The future of Britporn

[steve56]

attn :officer dibble you mean that term politically correct?ican never understand that phrase for some reason.

[Officer Dibble]

Obviously I would have liked to have stuck my oar in earlier, but I was away for the day - having and agreeable lunch and conspiring with one of Britain?s finest exponents of the Gonzo genre!

Officer Dibble.

[Officer Dibble]

No, not in this instance. I meant that when framing the R18 rules and regulations politians and civil servants will not have taken into account 'morals' they would instead have looked at how they could liberalise the R18 regulations without upsetting the moral minority to much, because although they are a minority they are powerful zealots who have very loud voices. Politicians are a cynical lot; nowadays they are only concerned with hanging onto their jobs or getting promotion. They will say anything necessary to chart the smoothest course thorough those waters - their principles change to suit the audience they are addressing. The rules had to be changed, the huge black market in shag videos, the EU, satellite TV and the Internet made it inevitable. However to appease the nutters the politicians had to make it seem like they had no choice and that "Although we can't stop them now, we will of course make it as troublesome as we possibly can for Brits to access real porn."

"Politically correct?" Yes, it is an absurd phrase. Because that phrase and that doctrine is only "correct" is you are a hand wringing, left leaning, Guardian reading, public sector loving, middle class ponce.

Officer Dib.

[buttsie]

Maybe...only two rules in politics...get elected...get re-elected

However I think you underestimate the power and influence of the Church over government policy simply through the numbers they can raise at the drop of a hat to protest.Imagine if they did amend the law...world war 3?

It will take one maybe two generations before their influence is weak enough to change such laws regarding porn.Religious Fanatics can never see the other point of view which is why it will take one or two generations.Unfortunately these same fanatics get to vote..thats democracy at work fro you

cheers
B...OZ

[steve56]

i agree with dibble and buttsie,but ithink most not all mps are hypocritical anyway.

[Spook]

Well seeing that the Guardian's daily sales are plumetting towards the 350,000 mark then that is a remarkably small percentage of British society. Some of them may even be working class, and some may never have wrung a hand in their life.

So you're left with maybe a couple of hundred thousand people who are responsible for the poor quality of British porn, persuading everyone to be politically correct and who are generally responsible for all the evils and woes in society today.

Are you still sure that your views are logical and indisputable or are you simply having an ill-informed, bigoted rant against people who you perceive to be different from you?

Here's a novel idea - why not treat everyone as an individual and only make a decision on whether you like them or not on a one-to-one basis? Does this not sound more reasonable than lumping together a group of disparate individuals, the vast majority of whom you've never met, and deciding that you hate them all & want to give them a slap?

[Paul]

The 'Human Rights Act 1998' formally incorporated the 'European Convention on Human Rights' into domestic UK law (ECHR was already applicable for international relations). The Act guarantees fundamental freedoms, simply it is our 'constitution' rather like the American Bill of Rights. Before this we never had a 'constituion' and could do anything we liked, provided a law never prevented this. They could of made swimming illegal and we could not of done much if anything besides protest. The miners found out that even walking along a street or travelling in a certain direction could be interpreted as illegal, so much for our right to protest then.

Getting more to the point, the 'Human Rights Act 1998' guarantees certain rights e.g. freedom of thought, expression, religion etc. Has there been any test case challenging the UK position on it's sex laws regarding only being able to sell R18 movies in sex shops?

If for example you could only buy a newspaper from a strictly limited small number of outlets, wouldn't that be an indirect restriction on the freedom of thought or expression? Or say I had to go to McDonalds to watch the news, would that be a restriction? If you believe it is, would it not follow that the present restriction regarding the retail of R18 movies in licenced sex shops only, is an indirect restriction on our basic human rights of freedom of thought and expression?

[Bayleaf]

Dibble, this Guardian-bashing must stop forthwith.

Don't forget, if it wasn't for the Guardian we'd all be reading the Daily Mail.

Since all the rest of the UK press is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, Richard Desmond and, er David Sullivan and I've not heard any of them bigging up independent britporn production recently!

[Officer Dibble]

Yes, I would say that the Guardian and the comparatively small percentage of the population who read it do have a disproportionate say on the way this country is run. How so? Well, The Guardian is the favored organ of Labour party supporters, quango committee members, public sector workers (admin, and professional, not manual workers) media journalists, program makers and general luvies (bet Glenda Jackson reads it) These are the key people in national, and local government. These are the people who put the spin on the news, current affairs, dictate how programs are made and put over to the viewer. They can and do have a huge effect on the national consciousness.


I do reckon these views are logical and indisputable. I?m no more ill informed than anyone else who is not a specialist in any particular field. I regularly read quality papers and mags and have an addiction to current affairs programs. ?Bigoted?? Maybe. ?Rant?? Indeed. Different from me? Dam right.

I do wait till I meet an individual to before deciding whether they are cushty or not. I?m not suggesting that all the middles classes are politically correct hand-wringing tossers, but if you meet a politically correct hand-wringing tosser I?d lay a pound to a penny that he or she (mustn?t be sexist, hey?) will be middle class. In fact this would pretty much define you as being middle class, as being middle class is not so much about money, it is more about culture and values.

But it?s true that not all of the middle classes share the poncy, pretentious, politically correct viewpoint. I can vouch for this myself as I have friends and associates who have been to public school, bank at Coutts, have small country piles. I have professional ex grammar school pals who have their own practices. To a man they all like a good shagging video, call girls, hot totty and the like. They are all well disposed to any ?schemes? the Officer comes up with and sometimes come up with a few of their own! One middleclass pal recently demonstrated that he was ?one of the lads? in spectacular fashion when one of his ?schemes? went pear shaped and he ended up hangin? with Jeff Archer!

The point is although they are middle class they are my kind of people because they like to have a laugh, enjoy life to the full, and have no truck with their pretentious, po-faced, politically correct fellows. Also, being educated ?men of the world? they always have an interesting tale to tell. They?re good people to know.

Officer Dibble

[steve56]

ithought neil hamilton would have made a good pm,but then what do i know?