egafd.com

This has little to do with the old mary whitehouse religious nuttery and more to do with michael winterbottoms standing as a director. I mean hes a brill director isnt he? "welcome to sarajevo" and "24 hour party people" are two very good pieces of work. He's also well known for his leftish politics and his libertarean stance,thus giving him some kind of artistic license with the censors. The message from the bbfc in allowing this to have a mainstream release is "its winterbottom he wouldnt make porn -its only going to be shown in arthouses therefore maybe this would be a good time to allow it through"
I have to add though that this isnt the first instance of "porn" being granted a "mainstream" release. "the grand old dirty days" a montage of old archive footage found in a french chateau by the director was released uncut last year , and at one point a dog joins in the proceedings!(apparently i havent actually watched the film)

Malcom, yes I?m not convinced over this harm to children argument either. It wasn?t that many years ago when the argument was over ?harm to women? meaning the gentler sex would be more easily upset than the Gents where porn was concerned, fortunately in these slightly more enlightened times we don?t hear this much now.

Although I am not at all convinced about the harm to children argument, I think that if children are fed a lot of highly sexually explicit content that they might well get the wrong idea about what to expect from a sexual relationship. So its not unreasonable that children should be protected from some of the excesses, but I would agree there is nothing that damaging.

The main reason for mentioning harm to children is simply that the regulators keep banging on about it. As such it is the focus of the debate over R18 on subscription TV. On that point I don?t believe that they can formulate an argument that allows the content that is shown on free to air, prohibits R18 on subscription services and applies a consistent approach to protecting children. What this space.

I would laugh my socks off if CCTV and the other godbothers made such a song and dance that 9 Songs got a much broader audience. Sadly I think this is unlikely.

BTW I think you will find that the Good old naughty days was an R18.

I think Ofcom should lobby the dept of transport to ban all vehicles off the road because "children" are both injured and killed by them. Then they should lobby the education minister to get schools banned also because "children" are harmed by school bullies and even on occasions commit suicide. But of course harm to children only matters when "sex" is involved.....Ofcom regulation hypocrites.....

Personally I think if anything on the media is likely to harm children it is the simple "soap opera". These programmes represent the seedy way some adults live their lives and does so in the realms of reality. Examples from such programmes are far more likely to influence and therfor possibly damage children than some explicit images of the technique of procreation.....Rant over and out.

Class this under 'I'm not a prude but ..."

'I would never let my daughter watch this at the age of 16'
16 the legal age of having sex


Dear 'Brother Blue' please produce some tangible proof that your child will be harmed by witnessing sex. It is something the BBFC couldn't come up with.

Your total distress because you are a parent is understandable.


But you still drive a car right?

'I don't think the sight of my Wife's car, driving in the car or seeing other motorists will have the same impression on my daughters mind as the sight of some actor receiving a gobble and spunking on his stomach.'


According to these stats



there were 3,431 road users killed in 2002

2,828 killed or seriously injured
14,231 of all serverities


And remember, most paedophiles are parents.

Brother Blue please learn to read and understand posts before you reply to them.

I have at no stage suggested that children "Should" see porn. I simply stated the obvious that if a child or my child did see porn then there are no cases histories or evidence of the imagined harm that parents like you and regulators think may happen. Get your understanding of a posting straight before blustering on like an idiot.

The post about the cars as any sensible person could see was a tongue in cheek example of how hypocritical the argument is when regulators claim to be protecting children.....

You my friend have got onto your high horse and interpreted things conveniently in a perverse way.