Å

Baise Sky

To Sky Viewer Relations

Re: The film Baise Moi which was suddenly cancelled on Sky Cinema

I would like to enquire WHY this particular film, (listed as being scheduled for viewing on Sky Cinema 2 on Wed 15th Dec 2004) which I am aware contains sexually explicit scenes, but HAS AN "18" RATED British Board of Film Classification certificate, was suddently dropped in favour of the 1937 King Solomon's Mines ?

I rang Sky to ask, and someone on your switchboard stated that "this film is no longer considered appropriate for any Sky channel"...

Well, I want to know why not, and also why Sky suddenly feels it needs to IMPOSE this sort of censorship on its PAYING film channel customers such as myself. If viewer offence is a problem why do you not create an extra film channel that will alone carry this kind of movie, and allow customers that want these films to OPT IN, if they want to ? I would be happy enough with that.

What I really want to know, is if the UK Broadcast regulator and CENSOR "OFCOM" has somehow prevented Sky Cinema from broadcasting the above mentioned film. Because if this is the case, I wish to protest to them directly. If this is the case, then Sky should be honest about it with me. Otherwise I see no reason for sky censoring its film viewers, and believe me I really am annoyed!

I am seriously considering CANCELLING my sky subscription, and given that I have a second box, and Sky+ as well, I would have to CANCEL ALL of the subscriptions to make any kind of impact on Sky, otherwise you are only six pounds a month worse off, and I would need the money to rent DVDs (one of which MAY or MAY not be Baise Moi) instead of paying good money to censor happy broadcasters

I will NOT tolerate is a service which censors, from its PAYING customers, film material which has already been classified 18, by the British Film Censors, the BBFC. There are several films now rated "18" which contain explicit material, and more due soon.

I would appreciate your prompt response on this issue, especially the information regarding Ofcom, and any intervention they might have add regarding this matter, if you care at all about my custom.

Regards,
Shaun
A Sky+, Second Box, and all sky films subscriber.

Thank you for your email and 'phone call about Baise-Moi and your patience whilst I looked into this.

Firstly, I'm sorry that you were disappointed about not being able to see this film. On checking I understand that we are following our usual patterns of scheduling where some titles are 'rested' and this movie will be re-scheduled at a later date.

I thank you, once again, for contacting us. We always welcome and actively encourage viewer feedback.

These guys whinging about the lack of 'adult' movies on Sky should cancel their subscription, stop whinging and go rent the movies they want to see. Why pay for someone else to be in control of what is broadcast on your TV..... take control and rent the bloody film yourself. You can then watch what you want when you want..... SIMPLE!!!!
 

A closer look at the schedules revealed that whilst the Radio Times did indeed list Biase-Moi, other publications had listed King Solomon's Mines as eventually shown. So perhaps the change to schedules was not quite so sudden.

It will therefore be interesting to note if Baise-Moi does indeed return to the schedules as promised

Playing the Rant Game

To the Melon Farmers

The thing that pisses me off about 18 cert games like Grand Theft Auto is that parents knowingly buy these games for their kids. My girl friend's  sister has brought it for her 15 year old son (although he is really mellow so unlikely to end up in a paper having stabbed someone to death over something, and GTA gets the blame). I have even seen Game Station staff sell copies of the game to clearly underage kids (try about 10-12) if the child is with a parent (they tell the parent that they cannot give the game to the child, but its ok to give to the parent). Its obvious the parents don't give a crap and neither do the staff. Then when some kid goes off the deep end, the same parents pass the buck onto a game to cover their own bad parenting. My 12 year old stepson wants GTA and will have to wait for it, he has shown that he emulates words and actions from simple 12A movies and 11 rated games - he isn't old enough or responsible enough to be trusted with 18 rated games.

The end result of this whole fiasco caused by idiot parents, stupid shop staff, papers in search of a scapegoat to sex up the front page and Politicians who will do anything for a vote, is that adults like you and me will lose the limited freedom we currently enjoy. Once Video games have gone you can bet Rap and Metal music are next!

Always good to compare Daily Mail society with Thai society. The Thais have no real concept of age classification and no one bats an eyelid about the youngsters playing GTA. In general this doesn't seem to have done Thai youngsters any harm.

Of course the Thais are hardly liberal about censorship. Its just that they have different concerns. They are very strict on sex and nudity and are also very concerned about youngsters playing games into the small hours.

Soft Excuses

Letter to Playboy Channel Viewers

You are being contacted personally by me as you have previously written to us expressing an opinion about Playboy TV programming.

