Opinion

A Little Off the Top

To Councillor McDowell re the Paisley topless barber shop:

Dear Councillor McDowell You are quoted as saying I don't believe it would have any benefit to the trading or image of Paisley Why are you so scared of consenting adults making a business transaction in your town? Why do you seek to deny opportunities for making money for local people? I will delight in proving you and your Labour colleagues wrong by visiting the new topless hairdressers on my next visit to the town, doing my best to help your areas tourist trade. Councillors should concentrate on improving local services rather than deny people free choice.

Cuts with Flair...Not

Re cuts to The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection:

I am somewhat disturbed to find that the Ric Flair DVD box set will be missing an entire match due to the fact that one of the wrestlers would have a plastic bag placed over there head in a fake wrestling match....now what annoys me is that CSI wouldn't be censored or any of the Lethal Weapon movies wouldn't also be censured for the same thing in fact for any movie that has had the hero or villain having a plastic bag placed over there heads.

If you have to censor one wrestling DVD then why is it rated a 15 rather than an 18 to make it uncut, you have effectively destroyed what little chance of myself buying said DVD as it wouldn't be called a collectors edition, I would buy it from the states sooner than I would buy it here........

Disappointed in the double standards

I am sorry to hear that you were recently disturbed by one of our decisions relating to the classification of a work. As a Film and Video Examiner with the Board your complaint has been passed on to me, and I will try to explain the reasons behind our decision.

The Board has a published set of guidelines, which is based on a lengthy and in depth consultation process with the UK public.

It was, in fact, the most rigorous consultation process ever undertaken by a regulating body. Our guidelines enjoy support from the viewing public, as a whole. This claim can be borne out by the relatively few complaints we receive with regards to classification and continuing consultation. Examiners regularly meet with students of all ages and other interested parties, as part of an ongoing commitment to transparency and accountability. Such dialogue informs us that our guidelines enjoy widespread support, as I have said, and we take communications such as yours very seriously.

One of our central responsibilities, as outlined in the guidelines, is the protection of vulnerable viewers, especially children.

In addition to this, the Video Recordings Act of 1984 states that we must have special regard for the possibility of harm to viewers, or others, by imitation. Both the guidelines and legislation recognise the possibility and likelihood of under aged viewing and the possibility for lessons to be learned from videotape via the rewind facility.

With these considerations in mind, the Board looks very closely at images that might convince children that potentially lethal acts are easily reversed. Such acts include climbing into domestic machinery, such as washing machines; playing with electrical appliances, or nooses, etc. Asphyxiation with a plastic bag obviously falls in to this category. While a more experienced and sophisticated viewer (such as you or I) might recognise that the Ric Flair sequence is only play, and may result in dire consequences if copied in real life, younger viewers are not always so able to 'reality test'. Younger children, especially, have a tendency to act out or play, as a means of discovering and experiencing things. Adults can more easily project likely outcomes, based on their wider and lengthier experiences. Children cannot predict the consequences of actions so easily.

We know that the wrestling genre has a considerable audience with younger boys (as low as junior school age) and although a work may be classified at 15 or 18, some parents and carers choose to ignore this. We would be in dereliction of one of our professed aims and responsibilities, therefore, if we were to pass this work out uncut at any category. It is a well known fact that children have died in accidents involving plastic bags and the relevant industries have taken measures to prevent this. If any child were to result in harm as a result of copying something they had seen in a videotape, such as the action discussed, it would be a terrible tragedy. I am sure that you would agree that the loss of some personal freedom, ie cuts, is a small price to pay for the greater good.

Watching Mediawatch

Following Mediawatch UK's report into swearing I sent this letter to them:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have recently read your report into the levels of swearing on Television. I do not believe your opinions represent the views of the vast majority of the public and that most Television viewers would prefer to censor and control their own viewing rather than have an all powerful state body do it for them. I also do not believe that the entire public are as concerned over the issue of swearing within the media as a whole.

