Based on article from telegraph.co.uk

Stephen Fry has been summoned to the Polish embassy in London on Monday to provide the ambassador with an explanation of his supposedly offensive comments last month about about Auschwitz.

Yes, he is having lunch at the embassy, confirms a spokesman for the Polish ambassador, Barbara Tuge-Erecinska. This meeting is connected to Mr Fry’s remarks on Channel 4. They will discuss a range of issues.

In a debate about the Conservatives’ links with Poland’s Law and Justice party, Fry appeared to accuse Polish Catholics of being complicit in the Final Solution . Remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on, he said.

The Polish embassy had accused Stephen Fry of slander after he suggested Poles had played a role in the Holocaust.

He made the comments on Channel 4 news while talking about the Conservative Party’s links with Poland’s Law and Justice party. The party has members that have faced accusations of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and Fry appeared to hint that Poland may hold some responsibility for the mass murder of European Jews.

Let’s face it, there has been a history in Poland of right-wing Catholicism, which has been deeply disturbing for those of us who know a little history, and remember which side of the border Auschwitz was on, he said.

Based on article from business.timesonline.co.uk

Lord Lester, the leading human rights barrister, is drawing up a defamation reform bill, which would prevent lawyers pocketing excessive fees and would also stop foreigners with tenuous links to this country from using British libel laws to silence critics.

Last week Jack Straw, the justice secretary, signalled that Labour would support reform.

Lester, a Liberal Democrat peer who has been consulting senior figures in all parties, believes that his moderate package will secure widespread support and wants a package of proposals available for whoever wins the election. His bill would:

• Reform the system of no-win no-fee litigation which makes it cheap for people to bring libel actions but expensive for publications to defend themselves.
• End the principle of multiple publication which means that internet sites can be sued over old, archived articles and instead introduce a single publication rule as in the United States.
• Prevent foreigners from suing in the British courts unless they can demonstrate that they have suffered real harm in Britain.
• Give publications a stronger defence against legal action if they can demonstrate that the article was in the public interest.

Lester said he also wanted to end the imposition of cash damages where someone successfully sues. Instead, he insisted that in most cases an apology from the publication should be enough.

Based on article from entertainment.timesonline.co.uk

The BBC has abandoned plans to screen a ballet featuring a deformed Pope who rapes nuns that it had announced as one of the highlights of its Christmas schedule.

Last month the corporation said it would televise In The Spirit Of Diaghilev from Sadler’s Wells as part of a season of ballet programmes.

The tribute to the Russian impresario comprises four acts, each by a groundbreaking choreographer, with the entire production due to be screened on BBC Four next month.

Richard Klein, BBC Four Controller, promised viewers a great watch, hailing the combination of one of the most inventive and musically exciting ballet scores being performed by one of Britain’s foremost dance groups.

But it wasn’t until the production premiered at Sadler’s Wells that the BBC discovered that one of the acts, Eternal Damnation To Sancho And Sanchez by Javier de Frutos, centres on a group of horny priests and a fictional hunchback Pope, who rapes eunuchs and pregnant nuns. The act prompted boos from the Sadler’s Wells audience and a number of walk-outs.

After extensive discussions within the BBC, the corporation has decided to drop the de Frutos section. The three other acts will air as planned during the broadcast on December 18.

A BBC spokesman said: We have decided not to show this particular work as it contains material unsuitable for the pre-watershed slot for which the programme was commissioned.

The BBC said it could not show the Pope act in a separate late-night transmission, with a clear warning, because it would still be considered inappropriate for a pre-Christmas broadcast.

The three other In The Spirit Of Diaghilev acts, which have been favourably received, are not narratively linked so the BBC believes that viewers will not notice the cut.

Based on article from mcvuk.com

Church nutters have accused the video game  Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles of promoting the occult

Bishop Bryant of Jarrow, Archdeacon Brian Smith and Rt Rev John Goddard have all accused the game of promoting such interests amongst the UK’s youth, with the latter stating: If we dabble in this area we open ourselves to influences and put ourselves at risk. I would regard any encouragement for children to be drawn into this behaviour with extreme horror.

Publisher Capcom spokesperson Leo Tan, however, is less convinced about the proposed risk: This is scaremongering and typical religious hysteria. You cannot blame society’s ills on video games. It’s just absurd.

