Opinion

Abuse at Home

Braintree was sent to prison for selling a few videos recorded off legal Euro satellite channels featuring fisting and wet sex. His dealings with the Crown Persecution Service was a catalogue of bullying with the state trying to avoid a jury challenge of their human rights abusing obscenity legislation. See Intent to Supply Injustice?

Letter to Stephen Ruddle at the Home Office

I have just learned that the person(known as "braintree" to people on the Melon Farmers web site) who was selling the so called "obscene" material which was recorded from European satellite television services, (not Extasai by the way) which are PERFECTLY LEGAL TO SUBSCRIBE TO, AND SELL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR, IN THIS COUNTRY, has now received FOUR MONTHS in PRISON, (and the rest of his life ruined no doubt) after being blackmailed and cajoled by people involved with the judiciary into pleading guilty.

Is this really necessary and proportionate ?

I don't think so.

Would you honestly expect me to believe you do think so ?

Personally I believe it is nothing short of utterly disgraceful.

So I WILL ASK YOU AGAIN -

WHAT JUSTIFICATION IN TERMS OF REAL AND MANIFEST HARM is there for our repressive obscenity law, as it currently stands ?

If the material really is so harmful, then why wasn't it recommended for proscription, and why wasn't the particular channel which WAS recommended FIVE YEARS AGO, actually proscribed by the government ?

Is it because the supposed harm simply wasn't there ? If it wasn't
there, then WHY HAS THIS MAN GONE TO PRISON ?

ARE WE LIVING IN IRAN, or a free democratic country ?

No one has ever properly shown that the kind of material peddled by "braintree" is harmful enough to justify what has happened to him.

The complicity in the government for failing to properly deal with this issue, is utterly shameful. I assert that the reason it hasn't been properly dealt with, according to human rights, is because there is still a religious influence at work in the powers that be.

Well, religion plays a very small part in my life, and those in power who wish to censor me, because of their religious views ALONE, simply have NO RIGHT to do so, and are acting incorrectly. In a democratic country which has human rights laws enshrined, then such beliefs alone simply are NOT any form of justification for such repression. But no other form of justification has been forthcoming, so I have to draw my own conclusions.

I hope you understand what I mean, and that I make myself clear.

I ask if the people in authority, responsible for doing nothing, are fit to do their jobs ? A case of if the cap fits, then please wear it.

As a country, we condemn other countries for such acts of repression, yet here we do it ourselves!

Shame on our repressive and censorious government, which tries to persuade us we are truly free, yet does nothing about laws such as this.

Acknowledgement but no further response

A reply to the appended email for Steven Ruddle, or some other person in his department was never received.

It seems like the solution applied by all the regulatory authorities in this country, to difficult questions, is to simply ignore them.

However the simplest of logical analysis shows that if the draconian censorious restrictions imposed on a free people by these authorities were indeed proportionate and necessary, (a Human Rights requirement) then they would be very easy to justify. Instead people just get ignored, in the hope that they'll go away.

Strangling Freedom

Measures to combat violent pornography on the internet are to be announced by the Government after international talks aimed at blocking websites that glamorise necrophilia, female strangulation and torture.

The proposals, to be outlined in the next few months, are expected to mirror moves taken to tackle internet child pornography and to include the strengthening of police powers to pursue offenders.
 

Letter to Internet Watch Foundation

Re the possibility of increased censorship of the Internet.

As an internet user I DO NOT support greater censorship of the internet, beyond child abuse images, and ractial hatred etc.

Censorship of so called "voilent porn" which is most likely faked anyway, will undermine the support for strict censorship of child abuse, because many people like me believe that if we are going to have creeping censorship of the internet, it would be better, if it STOPPED NOW, ALL OF IT, even if that meant NO CENSORSHIP at all.

The Jane Longhurst case was very sad. However it is clear from the number of other people that must have seen those same images, (horrible though they may well be) and DID NOT go murdering people, (IE: ALL OF THEM EXCEPT ONE deranged individual) it is quite clear that these images are not to blame.

Why is it every time something nasty happens, our government officials start running around like headless chickens looking for someone to blame ? They seem to delight in scapegoatism, and pandering to the "something must be done (TM)" brigade.

MANY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT INCREASED CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET BEYOND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE NOW. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

Censorship, is a necessary evil, and should only be imposed when the case for it, is beyond doubt. Otherwise it is repression, and tyranny by authorities looking for something to put the blame on, and treating freeborn people as if they were stupid.
 

From The Melon Farmers' Forum  27th Aug
  
The national margin of appreciation is going to become increasingly difficult for the Government to manage in a world where any content can be obtained by anyone anywhere via the Internet. Of course they will make every effort to try, but it seems likely that some areas of “concern” will eventually have to be abandoned such as R18 as they will become increasingly difficult to suppress and restrictions will become impossible to enforce given the current state of the law or any likely amendment of it.

Unfortunately the eventual inability to control R18 or equivalent will probably spur them into even more activity in other areas that are slightly easier to target. Things like violent porn will become the new areas of conflict and we can expect a series of new draconian measures followed by witch hunts to prosecute those who dare to disobey. Are they just protecting morals? No they are unjustly imposing their views on everyone else. Why will they do it? Because they can, because they are convinced they are right, because they don’t understand sexuality, because it would probably be popular with the public and will help pacify the nutters who keep banging on their door shouting the Government must do something. None of this is right reasonable or just but it will happen.

