egafd.com

'I even got a video sent back in the last month with a record "after viewing 15seconds the BBFC refused to view the rest" (so they said). I have the documents on my desk.'

What film was that? Sounds curious because the BBFC either suggest cuts or outright rejection ( R for rejected). But they stopped after 15 seconds?


'I feel the more extreme stuff if it went in front of a jury you would get a guilty verdict'
You feel or you know? Using the old obscene publications act is so passe. Under the Human rights act you should be able to argue about the harm and the restrictions should be clear, objective and proportional.

They went on to say it became apparant due to the nature of the movie it is avised the producer/distributer views the whole tape and makes cuts before resubmision,,,I think it was a piss of Jim letter. like a dear John..Move is New Blood.
As for the procution bit, would you like to gamble, I certainly would not no jury is going to say they think its normal. Your human rights don't come into the equasion as it is ilegal to beat your self or have anyone else for that matter. There is cases of this type stated already.

Phil McC.

I think what Phil mCc is talking about when he says, quite rightly, that it is illegal to yourself beaten up, is the notorius Operation Spanner. This was a police operation against a group of sado-masochists who were into such things as nailing their foreskins to planks of wood and the like. They were charged with offences contrary to the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Their defence was that as they had consented to the assaults, they were not acting illegally. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled that an assault is illegal even if the victim has consented to it. Clearly their Lordships' verdict is questionable. If it was not, it is difficult to see how boxing is continuing. I do wonder if the defendants had consented to assaults for a reason other than sexual gratification, whether the verdict would have been the same.