Most games (and movies) like Resident Evil show characters fighting evil not supporting it. Unfortunately the clergy is showing a lack of understanding of the video games industry and is too quick to splash the holy water and lump video games players into stereotypical boxes.

Based on article from inentertainment.co.uk

Jeremy Clarkson is in trouble again, this time with Romanian government

he production team of the BBC two hit series Top Gear have been asked by the Romanian government to remove supposedly offensive remarks made about the country. The Romanian ambassador Dr Ion Jinag was surprised and disappointed by the references to Borat and gypsies.

When Clarkson and his co-presenters Hammond and May visited the Romanian countryside, Jeremy put on a pork pie style hat and talked of entering Borat country. Clarkson said: I’m wearing this hat so the gypsies think I am one. I’m told they can be violent if they don’t like the look of you.

The presenter was also seen washing his face before he said ‘cool, refreshing communist water’. The Romanian embassy said: We anticipate a positive response to our request for changes.

Based on article from ofcom.org.uk

The X Factor
ITV1, 10 and 11 October 2009, 20:00

The X Factor is a popular talent show contest broadcast weekly from late summer until Christmas. A panel of four judges and viewers’ votes decide which act wins the prize of a recording contract. The early stages of the series are pre-recorded with the final stages broadcast live.

During the first live programme, broadcast on Saturday 10 October 2009 from 20:00, the contestant Danyl Johnson (Danyl) performed part of the song And I’m telling you I’m not going which was originally composed as a female lead vocal for the musical Dreamgirls.

The introduction to Danyl’s performance included a set of video-taped interviews with Danyl, the judges and one member of the behind the scenes team which supports the performers. These interviews made clear that Danyl was going to perform a song originally written for a woman

In her critique of Danyl’s performance, X-Factor judge Dannii Minogue made the following remarks: Danyl, a fantastic performance, a true X Factor performance turning a girl’s song into a guy’s song but, if we’re to believe everything we read in the papers, maybe you didn’t need to change the gender reference in it?

In response to this another judge, Simon Cowell (the mentor of Danyl), said: What? What did you say? Dannii Minogue then turned to Simon Cowell and repeated what she had just said: I said if we’re to believe everything we read in the papers then he didn’t need to change the gender reference in it.

Turning to the audience seated behind her she said: No? Don’t believe it? Simon Cowell did not respond immediately to Dannii Minogue’s remarks. Instead, Cheryl Cole gave Danyl her critique of his performance after which Simon Cowell then said: I think I’m missing something here? I think I just heard one of the best performances I ever heard in my life… (turning to Dannii and pointing a pen at her) you can forget playing any of those games with him, I’m not having that, this guy deserves a break. He sung his heart out, give him some credit.

During the following evening’s Sunday Results programme, the judges were provided with the opportunity to comment on the previous night’s events. Dannii Minogue and Simon Cowell said the following: I just want to say sorry to anyone that I may have offended last night with my comments. They were only said with humour and Danyl and I had been joking about it before the show…he definitely was not upset by my comments and I just wanted to let everyone know.

Simon Cowell: …I’ve got to say, I probably over-reacted a bit in the moment. You get very, very protective about your artists. I can say this on behalf of Dannii, she is the last person in the world who would ever do anything offensive like that, seriously…I spoke to Danyl afterwards, he took it in the spirit, it was fun, there was no offence intended and I think back to the show, it’s over.

In total Ofcom received 3,964 complaints about the Saturday night broadcast. In summary, the majority of the complainants were primarily concerned that the remarks made by Dannii Minogue to Danyl were malicious and homophobic and based on newspaper reports about Danyl’s sexuality. Others were concerned that Danyl was publicly embarrassed and humiliated on television. Finally some complainants expressed concerns about the fact that Dannii Minogue seemed to make a reference to a contestant’s sexuality in a family programme broadcast before the watershed.

Ofcom considered Rule 2.3 of the Code: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context. Such material may include, but is not limited to…humiliation, distress…violation of human dignity.

Ofcom Decision: Not in Breach

Ofcom noted that the complaints about Dannii Minogue’s remarks on this edition of The X Factor fell into three categories: some complainants were offended by what they said was the homophobic nature of Dannii Minogue’s comments; some viewers were offended on behalf of Danyl; and others were concerned that the subject of Danyl’s sexuality was referred to at all on a programme like The X Factor.

Remarks allegedly homophobic and malicious

In considering these complaints under Rule 2.3, Ofcom considered whether in its view any potential offence caused by the broadcast of the remarks was justified by the context.