New legislation will be introduced to censor/penalise some content but how far it goes has not yet been decided. The best we can do is to try to hold the line of those against censorship and minimise the damage that is done to freedom by it. If there is to be a public consultation, it would be wise to respond to it so at least the other side of the argument is represented.

To those who are not worried about violent porn being made illegal to own, I would suggest that there is an important principle at stake. If this principle is abandoned because people are personally not worried about this content or don’t find it to their taste then don’t be surprised when content you want to watch comes under fire and others show a lack of interest.

To kick off the debate here is a starter for ten, if violent porn is to be made illegal to own and attempts are made to block sites providing it, what will happen to foreign sites that provide hardcore, softcore and everything else such as www.hotmovies.com advertised on this site? Because this site also has violent porn (BDSM titles) it could easily become a target for censorship and those watching content from it could easily become victims of over zealous prosecutions.

Ofcon Haven't Researched their Research

t

Ofcon have maintained the ban on R18 material on subscription satellite without providing any reason beyond a one line justification about the inadequacy of PIN controls

Extract form the PIN research paper being used by Ofcon

"Taken together, the results indicate that PIN numbers are, to a certain extent, known and used by under 18s within the current UK family context - and that keeping the numbers "secret" is not regarded as an imperative. This may be because PINs are currently used for a variety of non-harmful purposes. However, such access within families to PIN numbers means they are unlikely to provide secure protection for children from explicit adult material. As aforementioned, this is not to say that parental attitudes and behaviours to PIN numbers would not change if they felt there was a possibility of children accessing, either accidentally or intentionally, "R18" and "R18" equivalent material . This is a hypothetical issue that is not - and cannot - be accurately covered by this piece of research."

Did you also notice that the report STATES that the research cannot be used for the purpose that it
was commissioned: i.e protection of under 18's from R18 material.

The key relevant fact obviously missing from the questionnaires for parents is whether adult
services have been subscribed to, and for the children was whether they had seen such
programming without parental consent.

The above paragraph actually invalidates the stated conclusion.

Ofcon Catch their Breath

Ofcon have maintained the ban on R18 material on subscription satellite without providing any reason beyond a one line justification about the inadequacy of PIN controls

Shaun received the following reply to a letter sent querying how they arrived at their decision
 

I am replying to your outstanding emails to yourself and Ofcom, regarding the Playboy sanction and also regarding the decision to continue the prohibition on the broadcast of R18 material or its equivalent.

I very much apologise for the late reply. During the period that you wrote to me about the Playboy sanction, the R18 policy was going before the Ofcom Main Board, and it was not possible for me to tell you what was happening since we were awaiting the board decision. Once this decision was taken, it was important not to release it before the actual publication of the Code. I do apologise however for not writing and explaining the situation.

As you know we published the new Ofcom Broadcasting Code in May 2005 and you wrote to me on publication. The Code came into operation on 25 July 2004 and during that period we have been exceptionally busy dealing with broadcasters on code related enquiries. That is why I have not been able to write earlier.

You were concerned that the timing of the Code publication related to the election. However the publication of the Code took the time that it did because of the very many responses we received from members of the public, broadcasters, and other stakeholders. Many of the points raised required detailed consideration, by the Ofcom Board, and other work by Ofcom. In the case of R18 issue research was commissioned which could not have been completed in time had we published the code any earlier than we did.

We published our new code, and an accompanying statement on 25 May 2005 explaining the reasons for our decisions in full. In it we prohibit the broadcasting of R18 material, and its equivalent. Tis statement is available on our website - www.ofcom.org.uk Our statement covers the policy decision we took and our reasons for taking it. I will therefore not repeat what is already contained there. It contains our reasons regarding many of the issues you raised, for example whether R18 material or its equivalent can cause harm.

We are aware that the subject raises strong emotions on both sides, and that our decision to continue prohibiting the broadcast of R18 material is a disappointment to you.

You were concerned that "religious influences from people in authority are at work here". However you are not correct. This decision was taken in the light of Ofcom's statutory duty to protect the under eighteens It was reached following the public consultation and in the light of research into the use of existing PIN security systems both by children and adults. As we state: The decision is rooted firmly in the relevant European (including Freedom of Expression) and domestic legislation, governing television broadcasts..... We consider that retaining the prohibition is necessary, appropriate, proportionate and targeted to an area where it is necessary, in all the circumstances.

You also see an inconsistency in allowing certain 18s on air, without encryption, whilst prohibiting the broadcast of R18s. You will note that we dealt with this issue in our statement. You should also note however the recent decision by the Video Appeals Committee (VAC) on 20th July 2005 in a case regarding nine videos, which the distributer argued should be classified 18 but the BBFC had rated R18. The VAC supported the BBFC decision on this matter.

Ofcom did not decide that R18 and R18 equivalent material was unsuitable for broadcast per se - but that we could not be satisfied that children would be sufficiently protected under current security systems. Ofcom has stated that it is willing to look at this issue again if technical or other developments mean that under eighteens can be sufficiently protected in the future. We cannot anticipate what changes might occur, and we have not, and do not, propose to suggest what security might provide sufficient protection. However we are willing to talk to broadcasters about security issues both for the present, and for the future.

You raised in your earlier email your concern at the sanction imposed on Playboy for broadcasting R18 material. Playboy accepted that the broadcast was of a standard that is prohibited under the code, for transmission at any time. We appreciate that you disagree with this decision but it is in our view, proportionate in all the circumstances. Our reasoning is set out in the statement we published at the time which is available on our website.

I apologise once again for my late reply.

