The BBFC's request for a judicial review of the Video Appeals Committee's decision to approve 7 R18 videos containing some hardcore material has been thrown out of court.

It isn't really surprising as there seems little doubt that the Video Appeals Committee competently followed correct procedures during the appeal. The only explanation for the BBFC's dubious course of action is as a delaying tactic. Perhaps they are  waiting for the legislation mentioned below so that JackBoots Straw can personally inpose his view of obscenity.

Unfortunately he BBFC are still pursing their dogged delaying tactics and have resubmitted their case, (which they are entitled to do). The latest hearing has nominally been set for February 10th

One of the most alarming pieces of legislation has been noticed passing through Parliament recently, as found on usenet:

For proof positive that we have a tyrant at the helm look no further than the Criminal Justice (Mode Of Trial) Bill that had its 2nd reading in the Lord's recently. This bill will remove the right to a jury trial for a whole range of offences, including laws relating to obscenity. Given that most magistrates consider stuff seen in Playboy to be obscene whereas juries are quite relaxed about the portrayal of sex between consenting adults (as are 80% of the British population), this amounts to a change in the obscenity laws. Currently they are based on whether a reasonable person would be corrupted/deeply offended. If this draconian measure goes through then "obscene" would effectively be defined as "anything a frustrated, middle-class prude doesn't like the look of".

Worried? You should be. This Bill stands a very good chance of becoming law.

As quoted in the Lord's during the debate: The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen.

Now, who might this apply to ?

Porn videos jury fails to agree a verdict. Based on an article by Brian Dooks, Yorkshire Post.

A jury of five men, and five Women were discharged recently after failing to reach a decision on whether thousands of pornographic videos - copied in a North  Yorkshire couple's garage - contained material likely to deprave and corrupt.

Judge Jonathan Crabtree who had presided over the two week trail at York Crown Court said it was now up to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there would be a retrial. Bail was awarded  to the defendents whilst the decision is being taken.

They all denied conspiracy to distribute obscene videos and brochures between February 1998 and June 1998 when it was alleged that thousands of pornographic tapes were made from continental master copies in the blacked out garage of one of their homes. (The only conspiracy going on here is between the police and the home office to persecute innocent vitcims via an outdated and crap law)

It was claimed the four were involved in an international blue movies sales organisation masterminded by two men in Amsterdam who had never been prosecuted. During the trial, the case against another defendent on the conspiracy charge was thrown out by the judge, who said there was no evidence against him.

One juror was discharged for failing to pay attention to 12 hours of videos played on TV screens in the court, and another was not allowed to hear the case, after being   recognising one of the accused. Barristers representing the four remaining accused, told the court that the videos made at the Frances' home - for which they were paid a pound a copy, although pornographic were not sufficient to deprave and corrupt.

Charles Salter, representing Brigham, said what the films showed was no worse than any member of the jury might get up to with a partner in the privacy of their own home.

(What a waste of public money. It must have cost a fortune to persecute these people for material that should be freely available to adults).

Good news from the BBFC who have just issued the following press release:

The cinema film of A Clockwork Orange has been classified by the BBFC as '18' without cuts, for adult audiences. The film was classified 'X' without cuts in December 1971 and subsequently withdrawn in 1973 by the film's Director. Despite the notoriety, the Board does not consider that concerns expressed at the time of the film's original release, about its possible influence on young people, are a serious issue now. The Board is satisfied that the scenes of violence depicted in the film are acceptable under the Board's guidelines.

I guess that now Clockwork Orange is considered something of an  academic and artistic masterpiece, that cuts were probably out of the question anyway. They wouldn't dare.

  A Cut Above the Eye

The cinema version of the Brad Pitt film Fight Club has been cut by the BBFC. I guess that we will have to wait until the American or European DVD release before we can see the film in it's full glory. I will keep you informed.

In the meantime the BBFC have justified their decision with the following press release. Notice the way they describe the cut version with the weasel words 'in it's classified form'.

Concerns have been raised in advance of the film's public release in Britain about its violent content, the encouragement it may give to the illegal sport of bare-knuckle fighting, and what has been perceived as its generally 'antisocial' effect.

The violent content of Fight Club is rather less than many other films which have passed entirely without public or media concern. In particular, the scenes of fighting occupy only a small part of overall screen time. Therefore, audiences who expect a large quantity of fist fighting and graphic violence are likely to be disappointed. Nevertheless, there are two scenes in which the Board judged that the violence was excessively sustained and in conflict with the concern expressed in the BBFC Guidelines about taking pleasure in pain or sadism. In both scenes there was an indulgence in the excitement of beating a defenceless man's face into a pulp. The Board required that cuts be made in each case.

The Board has also looked very closely at other elements which might be thought to provide dangerously instructive information or to encourage anti-social behaviour. Such 'instructional detail' as there is is either misleading or unlikely to be harmful to an individual or society.

The film as a whole is - quite clearly - critical and sharply parodic of the amateur fascism which in part it portrays. Its central theme of male machismo (and the anti-social behaviour that flows from it) is emphatically rejected by the central character in the concluding reels.

The Board recognizes that there will be arguments on both sides about the merits or possible effects of the film, but is satisfied that, in its classified form, Fight Club will be enjoyed by a great many viewers without harm either to themselves or to anyone else.

  The Story of the Ban of the Story of O

The BBFC banned the cinema release of Just Jaeckin's film, The Story of O in 1975. This softcore film by the director of Emmanuelle offended the BBFC because it deals with willing women being humiliated in the name of love and eroticism. The censors compounded their dislike of O by banning the even milder sequel, The Story of O Part 2 on both it's cinema and video releases. It is therefore good to see that Camden council in London have finally overruled the BBFC and awarded it a local 18 certificate. It has taken the best part of 25 years though.

The film is a bit of a favourite of mine as many years ago I fell in love with the star, Corinne Clery

Torrid TV (previously Rendez-Vous/Eurotica) has recently changed name again to Adult+. Canal+ then complained that the name suggested incorrectly that it was part of their stable. The plus sign was therefore hastily twisted around to become AdultX.

AdultX is a hardcore satellite service found in analog on HotBird and digital on Astra 1 at 19.2şE/ 12.012 GHz (V) (SR 27500, FEC 3/4). Subscriptions are  available throughout Europe priced at around £129. The digital service will eventually extend it's transmission hours and broadcast a different programme.

According to The Pink Paper three sample gay magazines out of a consignment of 400  were recently cleared by Uxbridge Magistrates Court. The magazines en route to Clone Zone in London were seized by HM Customs & Thieves at Heathrow last October as they were  supposedly considered indecent and obscene .

Customs are quoted as saying that they will have to rethink their policy on the handling of the importation of gay erotica.

The Irish film censor has banned The Idiots, by award-winning director Lars Von Trier which features a couple of sexually explicit images.

Sheamus Smith, the censor, deemed it unfit for viewing. His decision, published in the current issue of Iris Oifigiuil, said: The viewing of it would tend, by reason of the inclusion in it of obscene or indecent matter, to deprave or corrupt persons who might view it.

The movie was screened without a certificate in June at the Irish Film Centre, which has previously shown films banned by the censor. A similarly controversial and sexually explicit French film, Romance, is currently showing at the cinema.

