^^ I received a reply from Professor Barker today. Given his appearence onthe Nasties doc, I'm sure he won't mind my sharing is with you all. Firstly, my email to hm:
Quote:Dear, Professor Barker
Last night I watched the wonderful documentary Video Nasties: Moral Panic, Censorship and Videotape, and felt I just had to write and thank you for your stance and bravery. At the time of the 'scare' I was an impressionable 14 year-old and while circulation of these films was not massive in my area of the country, I did see one or two - without any detrimental affect, I might add.
It was truly joyous to listen to your common sense, especially in the face of dangerous ex-politicians such as Graham Bright - a man who I feel should have been, at the very least, 'relieved of his duties' when the truth over how he brought about the VRA came to light. Let's not forget this man allowed innocent people to be imprisoned for doing nothing more than stocking films he and his cronies had decided they didn't like.
What's even more sickening about this man, is the way he now admits (without actually admitting) his motives at the time had nothing to do with the contents of these films. There were two stand-out examples of this mocking attitude during the documentary; one featuring the clip from 1983 in which he states that a survey currently underway into the effects of these films, will not only prove they're detrimental to children, but also to dogs. How he kept his face straight I will never know. There he was, openly mocking his own stance and beliefs, and no one even noticed. The second example came when he insisted that a compilation tape featuring offending scenes from a selection of these movies contained genuine murder and death. Despite this, he then explains how he and his colleagues joked about ordering some popcorn before settling down to watch the tape. In saying these things, he was either exposing himself for the charlatan he is, or admitting that he felt it perfectly appropriate to laugh and joke about so called 'snuff' movies. Not to mention, of course - as you yourself state during your summing up at the end of the doc - that these people care not a jot that all these films are now widely available, uncut, to anyone who wants them. I was very disappointed and frustrated that the makers of this documentary didn't grill Bright more thoroughly... bring him to task over the things he was saying and expose him for what he was.
Balance was restored somewhat, though, when the final word went to you - and what a summing up it was! You warn that during the next moral panic, all that went on during the nasties scare will be ignored and disregarded as 'the past'. Well, I fear we are quickly approaching such a state, and this time around Ofcom are the ones doing the shouting, with their constant harassment, goal-post moving, survey-fixing, double-standards, inconsistency and complete absence of logic concerning the free-to-air Adult Channels available on the Sky platform. They are currently doing exactly the same things to these channels, that Bright and his cronies did with the 70s slasher films, and they're not going to stop until they've run them out of business.
Once again, thank you for being the voice of so many people who otherwise would never be heard.
Yours sincerely
And his reply:
Quote:Dear
Many thanks for this email. It’s not the only one I’ve had after the documentary came out, and I have really appreciated every single one of them, I can promise you. To be quite honest, I didn’t have a single idea what Jake West was going to ask me, when he asked if he could interview me, and I certainly didn’t know how he would use me in the film – it was kind of scary and gratifying at the same time!
You are dead right that we are seeing the signs of a re-emergence of this kind of thing right now, and not just over the TV channels that you mention. The BBFC is increasingly running scared of the Daily Mail in its recent decisions to ban films like Grotesque, Human Centipede II (though it part relented on that) and A Serbian Film. It’s very clear from what I am hearing that they are doing this because they are scared of the press coverage of the rightwing press. (A kind of ‘If you can’t hack ‘em, smack ‘em’ attitude, I sense.) But there is also the general rising tide of scares over ‘sexualisation’, pornography and the like.
The only thing that is a bit different now is that I sense there are more people around who are willing to stand up and challenge the nonsense they serve up. I hope so anyway.
Thanks again for the message.
Martin
I made a mental note to tape that Video Nasties doc and promptly forgot! Grr. Still being the Horror Channel it should be on again at some point.
I only look into the babechannel boards every now and again these days as there is sod all to watch on screen, in the hope of seeing that OFCOM have seen the light and are turning the clock back two years....alas.....
@Wanderer and followers of the Freedom of Information thread
Is this where we should discuss issues (no pun intended) from the thread? (move if you prefer)
First of all, many thanks for your work in making the requests to Ofcom, for posting all the information and in giving your take on it. Very insightful and I hope the thread continues. Presumably you would be happy if others joined in with whatever they might learn from a similar request.