The X Factor is a competition in which performers voluntarily submit themselves to a critique each week by a panel of judges. This format is well established and often exposes contestants to criticism by the judges, sometimes accompanied by the audience’s response. Ofcom also notes that when participating in the finals of the programme contestants voluntarily share to some extent certain aspects of their life stories with viewers. In Ofcom’s view, it was not outside the established nature of the programme for an X Factor judge to make such a comment as Dannii Minogue’s, especially in circumstances where the performer had placed information about his sexuality in the public domain.

In Ofcom’s view Dannii Minogue’s remark queried whether there was any need for him, as someone who had openly discussed his sexuality, to change the lyrics to the song.

Ofcom did not discern a pejorative or homophobic intent behind her comment. Ofcom did not therefore consider that the degree of offence likely to be caused by the broadcast of the remarks was sufficient to bring into question compliance with the Code.

Viewers offence on behalf of Danyl.

A number of viewers were concerned that the remarks made by Dannii Minogue caused Danyl public embarrassment and humiliation and were unfair to him.

In effect these complaints appeared to have been made on behalf of Danyl. While Ofcom’s Code contains rules to protect people participating in programmes from unfair treatment and breaches of privacy (see Sections 7 and 8 of the Code), such complaints can only be brought by the person affected, i.e. the person or organisation alleged to have been treated unfairly or to have had their privacy infringed. In this case, because Danyl, or someone acting on his behalf, has not made a complaint to Ofcom, it has no grounds to consider the complaints in relation to Sections 7 and/or 8 of the Code.

However, Rule 2.3 of the Code envisages that offence can be caused to members of the public by the broadcast of humiliating and/or distressing material (or material which violates human dignity), which may arise from the alleged unfairness to, or infringement of the privacy of, others. Such matters relating to the alleged unfairness to, or infringement of privacy of a third party, can therefore, in some circumstances be considered under Section 2 of the Code without a complaint from the person involved as required under Section 7 or 8.

In considering Rule 2.3, Ofcom regarded the confirmation by Channel that the remarks by Dannii Minogue were not in any way pre-planned and were completely unscripted, as significant. Any evidence that there had been a concerted attempt by the programme makers to raise the issue of Danyl’s sexuality on the live programme would have concerned Ofcom. It would have revealed a failure to consider the potential offence to viewers that such a discussion could cause. In the event, once the remarks were made, Ofcom found that Channel, the broadcaster and the programme makers were immediately alert to the potentially offensive nature of the material and took steps to limit the offence.

Further, it is the case that The X Factor is a well established programme, watched by millions of people. Contestants, particularly those who perform well and reach the final stages, become well known overnight. Details of their performances and personalities are analysed both on television and online, in chatrooms and webforums. Contestants can  expect to undergo a degree of personal scrutiny which will become increasingly intense the further they progress in the competition.

In this case however Ofcom accepts that, although not obvious to every viewer, details of Danyl’s sexuality were sufficiently in the public domain before the remarks were made by Dannii Minogue to justify her references by context. Taking these factors into account, in the particular circumstances and context of this edition of The X Factor, the comments by Dannii Minogue were justified.

Reference to Danyl’s sexuality

Ofcom considered that the remark by Dannii Minogue referred to Danyl Johnson’s sexuality only indirectly. In Ofcom’s view this reference was not likely to cause widespread offence, be understood by any young children who were watching, or shock viewers who came across this material unawares.

Not in breach of Rule 2.3

Based on article from business.timesonline.co.uk

Jack Straw is preparing to draw up proposals for wholesale reform of England’s libel laws.

The justice secretary says the large legal fees involved in defamation cases in English courts are jeopardising freedom of speech, potentially curbing vital debate by scientists, academics and journalists.

The huge payouts awarded to individuals who successfully claim their reputation has been damaged has made London the libel capital of the world.

Last night, Straw warned that the bonanza for lawyers and claimants was having a chilling effect and pledged radical changes. It is very important that citizens are able to take action for defamation if they are seriously defamed. But no-win, no-fee arrangements have got out of hand. The system has become unbalanced, he said.

In measures that are expected to win cross-party support, Straw believes individuals and media groups must have a clearer right to express their views, as in other countries.

A free press can’t operate or be effective unless it can offer readers comment as well as news. What concerns me is that the current arrangements are being used by big corporations to restrict fair comment, not always by journalists but also by academics, he said.