The Idiots follows a group of intelligent people who live together in Copenhagen, bringing out the "inner idiot" in themselves. It has been described as shocking. The video will be released in Britain on November 1, uncut with an 18 certificate. The film was first shown at France's Cannes film festival in May 1998. It went on release in Britain last May uncut, with an 18 certificate.

The last film banned by Smith was From Dusk 'Til Dawn, a tale of vampires and violence written by and starring Quentin Tarantino. He also banned Natural Born Killers in 1994 and Showgirls in 1995.

Not quite UK news but as the border with Ireland is our only open border then their decisions are always of ineterest.

Robin Duval has appointed the first PR head as part of a policy to clarify (spin!) its decisions on censorship. Sue Clark joined last week from the Royal Commission for the Reform of the House of Lords, where she headed media relations. Clark will be the only PRO working within the BBFC, and will be responsible for public affairs, and external, internal and media relations.

Clark has been handed an open brief by Robin Duval, the board's director, to create and co-ordinate a more corporate approach to its communications with the public, press and the government.

A spokesman said Clark's appointment will allow the BBFC to communicate the decisions it arrives at rather than leave them entirely open to media interpretation. He said: We need to be more proactive about presenting issues before we are put on the back foot, and move towards openness and transparency.

The bosses at the BBFC are on a 'Mission from God' to ensure that Britain maintains its unjustifiable prohibition of adult material. Tolerance of the wishes of millions of adults are to be denied without any justification or proof of harm. There seems little chance now that a jury would consider adult consensual porn able to 'deprave and corrupt',  so it is only the fact that Whittam Smith and Duval just don't like porn that is standing in the way of liberalisation.

Anyway, the BBFC have just issed the following press release:

The British Board of Film Classification is to seek a Judicial Review of the recent decision by the Video Appeals Committee in relation to seven sex videos.

The BBFC is contesting the VAC judgement because in the Board's view, it is based on a definition of harm which is an incorrect interpretation of the Video Recordings Act. The VAC judgement, if allowed to stand, would have fundamental implications with regard to all the Board's decisions, including those turning upon questions of unacceptable levels of violence.

Andreas Whittam Smith - President
Robin Duval - Director
28th September 1999

The worthless TV censors, the BSC are to get a new boss. They are to replace Lady Howe by someone equally representative of the typical British TV viewer, ie Lord Holme of Cheltenham, aged 63. He is currently the deputy chairman of the ITC.

He is nominally a Liberal Democrat peer so I hope this is a good sign but then again so is the shameful David Alton.

The BSC have just upheld complaints against the TV show, Psychos set in a Psychiatric unit on the grounds that the title is offensive. They have also upheld complaints about an attempted rape in th John Thaw drama Plastic Man which was felt to go beyond acceptable boundaries

Amore TV recently announced they are to extend their 16şE analogue broadcast hours from 4 hours to 5 hours per night. Amore currently begins its analogue transmission at 12am GMT from 11.178 GHz V, and plans to begin at 11pm from mid-September. This will allow the channel to show films in there entirety along with necessary advertisement breaks in-between films, it also allows Amore enough time to promote the channel in clear pal.

Several months ago a hardcore porn channel, Adult+, was to launch. However, launch plans were scrapped at the last minute, as the channel's owners were deterred by the outcome of Eurotica/Rendezvouz' court hearing. However, the same company, just weeks later, began to broadcast programmes for the banned Eurotica channel, under the branding of Torrid TV -  making Eurotica effectively legal again in the UK.

They are now starting up a digital service, Adult+, which carefully avoids association with Torrid so as to hopefully stay one step ahead of the proscribers.

The new Adult+ service will broadcast in digital from Astra at 19.2şE, 12.012GHz V (SR 27500, FEC 3/4) using both Irdeto and Seca encryption methods, and will broadcast up to nine hours of hardcore programming per night. Adult+ films will be the same films shown on Torrid TV, but in different rotation, Adult+ will show Torrid's three films twice. Daytime transmissions will be made up of free-to-air softcore programming and porn advertisements. Subscriptions will shortly be available for the channel across Europe priced at around £130.

I have been piecing together some pretty alarming news from the BBFC about their response to the R18 judgement. In general some of my distributor contacts have an understandably pessimistic view and so I hope they have not been too alarmist.

Anyway it appears that Whittam Smith and Duval are 100% anti-porn and they do not believe that it should be available to adults at all. I am told that they are both religious fundamentalist types who have been recruited to the board with a prime objective of stopping the trend towards liberalised porn laws. (What is the chance that two supposedly representative types are both religiously opposed to porn? If 1 in 20 people fit the bill, then the chances of 2 should be about 400-1 To consider even further upwards in the BBFC hierarchy,  the 3rd and 4th bosses, Straw and Blair, put the odds up to 160,000-1). Any vestige of belief that Duval was arguing merely from concern for harm to children is clearly unfounded, it was just seen as an argument that might strike a chord with the Video Appeals Committee.

I am afraid worse is to come. The BBFC are in the processing a move to a culture of spin. To this end, the BBFC have employed a PR person who is starting work this week. A more far reaching change is that the hierarchy of examiners is being readdressed. Many of the BBFC examiners are totally decent and reasonable people who have good intentions at heart and think very carefully before suggesting cuts and bans. They are usually far more liberal than the end results suggest due to some pretty heavy handed decisions being inflicted by their lords and masters.  To try and remove this inconvenient opposition to political decision making, the examiners are being demoted to advisers and a new tier of senior examiners is being created. These hand picked few will naturally take on board the role of BBFC spokespersons and be the ones put forward for interviews etc. No doubt their elevated position will be maintained only on proviso that they say the right things. at the right time. Of course this reorganisation will be justified by on the grounds of improved career paths etc.

Back to the R18 situation. As far as I can gather, the BBFC will contest the certificates for the seven R18  videos so that the distributors will be forced to go to court, (As they did with Makin' Whoopee). With slightly tenuous and justifiably cynical reasoning, this delay will then allow time for part B of their masterplan. I think that the BBFC are then going to use the BBFC autumn roadshows to supposedly gauge public opinion and to try argue that the public do not want any relaxation in guidelines. The whole roadshow idea is a bit of a sham in that hardly anyone turns up. As far as I know there were no reports issued with any meaningful or rigorous analysis. It would be relatively easy to spin the results in whatever manner proved acceptable to the board. Such well spun public consultation could be used to justify the dodgy BBFC stance  on the next bunch of appeals in front of the Video Appeals Committee.

In my humble opinion, the current management at the BBFC are beginning to smell distinctly pungent. They are clearly putting their own private prejudices above the law and unnecessarily depriving millions of adults of some of their sexual pleasures. I shall therefore be keeping a bit of closer eye on the BBFC...look out for a new section...BBFC Watch

I have heard my first whispers from friends in the trade about the BBFC response to the R18 appeal. Unfortunately the news is not good. It seems likely that the BBFC will award certificates to the successful videos but will not change their guidelines for the future.

I find this a little hard to believe as the obscenity issue was not contested and the peripheral harm argument was lost. This only leaves a rather sleazy conspiracy between the Home Office and Duval to interpret the law as suits their own wishes. This is rather compounded by a police high level memo  suggesting that dodgy videos should be prosecuted under the Video Recordings Act rather than the Obscene Publications Act.   I hope I am wrong.

