Allow Foreign TV Channels on Sky

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Why is this idea important?

Margaret Thatcher saw the value of free speech and passed laws allowing UK citizens to easily watch foreign satellite TV channels. Freedom of speech and access to foreign sources helps democracy abroad. Yet in the UK the previous mixed-provider platform on Astra has been replaced with a system controlled by just one broadcaster, Sky. In theory non-UK channels can operate on the Sky platform, but in reality every channel is UK regulated by Ofcom or tacitly approved by Sky. It's market power makes direct competitors or types of channels Sky disapproves of unable to access the UK market. They can't get a transponder slot. If they do,m they can't get listed on the Sky EPG. If they do the cost is £25,000 or more per year.

This is an insurmountable hurdle for, say, a small French regional channel, that might want to broadcast to ex-patriot French working in Britain. A custom dish set-up is not an option for many people, particularly anyone in temporary accommodation.

The Sky platform has just 2 European channels, both bland state run "Best Of" packages. We should be strengthening our ties, not weakening them.

Not a Government issue? Not a freedom issue? Yes, Mr Moderator, it is. It will take Government action to force Sky (and Virgin, BT, etc) to carry european channels on request and at low cost, without UK regulation. (Dual regulation does not work).

Give the UK people freedom to hear the rest of the world, not just what big business wants us to hear.

Stop censorship of those seeking to uphold the Coronation Oath

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

Why is this idea important?

The Coronation Oath –
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to your power cause Law and
Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"
Elizabeth 2: "I will."
The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power
maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Elizabeth 2: "All this I promise to do. The things which I have here
before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Those who want to follow the Laws of God, clearly stated in the Oath, are not being allowed.
At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse, according to this Oath, to God's Laws.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow The Law seek a single Court-room. Support the effort.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/know-your-rights-and-give-judges-less-discretion

Naturism venues

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Child (and adult) protection

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Why is this idea important?

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Naturism in Public Places

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Why is this idea important?

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Censorship

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Ofcom reports

I  believe that the system where one person complains to OFCOM and a report "complaint upheld"! is WRONG.

How much time and money does this cost?

Scrap this Mary Whitehouse hangover – it was OK when we had a few channels but now it is out of date.

We have warnings and pin access on TV channels – if you don't not like a programme switch off.

At OFCOM – It must work something like this: Meetings to analyse complaints,arrange to view programme,view programme – not sure if it offends –  view with Senior Manager. Meeting to agree that an OFCOM rule is breached. Prepare report and run past legal before publication – publish – ITS CRAZY AND IT WASTES A LOT OF MONEY !

 

  

Why is this idea important?

I  believe that the system where one person complains to OFCOM and a report "complaint upheld"! is WRONG.

How much time and money does this cost?

Scrap this Mary Whitehouse hangover – it was OK when we had a few channels but now it is out of date.

We have warnings and pin access on TV channels – if you don't not like a programme switch off.

At OFCOM – It must work something like this: Meetings to analyse complaints,arrange to view programme,view programme – not sure if it offends –  view with Senior Manager. Meeting to agree that an OFCOM rule is breached. Prepare report and run past legal before publication – publish – ITS CRAZY AND IT WASTES A LOT OF MONEY !

 

  

where have all the suggestions regarding bailiffs gone?

I posted a heartfelt plea to have bailiffs brought under control, earlier today.  There were many similar postings.  They've all been removed.  Bailiff companies are able to  have websites removed, which offer advice to people being threatened by these legalised thugs,  so this doesn't surprise, but does disappoint me. 

Why is this idea important?

I posted a heartfelt plea to have bailiffs brought under control, earlier today.  There were many similar postings.  They've all been removed.  Bailiff companies are able to  have websites removed, which offer advice to people being threatened by these legalised thugs,  so this doesn't surprise, but does disappoint me. 

Amending the Video Recordings Act 2010 (1984)

Hello there,

This is my idea and suggestion of amendments to current laws regarding censorship in the United Kingdom.  I have read many other ideas and comments on this same subject, but I feel my idea is much more different from others which have been suggested, and therefore I'd like to make my own seperate suggestion, since it's entirely different from other suggestions which has been made. 

The Video Recordings Act 1984 was largely brought into effect because of the media and public uproar of so called "video nasties".  The Government's then response was to introduce regulation to combat the overflow of material that was being labelled "video nasties".  The BBFC was made the designated state censor and classification of all media, DVD, videos sold in the UK.  I think by today's standards a lot has changed.  Public opinion has changed on what the majority of adults firmly believe in the United Kingdom that they should be allowed to watch, at '18' anything they want as long as it doesn't breach UK law (this is even been proven by the BBFC's own research which they do). Let's face it, how many people coming out of the cinema these days, or after watching a DVD, like let's say Hostel or Saw (which would probably be banned back in the 80's! That shows how much things have changed), or some of the more violent horror movies refer to them now as "video nasties"?  I have yet to hear one person mention or refer to horror movies as a "video nasty" because of its violent or gory content.  I'm 24, and I am a horror fanatic, come to that I love just watching movies.  I have been for a long time.  I love horror movies, and not once has any movie that I have watched made me feel the need to "cause harm to society" by what I have watched.  I think since 1984, the notion of violent films or videos causing harm to people seems kind of absurd these days.  To back it up, there is no real psychological evidence that viewing violent movies could be the cause of anyone getting involved in violence thereafter.  If there is, the brave people at the BBFC who examines DVDs for certificates are very much so corrupted under that test.  I've long believed that if someone is going to do something, whether it be a violent crime or whatever, they are going to do it no matter about whether they've watched this or that.  I don't know how many people may agree or disagree on that, but that's the way I see it. 

