bbfc censoring of r18 video

[woodgnome]

yet another speedy (and unexpected!) response, to my follow up message!

>>>>>>>>>

Thank you for your e.mail.

If juries do come to tolerate this kind of material in the future, particularly in a non-violent context, then that is something the Board will have to take into consideration when formulating subsequent policy and guidelines. As you state, standards do change with time, and this is something the Board seeks to recognise. However, the BBFC can only base its current policies on what the law allows at this time. The material you
are referring to is, at the present time, routinely found Guilty
by juries.

It is simply not possible for the Board to classify material against which convictions can be secured, since this would in effect mean licensing obscene publications, which makes a nonsense of the classification process. the Board cannot provide a certificate allowing a video to be released when we believe that the video in question is illegal. Your objection therefore
seems to be against the current public interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act (or the working of the Act itself), over which the Board has no control.

>>>>>>>>>



for my own two penneth, i think that there is a role for the bbfc. it's just that i believe the job should be exactly what it's name would lead you to assume it is - enforcing classification, not censorship!

categorisation has an obvious function which makes the availabilty of all manner of productions a practical proposition - much as traffic lights aid the movement of motor vehicles. but just as i don't see a justifiable role for the bbfc in censoring material, neither do i wish to see it in the hands of one ministry or another. that would make everyone shudder, i agree (including the government, probably!).

prosecution for the production or vending of illegal materials should be in accordance with existing laws which already exist, for example, to protect children from abuse, women from rape, etc.

the concept of obscenity is no longer a practical, or even to many peoples minds, a meaningful, way of defining what is morally acceptable or reprehensible. a growing number of people who comprise todays jurys will not accept the argument of obscenity, if it is within a consensual context. no one is ever going to successfully argue that paedophilia or rape is not obscene, because they are both acts of non consensual violence.

all of the progressive attitudes that make our sociey very different from that of say, the fifties, is as a result of this evolving belief among people, that the individual has an entitlement to live his or her life free from the strictures of other peoples beliefs and predjudices. the line in the sand is drawn at the requirement for all parties to be consenting and of adult age. categorisation and the law is all that is required.

[Callipygea]

I disagree. I think that their logic is sound - they cannot in practice permit scenes that would be found obscene in a court of law because they would then come under enormous pressure from several quarters.
What I quarrel with is that they accept the Police's word for what is happening in the courts. I suspect it is pure fantasy. I can recall very few instances in the last year or two of juries finding anything obscene. The BBFC should not rely on the often corrupt boys in blue; they should do their own research.

[Ben Dover]

OK let's all remember that we had NOTHING until August last year. But, I thought the BBFC was a Government appointed QUANGO if you like, although sadly Jack Straw didn't actually know this when he came to the job. He actually thought it was a Government department and started throwing his weight around when he arrived, only to be pulled to one side where someone had a quiet word in his shell-like and put him right! Any road up, as far as I'm concerned BBFC have been given the power to do their job. If the police are now putting pressure on BBFC to do their bidding, whose running the BBFC? The Police? In my case after Housewife Fantasies slipped through the net with a considerable amount of female ejaculation featured, the Police have now told the BBFC not to pass any more titles featuring this act, because they [the Police] claim it's pissing, and that women do not ejaculate [scary!!] and that would be LIKELY to fall foul of the Obscene Pubs Act. I say, give me the certificate anyway and take me to court [I'm used to it!!!] What do you think the Police reaction to some other public body telling THEM how to do their job would be? Rhetorical question, I think we know, we've seen it enough!! Frankly most people I know would just like to see the Police doing the job of catching muggers burglars and rapists. Still that would mean they'd have to actually do some work, and also they'd have to stop recruiting people with IQ's so low they need regular watering. Much easier to waste my [and your] money sticking their noses in arguing about whether a woman is coming or not. Honestly, you couldn't make it up could you?