From the Telegraph

Warner Brothers has agreed to edit an orgy scene in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut before the film's British premiere after Hindu groups protested that they found it offensive. The protest began in America, where Hindu organisations objected to the recitation of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita, their holiest book, to spice up the sexually explicit scene. Although the protest gathered momentum, with Hindu groups in Britain joining in, Warner Brothers said it felt unable to edit the completed film.

In an about-turn, the firm has decided it will, at vast cost, edit the scene before the London premiere on Sept 3, to be attended by the stars, Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise. In the film, the character played by Cruise wanders across the screen as an orgy takes place. The Bhagavad Gita is chanted in the background.

The master tape is being edited in studios in London before the change is transferred to 400 prints for distribution in Britain. "This will cost Warners an arm and a leg," commented a film industry source. Hashmukh Shah, a Bradford-based spokesman for the World Hindu Council, said: Hindus have for long been intolerably tolerant, but we are no longer willing to go about with our eyes shut wide. We are delighted the offending scene is being dropped. (Why is it that the more intolerant religions are the more they claim to be tolerant? Its a bit like I don't believe in censorship...But...)

According to Shah, what Hindus found especially objectionable was Kubrick's choice of a shloka (mantra) close to the heart of devout Hindus: When evil descends on earth, the Lord Krishna will manifest himself in human form to destroy that evil.

Lars Von Trier has demanded that his controversial film ,The Idiots, should be recalled. The BBFC and Home Office had problems with the film because of a few hardcore snippets, Von Trier has problems with the production techniques. he intended that the film should be made under the rules of Dogme 95, a strict set of rules attempting to find a new pure cinematic language. An example rule is that the film should be shot in natural light. Unfortunately the film producers played with the light levels of the film without seeking the consent of Von Trier. We can now expect a director's cut with the light levels restored.

Good news as described in a BBFC Press Release:

The Video Appeals Committee announced today the results of two appeals against the BBFC's decision to reject 7 sex videos containing sexually explicit material. The appeals, lodged by distributors Sheptonhurst Ltd., and Prime Time Promotions, have been successful.

In its decisions the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) ruled that the Board should have granted each work an 'R18' certificate as requested, allowing the companies to distribute and trade the videos through licensed sex shop premises. The ruling comes just one year after the successful appeal by Sheptonhurst against the Board's refusal to grant an 'R18' certificate to the sex video Makin' Whoopee!. The VAC found by a majority of 4 to 1 that the Board was wrong to conclude that the video works breached the provisions of the Video Recordings Act because they had the potential to cause harm to children.

The majority accepted the argument that we do not, in general, prevent adults having access to material just because it might be harmful to children if it fell into their hands. We might have taken a different view if there was evidence that the effects were affecting more than a small minority of children or were devastating if this did happen.

The minority opinion was that the general effect of all these videos is dehumanising and mechanistic and they are unacceptable within the current guidelines for a classification of 'R18'. The Board had produced expert evidence that the material could cause harm to children.

Since the 7 videos were clearly in breach of the Board's published classification guidelines for 'R18', the VAC decision also has serious implications for those guidelines.

The issue of obscenity under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 was not argued this time, since the Board accepted that the VAC had made its own view clear in that regard in 1998 when it unanimously found similar content in Makin' Whoopee! not obscene. Nevertheless, similar content continues to be seized and forfeited under Section 3 of the Obscene Publications Act. This is a matter of continuing concern to the Board.

In the light of the Video Appeals Committee's decision, the Board is considering how it should now proceed.

Why is it that all forms of enjoyment of life are now considered inherently harmful?

Under two years old should watch no television at all and older ones should have sets removed from their bedrooms and be limited to two strictly timed hours a day, according to new advice from paediatricians. Even programmes specially made for the very young can stunt development and intellect unless the parent sits and watches with the child, explaining what is going on.

The American Academy of Paediatrics, which has 55,000 members, spent two years examining the impact of television on children, including numerous studies linking violence on screen to aggressive behaviour. Members concluded that parents of children under two should play with them rather than allow them to watch television. While certain television programmes may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant care givers for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional and cognitive skills.

While discounting the idea that older children are made violent overnight by watching violence on the screen, the academy says they are vulnerable to the insidious build-up of the wrong messages from television. Cigarettes and alcohol are shown as cool and attractive, but carry no health warning. Fighting is often used as a way to handle conflict successfully.

Parents should also make sure that there are no screens of any sort in their offsprings' bedrooms. Their bedrooms should be a sanctuary, a place where kids can reflect on what happened that day, where they can sit down and read a book,

The academy also says parents should complete out questionnaires on their children's "media history" when they visit the doctor to help him to guide them in working out a suitable plan for viewing. (JackBoots Straw will probably pick up this and suggest it for adults too)

The ITC has modified the timing restrictions on the availability of pay-per-view films with a BBFC “18” rating for an experimental period of one year. These films can be made available on pay-per-view services at any time of day, as is currently the case for “12” and “15” rated films. Access to these services is protected by mandatory PIN codes (or equivalent) and all subscribers receive itemised bills, giving details about the films ordered and the times shown. (This would make interesting reading if made generally available)

Two pay-per-view services, Sky Box Office and Front Row, have been operating for nearly two years, during which time there have been no complaints about children accessing unsuitable material. To date, these services have been permitted to show “18” rated films after 8pm, rather than after 10pm, as is the rule for other services. The ITC’s timing modifications extend only to pay-per-view services with their secure PIN access, and not to specialist ‘adult’ channels, where the 10pm watershed for adult material remains.

The ITC will make its final decision about the pay-per-view watersheds in one year’s time. To date, the number of “18”rated films available on Sky Box Office and Front Row is low. Should any significant problems arise, the ITC will not hesitate to end the experiment before the end of the twelve-month period is complete.

According to child a child psychiatrist, internet websites and chat rooms dedicated to the subject of suicide may be creating a "group death instinct" and encouraging vulnerable young people to take their own lives.

Susan Thompson, senior house officer in child psychiatry at the Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health NHS Trust has given warning that some websites may have the same effect on a depressed and susceptible person as a crowd that encourages a suicidal person to leap off a building by shouting "jump!". She continued to say that young people were the group most vulnerable to the influence of Internet suicide sites. Research already indicates that individuals who access the Net are psychologically more vulnerable, with higher risk-taking behaviour, substance misuse and depression scores than most people. Most are also 18 to 24-year-olds, a group with high suicide rate and little peer support. (Well that's a statement that really encourages us to taker her seriously!)

It is impossible to say how many suicides have been influenced by the Internet, as health professionals are only just beginning to publish case studies on the subject. The amount of information relating to suicide on the Internet is enormous and varied. A search using the keyword "suicide" on any of the most popular search engines typically yields 50,000 to 100,000 sites.

Dr Thompson suggested that the Suicide Act of 1951 prohibits others from encouraging suicide, there could be legal grounds for attempting to intervene at Internet suicide sites. A spokesman for The Samaritans, which received 15,000 e-mails from people seeking help last year, said that there was a clear need for regulation of Internet sites that discussed suicide.

After sleazy Duval's shameful performance at the R18 appeal, the BBFC have announced some items of good news as some sort of recompense.

• True Romance: The Directors Cut has been passed on video uncut
• Kingpin: Life of Crime, a violent computer game has been passed uncut
• Romance has been given a uncut cinema certificate complete with some hardcore imagery. The BBFC issued the following press statement:

The cinema film of Romance has been classified by the BBFC as '18' without cuts, for adult audiences.