Many suggestions on here are asking for most of the VRA to be abolished.  This is not my suggestion at all.  I do not even agree with an "unrated 18" certificate being introduced.  They're forgetting the other laws in the UK, such as Obscene Publications Act, and other relevant legislation.

My idea/suggestion:

The BBFC in my opinion do an excellent role in protecting children and minors from movies that would be entirely unsuitable for them to be watching.  They're experienced, and have the backing of the public when it comes to protecting children from unsuitable material for them.  When it comes to adults however, the BBFC still lacks in some areas.  This has been proven as I have said above by their own research that adults want freedom.  They have told the BBFC in 2005 and again in 2009, that we don't want them telling us what to watch when it comes to movies that are 18 rated.  We don't want people telling us what to watch, unless it breaches the law.  This is where my suggestion solves all these problems, but yet, protects children from unsuitable violent material (also ensures companies are not selling illegal obscene DVDs on the market unwittingly).  My suggestion to the Government is to change the VRA so the BBFC's current '18' certificate does NOT conform to some guideline of "harm" or cutting due to the BBFC's guidelines, but only conforms to the current laws in the United Kingdom which cover obscene material or protection of children (1978 act).  The BBFC when it comes to giving a film or DVD an 18 rating therefore would not be testing it against their own made up set of guidelines, but only going by what would be against the UK law.  Their guidelines is not law.

 For example, let's say if the movie Grotesque (which the BBFC rejected last year because of their harm test [which under my idea would not exist, because there's no real evidence to back it up] and sexual violence policy [a policy of the BBFC's own]) was submitted for an '18' under my idea, it would pass uncut for adults only at 18 because there is no laws being breached under the UK law.  Movies and DVDs that breach current legislation such as protection of children act or obscene material would still be subject to being rejected or cuts, because they would be illegal, and not judged because the BBFC find them unsuitable for adults but because they breach actual law.  The test of harm in the VRA should be replaced by something that would bring effect to my idea.  It would have the backing of the majority of responsible adults in the country that want to see adult movies without BBFC censorship unless the material is illegal, and also to protect younger viewers by still making it illegal to supply age restricted movies.

That way, adults get to see what they want within the law without the BBFC's own guidelines telling adults what to watch at '18', and children are still being protected from age restricted material by keeping the rest of the VRA intact.

Thank you for reading my idea, and I hope it does be considered.  Because today's standards on movies have changed.  Adults are fed up with people telling us what we can't watch because the BBFC consider it to be "harmful".

Barry.

PS: If you back this idea, please comment on it.  It's important to note that unlike other ideas for changing the VRA, mine provides adults to see material within the law and protects children.

Why is this idea important?

Hello there,

This is my idea and suggestion of amendments to current laws regarding censorship in the United Kingdom.  I have read many other ideas and comments on this same subject, but I feel my idea is much more different from others which have been suggested, and therefore I'd like to make my own seperate suggestion, since it's entirely different from other suggestions which has been made. 

The Video Recordings Act 1984 was largely brought into effect because of the media and public uproar of so called "video nasties".  The Government's then response was to introduce regulation to combat the overflow of material that was being labelled "video nasties".  The BBFC was made the designated state censor and classification of all media, DVD, videos sold in the UK.  I think by today's standards a lot has changed.  Public opinion has changed on what the majority of adults firmly believe in the United Kingdom that they should be allowed to watch, at '18' anything they want as long as it doesn't breach UK law (this is even been proven by the BBFC's own research which they do). Let's face it, how many people coming out of the cinema these days, or after watching a DVD, like let's say Hostel or Saw (which would probably be banned back in the 80's! That shows how much things have changed), or some of the more violent horror movies refer to them now as "video nasties"?  I have yet to hear one person mention or refer to horror movies as a "video nasty" because of its violent or gory content.  I'm 24, and I am a horror fanatic, come to that I love just watching movies.  I have been for a long time.  I love horror movies, and not once has any movie that I have watched made me feel the need to "cause harm to society" by what I have watched.  I think since 1984, the notion of violent films or videos causing harm to people seems kind of absurd these days.  To back it up, there is no real psychological evidence that viewing violent movies could be the cause of anyone getting involved in violence thereafter.  If there is, the brave people at the BBFC who examines DVDs for certificates are very much so corrupted under that test.  I've long believed that if someone is going to do something, whether it be a violent crime or whatever, they are going to do it no matter about whether they've watched this or that.  I don't know how many people may agree or disagree on that, but that's the way I see it. 