I have read your points and considered them all very carefully, but still feel that most of the issues remain unanswered, and I am far from satisfied with your current position on the total prohibition of R18 material from UK subscription television. Though I understand that you have a statutory duty to protect the under 18s, I still strongly assert that the prohibited material, when subject to sensible, proportionate restrictions, (pin protection, late night broadcasting, subscription only) isn't harmful enough to justify your actions in relation to it, and that they are *therefore* grossly disproportionate. Not only that, when considering the presence of European broadcasters of R18 material who have UK subscribers, they are also inconsistent as well.

I also assert that some of the points I have made to you in the past, and the questions I have asked you in the past, remain completely unanswered and completely undealt with.

There is also some informed speculation on Ofwatch (http://www.ofwatch.org.uk) that the research on PIN protection was hastily commissioned, very late in the process of drawing up the new programme code, AFTER the decision to prohibit R18 material had ALREADY been taken. IE: You were just looking for an excuse to keep up the "R18" prohibition. Not only that, but several requests under the Freedom of Information Act, were flatly denied, to "Ofwatch", (via Paul Tavener the webmaster) which were made in order that Ofwatch could verify whether or not this whole issue had, in fact been approached correctly or not.

Regarding material currently broadcast by Ofcom Licensed "adult" channels:

Please forgive me if I call a spade a spade here. On these channels, despite the "prohibition of "R18 classified material or its equivalent" there is material regularly still broadcast on "Ofcom licensed channels", which if it were to be submitted to the BBFC, would most certainly be classified at "R18" by them. There is still highly explicit scenes of cunnilingus, occasional fellatio, and insertions of digits, explicit close ups of female anatomy etc. If you take the trouble to consult the British board Of Film Classification, you would no doubt be able to acertain for yourselves that this material would not be currently allowed in any "18" rated work, whose primary function is to sexually stimulate the viewer which would be the purpose of an adult channel. Some such scenes may be allowed in context where the work is not primarily a sex scene, at an 18 classification, such as in the film 9 songs.

That being the case, after complaints about the content of "adult channels" which I am aware FOR CERTAIN you have had, and NOT upheld, and in the complete absence of any other openly published guidance on the permissible content on Ofcom licensed "adult" channels, why is this material allowed ? I have been in discussion with the British Board Of Film Classification myself, and they have confirmed to me that such material would only be allowed in a so called "sex work" at R18.

Unless you are going to introduce your own CONCISE guidelines, made available to the public, you clearly SHOULD NOT ALLOW such material, and should uphold complaints about R18 material being shown, when they are put, and therefore follow your OWN RULINGS on such matters, and insist they are upheld, until such times as those guidelines are changed.

Regarding the expectations of subscribers to Ofcom licensed adult channels:

It is also quite appalling that Ofcom do not care one jot for the plight of people...

(in the absence of any concise guidelines for adult broadcasters, which are also easily available to the public)

...who subscribe to these channels, get conned about the explicitness of the content, and get locked into subscribing to material they clearly do not want or did not expect, for sometimes as much as a year at a time. People who subscribe to porn channels, expect to get porn don't they ?

Also I wish to know exactly what you intend to do about the foreign broadcasters, who sell subscriptions for R18 material in this country, at a distinct advantage to our own UK operators, who are generally obliged to follow Ofcom rules.

If their content is harmful, why are they also not recommend for proscription orders ?

Some points for you to answer therefore:

1: Ofcom clearly allows broadcasters to show material, that if it were classified by the BBFC, would be classified R18. But for reasons unknown to me, it simply appears to have a particular problem with certain scenes of any explicit act of lovemaking, which show for certain, that the full sexual act is actually taking place on the screen. This I still assert is based on some people's religious considerations and/or ones based on hysteria and fake science, not any real proof of harm, or any RATIONAL examination of the relevant facts of the matter.

2: Ofcom does not recommend to the government (The Department of Culture, Media and Sport) that other European broadcasters showing "R18" material to UK subscribers should have a proscription order imposed on them, yet it still seeks to prevent and prohibit UK broadcasters from showing the *same* kind of material. This is clearly inconsistent, unfair and incorrect. I suspect that this is because of the increased likelihood of Ofcom's views being legally challenged by European broadcasters who have long had the freedom to broadcast R18 material to viewers in this country, without ANY HINT OF HARM WHATSOEVER to ANY viewer in the UK.

3: You do not unequivocally show that ONLY prohibition, rather than PIN protection and late night broadcasting, is necessary to protect under 18s. It is clearly unfair of you not to discuss what extra safeguards might be satisfactory. Would for example a separate smart card be enough for you ? I believe the Human Rights Act does not allow you to change the goal posts, and the fact you do not at least try and specify what safeguards might be appropriate (such as the suggestion i make here) allows you to keep unfairly moving those goal posts.

In Spain, on Hispasat, late at night R18 material is broadcast IN THE CLEAR for anyone to watch (including me) and has been for some considerable time. In most countries R18 material is allowed on encrypted channels where access can be controlled. InXWorld, broadcasts R18 material 24 hours per day, seven days per week over three subscription channels on the Hotbird satellite. So where are all these seriously damaged children on the continent ? Surely if your response was TRULY proportionate, you'd be able to point to the research which reveals their presence would you not ?

I would also like to ask if you really think that freeborn adults should be treated exactly like those children you seek to "protect" ? Indeed this grossly insulting to us, and is degrading, and debasing us. I wonder if the future freedom of UK children, needs "protection" from Ofcom ? I consider that mine (aged 14 and 11) certainly do!