This is a French-language film with subtitles, directed by Catherine Breillat. It concerns a woman who is physically rejected by the man she loves and who looks for fulfilment elsewhere. In the process, she exchanges what has become emotional subservience for a degree of personal independence. By the end of the film, her best hope of happiness appears to be motherhood.

Within this structure, the film offers insights about the female condition, about the difficulty of separating sex from love and about the ties of fidelity. No doubt there will be a range of opinion as to its depth and quality. With its overlay of philosophical commentary, it is a particularly French piece. It is also very French in the frank way it addresses sexual issues.

The BBFC is in no doubt that Romance is a serious work. It contains, however, a few scenes which include quite explicit sexual imagery. The Board's relevant test of acceptability for '18' certification is set out in its published Guidelines: "Images of real sex will usually be brief and must be justified by context". In Romance, the most explicit portrayal of sexual intercourse is avoided. But there are occasional strong images of male genitalia of which the strongest is set within a 'safe sex' context. Other shots are generally brief; no content in this film is as problematic as the hard-core porn sequence in another recent French film Seul Contre Tous which the Board required be made less explicit. The BBFC was also concerned about scenes of bondage in Romance. The sequences, however, avoid any violence or non-consensual element and are notable for the sensitivity and concern of the principal male character. As with the other sexual imagery, the scenes did not breach the limits set by the Guidelines for classification for adult audiences only.

It appears that two 24 hour hardcore channels are available on the Spanish digital package Taquilla. This is broadcast from the Astra 1 satellite and requires a Mediaguard (seca) decoder. (CAMS are available).

Torrid TV, (previously Eurotica Rendez-Vous) will move to its new analogue Hot Bird 5 transponder at 11.010 GHz H, on the 4th August.

Thanks to Shaun Hollingworth for sitting in and reporting on the the R18 video appeal.

The Video Appeals Committee have now heard all the evidence and will produce a written report of their verdict within the next three weeks.

The whole affair has certainly highlighted some very dubious attitudes from Robin Duval. The case seemed to confirm a general acceptance from all sides that adult consensaul porn is no longer to be considered to be obscene. Yet still Duval insists that his personal views that all porn should be set above the law, The Video Recording Act says that R18 material should only be limited by the laws of the land, notably the Obscene Publications Act. Sleaze springs to mind.

There are reports that ABsat, multi-channel digital package on Hot Bird, are distributing smartcards for the UK market.  In particular this includes the popular & high quality hardcore channel XXL. ABsat maybe looking to the UK as UK sales of hardcore porn channel subscriptions are said to be the highest in Europe probably because video outlets for hardcore are limited to the big cities.

Amore TV have appeared to have made a bit of a cock-up over their rebranding from the previously proscribed Eros TV. Mediasat have stopped issuing Amore subscriptions after it was discovered that the UK government are looking into the legalities of the channel. Amore TV was formed to continue UK sales after the government proscribed Eros TV. However, the channel still broadcasts under the branding of Eros TV, without any mention of the brand name Amore.

The Video Appeals Committee is meeting on 27th July to decide whether the BBFC were right to reject seven adult R18 videos after the distributors refused to apply cuts.

The meeting is open to the public and the secretary, Derek Mills (who can be contacted through the BBFC on 0207 439 7961), would welcome anyone who has strong feelings on the subject. He is extremely keen for the meeting to receive as much publicity as possible and, given that their decision is likely to have significant repercussions (especially if they find against the BBFC), this ought to get significant media coverage.

The appeal which will take place on Tuesday 27th and Wednesday 28th July at the Soho Centre for Health and Care (1 Frith Street, Soho) between 10:30 am and 5pm (possibly finishing earlier on Wednesday).

Another soft porn satellite channel, Babylon Blue, has started at 12.597GHz/Vertical in clear digital format on Hot Bird 5 at 13şE using PIDs 0161/0084.

(I am surprised there is any market in harcore cut down to ludicrous UK standards . Why do people pay to watch closeups of girls foreheads bobbing up and down? Is there anything but intense irritation in being denied the action by a strategically placed pot plant?)

Amore TV, the satellite hardcore channel, resumed their D2-Mac service recently from the W2 satellite at 16şE, 11.178 GHz Vertical. All valid Eros TV smartcards are working and  an extra three months viewing will be added to compensate for the loss of service. Amore TV have apparently made a long term booking for the transponder

A fair few videos previously branded as 'nasties' are currently passing through the BBFC with some slightly unxepected side effects. It appears that for some examples, the BBFC found no reason to demand cuts but have found themselves overruled by the DPP.

For example, Dave Gregory of the Exploited label, found that Mike Bor from the BBFC did not have a problem passing California Axe Massacre a.k.a. Axe uncut. But the DPP  said the film would still be prosecutable as obscene, therefore one nominal cut was necessary to make it legal. It seems that any video successfully prosecuted under obscenity law then maintains that obscenity tag for at least 10 years.

The initial thinking behind this stupidity is that if a court finds a video obscene then that's the end of it. However a little more thought reveals a more believable reasoning. The DPP are surely forcing the BBFC to make cuts to ensure that those unfortunate enough to have been wrongly prosecuted for California Axe Massacre cannot now declare themselves innocent and demand compensation.

Tenebrae and Zombie Flesh Eaters are other examples of videos caught up in this dodgy circle of rough justice.

The Manchester Evening News is working itself into a frenzy about a new Playstation game, Silent Hill by Konami of Japan.  It is said to be a deeply disturbing, psychological horror experience. It will have a voluntary 15-plus age rating.

Konami's press release admits the game contains scenes of child kidnap, demon personification and ritual ceremonies. The Manchester Evening News have personified the game as a social demon and entered into a ritual bigoted censorial ceremony. They found that the BBFC have not seen Silent Hill and according to the paper, a twist in the law means that video games are exempt unless they portray human sexual acts, genitalia, gross violence or criminal activity likely to encourage crime.

The body that decides whether PlayStation games need referring is the Video Standards Council set up by the games industry and operating under a voluntary code. The shameful Wythenshawe MP, Paul Goggins "deplored" the company's tactics in trying to boost sales in a morbid way. He will ask Home Secretary Jackboots Straw what action he could take to prevent or restrict sales.

David Johnston, for the Church of England in Manchester, said: It is very sad that this company is marketing its product by advertising it as depraved. If it is as bad as they say it is there should be some legal protection to stop it falling into the hands of children.

There is evidence that both children and adults are badly affected by these sick products (that's right, some video games players turn out like John Beyer or JackBoots Straw). John Beyer, director of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, said parents must resist demands from their children for such games: If they are concerned about what their children are doing on computers they should be taking it up with their MPs and the game manufacturers. There is a lot of concern, but many parents are illiterate when it comes to computers, and something must be done in terms of regulations or law so that this sort of material doesn't get on the market."

Complaints about sex on TV rose by 60 per cent last year according to the annual report by the worthless BSC. These complaints represent nearly a quarter of all viewers' concerns.

The first episode of Channel 4's Queer As Folk picked up the most complaints for a single programme with 110 viewers unhappy with the show. But as a series, BBC1's The Lakes attracted the most gripes with 150 objections from the public. Other individual programmes with large numbers of complaints included the Kate Winslet film Jude with 35, and a South Bank Show edition about choreographer Javier De Frutos with 32. Objections were not just about portrayals of sex in drama, but also about talk of sex in daytime confessional shows, documentaries and the news (eg Clinton & Lewinsky).

