Dangerous Drawings

The Dangerous Drawings Act

The term dangerous drawing is a contradiction in itself because a drawing is merely marks on paper that represent and idea. No children are used in its making and therefore no children are in danger from a drawing.

It is absurd to say that children could be “groomed” by a drawing because any child old enough to realise the sexual connotations would see that it is not real. If one is to ban drawings then a child old enough to understand them could read the same ideas in a book and the written word would have to be banned.

Sexual mores can and do change and it is an artist’s prerogative to express ideas by making marks on paper of taboo subjects that the artist desires to change by putting these ideas forward. One uses drawings to express ideas that would not be legally possible using children. For example the act states that for the purpose of the act any representation of a person under the age of eighteen would be considered to be a representation of a child. I myself think that this is wrong and that it is my prerogative as an artist to make an image of a person of sixteen engaged in sexual acts because sex at that age is legal.

Freedom of Expression is a quintessential part any democracy. Furthermore
Banning ideas is I breach of Article 10 ECHR Freedom of Expression.

Why is this idea important?

The Dangerous Drawings Act

The term dangerous drawing is a contradiction in itself because a drawing is merely marks on paper that represent and idea. No children are used in its making and therefore no children are in danger from a drawing.

It is absurd to say that children could be “groomed” by a drawing because any child old enough to realise the sexual connotations would see that it is not real. If one is to ban drawings then a child old enough to understand them could read the same ideas in a book and the written word would have to be banned.

Sexual mores can and do change and it is an artist’s prerogative to express ideas by making marks on paper of taboo subjects that the artist desires to change by putting these ideas forward. One uses drawings to express ideas that would not be legally possible using children. For example the act states that for the purpose of the act any representation of a person under the age of eighteen would be considered to be a representation of a child. I myself think that this is wrong and that it is my prerogative as an artist to make an image of a person of sixteen engaged in sexual acts because sex at that age is legal.

Freedom of Expression is a quintessential part any democracy. Furthermore
Banning ideas is I breach of Article 10 ECHR Freedom of Expression.

“Life” sentences








Life Sentences.

 

Mandatory sentences prevent the judge from carrying out his duties and make a mockery of our homicide laws. The life sentence is a mandatory sentence where a person found guilty of murder is not given a sentence but sent to prison without one to be sentenced retrospectively

 

Justice should not only be done but seen to be done, and the proper place to sentence a convicted prisoner is in the court at the time of the offence when all the evidence is fresh, and where the judge, in all his wisdom and experience, can award an appropriate sentence. Not years later by a secret court called the Parole Board who might consider a person’s behaviour in prison more important than the offence itself.

 

Homicides are different as chalk and cheese in their seriousness, ranging from pub brawls to the murder of little children. If the judge’s sentencing powers were restored he could award sentences ranging from probation to 99 years and thus satisfy the public‘s desire for retribution.

Mike Freeman.

Why is this idea important?








Life Sentences.

 

Mandatory sentences prevent the judge from carrying out his duties and make a mockery of our homicide laws. The life sentence is a mandatory sentence where a person found guilty of murder is not given a sentence but sent to prison without one to be sentenced retrospectively

 

Justice should not only be done but seen to be done, and the proper place to sentence a convicted prisoner is in the court at the time of the offence when all the evidence is fresh, and where the judge, in all his wisdom and experience, can award an appropriate sentence. Not years later by a secret court called the Parole Board who might consider a person’s behaviour in prison more important than the offence itself.

 

Homicides are different as chalk and cheese in their seriousness, ranging from pub brawls to the murder of little children. If the judge’s sentencing powers were restored he could award sentences ranging from probation to 99 years and thus satisfy the public‘s desire for retribution.

Mike Freeman.

Repeal the VRA

 




WHY THE VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT IS ILLEGAL
In the English Parliament before a law can be passed it has to be debated on the floor of the House. Also it is extremely rare and almost impossible for a Private Members Bill to become law and illegal if it is not debated first.

The passing of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) was a conspiracy by the Thatcher government. The reason was that the Obscene Publications Act, the main state censorship device, was failing and juries were acquitting pornographers. I myself was acquitted for producing The Videx Video Show in 1983 a hardcore film. I said to the Director of Public Prosecutions "that I have smashed your Obscene Publications Act".

The state needed a new law that would be able to stop the flood of hardcore pornography into the UK. Mrs Thatcher hated porn and thought that it would corrupt the great British public. She stated that the "permissive society" was the greatest threat to our morals and way of life. This disciple of the free market wanted a free market in everything else but porn! Her friend was Mrs Mary Whitehouse the notorious anti Porn campaigner. They got together to draw up the VRA (Mrs Thatcher was a trained solicitor) which would stop the permissive society, born of the Sixties revolution, in its tracks.