It was interesting from the table they provide they only had two examples of complaints about the appearance of ejaculate from the babechannels (I assume that is what 'Adult Chat' refers to). One at night was not upheld and the other during the dayshows (??!), must've been quite a conversation!
(26-11-2011 21:16 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]@Wanderer and followers of the Freedom of Information thread
Is this where we should discuss issues (no pun intended) from the thread? (move if you prefer)
First of all, many thanks for your work in making the requests to Ofcom, for posting all the information and in giving your take on it. Very insightful and I hope the thread continues. Presumably you would be happy if others joined in with whatever they might learn from a similar request.
It was interesting from the table they provide they only had two examples of complaints about the appearance of ejaculate from the babechannels (I assume that is what 'Adult Chat' refers to). One at night was not upheld and the other during the dayshows (??!), must've been quite a conversation!
Yes, this would be good place for discussion about the issues raised by Ofcom responses. There should be discussion of some of the points. My only concern is that if discussion is in the FoI thread it quickly becomes difficult to find responses and conversations get broken up. There is a bit more to come but not much. As you can see it has taken months to get this far and Ofcom as losing patience with me. I'm sure other people have information it would be useful to share. BTW I tried forwarding this is to WhatDoTheyKnow, a charity that specialises in FoI requests, but they pointed out they cannot confirm the genuineness of responses unless the original request is submitted through them. Having standards based FoI responses to lots of people collected together would be helpful. If posting remember to include Ofcom's FoI reference number.
Here's a poser. If Ofcom rules and decisions are based on research how come it changes year to year?
(26-11-2011 21:16 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]It was interesting from the table they provide they only had two examples of complaints about the appearance of ejaculate from the babechannels (I assume that is what 'Adult Chat' refers to). One at night was not upheld and the other during the dayshows (??!)
I miss all the good shit! Seriously, ejaculate on a dayshow... never happened, did it.
(27-11-2011 02:10 )StanTheMan Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2011 21:16 )Roquentin Wrote: [ -> ]It was interesting from the table they provide they only had two examples of complaints about the appearance of ejaculate from the babechannels (I assume that is what 'Adult Chat' refers to). One at night was not upheld and the other during the dayshows (??!)
I miss all the good shit! Seriously, ejaculate on a dayshow... never happened, did it.
it's actually spit imitating ejaculate!
I think thats the point of the Freedom of Information request. Ofcom introduced "guidance", in reality an inflexible binding rule set in concrete, that banned spit, drops of baby oil, etc, anything that might be used as pretent ejaculate and claimed widespread offence as justification. But it turns out there have only ever been what, two relevant complains about babeshows and one of those was rejected.
So much for an evidence based regulator.
Hi guys, there's one thing that puzzles me a bit is the fact that on freeview TV just after the news channels that it clearly states Adult Section, to let the people no that if they choose to continue they will be seeing Adult material which is clearly down to them if they choose to watch it.
Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems far far easier to carry on flicking through to get the Adult content, than it is through SKY? Of course you can still block the freeview Adult channels if you so wish, however it seems like Ofcom have given the green light for babestation and elite tv to air some, but not all of there channels. So if I assume Ofcom are Happy enough with these channels then why don't all the other babe channels move over to freeview?
Maybe someone could enlighten me a bit, but Ofcom have been playing up the classic shitty excuse that there is a possibility that young people might accidently go on to these channels? And yet go past the news channels on freeview and you can view them lot easier?
Freeview and Sky are separate businesses. Arquiva own most of the Freeview multiplexes and sell them on. To be on both Sky and Freeview a broadcaster has to pay two sets of rental. Not sure how costs compare but bear in mind that Freeview already reaches more homes than Sky and will grown until it reaches every single UK home and multiple sets in backrooms, kitchens and bedrooms. Sky will never have that reach.
Having a larger audience also has a downside - many men sign up to Sky knowing it has babe channels as well as football. Freeview has millions of viewers who never knowingly signed up for Adult channels and are more likely to complain.
So being on both costs more, might bring a larger audience but can also bring more complaints.