1984 Video Recordings Act *never enacted* ... lulzorz...

[MinionZombie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6808592.ece


People selling adult videos, including pornography, to children are to escape prosecution after the discovery of a Whitehall blunder that means that the 1984 law regulating the video industry was never enacted.

The disclosure that for 25 years the Act governing the classification and sale of videos, video games and now DVDs was never brought into force is a big embarrassment to both Conservative and Labour governments.

It also leaves the industry in disarray with the classification system designed to protect the under-18s from violent and explicit material no longer officially in operation.

Lavinia Carey, director-general of the British Video Association, which represents 90 per cent of the industry, said: “What a ludicrous situation to find ourselves in after all this time.”

[EvilNed]

Regulating porn is one of the most stupid things you can do. Infact, regulating any sort of videomaterial (except child pornography and snuff where people actually come to harm) is just a waste of resources that could be better put somewhere else. Like... cheaper ice cream.

[MinionZombie]

Regulating porn is one of the most stupid things you can do. Infact, regulating any sort of videomaterial (except child pornography and snuff where people actually come to harm) is just a waste of resources that could be better put somewhere else. Like... cheaper ice cream.
:lol:

So you don't think it's wise to have films with ratings and content information so that people can be helped in deciding whether it's suitable for their kids to watch or not?

I don't see anything wrong with putting ratings on porn that you can physically purchase on DVD, although I do think the reaction to R18s in the UK is still a bit puritanical in a way.

Ratings, in general, are a good idea I think. It also helps in the cinema as I for one wouldn't want to go and see Drag Me To Hell with some snot-nosed five year old sat there wailing in terror annoying the fuck out of me, or sitting there seeing Inglourious Basterds while some twelve year old mobile phone jockey yawns out loud because there's no modified cars doing powerslides around corners as Vin Diesel 'acts' or whatever.

I do think however, that how the BBFC go about dispensing the ratings (e.g. in terms of cost, and fuss, especially for indie productions) needs changing though.

[EvilNed]

I think Ratings themselves are a good idea, but I think that both the MPAA and BBFC are miserable, stinking logs of shit at their jobs.

The MPAA will give any film that features swearwords, nudity or sex a higher rating. Wow, good idea, MPAA, shelter the poor kids from nudity! I bet that's something they can't see in the mirror back home! MPAA is a silly christian organization with stupid old nuclear-family-values views.

The BBFC will actually edit out headbutts and shit like that if they feel the need to it. And just the other week they BANNED a film! That's right, BANNED it! Some asian horror film called Grotesque. If you ever ban a fucking film, then it's a serious infringement of rights.

[DjfunkmasterG]

While I can't speak for how you guys across the pond handle things, but the ratings system here in the US is a fucking Joke.

Our rating system is more of a censorship system, case in point, when I submitted Deadlands 1 for rating and they told me to make specific cuts to get an R, which they aren't supposed to do at all, meaning they are restricted in stating what cuts need to be made. They can only say that cuts should be made in order to secure an R, not tell you what scenes to cut.

What was ironic, is Deadlands 2, was more violent, and that passed the first time around, during the work print stage, but because I re-edited it I had to actually resubmit and then was asked to cut things back, after much fuss, I pulled it out of rating... because the newer cut was already 4 second shorter on the three gore scenes combined than the previous original cut submitted.

Our rating system has become a haven for censorship of the highest degree, down to the point where films with actors smoking in it could end up with an R-rating. In fact some of the warnings associated with Ratings for specific films actually state smoking as a reason for the rating.

What kind of a world do we live in when film content is censored because some smokes a cigarette or "fag" I mean what the fuck?

[EvilNed]

Exactly. More and more countries are abandoning their ratingssystem. Sweden made their last "cut" in the 90's, and since hasn't touched a film. Basicly what they do is view the film and give it either a 7, 11 or 15 years of age-limit. All of them can be viewed by younger audiences if accompanies by an "adult". No film, no matter how gory, violent, sexy, or badmouthed, can get a higher rating than 15. I think this is reasonable.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I don't mind a rating system like the one Ned describes, but that will most likely never happen here.

If you get slapped with an NC-17 you might as well just go make a porn. That is the stigma that rating carries with it.