As a supporter of free speech I find it questionable that the media should be regulated to outlaw and ban anything just because a few groups of people find it objectionable. More so because it is not in agreement with people's religious beliefs. Are you saying that the media should be regulated so that it fits in with only YOUR religious views and beliefs? From your objections to the violent use of the words "Jesus Christ" it seems to me this is your view.

Surely the public should be given a choice over what THEY think is offensive and what is not. For every person who is complaining about a Television programme he/she has seen and is calling for it to be banned there is someone sitting down and watching that Television programme and enjoying it.

Why should that person be denied the freedom to choose to watch that programme just because the other person did not like it? They do not have to watch it, and the power of turning over and registering ones protest simply by not watching is far more effective than complaining to a state body or campaigning to have the offending programme removed from broadcast.

The reason we have a wide range of programmes that some people may find objectionable is because we have freedom in this country. In a democratic country like ours it cannot be tolerated that a state regulator would act to take away and remove those freedoms based on the say so or protest of one or two pressure groups.

I understand that you are offended by swearing in films shown on TV. But you do not have to watch them, and there are warnings prior to the broadcast of these films as to their content both in the newspapers and just before the films are shown. Unfortunately I do not see your pressure group as standing up for the vast majority of the public but as one that wishes to enforce a view through protest and pressure onto the public.

Thank you for your e-mail yesterday. It was good of you to take the trouble to contact us to let us know your views.

The fact is that the Codes and Guidelines, that broadcasters have themselves drawn up and are supposed to be applied to programmes, urge producers to exercise caution because of the public offence swearing is known to cause. Special reference is made, notably in the BBC Producer's Guidelines, to the use of holy names as expletives.

It is our contention that these Codes and Guidelines are being ignored and the level of bad language we have identified bears out the claim. It is not relevant whether you or anyone else is "not concerned" nor are our religious views or beliefs.

So far as we are concerned the way we communicate matters and it matters more that broadcasting is influencing language in ways that we think are damaging. Of course, no one has to watch television but we all have to live with the consequences of its harmful effects. Choice is also increasingly limited when so many programmes contain "strong language" often from the outset.

I can assure you that we have no regulatory powers, nor should we have. But we are entitled, in a democracy to express concerns and to direct them to the appropriate places. Our democratically elected Government has set up a regulator for the communications industry mindful of the power it exerts. This is to prevent the exploitation of the weak by the strong and surely you must be in favour of that principle? Fortunately, you have the opportunity to comment about the BBC in the nationwide consultation launched recently by the Government. I understand that questionnaires will be available from public libraries and I hope you will make your views known.

The Anomaly of Youth

The up'n'coming Sexual Offences Act introduces the preposterous notion that sex between 16 to 18 year olds is legal yet its depiction will now be considered as paedophilic. See www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030042.htm for further details

There is one exception under the new Act that might be of interest. This allows people who are married to (or living as partners with) 16 and 17 year olds to possess indecent images of their partner. However, it is a serious offence for them to distribute these images to others. The 'child' (i.e. the 16 or 17 year old) also needs to have consented to the image being taken. The relevant parts of the Act are Sections 43 to 45.

On a more positive note, the Sexual Offences Act will finally put gay group sex on a par with straight group sex. As you know, the BBFC cannot classify depictions of gay sex involving more than two people if the activities were filmed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland (Scotland has different laws and has already legalised this). This is because, in effect, the film constitutes a recording of the law being broken (gay group sex being illegal in England, Wales and NI at the moment). However, from May gay group sex will become legal across the UK and the BBFC will finally be able to pass such scenes.

It is also interesting to note that the new Act is more lenient on bestiality (Section 69 - Intercourse with an Animal). Under existing laws you can (in theory at least) get life imprisonment for having sex with an animal. Now the penalties have been reduced to 6 months or a fine. Still a bit harsh (especially if no cruelty is involved) but at least it's better than life imprisonment! I wonder why the Government have decided to take a softer approach on bestiality? There's also a section on 'Sexual Penetration of a Corpse' (Section 70) - I hope this never becomes relevant to the Melon Farmers!

