UFC and Mötley Crüe, I'd like to see the rest of his DVD collection...
I wonder if he charged them to expenses..?
(Big Brother - is watching pr0n)
UK Government attempts to re-enact legislation designed to police video recordings are bringing out the censorial tendency in parliament. Last week, the Government introduced the Video Recordings Bill in the House of Lords. The blurb accompanying this legislation states that the Bill "repeals and revives, without amendment, …
It is quite a loophole that music & sports need not be censored.
In fact, we should probably also add BBFC ratings to all CDs, to be on the safe side. I once heard someone say "shit" on a Les Miserables soundtrack CD which is on sale in HMV to any child.
And why should books get a free ride? They should also be classified by the BBFC. Any child can just go in to Borders and buy the complete works of D H Lawrence for under £20.
As for comics, don't get me started! I once saw the Joker fall into a vat of industrial chemicals. It was incredibly graphic. It's appalling that this stuff is on sale to children - in fact, it's even marketed directly at them!
Finally, educational content should simply be banned outright. I once saw - and I'm not joking - a so-called "educational" book for children which included graphic depictions of female genitalia.
These measures will ensure that only wholesome entertainment is consumed by our children, such as toy advertisements and merchandise indoctrination programmes.
This should also ensure full employment for all UK citizens, as the BBFC's workload will be so much increased they'll have to introduce conscription. Yes, people will complain, but it never did us any harm in the 1940s, when everyone was much more friendly than they are today.
I think not. However this law was flawed before and I see no sign that it won't be even if they do push it through. It was an example of knee-jerk politics back when it was passed and it hasn't improved with age. By the glib assertion that they are "protecting children", they are merely seeking to cover up for the neglect of a decent debate and placement of law that would actually do some good.
It's not a neutral question. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/customer/cust_proc_fees.php appears to be BBFC's scale of fees for certification. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/faq/docs/12120.html and http://www.bbfc.co.uk/customer/cust_procMisc_exempt.php comment on exempt status and labelling. For videos it's £6 a minute plus £75 "handling fee" - before VAT, I think, in which case certifying an hour-long recording costs about £510. Then there's lots of extra charges.
There is also a list of disqualifications from exemption - so an educational video about lock-picking probably wouldn't be exempt, nor would "The Year of the Sex Olympics" (actually a BBC drama about a TV show that just locks people in a house with cameras in every room and watches them), nor "Vicky Does the Vatican".
I'd hazard that a large percentage of the children "affected" by these videos would themselves have fuckwits for parents, who won't give a shit about what their kids are doing...
unfortunately, the rest of society is impacted heavily by this minority and the only way that a government can maintain order is through legislation... sucks for the rest of us...
blame the government, they are a bunch of tits, but the main blame really lies with the ignoramuses that are the parents of the said children...
I can see no reason not to classify and rate all and any material however there are the four issues of how material is rated ( to whom it's considered acceptable viewing ), how classifications are enforced and breaches punished, who sets classifications, and the danger of using classification as censorship.
But what do we do about Dr Who which for years has been known to have children cowering behind sofas ?
"Think of the children" - though that's quite likely a crime if you do.
Isn't it a bit pointless even bothering to reactivate a void law which won't be much use soon anyway when everyone downloads instead of buying physical product? Saying that though, you know what that means don't you? Oh yes! Welcome to age ratings on all internet sites, youtube, google results, twitter feeds, discusion forums and news sites!
Sod it, they should go the whole hog and put age ratings on everything! Want to eat vindaloo? Well sorry you can't yet son, not 'till you're 18! Want to wear sunglasses? You got to aged 15 or above for that! Want to snowboard while dressed as a chicken? Well its rated PG so you had better make sure you have an adult with you!
Paris, cos if she had a rating it would be "XXX - Only suitable for those without sight and lacking a sense of smell".
It's from Mandelson, it's designed to bypass Parliament and give Mandy the power to amend copyright law according to his will. It's going to be stuffed full of ill conceived NANNY stuff like this. It's an election year and MPs need to try to save their seats.
So they should kill this bill dead, rather than face 'revelation' after 'revelation' for which Mandy is so renowned.
Labour MPs should ask themselves if they want to defend Mandelson to their constituents. If they want to run on a platform where Mandelson makes non commercial copyright infringement by their children into a criminal offence.
Do they want to have to explain to their constiuents why they will lose the internet because someone *accused* their children of infringement in a "three ACCUSATIONS and you're out" law? I don't think so.
What about the latest kids Ninja movie, do you, Mr MP, want to explain to parents why their kids can't go to see it because it's about Ninjas and NANNY doesn't think the parents should be allowed to take their kids to see Ninja movies?
I think not, Mandy is trouble, this bill is trouble, they should just kill it.
I can't see anything that directly requests censorship, just classification*. It seems reasonable to me that a music video should also be classified in the same way as films do. The idea is about giving consumers (in this case parents) the appropriate information so that they can make a choice as to whether to allow impressionable minors to see these things - in the same way music CDs have the parental warning stickers.
some important points from the article:
"In this instance, Mr Dismore is worried that videos and DVDs primarily concerned with sport, religion or music do not – at present - have to carry a classification."
"We believe that it is important that material which will be attractive to young audiences should be properly labelled to enable parents to know that their children are protected from inappropriate material."
Nothing there about censorship.
*OK, I know the government would like to nanny us and censor / ban anything that would get them votes but I see no problem with age restrictions in themselves and if you have it for films why not for music videos, seriously?
You cannot sell movies that require classification by the BBFC, and if he makes sports videos require classification, then BBFC can censor it. You cannot sell movies in *mainstream* outlets unless they carry the mainstream classification.