He also wants to see new restrictions on no-win, no-fee arrangements and curbs on legal fees involved in fighting cases. In many cases, lawyers who win libel cases make 10 times the money their clients are awarded. He cited one case in which a regional newspaper was forced to pay damages of £5,000 to a plaintiff but £50,000 to the plaintiff’s lawyer.

The proposed changes are still under discussion, but Straw is keen to begin the process, which could involve a new libel bill, as soon as possible.

The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon
The uncut region 1 DVD is available via UK Amazon

Conquest is a 1983 Italy/Spain/Mexico action film by Lucio Fulci

The BBFC cut the 1983 cinema release by 4:08s

From cuts details on IMDb

• heavily reduced shots of nudity
• cut close ups of sores bursting open
• removed the beheading of the woman and shots of her brains being eaten.

Review from UK Amazon: Truly strange

Set in a land ruled by an evil sorceress called Ocron and her cruel followers. Two warriors unite to bring her down but she too knows about them and seeks to destroy them.

Lucio Fulci’s stab at the fantasy genre is truly strange and highly enjoyable and therefore a must see for fans of Fulci.

Almost every scene is filled with smoke and often the camera is shone with bright sunlight that gives it an atmosphere all of its own. The photography is also impressive with many different colours and shades.

It’s a lively affair with much action as well as some of the most strangest looking monsters you’re ever likely to see.

Being a Fulci film you are guaranteed gory moments and Conquest doesn’t disappoint as there are bloody set pieces throughout. Yes the effects at times are laughable but it all adds to the fun and it’s accompanied by a pounding score by Claudio Simonetti from Goblin.

The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon
The uncut region 1 DVD is available via UK Amazon

Striking Back is a 1985 US drama by Sean S Cunningham

The BBFC cut the 1988 RCA/Columbia video by 54s

From cuts details on IMDb:

• cut to edit drug scenes
• cut shot of a girl’s underwear being removed
• Cut scene of girl being covered in lighter fluid

See review from IMDb: Underrated gem

This very interesting but sadly underrated gem directed by Sean S. Cunningham (Friday the 13th) offers an original variation of both the revenge thriller and vigilante action movie, since it has ordinary common high school teenagers in the lead roles. Basically this means the film begins with harsh but fairly harmless bullying but yet ends with extreme violence and relentless murder.

The transition obviously isn’t very plausible, as mean bully kids don’t just turn into mad dog killers overnight, but The New Kids is nonetheless a competently made and occasionally very suspenseful thriller with tons of action, likable performances and an irresistibly charming 80’s atmosphere.

Cunningham professionally builds up a tense and ominous atmosphere towards a highly explosive and grisly climax with some ultra-brutal killing sequences and engrossing make-up effects.

The extreme violence will undoubtedly appeal to fans of 80’s slashers as well as cheap and sleazy exploitation flicks of the 70’s. The film benefices from an exceptionally great cast, with veteran B-movie stars as well as upcoming talents. Particularly James Spader is excellent and genuinely uncanny as the sleazy leader of the pack. Highly recommended to all type of cult movie fanatics.

Based on article from guardian.co.uk

The digital economy bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will change the way that video games are given age classifications, making age ratings compulsory for all boxed games designed for those aged 12 or above. The Digital Britain report in June called for rules to be introduced that would make it illegal to sell a video game rated 12 or over to an underage buyer, and take away the classification of games from the BBFC.

The report included plans to introduce the PEGI or Pan-European Game Information system, already used in many EU states, as the sole method of classifying video games. It would replace the current hybrid system – which results in games with both a BBFC and PEGI stamp – under which the BBFC only had to classify games that depicted gross violence or sexual content while all other games were classified on a voluntary basis.

Instead, the report called for the Video Standards Council to take over age rating with all games having to be classified. Any developer making a false declaration about a game’s content would face a fine of €500,000 (£425,000). The VSC will be able to ban games it believes are inappropriate for the UK market.

The current PEGI ratings are 3, 7, 12, 16 and 18. The 12 rating, for instance, allows violence of a slightly more graphic nature than would be found in, say, Tom and Jerry cartoons, but only towards fantasy characters. They can also include non-graphic violence towards human-looking characters or recognisable animals. The 12 rating also covers video games that show nudity of a slightly graphic nature but any bad language in this category must be mild and fall short of sexual expletives