Your current prohibition of R18 material is nothing short of repressive, draconian, and unjustified. Any sane, rational person taking an honest unbiased detached look at all the facts of this matter, would easily come to such a conclusion. Perhaps you should do so yourself Ms OBrien, and suggest to anyone at Ofcom responsible for this violation of Human Rights, that they should do the same.

You will agree I am sure, that there IS a STRONG demand from many people resident in the UK, that such material should be allowed under restricted circumstances on UK based subscription television channels. Ofcom should NOT deny peoples rights to be able to have available, and to be free to choose to subscribe to such channels, UNLESS it is absolutely necessary, and proportionate. To do that, is a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION, and is in fact tantamount to tyranny[*]. Something I am sure that people in this country would not support. If the restriction were subsequently found to be necessary, in the UNLIKELY event that I was, (after TEN YEARS of examining this issue)wrong, you could always introduce the prohibition. Which would be the CORRECT time to introduce it, if you people had ANY regard and respect for Human Rights law.

The Human Rights Act requires you to do MUCH more than to simply state "we think our prohibition is proportionate." You should prove it, and you clearly do not prove it. In consideration of the FREEDOM allowed in Europe, over many years, if the material was proportionately harmful, to ANYONE it would be EASY for you to justify your position. Instead you simply try to take us for fools and idiots who know nothing.

Please note that when you send me a reply (which I expect to get) a copy will be forwarded to my MP, and you will not only be justifying Ofcom's position to me, but to him also.

[*] You may disagree, but that is in fact what it is. Indeed, I have given Ofcom the nickname "The TellyBan" for this very reason.

Saving Face On Crime Statistics

The use of statistics to show that countries have low sex crimes
 

Just wanted to bring up a couple of brief points concerning the topic of porn censorship and the Japanese report on sexually related crimes in that country.

I remember reading an article on Japan and their attitude towards sexually motivated crimes/sex crimes back in the late 1990s. Now, I don't pretend to know how far the Japanese legal system or attitudes have come since reading that report but at the time it was stated that rape/sexual assault was a crime that was considered as serious as fraud in that country. Police attitudes towards victims were often unsympathetic to sat the least. And the amount of rape-crisis support centres was shockingly low (something like TWO I seem to recall).

My reason for emailing is this: I wholeheartedly support the declassifying of XXX to an '18'. I just felt that people should ALSO be made aware that MAYBE some of these reports are not 100% effective as they don't give ALL the facts sometimes. Holland has often been considered a peaceful, crime-free place but is also known by others to be a place where the law doesn't always work effectively enough and that hides a lot of criminal elements. Japan, at least back in the late 1990s still, was seemingly a place that was home to a people whom were renowned for their manners and politeness and yet ignored a lot of the criminal elements within their society. Just as the UK Government fabricate or MANIPULATE numbers at times to create the impression that crime is "falling" in numbers, Japan (along with many countries) would also fit into this category as a country that had low levels of serious crime as serious crimes of certain types by any OTHER countries definition were being labelled as nothing more serious than fraud, etc. Also, many victims of sexual assault in Japan who WERE able to find and make use of support centres felt ashamed of what had happened to them but even MORESO of the idea of going to the police, where they felt they would be treated unsympathetically and the crime against them not taken seriously...

I hope this gives a small insight into the INNER workings of the Japanese system and culture where sex crimes are concerned. If I can find the old article on this I will forward it to you in full as it made for very fascinating and interesting reading...

With respect to Japan, Spain, Portugal and the rest of liberated Europe, less reporting of sex crime is not responsible for the reduction in sex crime figures. These topics are covered in the relevant reports by Dr Diamond and Dr Kutchinsky. Their observations and results are genuine. It is nonsense to believe 13-year-old girls would or could conceal a sex attack, as was the area of study in Japan.

I do not disagree that general crime figures in the UK could be falling due to victim apathy and the apparent uselessness of reporting petty crimes to the police. I heard last week however, that crimes in the UK had broken 1 million per year mark for the first time so it would appear crimes are being reported in ever increasing numbers.

Explicit Art House Porn and Children 

From BigAndrew on the Melon Farming Forum

I e-mailed the BBFC following the R18 VAC appeal to vent my disgust, not that I thought it would do any good but made me feel better! I Asked about how a child could distinguish between a cum shot in 9 songs and one in a sex film amongst other things.
 

The Video Recordings Act 1984 requires that the BBFC should confine certain video works to the special `R18` category. This category means that works so classified may only be supplied in a licensed sex shop. The existence of the `R18` classification is a matter of law and is not at the discretion of the BBFC.

The BBFC`s guidelines place explicit sex works (ie works whose primarily to sexually arouse) in the `R18` category, in line with the legal definition of a sex shop, ie that sex shops are establishments primarily dealing with material intended to cause sexual arousal. 9 Songs is not a sex work, in that its primary purpose is not to arouse. Therefore it does not require confinement to the `R18` category. The Video Appeals Committee (VAC) strongly agreed with this approach in their verdict. 9 Songs is very different to the 9 video works under appeal in appearance, tone and intention.