As the Head of Programming for Playboy it is very difficult for me to know what our viewers think of our shows. Many are very interested in "hardcore" programming, which is something I cannot currently help them with. However, within the confines of what we can show in the UK, I hope that we do a good job of producing fresh, watchable, sexy programming. However without feedback it is difficult to know if we are doing it as well as we can. Since you are, or have been, a paying customer, I feel it is very important to encourage a dialogue between our viewers and myself to make sure we are doing the "right thing" with our programmes.

I am specifically interested in your views on our new series Cold Coupling. We have worked hard to make this something which stands out in comparison to adult material on other channels. Have we succeeded? Is this something you would like to see more of? Or does it leave you - excuse the pun - cold?

If you have comments on any of our other shows I would also be very pleased to hear them. If you have any comments on any aspect of our service, please also let me know and I will try to answer or pass them on to someone who can.

Richard Ings
richard.ings@playboytv.co.uk
 

I've seen the last two episodes of Cold Coupling and been totally disappointed. I'm sorry but I do not believe you cannot show hardcore on UK TV. Sky and FilmFour have shown fully uncut versions of films containing hardcore. Indeed, you and TAC did show several episodes of hardcore works earlier this year and as yet we have seen no evidence of action taken against you by Ofcom nor have we seen any evidence of viewer complaints (save those in protest of the removal of this material).

For the record, there exists no where in UK legislation any prohibition against the broadcast of explicit sex. As such, the Human Rights Act 1998 permits, indeed the ECHR insists, that any legally available material can be broadcast. Hardcore material is legally available in the UK and CAN therefore be transmitted on channels which offer controls against viewing by minors. Adult subscription channels and late night broadcasts obviously prevent accidental exposure to the under 18s, which meet the requirements of the Television Without Frontiers Directive (how else could other European broadcasters show hardcore?).

I do not know why you insist on cowtowing to Ofcom's rights-abusing stance on these matters. The material on Sky and FilmFour has received complaints but oddly enough Ofcom have not upheld the complaints. It appears rather hypocritically that explicit sex is permitted on any channel except where the viewers EXPECT to see and indeed PAY for such material. One has to assume this is some form of discrimination based on 'artistic appreciation', as if the 'context' in which sexually explicit material appears really matters to the viewing audience. A more blatant expression of the middle-class attitudes the tossers running our censorial bodies possess I have yet to see.

Well I have had enough of Playboy and Ofcom. Please cancel my subscription to all 3 of your channels forthwith.

To Richard Ings of Playboy UK

Just an email to ask you to please cancel my subscription to all 3 channels @ 14.99 as from today. I have made a phone call this evening and was told I could not cancel until May of 2005 well I insist I no longer wish to pay for this soft crap night after night !!

I am having a satellite fitted for the HOTBIRD satellite this week so I can enjoy proper porn not stuff I could show my gran on sunday afternoon teatime.

My Card was billed today for 14.99 and I want it refunded and the service stopped as from today please until the day you transmit adult material not comedy.

Please reply to this email as if I do not hear from you within 7 days I will have no alternative but to transfer my balance to another credit card provider and close the account thats currently used for billing if this is the only way to stop you taking money for this shit!!

I understand you are governed by our shit laws in this country but enough is enough and I aint paying any longer for this crap !!

Ministry of Blame

Dear Melon Farmers,

Is it me or have our illustrious leaders gone completely crackers? Yet again we have MPs like Christine Grahame blaming adult entertainment for rising rates of violence against women. It should be noted that a US Senate Committee have been investigating this issue recently and, in one report from Dr James B Weaver III he states quite clearly that his investigation of pornographic material reveals "it’s devoid of coercion and violent action (Brosius, Weaver, & Staab, 1994)". The obvious question arises: if not from porn, where does the establishment's view that there's a link between violence and porn come from?

The answer to this question, as with many of the things our governments tend to fuss over, is that these perceived threats exist only in the minds of those who believe there is a threat. Like Iraq's WMD, and Tony's belief these existed, the threat is a figment of the deranged imagination of people who have clearly been seduced by their own misguided opinions - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Since the introduction of the Obscene Publications Act(1851), we here in the UK have been labelled 'perverts' for expressing our interest in sexuality. The fact Nature demands all life on Earth to reproduce sexually seems to be forgotten by those in power. The simple fact of the matter is, we are 'programmed' to want to have sex, we are sexual creatures. Indeed, is it becoming ever more apparent in studies from around the globe that the more liberal a country is the less likely it is to suffer a problem with sexual violence. Clearly then, it is the repression of sexual desire and a restriction of safe sexual outlets which leads to sexual frustration and violent sex crimes.