Complaints generally went up by 37 per cent in 1998-99. Bad taste still causes the most problems, representing 44 per cent of objections. The BSC acted on 693 complaints about sex in the year up to 31 March - out of 2,994 standards complaints altogether. The proportion of people complaining about bad language fell slightly - 14% to 13% - as did those for violence, from 26% to 15%.

(I think censors should be a little more honest with their reporting and their skewing of perspective. and perhaps the article ought to have read:

Complaints about sex on TV rose by 60 per cent last year possibly due to a 120% increase in the number of sex related programmes.

The first episode of Channel 4's Queer As Folk picked up the most complaints for a single programme with 110 viewers unhappy with the show compared with 1.1 million who apparently enjoyed it. As a series, BBC1's The Lakes attracted the most gripes with 150 objections from the public out of a total viewing of 15 million. Other individual programmes with large numbers of complaints included the Kate Winslet film Jude with 35 (enjoyed by 3.5 million), and a South Bank Show edition about choreographer Javier De Frutos with 32 (enjoyed by 3.2 million).

The BSC received 2,994 standards complaints altogether. A rough estimate of programmes watched without complaint in the same period is 2 per person per night = 40 billion)

A high court ruling in the UK has made pirate cards containing Canal+ Norway illegal, the ruling also makes it illegal within the UK to supply code update information, including public domain software, or to supply PCBs or wafer cards that can be programmed with the channel. Any dealers who continue to supply unofficial Canal+ smartcards or update information within the UK, can now be charged on "conspiracy to defraud the Premier League", according to the court's ruling. Premier League bosses have been aggressively seeking a solution to stamp-out piracy of the channel's live coverage of Saturday afternoon Premier League games for over 2 years.

According to today's Sunday Times, the BBFC is to seek cuts in Romance. By all critical accounts, they will be vandalising a masterpiece.

The BBFC are most concerned about a violent sado-masochist scene and another episode set in a brothel, where male prostitutes have sex with women. A scene where a "stud", played by Rocco Siffredi, an Italian porn star, is seen with his penis erect has also raised the censor's eyebrows. It is expected that this scene will need some cutting. If there are cuts which change the nature of the film, we might argue says Kevin Wilkinson, of Romance's British distributors, Bluelight.

Romance, which will be shown at next month's Edinburgh Film Festival before going on release in October.

The art house hardcore problem for the BBFC has not yet run out of steam, Guillaume Depardieu and Katerina Golubeva are said to be in hardcore action in Carax's Pola X. Unfortunately, the film is said to lack sufficient artistic merit to embarass our censors into leaving it alone.

The ISP, Demon, have been having a bit of a hard time recently. They were the innocent victim a libel claim from the dubious Laurence Godfrey. The only link to Demon was that the supposed offence was made via Usenet which then found its way on to Demon's server. Things have got worse for Demon as they now feel that they must remove even articles that link to the supposedly offensive piece on other news servers. This has meant suspension of their own customers accounts. It doesn't say much for British justice when people are blamed for libel who have nothing to do with the writing and have  no practical control over content.

Demon made the following statement under the constraints of commenting upon an ongoing court case.

The Judgements

Dr Laurence Godfrey served a writ on Demon in January 1998; since then the case has progressed as normal. In advance of the full trial, judgements on preliminary points have been given by the Hon Mr Justice Morland. Information about recent court judgements of general public interest may be found at www.courtservice.gov.uk.

Demon's defence included the contention that they were not at common law the publishers of the Usenet posting defamatory of the Plaintiff. And that even if they were, there is material upon which they can avail themselves of the defence provided by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996, a modern equivalent of the common law defence of innocent dissemination.

The judge concluded that: In my judgement the defamatory posting was published by the Defendants and, as from the 17th January 1997 they knew of the defamatory content of the posting, they cannot avail themselves of the protection provided by Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996...

The judge's conclusion means that the law at present says that once a defamatory article is known to an ISP, unless the article is removed from the ISP's servers, then the ISP becomes liable as a knowing publisher of the article. Like it or not, this is the state of the law in England & Wales at present.

On 26 March 1999 Demon issued a statement: The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, will have a widespread impact on the whole Internet industry and its users in all areas including freedom of expression and electronic trading. Complainants may be able to force ISPs to police and censor any item of information on their servers. The way is opened for scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims that would undoubtedly curb the freedom of speech by Internet users.

Recent Problems in News

In late May a small number of Demon users posted articles which contained a URL for an article stored in the US-based Deja News archive of Usenet articles. A few posted the URL directly, others managed to do so by quoting a previous article. The referenced article on Deja News quoted the text which is at the centre of the court action mounted against Demon by Dr Godfrey.

These articles came to Demon's attention. It is our legal advisors' opinion, obtained at no small expense, that a reference to defamatory material itself may in some circumstances be a form of publication.

This may appear unbelievable, but we believe our advisors and we believe it to be the case.

We have seen it suggested, by people who are apparently not experts, that because the World Wide Web contains a dense mesh of references, then almost any URL might eventually lead to something defamatory, and so (in a reducto ad absurdum argument) almost any URL must be defamatory. This misses the point. Whether a given reference was defamatory would be a matter of fact for a jury to determine. In making that determination the jury would have to consider what was in the reader's mind when they saw the reference. What a jury would make of any given reference is hard to say, but lawyers are paid to be experts on a jury's likely view.

In the context of an ongoing case Demon felt it was prudent to act swiftly and thoroughly. Following Mr Justice Morland's ruling, prudence meant, to our regret, deleting these articles from the Demon servers as and when they came to our notice.

Note that in doing this Demon makes no statement about whether the articles removed were or were not in fact defamatory.

Suspending News Posting Access

Unfortunately, in the context of the ongoing case, simply removing the articles (as regrettable as that was) might not fully cover Demon. There might be a risk of related articles being posted by the same customer.

To be entirely sure that its position was not compromised, inadvertently or otherwise, Demon decided to temporarily suspend access to News article posting for all dial-up accounts controlled by those customers whose articles we had deleted from our servers.

The final piece of the puzzle was a means for Demon to be reasonably assured that each customer would post no further articles likely to require removal. A formal undertaking was prepared and sent to the customers in question asking that they do not post any defamatory material in future. On receipt of that undertaking access to News posting would be re-enabled.

The undertaking requested that the customer confirm that they understood: the consequences of posting defamatory material; the liability they might have and the liability that Demon might have if they did so; and, finally, that should they breach this undertaking, Demon could seek to recover costs incurred following such breach.

Understanding that the affected customers were less than happy with our scrupulously cautious approach to the matter, we took steps to contact each by phone to explain the position and to express our regret at the particular circumstances of the ongoing case.

Note, again, that in doing this Demon makes no judgement about whether the original articles removed were or were not in fact defamatory.

The Current Position

Some of the customers who were asked for an undertaking, signed it and were reinstated. Others were unable to do so.

Prudence continues to dictate that Demon reasonably assures itself that the risk of further potentially problematic articles, related to the ongoing case, is minimised.

Demon deeply regrets the course recent events have taken and that any of these actions proved necessary.

The state of the law places the ISP in an invidious position of either risking liability over matters it has no interest in or understanding of, or having to err on the side of safety and remove articles which come to its notice.

