About That BBC Documentary

[Muffinman]

one eyed jack - you say the BBC is just trying to make sure it remains the "moral guardian" and I agree with you.

Pornographers have always been prominent among those condemned by so-called moral guardians. But they responded by making fun of people like Mary Whitehouse, and the general public was obviously sympathetic to that perspective. The pornographers stood for freedom.

It's not so easy to rip the piss out of the BBC, which is what they so richly deserve.

The public have few qualms about porn, but what they don't see is anyone exposing this "moral guardian" aspect of the BBC's tone in documentaries like this. Satire - and even more effectively, ridicule - is what's called for.

While Lindsay Honey might be warm and funny, his wit does not extend beyond the pun (hence, Ben Dover!). Whereas Mike Freeman saw satire and ridicule as integral to his stand for freedom, we now have the spectacle of Britain's best known pornographer ingratiating himself with Britain's moral guardian, and in so doing, subtly endorsing it.

As Reggie Perrin says "I'm sure there were a lot of sneering Jeremy's and Simons producing this film who thought that they would get to see a real porn shoot. Sadly they were disappointed."

Perhaps the industry could come up with a script for a spoof - which would show producers Jeremy and Simon looking in vain, while behind every wall people are fucking. Meanwhile Ben can't seem to get a shag until he's ditched his BBC mates. I see it like one of those Michael Frayn farces, such as Noises Off.

Of course, said spoof will NOT be submitted to the BBFC, and should be packaged with the original documentary (pirated) and sold on the markets and at car boot sales. Now that's freedom.

[Muffinman]

If the internet is true freedom (which once upon a time, it felt like), then what is the BBC doing with its lion's share of online news dissemination?

It is putting newspapers out of business, consolidating its position as the ruling emotional authority in the land (a land which is - courtesy of the BBC National Consensus - now wholly subservient to the EU bureaucracy even though the Irish voted NO to the Lisbon treaty), and creating trouble wherever it sends reporters.

I don't have a TV. But when I do catch the news, I am struck by the feeling that I am back in primary school and the class snitch is telling tales on his classmates to the teacher - "Miss, Miss, Johnny cheated on his Democracy. I saw him stuffing ballot papers in Afghanistan, Miss".

We should take the BBC behind the bike sheds and duff it up.

[eroticartist]

Muffinman,
It would have been good to hear Lyndsay, who worked for Videx Ltd, recount how he came along at the time of the OPS raid on my offices and climbed over the back wall to recover incriminating eveidence from his car!

Videx went into liquidation when I was in prison for allegedly committing violence against police officers during the raid, later dropped, then my offices were occupied by the OPS for months who stole all cash coming in and sent all cheques back to customers! This was how the ludicrously small debt of 7K was created. I had double pagers and whole pages bringing in the cash for months in all the top magazines.

The assetts of the company were declared to be a few hundred pounds including twenty one hour top selling films which were valued at nothing.
Mike Freeman.

[one eyed jack]

Muffin man wrote:

It is putting newspapers out of business....

You make that sound a bad thing (especially where the Screws of The World is concerned)

[Muffinman]

one eyed jack - it IS a bad thing, simply because it reduces the number of players in the media market. Less players means fewer and bigger, and more corporate, entities. When one of those remaining players is the BBC, funded by a tax that ALL political parties are terrified of abolishing, then it is a dangerous beast in my book.

The MPs' expenses row illustrated perfectly how the media is now in charge - and wields its immense power irresponsibly. It was surely not in the national interest to paralyse government over such tawdry revelations (it's not the US Congressional Pork Barrel, or anything like). Yet day after day a couple of hundred columnists, producers, and bloggers - and their self-serving opinions - swamped all the rest of the news agenda.

What the media does - and can do more easily and effectively when there are fewer players - is conflate real public interest with its own version. Real public interest demands the immediate abolition of the license fee (leading to civil war at the Beeb as bureaucrats are sacked, talent fees collapse, etc). For a while, the BBC would try to make all this mayhem into OUR news, but we'd soon get bored.

Unlike pornographers, who have to put their money down to find out if the public want what they produce, BBC producers (Jeremy, Simon, Tristram, etc) use our money to produce what they decide we want.


Mike - there can't be many, but I'm one of them, who have read your serialised story as posted on your website all the way through. Quite a life! I would definitely enjoy a smoke with you if the opportunity arose.

I meant it when I contrasted your conscious pushing of the boundaries in the cause of freedom (of expression, and from authority) with the sad spectacle (which people here either didn't notice, or won't admit) of Lindsay Honey being patronised - willingly - by his BBC collaborators. Nice guy, but no hero.

[one eyed jack]

I was being sarky but you do have a poitn Muffin man...Another good pint to make is all the people who would be out of work as a result of the newspaper business.

Its bad enough unemployment is rising. This means a lot more people with no disposable income and therefore not buying porn.

Gulp!

[Muffinman]

"Its bad enough unemployment is rising. This means a lot more people with no disposable income and therefore not buying porn.

Gulp!"

So, what do producers who recognise this reality do? Is there such a thing as a post-porn career path? Or do they hang in there expecting to die on the job, so to speak?

More pertinently, what do journalists and media people do when their career gets washed up? I suspect that not a few of them have up till now harboured the idea that if all else goes tits up career-wise, they will drop the attitude and go make porn for a living. But that option now looks impossible in Britain - the ratio of producers to consumers, both amateur and professional, is moving towards equilibrium, and profitability is harder to achieve for new entrants. Even getting a foot in the door not guaranteed by any means. Is that not so?

[eroticartist]

They are all cokeheads!
Mike Freeman.