The effects of sexual equality should not be overlooked either. As women have become more independent and forged their own careers, the requirement to settle down into marriage has become far less influential. Women are more inclined to instigate divorce too, indeed, modern couples seem to throw-in the towel at the first hint of marital trouble. In general, sexual equality, however well intentioned, has had the effect of undermining all of society's long established traditions and roles. Could it be that men's perception of women as 'equals' means men now behave more violently toward women, seeing them as no different than another male? This shift in attitudes seems far more plausible as a cause for violence than erotic images. It seems highly unlikely that pornography could have any causal link to instances of domestic violence. Moreover, it is the demands of modern life that places people under stress which then leads to alcohol/drug abuse and eventually physical abuse.

Of course the last thing Government would think of doing is to look at their own misguided policies for causal links to a breakdown of society. Studies of sex offences in Europe over the past 30 years and in Japan over the last 10 years, show that there is indeed a link between sex crime and pornography. The availability of pornography has served to dramatically halt and even reverse the rising trends in sex crime in these liberated countries! It is without question the perpetuation of our puritanical attitudes by Government and their appointed censors which serve to force the rates of sexual abuse ever higher in the UK. How any member of parliament can hope to perpetuate their lies any longer, when for 150 years we have suffered ever increasing rates of sex crime under this repressive regime, defies all logic. The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same thing and expect different results. We have tried suppression of explicit sexual imagery for more than 150 years, it clearly has had no effect but to create a problem with sexual violence.

It is time our Government(s) took a long hard look at their remit to govern. They are supposed to do all they can to protect the people from harm, not implement laws and policies which actively undermine liberties and instigate repressive environments. The Human Rights Act 1998 contains clauses which prohibit actions which cause harm. When read properly and in conjunction with the wealth of evidence supporting the abolition of censorship, the HRA makes it clear there is little doubt many of our laws are contemptible and abusive. Far from being in-touch with the people and reality, any and all politicians, local councillors and religious groups who actively stand in the way of sexual freedom should now take the blame for the damage their repressed ideas have on the rest of the population. They are acting in no one's interest but their own misguided ideals, they are self-serving hypocrites who care little for the man or woman on the street. It is in their own sordid opinions of sex-work that sees this as 'degrading to women' and, by their actions, they expect all around them to feel the same way.

I can tell Christine Grahame what the outcome of a study into the effects of porn will be right now. It will show as in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Japan, Spain and Portugal that, when porn and sexual outlets are made freely available to people who want them, sex crime virtually disappears. The only threat pornography has in our society is in exposing that anti-liberal 'Victorian' attitudes are extremely damaging and, all who support such notions are in fact the public's worst enemy!

OfCourse

Dear Ofcom,

I hope the huge batch of self opinionated letters that have appeared on your web site as supposed responses to the Broadcasting Code Consultation are not taken into consideration.

They seem to be nothing more than 'complaints' from the likes of MediaWatch UK members who admit they are grandparents and who have shown little if any regard for the consultation document itself.

Indeed, many of these 'responses' seem to centre on the legislative change in wording from 'taste and decency' to 'generally accepted standards'. These concerns should have been directed at their MP's two years ago. Obviously these people have little if any regard for the purpose of Freedom of Expression, which prompted that legislative change.

If that oversight was not proof of their ignorance and intolerance, these donators have clearly not bothered to read the RIA in which they would have seen your 'recommendation' not to allow R18 onto our TV screens and yet, these complaints take it as read that you have already allowed R18 onto mainstream TV. Not only that but they have failed to recognise the significance of 'suitable protection' for the under eighteens if R18 were to be allowed.

As I say, I hope these so-called responses are NOT included in the consultation because they have clearly failed to respond TO the consultation and are a crude and blatant attempt to undermine the process.

We are aware of responses that suggest from their content that the writer has not read the consultation document.. However you will be aware that we also published a clear English version and it may be that some of these respondents have based their views on this document or on newspaper articles.

We do not discount opinions because they appear to belong to a 'lobby' or a group and may not have read the full consultation document. They numerically represent a 'view'. We do not ignore those responses but of course it sometime means that what they wish altered may reflect a change in the law over which we have no control. It is also the case that even those who have read the consultation may have based part or all of their reply on an erroneous understanding of something in the consultation and so we do not necessarily presume that a respondent has not read the consultation even when they have misunderstood certain issues.

Both volume and individual content are of interest to us in the analysis process and we have no intention of giving undue weight to any individual respondents or class of respondents.

Thank you for getting in touch.

Å