egafd.com

I will do it if no-one else will. I wont do it if David J will do it as two identical emails from different people will look like an organised thing. It seems this lot have some foolish notion that to even approach the bbfc will result in them being imprisoned in the Tower of London before a swift beheading on Tower Hill.

Things will not change if we are all too meek to question the bbfcs decisions. Even IF they did know who you were(which they wont) why would they care, they classify films thats all, they are not connected to police or C&E. Its not illegal to simply ask them to justify thier decisions.

Have you sent your email yet Dibble. You wouldnt want me to think you were a "cap doffer" would you mate.

hey chaps, I think a lot of you are being unfair on the BBFC, whilst not having seen the uncut film, I am in the position of not being able to judge the rights and the wrongs, but I feel a lot of you are probably in the same position as myself so how can you make unfounded judgements/claims ... there must be a reason for these cuts, and not just something that has suddently materialised ... if you do not like the R18 rule do not but R18, there are plenty of choices as where and how you buy this sort of film.

Fair point crofter but the new head at the bbfc has made no secret of the fact that he will tighten up on what gets through. His predecesser was a bit of a liberal who had no strong anti-porn views. The new bloke is a conservative who has said he wants the government to give him powers to cut scenes merely on the grounds that they are distasteful and to get rid of the "harm" test they apply at present. He also wants to see a stop to bad language in main stream movies so look out for heavy cuts to any films with the f-word, Four Weddings and a Funeral would not have passed his bad language test.

It bothers me not. I only buy uncertificated porn. However I dont want him to start butchering main stream movies by the likes of Tarrantino, Spike Lee or quality british movies such as Train Spotting or any of the good stuff Mike Leigh has put out over the years. We are adults not kids but people like that treat us like babies.

I'm still too chicken! Emails can be traced, so using a false name would be no protection. (Am I paranoid or what?)

Once again, Big Brother's wonderful idea of "censorship" to "protect us" rears it's ugly head. But "it's for our own good" folks, so why we complainin'?

"emails can be traced"??? you're verging on the paranoid delusional with this comment! the bbfc could no more trace someones email than your local chippy.

even if they did (do you seriously believe this to be a possibility?) what on earth do you think they would do with the information? it's worth pointing out that the bbfc is not a governmental body but is funded by the film industry - set up as a means of distancing themselves from direct political interference. this arrangement also suit the politicians, who see it as a convenient mechanism for ensuring that any potential bucks don't stop with them.

what is the point of living in a liberal democracy (and, inspite the inevitable caveats, we do) if we're too timid to take even the most tentative steps towards cross examining those who make decisions on our behalf?

Show a bit of backbone man! You're not committing a crime by taking a different view from the state - well, not yet anyway. So, if you are a regular citizen go for it - it's highly unlikely that you will be dragged of at midnight for "resettlement and retraining"

Officer Dibble is a porno fifth columnist and will not be fronting up the state in this instance - not because he is 'chicken' but simply because he might not be able to continue to further the interests of British adult movie lovers with the spotlight of authority on him. I'm sure you will understand if you think about it magoo. Hey, I have e-mailed government departments in the past to protest at various things and I have even found myself facing the State from the dock! (Case thrown out) So, I guess I've paid my dues in that respect.

But regular Joe's should not be intimidated about questioning the State. Because if you do not, then it may come to pass that the opportunity to do so maybe taken away at some point in a grey Orwellian future.

Officer Dibble.

spotlight? what spotlight?

all you have to do is email them using a sensible pseudonym, via a standard webmail address (yahoo, for instance).

it couldn't be any easier - or less spotlighty, for that matter.

Having seen around a dozen films starring Chandler (one of my fave American performers) I can confirm that the constant high-pitched hamster squeaking is her trademark and she uses it in every appearance.

Yes, I suppose I could, but to tell you the truth I just can't be arsed in this particular instance. As I pointed out before I have in the past made on-line representations to various government bodies protesting at plans to curtail our freedom, spy on us and dictate what, when and how we can access adult entertainment. But in these instances it was a general principle that was at stake, not a particular movie. I haven't see the movie David J refers to, but I have seen the type and genre...and I don?t like them one little bit. They're not erotic, I don't find them sexually stimulating in the slightest degree, they show porn in the very worst light and I give them the very widest berth whenever possible. So, apart from the general principle, I'm not to well disposed to putting myself out for this particular movie.

But following on from that - I've just finished perusing toady's Sunday Times and I spotted an article about Sir Quentin and the BBFC. Apparently, one of his first acts is to liberalise the age categories to make it easier for youngsters to see films like Spiderman and MiB that might contain brief nudity, mild effing and blinding and cartoon style violence. So maybe we have pre-judged Sir Quentin? Maybe all that stuff about him wanting to tighten things up was a load of hype and spin to head off the Daily Mail? I recall that when David Blunkett took up his job he was quoted as saying "I'll make Jack "Boots" Straw seem like a liberal." The reality is that he hasn't really put a foot wrong as far as I'm concerned and has gone further than many could have dreamed on the subject of Cannabis.

I also note that Claire Short is battling to promote the issues of contraception and abortion at the Earth summit despite strong opposition from an unholy alliance of all flavours of conservative, fundamentalist, barking mad religious groups from around the globe. He point is that ?wimmin? and no one else have the right to control their own bodies. Now, Claire might be the classic example of the politically correct, public sector loving prat, but I?m with her 100% on this particular issue. We should all stand up to those who wish to use religious bigotry and dogma to justify laying their laws on all our bodies. Your body is your temple ? no other fucker?s, so tell ?em to stuff it! And in the meantime let?s disestablish Church and State.


Officer Dibble - with today's analysis of the Papers.