Shaun contacts the Home Office to find out more about the up'n'coming Sexual Offences Act

Well, I had the chat on the telephone, with David West and it is true that possession of indecent pictures of 16 to 17 year olds will become illegal, by people other than the 16/17 year olds themselves, their partners (with consent of the younger person) married or in a committed relationship.

One attitude seems to be, once an indecent picture of a sixteen/seventeen year old "is out there" it is "out there" for good, and currently there is nothing can be done about it, and usually it is against the wishes of the person concerned, or they acted unwisely.

Having a "legitimate reason" for possession of such things is an absolute defence (and one which the BBFC would use, if necessary) against conviction. Less clear is the fact that a work was previously "classified by the BBFC" would possibly be accepted by a court as a legitimate reason for possession. I was also told that the logic behind all this is to deal with cases where people depicted claim to be 16 years and one day old, when it cannot be properly assessed that this is indeed the case. The logic seems to be "put it up to eighteen" and then we'll be sure. Their target is material that is downloaded on the internet. One other factor, is that this is going to be a European wide restriction, and will be harmonized throughout the EU... The person did admit that there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression, and the Human Rights Act.

I was also told that it was most unlikely that the DCPP would proceed against a classified work, nor would the police seek a prosecution. At this point I reminded them about the police's action against a university library book in central England.... I wish I could share their optimism..

Melon Farmers: I wonder why casual sex partners are not included and does the material become illegal again if partners are to split.

Apparently so, according to the Home Office.

I made the assertion that this may well undermine respect and support for this law.

The problem here is that the law makers often see flexibility in the laws they make, in that "it is not intended for use against that...." Yet the law enforcers (police, customs etc) see no such flexibility, and to them the law is absolute. This is a prime cause of difficulty in our law making..

Still don't agree that it is fair though.. I explained that I had no wish to defend the indefensible, but the law should not unfairly criminalise people, for possession of depictions of that which itself are perfectly legal activities.

This is an absurd piece of legislation. So far as I am aware, "indecency", like "obscenity", is nowhere objectively defined in such a way that a person producing or possessing an image can know whether or not it is "indecent". This raises the possibility of a postcode lottery such as the pair of obscenity cases you reported back in 2000, when poor Sharon Thomas got three months in Pembroke while a guy in Hounslow distributing near-identical stuff was triumphantly acquitted. Class is also likely to raise its ugly head. If Julia Somerville had been a single mum on a council estate, her innocent pics of her kids might have had a much nastier result.

From May we will have a situation where somebody with an old copy of Mayfair in the attic could find himself banged up in the nonce wing if it contained some of the photographs for which Natalie Banus, Samantha Fox or Louise Germaine posed as young women of 16 or 17.

Not for the first time - see the Dangerous Dogs Act! - Parliament has allowed itself to be panicked into mindless legislation.

With regard to the BBFC's response to the Sexual Offences Act, the Postal Services Act 2000 already forbids the sending of ANY indecent "cinematograph film" by post. So as it's the function of the BBFC to protect the industry from prosecution they must already have certified every DVD and video cassette on the market (and indeed, every cinema print as they are couriered to theatres around the country) as NOT containing indecent material. Whether the age of the participants is 7, 17 or 70 makes no difference: there are officially no indecent images in films already passed by the Board.

The definition they quote is laughable. The gender specific phrase "offends the ordinary modesty of the average man" is almost as antiquated as the Lady Chatterley trial prosecutor's comment "Would you approve of your young sons, young daughters - because girls can read as well as boys - reading this book? Is it a book you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?"

Alas, Blair and Blunkett live in a time warp.
 