Possible harm to children is only one of the reasons for the existence of the `R18` category, alongside preventing offence to adults who do not wish to see such material more readily available (many people do not wish to see explicit hardcore porn in their newsagent). However, as we said, the existence of sex shops and a separate `R18` category is a matter of law rather than the invention of the BBFC. It is of course difficult to definitively prove harm to children from pornography but the VAC agreed that the cold, explicit, mechanistic - and largely storyless - nature of the sex shown in `R18` video works may well harm children and that the added protection of the `R18` category makes it less likely that children will gain access to it. This view was recently endorsed by the High Court, when they confirmed the prohibition on mail order supply of `R18`s. Of course, 9 Songs is not `suitable` for children (and nor is any `18` rated feature film) - that is why they are classified `18`. However, films such as 9 Songs use and depict sex in quite a different way to hardcore pornography (and show considerably less of it). Confining them to a premises whose main intention is sexual arousal (ie a sex shop) therefore seems inappropriate, unnecessary and out of line with the legal requirements.

As for the issue of whether sex shops make it more difficult for people (including the disabled) to gain access to such material, this issue was considered by the High Court and by the VAC. Neither felt that the restriction was a breach of human rights and both agreed that the restrictions were proportionate and justified. However, as we said earlier, it was not the BBFC`s decision to require special sex shops or that certain video works may only be supplied in them. There requirements are enshrined in law and are a matter for the government.
 

Some of these observations from the BBFC clearly show what an obnoxious and repressive piece of legislation the Video Recordings Act is.

• The definitive harm to children of explicit porn is hard to prove or even show in the first place.
• Contextualised explicit porn can be distributed without the extra restrictions yet it would seem unlikely that children can understand the 'context'. It is all the same to them, just less of it
• The measures exist to pander to adults who simply do not want to see porn to be made available
• The High Court and VAC have considered the absolute prohibition on disabled people from accessing porn and don't give a stuff

And to think that lives, and businesses are being ruined by prohibitions, fines and prison sentences on the back of these pathetic justifications for the law. Absolutely shameful!

Golden Age of Stories in Porn

The Video Appeals Committee failed to agree that vanilla hardcore sex should be passed with an 18 certificate.
 

Dear Melon Farmers.

I've been following the appeal made to the VAC concerning the passing of a collection of hardcore videos with an 18 cert and I have to say although I am not surprised at the decision I do think it was the wrong one. I cant really see why they wont pass straight sex with an 18 cert since it's a natural thing that all men and women (or men and men or women and women) do. The whole argument about children being exposed to it is a load of bollocks. Kids cant buy 18 rated films and so shouldn't be able to get a hold of it. Secondly why are the board so concerned about children seeing films like this anyway since they obviously don't mind or aren't worried about them seeing violence in films hence why you don't have to go to a licensed shop to by Switchblade Romance for example. If films do indeed influence people then what you rather your kid was influence by, scenes of love or scenes of violence.

Anyway to my point. Do you think now porn film makers will start moving back to porn films with a storyline ala Deep Throat or Behind the Green Door in an effort to make films that will be passed as 18s while containing hardcore sex. The could even go all out and film them in a foreign language, add subtitles and call them "arty". It would seem to make sense since 9 songs, which is clearly a porno film i.e crap storyline and lots of sex, and Baise Moi, again crap storyline and lots of sex, were given 18s. I am starting to get a little sick and tired of the BBFC changing the boundaries of their guidelines on a weekly basis. As far as I am concerned sex isn't a bad, dirty or immoral thing that will corrupt the nation (especially those impressionable kids) and so should be available in HMV for everyone to buy.

Conned So What Next?

From The Melon Farmers' Forum
 

 While I agree with the complaints that have been made to Ofcom, I have to say that the style of writing of some of them may have done little to advance the cause.

www.xemu.demon.co.uk/censor/response.html

Everyone who considers themselves a melonfarmer should take a look.
 

Interesting reading.

However I would say that you would be wasting your time approaching Ofcon in any manner (in laymans terms or otherwise), its pretty much a closed chapter as far as they are concerned. It really covers what Ofcon already know, and they simply won`t budge on their decision.

I think if you were able to read Ofcons research (which the new code is based on) you would be quite surprised, and based on the contents of their research I think you would be even more confused as to why R18 isn`t allowed under the new code due to be established on the 25th July.

However, as it has been stressed on this board before neither Ofcom or their superiors (government) want to be accountable as the ones who allowed R18 entertainment on UK satellite - this is a major sticking point!
 

I've read the Ofcom research and at best it doesn`t hold water. I agree that complaining to Ofcom is not going to make a blind bit of difference. They had their chance to make changes and went out of their way to justify maintaining the status quo. You are quite correct that the the only way this situation will be changed is if hands are forced. A challenge under the Human Rights Act is probably the only way that anything will change but who will be willing to risk it all and step up to bat?
 

Capt. Rhodes, "shooting yourself in the foot"? Am I really? I don't see how or why you draw that conclusion. I've done the background, I've collected the evidence and I've checked the legal opinion (thanks for the D. Bird stuff too). Parts of my consultation response are even quoted in the Ofcon consultation summary documents. My intention was to give Ofcon a clear signal that I for one was not going to allow that piece of crap they call the Code to go unchallenged. We all know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, the only people who don't know that yet are the general public. Well come Monday the public will know what a piece of crap it is and Ofcon will be under the spotlight and will be made to answer for their transgressions - I will make certain of that. I have not spent the last 5 years of my life complaining to our censorial bodies for nothing - all their responses have been collected and they will be used in evidence against them!

The salient points of the matter are:

1) There is no evidence to support any claims that explicit sexual material is in any way damaging to persons under 18 years of age (the fact 16-year-olds can legally perform any act they are likely to see in a 'sex work' is surely proof of that). Where the law requires protection of 'children' under 18 with restrictions on supply of explicit material, these cannot be supported because there is no evidence that such restriction is required. Clearly then, such requirements are unfounded and thus disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society. Thus the legislation in this area is in breach of human rights.