The result is neither satisfactory for Demon, nor for its customers.

State of the Godfrey Case

Demon Internet continues its campaign in the interests of Internet users to ensure freedom of speech and an appropriate legal framework.

Demon has decided not to appeal Mr. Justice Morland's conclusion (paraphrasing) that whenever a subscriber accesses a defamatory statement in a newsgroup the ISP is legally a publisher of that defamatory statement.

A number of recent reports mistakenly interpreted this decision as the conclusion to the libel case brought by Laurence Godfrey against Demon. No conclusion in the case has been reached. Demon Internet continues to fight the case, and is confident of winning it.

The coming Electronic Commerce Bill and the EU Directive on Electronic Commerce will both touch on this issue. In this context, an appeal of the basis of the current law would not be useful:

1. were the appeal to fail then:
   a. the current 'First Instance' decision, which is not binding on courts at the same level or on higher courts (leaving the way open for other Judges to take a different view in future), would be replaced by a stronger Appeal Court decision.
   b. not only would this be unhelpful generally, by discouraging Judges from examining the individual circumstances of other cases, but it could adversely affect both the Bill and the EU Directive.
2. were the appeal to succeed, then the effect could be short lived as the precedent is overtaken by specific provisions in the Bill and the EU Directive.

Demon believes that the best way to fight the issue is not to appeal now, but to lobby for appropriate measures in the coming legislation.

It must be noted, with some regret, that the current form of the coming legislation seems to follow the position taken by Mr. Justice Morland. Demon encourages all interested parties to lobby their MPs and their MEPs to consider these issues far more deeply, and to enact a more appropriate legal framework. Indeed, with the European Elections just behind us, now might be a good time to influence your new MEP.

A Millwall supporter who worked himself up into a murderous frenzy while watching a violent film on football hooliganism, was jailed for life for battering to death a houseguest with a baseball bat.

Keith Hargreaves, who was found guilty of murder, calimed that the film ID so stirred his blood that it made him feel like a teenager on the terraces again. He told an Old Bailey jury that in his excitement, he pulled out a baseball bat from its hiding place in a cupboard in his daughter's home in Dulwich and began waving it around his head as he joined in a chant from the film about attacking rival fans with baseball bats. He sang the chant to the jury. Hit 'em on the head, hit 'em on the head with a baseball bat, oh yeah, oh yeah,

Venus TV the porn advertising channel at 11.001 GHz vertical, Hotbird, have again been screening hardcore material in clear pal. The channel has screened hardcore material, mainly at the weekends in a deliberate attempt to boost its viewing figures, in order to increase the number of calls to its advertisers erotic phone line services, which at present are said to be extremely low. (Even I waver a bit on the merits of this tactic)

A new nightly softcore service has recently launched on the Sky Digital platform. Broadcasting three 18 rated movies per night, Midnight Blue is available on EPG 980. Subscriptions for the service are priced at £5 per month. (Why on Earth would anyone want pay even 5p for sexless 18 rated videos when there plenty of proper services on satellite).

The Independent recently carried an article showing that the BBFC are goind to fight their case in the upcoming R18 appeal on the grounds of harm to children rather than obscenity.

The article is posted in the BBFC & R18 section

Passes:

• Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre passed uncut on video at 18
• 3 on a MeatHook: passed 18 for video on the Exploited Label
• The Idiots: passed 18 uncut for video complete with hardcore. I wonder if the formal certification has been delayed until after the R18 appeal

Failures:

• Tenebrae passed 18 for video after about 5s of cuts. The DPP were consulted on this due to recent prosecutions. The DPP reckoned that there were still prosecutable scenes in the film. This is the version that will be shown on FilmFour soon.
• Zombie Fleash Eaters was submitted in uncut format and has been passed 18 for video after 24s of cuts. The zombie eating and the famed eye-splinter scene were the casualties but they suffered slighty less than in the previous version.
• Death Wish finally passed for video but suffered 26s of cuts

Under Consideration:

• The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has been submitted for video by Blue Dolphin. The word is that it should go through
• California Axe Massacre. Another nasty for review and looks certain to sustain a few minor cuts.
• Romance: Another fine art film with hardcore material including an ejaculation, currrently the cinema version is under consideration.
• Last House on the Left. Will be cut for a cinema 18 certificate

Police in the UK are claiming a major victory in their fight against Internet pornography after a judge ruled that the content of American Websites can come under British jurisdiction.

A 28-year-old businessman, Graham Waddon, pleaded guilty to running the UK's largest Internet porn operation after Judge Christopher Hardy made the landmark ruling at Southwark Crown Court.

Waddon had set up a series of Websites in the US portraying extreme pornography, with names such as Farmsex, Europerv and Schoolgirls-R'us. He ran the operation from his terraced house in Sutton, charging customers £25 a month for access to the sites. One site alone made him more than £1.5m in a year.

His defence argued that publication of the material was outside British jurisdiction. But the judge said publication took place in the UK when Waddon transmitted the material to the Websites and when police downloaded it. Waddon then admitted 11 sample counts of publishing obscene articles on the Net and one charge of possession of an obscene video featuring a dog. The case was adjourned until 30 July for pre-sentence and medical reports.

PC Neal Ysart of the Obscene Publications and Internet Unit said afterwards: This was the biggest Internet porn operation busted so far in the UK, and one of the largest in the world. Waddon deliberately set up his Website in America ... hoping that would shield him from prosecution in this country. But the judge's findings mean he and others like him who try to avoid prosecution by placing this material abroad are making a big mistake. They will be prosecuted. As far as we are concerned, this was a test case. This is a major victory. If we had failed to get the ruling that we got today it would have opened up the floodgates, not only for Internet pornography, but for anyone using the Internet for crime. It has massive implications for the fight against crime of all sorts.

Alistair Kelman, a barrister specialising in Internet law, agreed that a precedent had been set. It is of great significance in relation to the prosecution of pornographic material on the Web and I've no doubt this case will be followed in similar circumstances. I don't think it would be creating a precedent in terms of copyright infringement and also in cases where the chain of custody is essential for proof of dishonesty - that is, looking at date and time stamps to link things together.

US audiences will see a censored version of Eyes Wide Shut whereas the rest of the world will see the complete version (BBFC willing). Director Stanley Kubrick edited the movie, starring Australian Nicole Kidman and her husband Tom Cruise, to get round the American censors. He digitally added figures to hide the most sexually explicit 65 seconds of the film

The late director was determined to get an R rating for his psycho-sexual thriller according to the film's producer, Jan Harlan. The restricted rating would enable it to be seen by an audience of 17 and above, and under-17s accompanied by an adult.

Amore TV, the European hardcore satellite channel, have announced another date for the resumption of their D2-Mac service. They will resume in D2-Mac on the 1st July from Eros TV's former 16şE transponder at 11.178 GHz vertival. Amore have made many similar promises prior to this announcement which were not entirely accurate though. Cards for the cahannel are now on sale.

Also confirmed by Amore is its batch of new films, including titles from the Channel Bizarre library. The channel is expected to screen these films throughout the summer, back-to-back, in an attempt to diminish its present bad reputation. Amore TV's new film labels include: Channel Bizarre's Teeny Vision and Magma, plus many high-budget American labels.

