Depraved Thinking at the BBFC…BBFC still believe that the sight of an actress licking urine can deprave and corrupt R18 viewers

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbfc.co.uk

The BBFC have just published it’s decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law. It cut 2:35s with the comment: Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984. So even after such a resounding decision to find urolagnia to be not obscene in the only jury case in recent memory, then the BBFC is still citing bollox that licking urine could somehow deprave and corrupt R18 viewers. Methinks the censors have watched a few too many golden showers movies themselves.

Gambling on More Censorship…David Cameron alludes to another route to suffocating people’s fun and the economy

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from publications.parliament.uk

Prime Minister’s Questions. 18th January 2012. Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I was shocked to discover that mainstream terrestrial television carries adverts for online bingo at 5 o’clock in the afternoon and that 31 hours and 55 minutes each week is dedicated to live casino betting and gaming, which has been classified as teleshopping since 2009. At a time when there is ฃ1.45 trillion of personal debt in this country and when we are encouraging people to be moderate in their expectations and behaviour, will the Prime Minister please protect consumers, children and the vulnerable from this kind of activity by asking for a review by Ofcom— The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady raises an important issue about gambling advertisement on television. I am all in favour of deregulation and trying to allow businesses to get on and succeed. Gambling programmes and betting advertising were not permitted until the last Government allowed them in 2007 and they are strictly regulated by Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority. It is not just a question of regulation, as it is also a question of responsibility by the companies concerned. Anyone who enjoys watching a football match will see quite aggressive advertisements on the television, and I think companies have to ask themselves whether they are behaving responsibly when they do that. Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op): On the subject of gambling, Hackney has 90 bookies—three times the national average. Will the Prime Minister listen to the debate that took place yesterday and take action this Friday and instruct his Ministers to support the private Member’s Bill that will be before the House and will give local authorities more planning powers over bookies? The Prime Minister: I will certainly look at the debate the hon. Lady mentions and the ideas expressed in it. We are all for localism and giving local authorities greater powers in these sorts of regards. I will look at the suggestion she makes.

Parents Not Whingeing Enough…UK censors to push their ParentPort one-stop complaints website

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from marketingweek.co.uk

UK censors are partnering with Mumsnet and Netmums to push ParentPort – the website where parents can post complaints about supposedly inappropriate programmes, ads, products and services It seems that there has been a drop in the number of comments and complaints. The government-backed ParentPort – a joint initiative by censors including the BBFC, ASA, Ofcom, the BBC Trust and the Press Complaints Commission, was launched in Octobe. Complaints and comments are thought to have spiked in the weeks after its launch but have since fallen off. The censors declined to provide figures.

The Easily Offended will Just have to Stay Offended…ASA turns down claim of religious offence by bus advert for underwear

Read more ASA Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from asa.org.uk

A poster advertising lingerie, seen on the side of buses in early November 2011, stated Introducing Naked Glamour Calvin Klein Underwear and featured five images of a model wearing a bra and briefs. The complainant, an Orthodox Cherdi Jew, objected that: the ad was offensive to the large Orthodox Jewish population of Stamford Hill, whose religious beliefs required them not to see images of women wearing only underwear; it was irresponsible to display the ad in untargeted media in public as it would be seen by children. Calvin Klein said they did not believe that the ad was offensive or socially irresponsible. They said the ad merely featured the product, their underwear range, being worn by a model. They believed it was reasonable to feature models wearing underwear when advertising these products, and that the ad was neither sexually suggestive nor overtly sexual. They also said their media vendor had not believed that the ad fell into the risky category, and had been happy for the ad campaign to proceed. ASA Decision: Complaints not upheld 1. Not upheld The ASA noted that there was no explicit nudity in the images, and that the ad was for an underwear range. We considered that the nature of the product meant that viewers of the ad were less likely to regard the ad as gratuitous or offensive, and noted that the poses of the model were natural. We considered that the ad might be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, although we recognised that some people with strongly held religious views may find the ad distasteful, we did not consider that the ad was likely to cause widespread offence or serious offence to those with religious views. On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code rule 4.1 (Harm and offence) but did not find it in breach. 2. Not upheld We noted the complainant’s concerns that this ad, displayed on buses, was likely to be seen by children. We considered that the ad may be viewed by some as mildly sexual in nature, as the underwear featured in the largest image appeared sheer in nature, and the product name Naked Glamour was featured. However, we did not consider that the images were overtly sexual, and considered that the ad was acceptable for use in outdoor media likely to be seen by children. We therefore concluded that the ad was not socially irresponsible. On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code  rule 1.3 (Social responsibility) but did not find it in breach.