2) In countries that have more relaxed views on sexual material and where adult material is available to 15 and 16 year-olds, there is a clear indication that sex crime is reduced in severity and far less frequent than in the UK. In countries where censorship has been abolished and any material is freely available to persons of any age, rates of sex crime are the lowest anywhere in the World. Clearly then, the intention of the law and it's interpretation are being distorted by our censorial bodies because they choose to place personal (or public or perceived Government) opinion before hard criminal evidence. One can state with utter certainty that our censorial regime is not benefiting anyone and indeed is causal to rising rates of sex crime. I would assume that this is definitely not what the Government intended but may be that assumption is wrong? I suppose it depends on how vehemently the Government decide to defend their legislation. Time will tell but I suggest if they decide to oppose and ignore the real evidence, then they can be forcibly removed from power because they are not serving in the public interest.

I don't know about you but I think the public is going to take a very dim view of Ofcon, the BBFC, the VAC and the Government when this all becomes very public knowledge on Monday. I am going to force the issue as I promised because I do not make idle threats. If Ofcon and the BBFC et al believe this abuse will be allowed to continue then they are very much mistaken. I drew a line in the sand when I made that comment to Ofcon. They [the censors] have all received ample warning that their views were a distortion of the truth and were not supported by the available evidence and the requirements laid down in law to protect minors (in the case of the BBFC this goes back quite some time).

The censors cannot offer one shred of evidence to support their views. All they can offer is an opinion as to 'what the Government intended' in the letter of the law. Well I put it to everyone: When the Government requires a body to offer protection to children and, all evidence points to the fact that allowing people free and easy access to porn reduces sex crime (involving children), what is the only reasonable and factual interpretation of 'what the Government intended'? It cannot be to maintain a state of high restriction and unnecessary suppression and repression can it? It must mean to allow folks access to whatever they damn well choose to watch by whatever means they choose to watch and, furthermore, abolishment of all censorial notions of imaginary harm. When that imaginary harm is applied to the content and availability of material, sex crime actually increases the incidence of real harm in society (including children). QED

The only people who shot themselves in the foot are Ofcon, the BBFC, the VAC and ultimately the Government legislators, for not keeping track of the findings of censorship studies and the effects on real crime figures, teen pregnancies and, rates of sexually transmitted infections. You see we are talking about the whole gamut of real harm in any society not just sex crime. The status quo in this country is the source of all such harm. Ignorance is not bliss, it is the root of all suffering in this instance, and that is completely unacceptable and totally outside the Government's remit to serve in the public interest.

The truth is out and it is going to rip through our sorry State like the dose of salts I promised. This nation will get its enema and the shit will be washed down the pan.

And I will reiterate my statement to Ofcon; Change that rule now or else...you have had fair warning, you are wrong, your interpretation of the law is wrong and, you do not have a leg to stand on!

And here's a taster of what is to come: OFCOM SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE AND RAPE. STEPHEN CARTER SUPPORTS CHILD ABUSE AND RAPE. THE BBFC SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE AND RAPE. THE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE AND RAPE.

Now, are they going to stand by and let me spread such notions in public? I think not and the only way they can shut me up is to take me to court for libel or change their stinking abusive rules. I have absolutely nothing to fear because I have all the evidence to prove their opinions wrong. I have all the evidence to prove the legislation supporting their opinions is an abuse of human rights too. The censorial regime in this country is DEAD all that's left to do is bury it!

Let me make one or two further points quite clear. Public opinions indeed, any opinions, as to the dangers of any material are worthless. These are nothing more than beliefs and as such have no bearing in a secular society. Only hard scientific fact and solid evidence count for anything lest we fall under the spell of superstitious nonsense. In this respect all our censorial bodies including Government legislators have applied 'religious' superstition when drawing up guidelines and law. One must conclude that we are not living in a secular society. We are not applying logic and reason. We are victims of at least 2 centuries of mystical brainwashing, which colour public opinion, instigate irrational fears and, promote real abuse in our society. This is all going to end.

WE'VE ALL HAD QUITE ENOUGH OF THEIR BULLSHIT!

  Sex Crime, Rights Abuse and The Censor

Earlier this week the Video Appeals Committee found in favour of the British Board of Film Classification to carry on restricting access to perfectly natural sexually oriented material to licensed sex shops with the application of the aptly named Restricted 18 (R18) certificate. This is despite the BBFC having passed several sexually explicit films and videos at the normal ‘get it anywhere’ 18 certificate over the last 15 years or so. In their moments of liberal, level headed thinking, the BBFC have passed works with explicit content such as the self-help Lovers Guide series and more recently films like Romance, Baise Moi and 9 Songs. To the uninformed or prudish eye this probably seems fine but to those who have studied the effects of censorship this seems like a continuation of Britain’s long history of staunch anti-liberalism, human rights abuse and double standards.