You risk jail time if you are in possession of a video that the BBFC refuses to classify if the rozzers think they can get a prosecution under the vague extreme porn law. See animated tiger as a previous example of how vague this is.
So yes it's censorship, even for adults and not only that BBFC micro manage censorship, demanding scenes be removed to qualify for classifications that don't limit the movie distribution.
Typical list is here:
And this NANNY is proposing to put sports videos under the control of the censors and in a bill designed to bypass Parliament and put the power in the hands of Trade Minister Mandelsons??? Is he serious?
If you accept the usefulness (not necessity) of classifying (not censoring) films, then extending that classification to sports, music vids etc is not unreasonable.
For arguments' sake why don't we 'think of the children': how many of you would be happy to buy a music vid for your young niece/son/old granny only to discover that "Sex on Fire" had a rather literal interpretation revolving around someone's wood bursting into flames due to friction (apologies to Micheal Macintyre ;-)! I realise that this is a bit far-fetched, but it illustrates the problem.
I think most of us start frothing at the mouth when some right-wing reactionary starts calling for the banning of video games (e.g.GTA 4) due to the corrupting influence on children. We point out that the game has an 18 certificate and use that to bolster our 'freedom of expresssion' /'we are adults'/'wtf are the parents thinking!' defences. We might not agree with the classification, but if the alternative is censorship, I'll take the 18-rated stuff anytime.
"If you accept the usefulness (not necessity) of classifying (not censoring) films, then extending that classification to sports, music vids etc is not unreasonable."
It's censorship because by giving a higher classifcation they can remove it from circulation, 18 will take it off many TV channels, R will take it from everything but sex shops, unclassified will remove it from the UK completely. So you want classification (like the games do voluntarily) but he is demanding *legal* classification by BBFC, which permits censorship similar to the BBFC does now.
So think sports videos you can only buy in sex shops, or can only buy outside the UK, and that is his ill conceived request. Sure he doesn't INTEND that, but that's the consequence of half assed rushed legislation done for Mandy's friends.
So what 'sports' videos do you think would only be available in sex shops? Perhaps some ManU vs Milwall game where one of the closeups clearly shows (to someone who can lipread) a player swearing? Or a full-contact Asian fighting match where anything up to (and possibly including) death may be shown (cf Enter the Dragon, Steven Seagal et al)? Or something in between?
Similar thoughts apply to music & their accompanying videos. 'Gangsta' culture & their lyrics STM to apply to everything from the late 80s, with a proportionate increase in violent crime rate - 'dangerous' dogs*, knife crime, gun crime, gang culture are all on the rise in the cities & to an extent in rural areas as well
No I don't have an answer, but I /suspect/ (/not/ believe) that in this case the BBFC is a correct move
*There are no dangerous dogs, just dangerous owners. Potential owners of a fighting dog breed should check the parents of the puppy with extreme care - puppy farms exist so you can 'look hard'.
Fighting dog ownres should have their heads examined (or preferably crushed); the breeders who sold those dogs to them sh&$£&$&
But to be far I always thought that the C of E was pretty queasy about that sort of thing - not really the done thing in polite society and all that. No, for the S&M deal you really have to go Catholic. A lifetime of guilt and fear really adds a certain je ne sais quoi to the sexual experience.
Appraently Mötley Crüe's Greatest Video Hits "features topless lap dancing and a George W. Bush lookalike in a limousine with a prostitute".
This is totally outrageous and demeaning. Won't someone please think of the poor prostitutes. They suffer enough stigmatisation without having to endure this sort of association.
* Quite right:
UFC is not suitable for children, so should not be automatically exempt. The sporting exemption should not extend to combat sports. The BBFC should, however, have the right to grant an automatic classification to sporting events carried out under the auspices of a sport's official governing body. The level of violence in competition karate, jiu-jitsu etc is heavily regulated and blood-letting is only ever the result of accidents. PG seems suitable, even without viewing the video. UFC has a predictable amount of blood and injury and it would be safe to say it should always have a mature rating, although I'm not sure whether 15 or 18 is more suitable.
* Quite right:
The modern music video is an entertainment artform, and is often constructed in the manner of a short film (consider the milk cartons in Blur's "Coffee and TV"). The exemption was based on the idea of a performance recording -- a band on stage, an orchestra in the orchestra pit, whatever. A true performance recording maybe should still be exempt, but why should a modern music video by treated differently from any other short film?
* Quite wrong:
That any parliament should introduce wide ranging powers under the justification of preventing the extreme and unarguable case. Publicising the extreme case is nothing more than misleading the public.
was all-male and all-nude, you know.
And you only watch cricket for the streakers.
I will repeat that apparently it costs about £500 to get a one-hour video classified. If that is imposed then lots of innocent little productions will be penalised to the point of being uneconomic. At least as far as being legally released in this country goes. Others will be done but the customer will pay extra to make up the cost.
I will also repeat that there is already a list of naughty elements that will disqualify a production from being exempt, but maybe that list doesn't include everything that should be on it.
Question: What happens if you tell a normal 9-year old boy that he can't watch violent martial arts films? Answer: he goes round the houses of his mates until he finds one whose parents don't won't or can't control what they watch, and he watches it there.
And there is no way you can check on the "parental control" status of all your child's mates, and if you could he would quickly acquire some new mates.
I did ban martial arts movies after finding the kids trying out kick-boxing in the back garden, since I was worried about what they might do to each other's kidneys. I didn't expect that the ban would make them give up the movies, but I did think they might think rather harder before they called my attention to the matter. And the best way to do that, would be by NOT kicking in each other's abdominal organs. I hoped. They both reached adulthood with pretty much a full complement (one appendix went.) Did the fact that I kicked up a shindig about amateur imitations of martial arts have anything to do with it? Dunno.
Mind you, I drew the line at religion.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020