The Italian hardcore satellite channel, SCT, has recently terminated its Viaccess encrypted service from Hot Bird 3 at 12.303 GHz vertical.  This is leading up to a transponder move to 12.092 GHz horizontal. In order to accommodate encryption and broadcast changes all SCT's Viaccess subscribers will have to obtain replacement cards.

The shameful David Alton conceived the idea of a panel of experts in children's affairs. The thinking at the time was that the panel would be on average, a pretty censorial bunch and hence push to ban and cut an awful lot more films. The idea foundered due to impracticality, but Alton lobbied Whittam Smith into setting one up anyway. No doubt their influence will be far less than originally intended by Alton but we will have to see. The BBFC issued the following press statement on the subject:

ADVISORY PANEL ON CHILDREN'S VIEWING

The British Board of Film Classification is pleased to announce the names of the members of this new advisory panel. Twelve panellists have been chosen from nearly 500 applicants.

The purpose of the Panel is to monitor the BBFC in the important work of classifying videos (not films) with the interests of children in mind. The Panel will also be asked to advise the BBFC on any relevant matter and in particular when difficult matters of policy arise. It will have the right to make representations at any time. It will meet three times a year.

The first meeting of the Panel will take place in London on 14th July 1999. The panellists have been chosen from a variety of backgrounds and are named below:-

Floella Benjamin - Children's TV Presenter
Karen Johnson - Children's TV Producer (BBC)
Dr Sue Krasner - Chartered Clinical Psychologist
Winnie Lacey - Senior Social Worker
Frances Lennox - Crown Prosecutor
Alexander Paterson - Principal of a Residential School
Elsbeth Rea - Independent Social Work Trainer
John Retallack - Freelance Theatre Director
Naomi Rich - Former Primary School Teacher/Education Adviser
Lewis Rudd - Former Head of Children's Programmes (ITV)
Professor Jack Sanger - Director, Centre for Educational Policy & Leadership
David Simpson - Stipendiary Magistrate

This is a very important and interesting initiative. The British Board of Film Classification looks forward to working with the Panel and deriving substantial benefit from its advice and opinion.

Bare Fist: The Sport that Wouldn't Die has again been rejected by the BBFC. The video had previously been rejected in 1996. The BBFC did offer a list of cuts but the distributors chose not to take up the offer.

So as we approach the middle of the year, the dishonestly self-styled 'classifiers' have banned 9 videos.

The BBFC issued the following justification for their ban.

The main consideration for the Board was the question of harm. In short, does the work have the potential for anti- social influence?

The video is concerned with the illegal sport of bare-knuckle fighting. To the extent that it sets out to make a reasoned case for legalising the sport, the Board has in principle no basis for concern. However, the video also includes a number of lengthy sequences of illegal fighting as well as instruction in achieving lethal effects (notably how to lace bandaged fists with glass fragments and other sharp material). These have the effect of promoting gross violence and selling its pleasures. The extent of the use of the illegal fighting sequences also far outstrips any reasonable justification based on the need to make a case for legalisation.

Over a period of time, the Board has made a number of recommendations to the video's producer. These have been designed to allow the work to make a legitimate argument on behalf of bare-knuckle fighting, while reducing (and in extreme cases, removing) those elements which are directly promotional of illegal or harmful activity. The producer has been unable to accept the Board's proposals. The video, in its present form, is therefore not suitable for classification.

Verbal diarrhoea captured  in a Yorkshire Post  article by Tony Earnshaw.

The American horror movie Bride of Chucky will be vetted tomorrow at a private screening in Leeds by councillors who fear its content may not be appropriate for local audiences. It is the fourth in the Child's Play series, which hit the headlines after the murder of Merseyside toddler James Bulger in 1993.

Experts have discounted the theory that the killing was inspired by events in Child's Play 3, which features a demonic doll named Chucky, but Leeds licensing committee chairman, the shameful Lorna Cohen, felt councillors should vet the film themselves, even though it had been given an 18 certificate by the BBFC. The film, which should have received a nationwide release on Friday, was subsequently pulled from the schedules of some Leeds cinemas until the committee could see it and clear it for public viewing in the city.

London-based distributor Metrodome greeted the move with disbelief. It said it had researched the Bulger issue fully and found no link between the previous film and the murder. Managing director Rupert Preston said the film was merely a good comedy horror which major cinema circuits had had no problems with showing. Last night Cohen defended her decision to reconsider Bride of Chucky and said it was unlikely, given the council's record - it has only banned one movie, The Life of Brian, in the past 20 years - that the film would be prevented from being screened.

But while local authorities had the powers to ban films from being shown Leeds would exercise its right to act as a moral watchdog, she said. What I don't like about this Chucky business is that they are using a toy and turning it into a little monster. I find the whole thing very depressing, The real question is why these type of films have to be made. Have they got no morals, or is making money the only thing they are interested in? Distributors are "exploitative, They deliberately create a market. I don't believe that people are so sick in their minds that there is a market. I think somebody has to make a stand and say 'What do you think you are doing?' Cohen said she could not understand why people made movies like Bride of Chucky or how they attracted audiences. Instead she cited Schindler's List as an example of a "good" film and said movies should contain a good story, social message and should contribute to society "in a meaningful way". Although she had not yet seen the film, she dismissed Bride of Chucky, which stars Oscar nominee Jennifer Tilly, as "crap". What does this kind of film prove? We have created a sick society and we are just pandering to that sick society, she added. She denied that she and members of her committee were interfering in people's freedom of choice and said that just because the BBFC had cleared the movie it would not necessarily be seen in Leeds.

Playboy TV and The Adult Channel have announced that their services will be merged from 1st July. The Adult Channel will take upon a new image, combining content from both Playboy TV and The Adult Channel.  Playboy TV in it's current format will cease and subscriptions will be transfered to The Adult Channel

Playboy TV has announced a new movie service, to take-over the cable exclusive Home Video Channel (HVC) - which will also cease transmissions at the end of June 1999. The new cable channel from Playboy will broadcast from 8pm until midnight.

From the Sunday Times

A Clockwork Orange is set for a return to British cinemas 27 years after it was removed amid claims that the rapes and violence it depicted were prompting copycat attacks. Warner Brothers is planning a national cinema release next spring, following the death earlier this year of its director, Stanley Kubrick, who effectively banned his own movie.

Executives at Warners have recently discussed the commercial and ethical issues surrounding the re-release. The film's notoriety is likely to guarantee box-office success and there are signs that representatives of Kubrick's estate are willing to reopen the issue. The company is, however, eager to avoid a public controversy which might detract from the release this summer of Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut, starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. This weekend Warners declined to comment.

The film was given an X certificate on its original release and would be almost certain to receive an 18 certificate, from the BBFC if it were distributed again. A Clockwork Orange has been unobtainable in Britain since 1973, when Kubrick ordered Warner Brothers to remove it from cinemas after a run of 61 weeks. He never explained his reasons, but it remains available in Europe and America.

Odeon and ABC cinemas have decided to censor the title of Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. Instead they will advertise it outside their cinemas as Austin Powers 2.

A judge told three dealers in pornographic films yesterday that he had seen far worse sexual exhibitionism on television.