It did not come as much of a shock to me to hear that a 14-year-old boy had been charged with the rape of three 10-year-old girls last week. Over the last few years there have been an increasing number of sex attacks on underage girls, one only a few months ago involving two girls in their early teens and a gang of 5 or 6 youths in their late teens. What is shocking is that this trend toward ever more violent attacks against and by the younger generations has all been seen before recently and dealt with rather successfully ­ by the Japanese. What is even more disturbing is that a report of what happened in Japan by Dr Milton Diamond of the Hawaii University, which identified the causes and the method to stop this type of sexual abuse, was copied to the BBFC and Ofcom during their recent public consultations. It was also copied to my MP almost two years ago in light of the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

That report, Pornography, Rape and sex crimes in Japan by Dr Milton Diamond (Int. J. Law Psych. 22(1): 1-22. 1999), confirms without a shadow of doubt that censorship and repressive ideologies create sex offenders. Since the relaxation of such censorial notions in Japan, the Japanese now produce some of the most violent and bizarre pornography on the planet and yet they also boast the lowest incidence of sex crime in the World! And these same benefits from an open and honest approach to sex and sexuality are not isolated to Japan by a long way. In fact, all countries that have accepted sex as a perfectly natural part of life and have embraced often bizarre and (by British standards) degrading pornography have managed to halt or even reverse rising rates of sex crime.

Oddly enough Ofcom commissioned a review of such studies by the LSE during their public consultation this year. The LSE included the findings from Europe and Japan and even noted that in the USA, States that favoured censorship had correspondingly higher rates of sexual abuse than the more liberal one’s next door. However, it would seem that Ofcom prefer to apply their own interpretations of what constitutes moral and psychological ‘harm to children’ rather than accept rape and sexual abuse causes real harm to children. The same position is held by the BBFC and it seems our own Government. They would all prefer to believe that the effects of seeing pornographic material are far worse than being raped and abused. I’m sure there are many thousands of young women and children in Britain today that would rather risk seeing pornography if it meant avoiding the ordeal of rape and the attentions of paedophiles. Just what proportion of the 18,000 victims of sex crime this year will be under 18 I cannot say but there will be some 3000 children abused that is for sure.

To put some proportion and perspective to all this, it has never once been shown that viewing pornography can harm a child morally or psychologically. I’m sure most 15-year-old boys have seen a girlie magazine and downloaded porn from the Internet and it has helped relieve their curiosity and emerging desires. And isn’t that the point of porn ­ to act as a sex aid? Yes it is. That’s what all these studies show. When you grant people of any age the right to safe sexual outlets, they stop attacking vulnerable and innocent victims in order to relieve their pent-up desires.

The time is upon those in positions of power to make a choice. Do we keep up the British front and allow thousands of young men and women to be used and abused or, do we grant everyone freedom to choose a better and safer way to relieve their very natural and very powerful sexual urges? Time to decide Britain, time to grow up and enter the enlightened 21st century instead of living with abusive puritanical ‘Victorian Values’, which were always known to create perverts and sex offenders! Yes it is true that telling people sex is dirty and disgusting stifles their understanding and makes them feel ashamed and in extreme circumstances or with sensitive people this results in real moral and psychological damage and often a tendency toward sexual deviance i.e. paedophilia. Britain must love its sex offenders because our censorial, puritanical regime has been churning them out for nearly 200 years. And that’s the truth of it as any psychologist, sexologist and criminologist can confirm!

So I would say to all those parents of children that have been molested, raped and murdered over the years to stop pointing the finger at the attackers and point is squarely at those that instigated the abuse in the first place ­ the Government and their appointed censors! The truth is out and I for one am sick of hearing the ravings of Government and staunch supporters of censorship and ‘moral values’ when I know that all the evidence says these are the very people who create the environment that generates sex monsters in the first place! The game is up and I ask all those with any knowledge or strong feelings in this area to lobby their MP for a sweeping change in attitudes as soon as possible. The future safety and sexual health of all our children is at stake.

Morning After Ethics

A couple whose contraception failed are expecting their first child after an ASDA pharmacist refused to sell them the morning-after pill. Sarah Sutton and her partner Andy, from Pontprennau in Cardiff, went to buy emergency contraception from their local Asda store in February.

The Melon Farmers said:

ASDA should at least organise an information board that indicates that a nutter is on duty and provide properly researched information about the nearest alternative source that is open for business and has the required stock. Preferably they should employ pharmacists that don't enforce their morality on others.
 

I am a locum pharmacist, and I work for several pharmacy chains and independents. I can prescribe Levonelle-2 (the "morning-after pill") to anyone who needs it [eg under 16s]. This is an important distinction from the over-the-counter sale that any pharmacist can do, which is strictly limited in terms of its licence (for example, it cannot be sold to under-16s).

Anyway, going from the BBC story you featured, the pharmacist in Asda behaved appallingly. She completely failed to comply with the Code of Ethics with regard to the way she treated the woman who was looking for emergency contraception. She should have explained her position to her and told the woman what other avenues she could pursue. In this respect it's not up to Asda to provide an information board with information about the nearest alternative source that is open for business and has the required stock, it was the professional duty of the pharmacist, and one which she completely failed to comply with.

However, some people believe that life begins at the moment the sperm fertilises the egg. I personally do not believe this. The morning after pill works in several distinct ways to prevent conception, only one of which - the prevention of a fertilised embryo implanting on the wall of the uterus - would "destroy" a new life (if you subscribe to this view).

As a pharmacist, though, I have a professional and ethical duty to provide services where I feel they are necessary, and - crucially - to not provide them if I feel they are not warranted or I disagree with them. I personally would never refuse to provide a service such as this on moral grounds. I've been threatened plenty of times by irate customers because I have refused to sell them medication that they are abusing, but that's a different matter entirely.

The issues in the story you feature are issues of professional and ethical duties. The pharmacist mentioned failed in both of those. However badly she handled the situation, though, she has a right to refuse on moral grounds to provide a service.