A big campaign was started in the media against Video Nasties (horror films with a misogynistic plot) and there was an unholy alliance between the feminists, on the left and the right wing. How to get the Bill through
Parliament. Mrs Thatcher persuaded her Private Secretary, Graham Bright MP to introduce a Private Members Bill (PMB). Thatcher conspired with her cronies and the media and the Video Recordings Bill sailed through Parliament unopposed and undebated. This had never happened before in the history of the house.

The consequences in the UK for filmmakers who desire to make films with explicit sex scenes is that the VRA requires them to submit their films to the BBFC in order to obtain a licence. If the film is then classified R18 it can only be sold in licensed sexshops and it is illegal to sell by mail-order. For this privilege producers are forced to pay approximately 20 Euros a minute.

With the invention of digital camcorders and editing systems the making of films has become democratic. It should be a revolutionary time for budding filmmakers to enter the market and make money. However if they want to put their film on the market it must be submitted to the BBFC, with an upfront non-refundable fee. The cutting crew issue a cuts list if the filmmaker has decided to include any forbidden images. For example, a fist entering a vagina. Some women have smaller fists than penises and this is only one example of state censorship in this country.

The BBFC is not an independent body, as described on its website, but a state institution controlled by the Home Office who issue the criteria for censorship.

The rest of the European market have abolished such censorship years ago, Denmark being the first in 1969 after Dr Berl Kutchinsky of the Copenhagen Department of Forensic Science presented his findings on the effects of pornography The reason everyone in Europe followed the Danish experiment was that sex crimes against women dropped dramatically when pornography became widely available. Now here in the 21st century British filmmakers are still controlled by an illegal, artificial censorship device the VRA 1984.

Mike Freeman.

 

Why is this idea important?

 




WHY THE VIDEO RECORDINGS ACT IS ILLEGAL
In the English Parliament before a law can be passed it has to be debated on the floor of the House. Also it is extremely rare and almost impossible for a Private Members Bill to become law and illegal if it is not debated first.

The passing of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) was a conspiracy by the Thatcher government. The reason was that the Obscene Publications Act, the main state censorship device, was failing and juries were acquitting pornographers. I myself was acquitted for producing The Videx Video Show in 1983 a hardcore film. I said to the Director of Public Prosecutions "that I have smashed your Obscene Publications Act".

The state needed a new law that would be able to stop the flood of hardcore pornography into the UK. Mrs Thatcher hated porn and thought that it would corrupt the great British public. She stated that the "permissive society" was the greatest threat to our morals and way of life. This disciple of the free market wanted a free market in everything else but porn! Her friend was Mrs Mary Whitehouse the notorious anti Porn campaigner. They got together to draw up the VRA (Mrs Thatcher was a trained solicitor) which would stop the permissive society, born of the Sixties revolution, in its tracks.

A big campaign was started in the media against Video Nasties (horror films with a misogynistic plot) and there was an unholy alliance between the feminists, on the left and the right wing. How to get the Bill through
Parliament. Mrs Thatcher persuaded her Private Secretary, Graham Bright MP to introduce a Private Members Bill (PMB). Thatcher conspired with her cronies and the media and the Video Recordings Bill sailed through Parliament unopposed and undebated. This had never happened before in the history of the house.

The consequences in the UK for filmmakers who desire to make films with explicit sex scenes is that the VRA requires them to submit their films to the BBFC in order to obtain a licence. If the film is then classified R18 it can only be sold in licensed sexshops and it is illegal to sell by mail-order. For this privilege producers are forced to pay approximately 20 Euros a minute.

With the invention of digital camcorders and editing systems the making of films has become democratic. It should be a revolutionary time for budding filmmakers to enter the market and make money. However if they want to put their film on the market it must be submitted to the BBFC, with an upfront non-refundable fee. The cutting crew issue a cuts list if the filmmaker has decided to include any forbidden images. For example, a fist entering a vagina. Some women have smaller fists than penises and this is only one example of state censorship in this country.

The BBFC is not an independent body, as described on its website, but a state institution controlled by the Home Office who issue the criteria for censorship.

The rest of the European market have abolished such censorship years ago, Denmark being the first in 1969 after Dr Berl Kutchinsky of the Copenhagen Department of Forensic Science presented his findings on the effects of pornography The reason everyone in Europe followed the Danish experiment was that sex crimes against women dropped dramatically when pornography became widely available. Now here in the 21st century British filmmakers are still controlled by an illegal, artificial censorship device the VRA 1984.

Mike Freeman.