 I obtained the following BBFC response to Roger's comments:

Roger has got a little confused about the legal distinction between 'indecency' and 'obscenity'. Obscene material (eg fisting, coprophagia, urolagnia, extreme SM) is illegal to supply under any circumstances. The BBFC never classifies 'obscene' material because it would be an offence to supply such images at all (and our certificate would therefore be meaningless). However, 'indecent' material is not in itself illegal (for example, 'indecent' material would include straightforward sexualised nudity or sight of people having sex, ejaculating etc). It is only an offence to do certain things with 'indecent' material (eg to display it publicly - hence the need for sex shops - or to send it through the post). So, your correspondent is wrong when he says that the BBFC has never passed any indecent material. Provided it includes only adults, the BBFC regularly passes material at '18' (and certainly at 'R18') that would be considered legally indecent - and therefore unacceptable for postage through Royal Mail.

The only time the BBFC refuses to classify 'indecent' material is when it involves children. This is because the Protection of Children Act makes it illegal to supply 'indecent' images of children (a much lower test than 'obscene' images). As you know, previously this was persons under 16 but now includes all persons under 18. So, in the past, the BBFC may well have passed legally 'indecent' images of 16/17 year olds (in accordance with the law at the time). These images will now be illegal. Of course, this doesn't mean the Board was wrong to pass them at the time (anymore than the Board was wrong to permit horse falls in Westerns prior to the 1937 Animals Act). It has never been the Board's role to censor indecent images (at least not since the 50s!) - only to ensure that indecent images are appropriately classified. So, I'm afraid your correspondent is wrong. Indecent images of 16/17 years may well have been, quite legally, classified in the past but may now be unacceptable.

Incidentally, the issue at the Lady Chatterley trial was obscenity, not indecency.

Having seen the summary on the Sexual Offences Act 2003, just when is this present government going to face up to reality and accept that 16 and 17 year-olds are rational people who can make their minds up as to whether they want to pose for nude photos. If anything, at least three topless models, aged 16 and 17, employed by the Daily Sport newspaper will be out of work until they are 18. In any case, there is an unwritten rule, in the entertainment industry, that 16 and 17 year-olds aren't used for sex scenes in films and tv programmes.

Applying the new provision retrospectively just goes to show the contempt the UK electorate is held in by Tony Blair and Co.. Obviously, Mr Blair has seen the proposals to exempt drama and the arts from censorship in the human rights provisions of the draft EU Constitution (This, incidentally, has been in existence for the last 10 years - I know, I've seen it.)

Wright Old Bollox

To Dr Tom Wright, following an interview with the shameful Dr Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham

Sir, it grieves me to have read in the "Independent" that you've seized on an extremely tragic incident (the Soham Murders) to then use that as justification for advocating a more restrictive lifestyle on a free people.

Blaming pornography as you appeared to do, for example, for the tragedies is simply specious and unfair. Many people choose use such material (otherwise why would it be so widely available) for various reasons. Perhaps someone uses it because they don't have ( and are extremely unlikely to get ) a partner, perhaps due to disfigurement and/or disability,. Would you deny them this sole outlet for that side of their humanity ? If so, I believe you would be wrong. Maybe some people believe in fidelity and use it, to explore the "wilder" side of life without actually being physically unfaithful to their partners. But whatever their reasons, I don't think there is any real justification for any censorship of "adult material", which is the imposition by law, of one set of views on another, because the restrictions would be out of proportion to the harm. Even today, people are put in prison for selling adult material (which would be classified 'r18' by the BBFC) to other adults, outside the very restricted circumstances permitted by law. Is this the policy of the church that people should be IMPRISONED for this ? Try looking at the work of the Rev. Chad Varah (founder of the Samaritans) and consider what he thinks about all this. I am sure he would tell you why censorship of adult activities is *more* harmful than allowing it to be available, to adults.

www.geocities.com/piers_clement/Varah.html

Of course you are entitled to your views on such material whatever they may be, but I think it is utterly horrendous that people like yourself always seize on each tragedy in life to try and impose and justify a narrow minded viewpoint on other people. There was not a shred of evidence that the availability of porn, or a modern attitude to life was in any way responsible for this tragedy.