This is where I take issue with your sentiments of Asda not employing "pharmacists that don't enforce their morality on others". For a start, Asda can't do that, they'd be guilty of discrimination. And anyway, everyone has a right to their own beliefs. In a job where you deal daily with matters of life and death - despite what many people seem to think, it doesn't take five years to just learn how to count tablets - life-or-death decisions must be made with whatever knowledge or beliefs the individual pharmacist has.

The pharmacist in the article probably believes that the morning after pill is a form of abortion. I disagree. She should have dealt discreetly and compassionately with the woman who was looking for emergency contraception, and directed her to where she could obtain it. She failed to perform the relevant professional duties. This is a failure which should be pursued with the relevant authority, namely the RPSGB Inspector. Unfortunately, there are lots of negligent pharmacists out there - just like every other job and profession. I still respect her opinion, though, and I will stand by her right to practice in a manner that reflects her beliefs. To deny her - or anyone else - this right would be to take the first step down a dangerous road.

No Cover Up

The Government has given an assurance that it would never intervene in what magazines choose to publish, following a spate of recent stories about retailer decisions to obscure the front covers of popular men's titles.

The new Minister for Creative Industries James Purnell gave the assurance in the House of Commons in response to a question from Mike Hancock (Lib Dem) who asked what discussions had taken place with (a) the Advertising Standards Authority, (b) the Press Complaints Commission and (c) others about guidelines or legislation to ensure that explicit covers on men's lifestyle magazines are kept out of the reach of children; and if she will make a statement.

Replying on behalf of Department of Media, Culture and Sport Minister Tessa Jowell said Purnell: None. The Government believe that a free press is vital in a democracy and we would not, therefore, seek to intervene in what a magazine chooses to publish. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 and the Indecent Displays Act 1981, are designed to protect children and others from exposure to inappropriate material. Furthermore, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents operates a voluntary code of practice for the display of pornographic magazines; 'lifestyle' magazines are displayed at newsagents' discretion, and customers can seek to influence how that discretion is exercised.

Dear Melon Farmers.

I am pleased and relieved to see that the government will not intervene in the front covers or content of men's magazines. I am also pleased that they will allow newsagents to choose to stock these magazines if they so wish.

The campaign against men's magazines has been orchestrated by so called "liberals" who believe that the depictions of women they show are "sexist". Or they have been deemed as "pornographic" by anti-porn feminists who believe any sexual imagery of women is "oppression" and that men who view such images are potential rapists.

Unfortunatly the government's decision not to intervene in the production of men's magazines may not stretch over to our friends north of the board where MSP like Shiona Baird and pressure groups like the SWAP keep up their campaigns to criminalise and censor all sexual entertainment. Let's hope the Scots get the same freedom as us.

Gutter Stalkers

I am not surprised to see such bollox in the Daily Mail but I am surprised to see MPs getting involved. Surely they should not take the Daily Mail at face value. I urge any other MPs considering joining this bandwagon to take time simply to ask the BBFC about their decision before rushing into false accusations of a lack of transparency.

From the Daily Mail

Culture secretary Tessa Jowell was under intense pressure last night to name the film censors who gave a controversial 12A rating to Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. The decision means under-12s accompanied by an adult can watch the film – even though it contains disturbing scenes of violence. Despite mounting public concern over the move, the British Board of Film Classification has refused to identify the 30 examiners responsible for deciding what ratings are given to films shown in British cinemas. A spokesman said it was an independent body which was not funded by the taxpayer and insisted its employees had a right to privacy. But the stance was condemned at Westminster, with Conservative backbencher

Mike Penning tabling a series of Parliamentary written questions today calling on Miss Jowell to publish the censors’ names. ‘I cannot see why, if they are making these decisions on our behalf, we cannot know what sort of background they have and what sort of people they are’, said the Hemel Hempstead MP. Shadow Culture Secretary Theresa May last night joined the calls for the censors to be named. ‘I firmly believe that the public should have more information about the people who are entrusted with such a hugely important job.’

I have been a daily visitor to this site for a number of years now and nothing has infuriated me more than the way the daily mail want to lynch the BBFC for giving War of the Worlds the right certificate.

After watching the film yesterday afternoon I felt that the violence shown on screen was no more graphic than Terminator 3 or other fantasy films such as Star Wars Episode 3. Yes there is a very high body count in the film but nothing is shown in a gruesome way. People are merely vapourised, preventing any scenes of blood and guts. There is very little in the film that would scare the majority of children who see the film; instead they would probably be more amazed with the effects than anything. I was sitting in the cinema watching the film surrounded by loads of children between the ages of 8 and fifteen and not one of them was scared by the film. In fact all I could here from behind me as I sat watching the film was "ooh" and "wow". This is a summer blockbuster that deserved the certificate it got.

The thing that really annoys me the most though is not that the Daily Mail is moaning about the classification but that the government is actually listening to them. In my opinion nine times out of ten the BBFC do a very good job in classifying films, a much better job than the government could do. The problem is if you believe the media it seems like this country is in crisis as yobish kids terrorise everyone on the streets. What does everyone blame for this? that's right films and games. The government have said on numerous occasions that they would like to have more control on what is shown in cinema and on our screens. Considering they are meant to be pretty liberal Labour government their ideas on film censorship would take us back to the dark ages.

I really hope that this disappears over the next few weeks and doesn't escalate leading to control over the BBFC. As for the Daily Mail I hope there are a lot of people out there, like me who will be once again emailing them telling them to shut the fuck up. I know a lot of people who use this site don't really agree with the role of the BBFC and all I have to say is it's better the devil you know