[MinionZombie]

The American problem with the NC-17 rating is pathetic, to be honest. I don't understand the fuss about it whatsoever. Perhaps a re-branding is in order? :p

As for the BBFC - the reason Grotesque was banned is as follows (from the BBFC themselves):


The BBFC has rejected the DVD Grotesque. This means that it cannot be legally supplied anywhere in the UK. The decision was taken by the Director, David Cooke and the Presidential Team of Sir Quentin Thomas, Alison Hastings and Gerard Lemos.

Grotesque is a feature that focuses for the majority of its running time on the sexual assault, humiliation and extreme torture of a male and female victim. The central character abducts, restrains, strips and masturbates both the man and the woman. After this he inflicts grave injuries on the restrained couple, including amputation, eye gouging, castration and evisceration. The torture becomes even more extreme, leading to the gory and violent death of both hostages. The film ends with the killer choosing his next victims.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: “Unlike other recent ‘torture’ themed horror works, such as the Saw and Hostel series, Grotesque features minimal narrative or character development and presents the audience with little more than an unrelenting and escalating scenario of humiliation, brutality and sadism. The chief pleasure on offer seems to be in the spectacle of sadism (including sexual sadism) for its own sake.

“It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to Grotesque, even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the Video Recordings Act, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, and would be unacceptable to the public. The BBFC has a strict policy on sexual violence. With portrayals of sexual violence which might eroticise or endorse sexual assault the Board may require cuts at any classification level.

“Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”

“Rejecting a work outright is a serious matter and the Board considered whether the issue could be dealt with through cuts. However, given the unacceptable content featured throughout cutting the work is not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”

Note:

The Video Recordings Act makes clear that harm is not to be interpreted narrowly as behavioural harm, but may also include more insidious risks, and the Board follows this approach in having regard to, for instance, moral harm and possible desensitisation. The correct legal definition of the harm test was clarified by Mr Justice Mitting in his ruling of 24 January 2008 at the High Court. In that ruling he stated that ‘The task of the Board [...] is to have special regard to any harm that may in future be caused to potential viewers’. The Act also makes clear that harm is not the only issue to be weighed in the balance.

There's a big issue surrounding sexual violence and humiliation in the UK - as such the Last House on the Left was only released fully uncut this year, and why I Spit On Your Grave is still heavily censored.

[shootemindehead]

Great! Now I can watch my old battered copy of 'Cannibal Holocaust' and not fear prosecution!

Oh......wait a minute..........


I'm in favor of classifying movies, but what I absolutely object to is the BBFC making their own cuts to films they have no right to be going near.

It just to drive me mental when I'd buy a video (in the 90's) and find out that the feckin thing had been cut because Ferman was afraid that it might drive me over the edge or something.

There's be no indication on the box that the film within had been cut.

I brought several films back to Virgin and demanded my money back.

Although it's much better now. The BBFC was ridiculously squeamish about the silliest of effects 10 or 15 years ago.

I agree with MZ.

I've never understood the absolute repulsion Yanks have to an NC-17 rating. WTF? It's just a rating.

The fact that that effectively means box-office suicide is amazing to me.

[MoonSylver]

If you get slapped with an NC-17 you might as well just go make a porn. That is the stigma that rating carries with it.

Which is ironic, as the NC-17 rating was created to get away from the "X" rating which came to = "porn" in the public's mind...:D

[MinionZombie]

There's be no indication on the box that the film within had been cut.

A bugger ain't it? Although you can understand why nothing would be on the box - sales.

...

For instance, I've got a heavily censored copy of The Evil Dead. At the time I didn't really notice the cuts, but once I became aware of the cuts - I saw all the piss poor editing that was done to it - then of course the uncut version got released, and now I keep the cut copy on video as a relic of the Ferman era ... as well as a fond memory of my formative years.

As Moon said - it's ridiculous that NC-17 should be so castigated when it was there to do away with the aversion to the "X" rating.

The nonsense with newspapers and broadcasters not wanting to advertise it is pathetic - same even with certain stores not wanting to carry unrated versions, ridiculous!

[capncnut]

It was the other way round for me. As I was the only kid with two VCR's back in school, I used to sell porn tapes to my science teacher, Mr Morris. ;)