The Church is ever more becoming an old fashioned and outdated institution because of its reluctance to be more open minded about the way people wish to live. I myself am an agnostic (I wouldn't have the arrogance to say I know one way or another, about God) but certainly the repressive view of the Church of England doesn't help. Also if you really believe that there was a ever golden age of enlightenment in years gone by, when playground bullying was the norm, and teachers used to viciously and regularly cane ten year old children (something which some members of the Christian Church still advocate: See http://www.care.org) you are quite wrong. People nowadays, are MUCH more likely to accept those of us who are different, than they ever were. People except the members of various repressive religious institutions that is. No wonder fewer and fewer people are interested in organised religion nowadays then. Don't you know that fostering a broad minded attitude actually helps create a safer and more peaceful society ? Look at some of the more liberal open minded countries, such as Holland, Sweden, Denmark etc. Please learn to differentiate between REAL violence in society (almost always universally condemned) and violence shown in films, which we ALL know, isn't real. I once asked my daughter when she was seven about all the "fighting" in cartoons. "But it isn't real daddy" was her enlightened response. Surely if a seven year old can tell the difference...... ?

In the case of the "Twin Towers" as far as I am aware it was a group of Islamic religious fanatics who were the perpetrators of this disaster, not any licentiousness in society. As such, do you think there should be the same kind of censorious restrictions imposed on religion[*], as you seem to advocate should be imposed on the free people of the United Kingdom in the case of sexually explicit materials?

I assume this is the case, because of your condemnation of certain material. I will stand corrected if I am wrong.

[*] All religions, for as far as I am concerned, they are all just about as repressive.

How typical of the 'establishment' to start blaming their pet-hates for all the ills of society.

Perhaps the Bishop Of Durham didn't follow the Huntley trial in the news but it seemed pretty clear to me that the people responsible for the Soham murders were 1) Ian Huntley and 2) Cambridgeshire Police

As far as I recall, Huntley was gaining a reputation in Hull as a sex offender. He had been accused of assaulting several young girls and had even been charged with rape. After a failed rape trial, Huntley changed his name and applied for the position of Caretaker at the Soham school...

If Cambridgeshire police had performed a full background check on BOTH of Huntley's names, he would not have been given the post of Caretaker. He would not have been working at the school let alone met the girls he subsequently murdered.

I fail to see what aspect of pornography led to Huntley's 'fascination' with underage girls. Child pornography is illegal in this country and, had the police found any evidence of such material in Huntley's possession (surely his home was searched after accusations of child molestation?) he would have been prosecuted long ago.

Unless Cambridgeshire police were somehow distracted by some pornography during their background check on Huntley, I can't see any connection at all between porn and the Soham murders.

I think the Bishop will just have to accept that society is riddled with some very sick individuals who sometimes escape the normal channels of detection, capture and justice.

Channel Charters

I don't suppose I will get a reply from the BSC now but they argued that people "don't want to see pornography on television" which is spurious (as well as untrue in many cases). It is also irrelevant whilst the Human Rights Act is in force and what people don't want to see isn't a reasonable excuse for restriction.

I have suggested that each channel decides for itself what the limits are, for what they intend to broadcast, in a kind of "content charter", which the viewer can refer to, when making complaints. The charter would have to be approved by Ofcom, who would then specify any restrictions, such as the time the channel is allowed to broadcast, and if it needs to be encrypted or separately encrypted, and if the channel has to be specifically requested by the viewer. Viewers who are likely to be offended by certain material, could then refer to the channels "charter" before viewing, and avoid those services it disagrees with. Similarly a viewer who specifically wanted certain types of programs, could refer to the charter for the broadcaster... (on the internet or on some sky text information service or whatever)... and subscribe to the service in the knowledge that they know exactly what to expect, or not to expect from it, including those broadcasts which show "explicit sexual activity"

There would probably be some basic regulations, concerning advertising, depiction of criminal material, etc, but beyond that a channel would only have sanctions taken, if it had broken its own agreed content charter, as agreed with Ofcom. If there was a market for a none swearing no sex, etc channel, this could be reflected in the charter, and otherwise only criminal material should be deemed off limits.