agents, general shops, and petrol retail sites etc, there is still a market, all be it declining in favour of even softer "lads mags", for less explicit adult magazines, for example from the Paul Raymond stable, or from Playboy.

Regarding customer movement from one transmission supplier to another due to content preferences, this is exactly the kind of choice and unrestricted movement that Ofcom should be promoting, not seeking to protect suppliers of material that people don't want.

Inexplicable

 Letter to John Glover of Ofcom

Should broadcasters such as XplicitXXX on Sky channel 984 really be "allowed" to describe their programmes on the Sky electronic programme guide (EPG), for the channel as being "uncut", "hard", "explicit" when what they actually broadcast is pixellated and defocused "cut" CENSORED adult material ? Not that they've any choice of course.

Many viewers are presently being duped into subscribing to "adult" channels on the basis of (EPG) programme information, (I know this to be true by the way) and new, perhaps naive viewers are sometimes taken for a complete ride often for a whole year at a time, after subscribing, on the basis of what they read in the EPG. However it is a fact that if those channels were "allowed" to broadcast material their subscribers were EXPECTING to see, they WOULD but Ofcom won't let them show it will they ?

Instead of being honest about the CENSORSHIP imposed on them, some of these channels are clearly conning the public into believing that they are "allowed" to show more explicit material than they are permitted (the nature of which is utterly unclear and undocumented) to by Ofcom. It is also clear that the more explicit material is what those subscribers really do want to see. Part of the reason that these people are duped, is of course, the obsession of Ofcom (and the ITC before it) with CENSORSHIP, and its apparent lack of proper concern for issues that REALLY do affect the public. Such as being conned into subscribing by unscrupulous broadcasters! Please consider this a formal complaint to Ofcom about the activities of some of the so called "adult" broadcasters, and also Ofcom itself in relation to this, and I would be most grateful if you could pass it on please, if it is not your job to deal with it.

I assert that Ofcom itself, is PART of the problem, as they do not publish any definative information about what the channels actually ARE, and ARE NOT allowed to presently broadcast. One thing Ofcom, and the ITC before it, never seem to have considered, is what the public actually want, and expect to see when they subscribe to such an "adult" service. People who subscribe to adult channels, want adult material, not heavily CENSORED rubbish. Currently the Ofcom censorship regime pertaining to these kind of services is repressive, unjust, clandestine, and that kind of regulatory climate clearly allows people to be conned by some broadcasters. The contents of the program guide (EPG), SHOULD NOT allow this to happen, and here broadcasters should be honest about what the subscriber can expect to see, and Ofcom should publish accurate information in their so called codes.

Another concern is that SOME broadcasters have recently broken Ofcom content rules (whatever those rules actually say and we don't know), and shown more explicit material for quite some time (perhaps with the tacit approval of Ofcom) thereby gaining extra subscribers as word about more explicit content got around, and then they've reverted back to their original "softcore" content.Again perhaps due to the interference of Ofcom. One channel in particular, has imposed annual contracts on new subscribers in this way. Yes - I did see some of the MUCH more explicit content myself. Again, this is down to a complete failure of Ofcom to openly and transparenly make the interested public aware of what is and is not allowed, and WHY these restrictions really are needed. However I am not sure that Ofcom itself really knows WHY they are needed.

As for the consultation in respect to R18 material, there is a great deal of speculation that Ofcom has already made up its mind to maintain a prohibition, and that the relevant consulation questions are no more than a cosmetic exercise to placate people like myself.


But regardless of the result, in the MEAN TIME, Human Rights LAWS still have to be OBEYED by Ofcom, and it should thus consider if the current delay of at least 8 months, with the resulting imposition of CENSORSHIP and a lack of clear content guidelines really is appropriate. At the VERY LEAST, should publish to the public ACCURATE INFORMATION as to EXACTLY what the public can and CANNOT expect to see, on "adult services" during that time, until the consultation process allows for any change. Telling me that:

"We do not tell these channels what they are allowed to show" (Alastair Hall, in a telephone call)

is not at all good enough I'm afraid. Small wonder people are being conned by broadcasters.

Not to be more specific about what can be shown (and of course WHY), is a blatant VIOLATION by a public authority (Ofcom) of Human rights. You will take the point that the British Board of Film Classification now publishes FULL and unambiguous justification for ALL its video censorship decisions, and has done since the Human Rights Act became law. Also see their quite accurate guidelines specify exactly what MAY and may not ultimately be shown in videos. Similar justification by Ofcom for its restrictions, should not have to wait 8 months or more, and I regard the current omission of such justification a serious breach of Human Rights indeed, and a grave failure on the part of Ofcom and the ITC before it to regulate properly. This really is VERY important as the public ARE currently being duped into subscribing to television services, they believe can be legitimately provided NOW and end up being extremely disappointed and deprived of their money unexpectedly. Unfair ? You bet it is! If you cared more about what ordinary people want, and expect, rather than the whims and concerns of the Mary Whitehouse brigade and other churchgoers, this sort of thing COULD NOT have happened, and should not happen in the future.