Judge Richard Benson, 55, said: I have to ask myself, having looked at that video, if this is the best you can do. He said he had been more distressed after seeing Channel 5's late-night programme A Thong for Europe. Judge Benson, who watched a compilation of scenes from the tapes, said they did not contain acts involving children, sadism or animals. He said: In terms of obscenity this is only a tiny bit obscene. Maybe in another time or another place - and that time would be some years ago - this material would have been regarded as obscene within the legal meaning of the word. But in recent times the boundaries of what is publicly acceptable have been pushed back.

He gave 18-month conditional discharges to the defendants who admitted publishing obscene material. They were arrested when police raided a house in Sneinton, Nottingham, last December and seized hundreds of videos,

John Beyer, director of the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association, said: Cases like this establish new boundaries of acceptability that have national repercussions. (For once I agree!!!) The police and the Crown Prosecution Service must have spent a lot of time preparing this case and taking it to court because they felt the material was obscene. If a judge then says this material is no worse that what is seen on television then clearly we need to clean up television.

(Good timing this story. It should provide some evidence that adult consensual hardcore is no longer considered obscene in law. Perhaps it will help in next month's R18 appeal).

Straw Dogs was effectively killed off a while back but a second distributor, VCI,  was given the option of accepting an emasculating list of cuts. VCI have refused the cuts and so the video is banned. The BBFC have issued a press release to justify their position:

Straw Dogs: The BBFC has refused a certificate for a video version of this 1971 film.

As the authority designated by Parliament with the responsibility for classifying videos under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the Board must determine whether or not a video is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued to it, having special regard to the likelihood of video works being viewed in the home. In making this decision, the Board must also have special regard, amongst other relevant factors, to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society because of the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violence, horror or sex.

The Board has carefully reconsidered the recently submitted video version of Straw Dogs in the light of the legal tests. It has over the years in this context expressed concern about images which bring sex and violence together. The BBFC Guidelines for Classifying Films and Videos (recently republished in the Board's Annual Report for 1998) identify sexually violent material as potentially harmful. The Guidelines explain that the Board is stricter with scenes of sexual violence on video than film, because of their potential to be played over and over at home. Sexual violence may only be shown providing the scenes do not offer sexual thrills.

These considerations are particularly relevant to the sequences in Straw Dogs in which the character Amy is raped by her ex-lover, Charlie and subsequently by his friend. There are a number of difficulties here. The first is the fact that the rapes are clearly effected by violence and the threat of violence. The second is the extent of the erotic content, notably Amy's forcible stripping and nudity. The third element of concern is the clear indication that Amy comes to enjoy being raped. It is Board policy not to condone material which endorses the well-known male rape myth that 'women like it really'.

The Board concluded that the video was potentially harmful because of the influence it may have on the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of its likely viewers. It recognised that, unlike many films of a similar age whose power has diminished with the years, the rape scene in Straw Dogs retains most if not all of its power today. The issue of sexual violence in the meantime has become one, if anything, of greater concern for the Board than 20 or 30 years ago. The Board considered the possibility of cuts as a reasonable remedy. The distributor of Straw Dogs, Video Collection International, was offered the option of making substantial cuts to the rape sequences (principally to remove the forcible nudity and the indications of pleasure at being raped) to permit an '18' certificate. It has chosen not to take up this option.

The video, in its present form, is therefore not suitable for classification.

It strikes me that the underlying dishonest wording of such press releases is so distracting that I found I couldn't even be bothered to listen to what they were trying to say. Substitution of 'not suitable for classification' for 'banned' and 'classifying' for 'censoring' makes the authors sound like politicians trying to justify the poll tax... and their message gets about equal respect.

I cannot believe that the BBFC (or more likely, its political wing) could think that a mere video could influence the attitudes and behaviour of a significant proportion of its likely viewers. They must have a pretty low respect for the responsibility of the British people.

Straw Dogs is widely available throughout the civilised world. The best bet at the moment is the US unrated version available on video and DVD (as opposed to the toned-down R rated version that was submitted to the BBFC)

Based on an article by Neil Mackay from the Sunday Herald

The release of the first hardcore porn movie into mainstream British cinemas is heralding a new era of liberalism within the traditionally conservative BBFC. Director Robin Duval said that Romance, an explicit arthouse movie by cult French director Catherine Breillat, would be the first ever to go on release in British cinema's with the little-used R18 certificate - a classification only reserved for hardcore porn movies. Duval also said that Britain was moving towards a more European acceptance of movie sex and violence, and Britain's chief censor added that he would ideally prefer to see no censorship of films in the UK. (This must be surely the most shameful of statements for a while: I dont believe in censorship but... I have banned, A Cat in the Brain, Banned from Television, The Classic Films of Irving Klaw: Vol 1, Miss Nude International, Nympho Nurse Nancy, Straw Dogs, TV Sex, and Wet Nurses 2 so far this year and cut dozens of others)

The film Romance contains scenes of sexual penetration, oral sex, ejaculation and bondage. Universally recognised as the most sexually explicit film ever made, one of the lead characters in Romance is the Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi who has appeared in more than 100 porn films. Duval claimed that some movies, dealing with sex and violence, could be released into arthouse cinemas uncut because they appeal to a minority audience, perhaps just catering to fans of French film. One such decision involved Seul Contre Tous (but it was cut), another French movie containing pornography, violence and racism. If the same content was in a film which had a broad appeal like Star Wars, then it would have to be heavily censored Duval added. This is not elitist, or about it being okay for the intelligentsia to watch sex and violence but prohibiting it for the ordinary man in the street. It is a question of knowing that a particular audience will watch the film and not be offended. (So why is Duval contesting the hardcore R18 video releases? A customer in a sex shop is hardly likely to be offended).

Plans to release Romance, now being viewed by BBFC classifiers, as a certificate R18 come amidst a massive sea-change in the
attitudes of the Board. The new era of liberalism is being attributed to the appointment of Duval as the new BBFC director.

(I can only reckon that the 'new era of liberalism' is being attributed to their new found fondness for PR. I find it hard to believe that the BBFC could sanction hardcore in this film without shooting themselves in the foot over their continued contesting of the R18 video appeals.

By all accounts, Romance is a masterpiece and it would be someone with a callous appreciation of art that would inflict cuts).

JackBoots Straw has announced that the Human Rights Act will be brought fully into force on Monday 2 October 2000.

From that date people who believe their human rights have been violated by public authorities (which they most certainly have) will be able to have their case judged in UK courts rather than facing the cost and delay of taking their case to Strasbourg.

The Act meets the Government's manifesto commitment to incorporate rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into United Kingdom law. (Unfortunately what this Government giveth, they taketh away in abundance)

Straw said: These are new rights for the new millennium. The Human Rights Act is a cornerstone of our work to modernise the constitution. It is one of the most important pieces of constitutional legislation the UK has seen. Preparations for implementation of the Act are well underway but considerable work is needed before we can bring the main provisions of the Act into force. We have now concluded that we will be ready to implement the Act in October 2000.

But "Human Rights Day" - 2 October 2000 -should not be seen as a field day for lawyers. It will mark instead, a major step-change in the creation of a culture of rights and responsibilities in our society. The Human Rights Act is a two way street. Rights flow from duties - not the other way round. One person's freedom is another person's responsibility. And the Convention - and the Act - contains many rights which have carefully to be balanced, one with another. (A classic I believe in freedom but unfortunately you are not responsible enough to have any)

(Strange that the last 3 countries to incorporate the 1951 treaty into domestic law are Norway, Ireland and the UK. The only 3 European countries that try to ban their citizens from watching porn).