This regime should not be allowed to last another DAY never mind another 8 months at least.

I noticed that the Xplicit dishonesty with their name has still paid the dividends. On the story of Xplicit being fined for unencrypted porn. The Guardian carried the story with the noting that Xplicit hard broadcast unencrypted "hardcore". Presumably they have been taken in by the name.

The Financial Times described the unencrypted transgression as explicit, again duped by the misleading name

Dodgy Filters

Replying to a letter from Caledonia Guy as posted in the Melon Farmers Discussions

I am sorry you feel disgusted with us for disregarding our customers. Let me try to reassure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
 
  While I cannot discuss the details of what happened with regard to Sandy Babe Abroad recently, I can tell you that if anything was shown that was 'hardcore' this would have been in error as it is a breach of the Ofcom programme code for any channel licensed in the UK to show R18-type material. That said, I am of the view that the code ought to change to allow us to show material which is legally available to our customers elsewhere.
 
  I understand your disappointment at not being able to watch 'hardcore' material and entirely sympathise. I hope you will continue to watch as we do our best to work within the existing programme code to provide the hardest material available on UK television without losing our licence to broadcast. In the meantime, please do complain to Ofcom if you feel that the code should be changed as I understand they are starting a public consultation with regard to a new programme code fairly soon which, if enough people feel strongly, could result in a relaxation of the rules, which I think will be good news for everyone.

Dodgy Filters

Who started the rumour that sexually explicit material is unsuitable for children? Why can 'children' of 16 years of age have sex and even start a family perfectly legally but, they cannot access material that depicts acts which they themselves have performed?

I'm truly fed up with hearing these puritanical and frankly misguided notions that kids should be protected from images of what every person, plant and animal on this God forsaken planet HAVE to do to perpetuate life on Earth.

I really do not understand what 'dangers' people imagine sexual imagery can cause to a growing adult. Lets face it, we start out as children simply for logistical reasons. We then grow into adults in order to have sex and produce more children who grow into adults and have more children... Where in this cycle of life does knowledge of sex become a danger? By the age of 5 most children, through their own intrinsic and instinctive curiosity, know exactly where, how and why babies are made. If young children have this knowledge, imparted by their parents, why do those parents think their child could be harmed by seeing people indulging in reproductive activities?

It makes no logical or indeed evolutionary sense to suggest sexual imagery is harmful to anyone of any age. We are simply NOT born with any sexual hang-ups at all. Children want to know about sex from the moment they become aware that new babies are being created all around them. Some parents may choose to lie about such matters and corrupt their child's understanding of sex and it's role in our life cycle. Other more enlightened parents will however tell the child as much as the child wishes to know, and quite rightly too. Perhaps 'parental censorship' is what actually needs to be addressed. The puritanical suppression of sex by the religious is known to be harmful to growing children. It follows then that a more relaxed attitude to sex is necessary to prevent this real and extremely damaging harm occurring to impressionable children.

It seems to me that our secular beliefs are being eroded by the religious, through the exploitation of their own sick creations. What I mean is, the sexually repressed are known to be the most dangerous element in society.
When these repressed individuals act out their sick fantasies and cause harm to others, the religious claim that 'pornography' is to blame, when in fact, it is the very 'values' and beliefs of the religious that create these monsters in the first place. Studies have shown that paedophiles are more likely to come from religious and repressive, even abusive, backgrounds.
Obviously, sexual imagery is NOT to blame indeed, it seems 'moralistic' censorship is at the root of these problems.

I feel (hope) for everyone's sake that sooner or later people are going to see that all this censorship is having the opposite effect to that which was intended. Many times in our history, our own best intentions have created nightmare scenarios. This imposed censorship by commercial entities is one such disaster waiting to happen. If this trend is allowed to continue then, in 20 years time, this country will be flooded with sex-offenders. It has already happened in Japan when the US imposed their 'Christian' brand of censorship on the Japanese people after the war. By the 1980's, three rapes of 13 year old girls were being committed every day. Only by removing all the US imposed censorship were the Japanese able to reverse this extremely worrying trend. The same will no doubt happen here in Britain if something is not done to halt this insane march to suppress material some minority of people don't find 'tasteful'.

I still don't understand how anyone in power in this country can believe for one minute that censorship has aided our society. Sex crime is still on the increase despite more than 150 years of state censorship. I've already made the point that "to keep repeating the same thing and expect different results" is the definition of insanity. Our Government are clearly insane to continue these censorial practises, as they are obviously having no, or indeed, the opposite, effect of what they are trying to achieve.