Many suggestions on here are asking for most of the VRA to be abolished.  This is not my suggestion at all.  I do not even agree with an "unrated 18" certificate being introduced.  They're forgetting the other laws in the UK, such as Obscene Publications Act, and other relevant legislation.

My idea/suggestion:

The BBFC in my opinion do an excellent role in protecting children and minors from movies that would be entirely unsuitable for them to be watching.  They're experienced, and have the backing of the public when it comes to protecting children from unsuitable material for them.  When it comes to adults however, the BBFC still lacks in some areas.  This has been proven as I have said above by their own research that adults want freedom.  They have told the BBFC in 2005 and again in 2009, that we don't want them telling us what to watch when it comes to movies that are 18 rated.  We don't want people telling us what to watch, unless it breaches the law.  This is where my suggestion solves all these problems, but yet, protects children from unsuitable violent material (also ensures companies are not selling illegal obscene DVDs on the market unwittingly).  My suggestion to the Government is to change the VRA so the BBFC's current '18' certificate does NOT conform to some guideline of "harm" or cutting due to the BBFC's guidelines, but only conforms to the current laws in the United Kingdom which cover obscene material or protection of children (1978 act).  The BBFC when it comes to giving a film or DVD an 18 rating therefore would not be testing it against their own made up set of guidelines, but only going by what would be against the UK law.  Their guidelines is not law.

 For example, let's say if the movie Grotesque (which the BBFC rejected last year because of their harm test [which under my idea would not exist, because there's no real evidence to back it up] and sexual violence policy [a policy of the BBFC's own]) was submitted for an '18' under my idea, it would pass uncut for adults only at 18 because there is no laws being breached under the UK law.  Movies and DVDs that breach current legislation such as protection of children act or obscene material would still be subject to being rejected or cuts, because they would be illegal, and not judged because the BBFC find them unsuitable for adults but because they breach actual law.  The test of harm in the VRA should be replaced by something that would bring effect to my idea.  It would have the backing of the majority of responsible adults in the country that want to see adult movies without BBFC censorship unless the material is illegal, and also to protect younger viewers by still making it illegal to supply age restricted movies.

That way, adults get to see what they want within the law without the BBFC's own guidelines telling adults what to watch at '18', and children are still being protected from age restricted material by keeping the rest of the VRA intact.

Thank you for reading my idea, and I hope it does be considered.  Because today's standards on movies have changed.  Adults are fed up with people telling us what we can't watch because the BBFC consider it to be "harmful".

Barry.

PS: If you back this idea, please comment on it.  It's important to note that unlike other ideas for changing the VRA, mine provides adults to see material within the law and protects children.

Repeal the Video Recordings Act

Repeal the gross censorship that is the VRA (1984). At the moment all viewable media that can be purchased in physical form has to be approved by the BBFC and they have a huge say over the standard of material that can be viewed.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the gross censorship that is the VRA (1984). At the moment all viewable media that can be purchased in physical form has to be approved by the BBFC and they have a huge say over the standard of material that can be viewed.

Close Websites Like www.gun-control-network.org

The GCN and other websites like it do nothing to solve the problem.  These types of website put forward a bigoted untruthful and very misleading version of the facts designed only to give the impression of owning the moral high ground.  These harmful sites create fear and prejudice against a segment of society whom they know nothing about and do not understand.  And because of their ignorance they choose to project fear and loathing instead of education and understanding.

Why is this idea important?

The GCN and other websites like it do nothing to solve the problem.  These types of website put forward a bigoted untruthful and very misleading version of the facts designed only to give the impression of owning the moral high ground.  These harmful sites create fear and prejudice against a segment of society whom they know nothing about and do not understand.  And because of their ignorance they choose to project fear and loathing instead of education and understanding.

Do not censor tags to direct people away from certain issues

Don't remove cannabis from the list of most popular tags, whatever the reason. It's clearly a different issue to regulating all drugs so you can't even argue that they should be contained under 'drugs'. Regulating cannabis has a lot more support than regulating all drugs so deserves to be held as a separate law to be repealed/civil liberty to be restored.

Why is this idea important?

Don't remove cannabis from the list of most popular tags, whatever the reason. It's clearly a different issue to regulating all drugs so you can't even argue that they should be contained under 'drugs'. Regulating cannabis has a lot more support than regulating all drugs so deserves to be held as a separate law to be repealed/civil liberty to be restored.

Remove Internet Censorship by the State

To remove censorship of internet content.

Whether I look at extreme right or left wing political literature, or details of how to grow cannabis, or videos of people being killed, the actual act of my clicking hasn't harmed anyone.

Production of the material may still be illegal, following the advice in the material may still be illegal, but the act of clicking and typing shouldn't be.

Why is this idea important?

To remove censorship of internet content.

Whether I look at extreme right or left wing political literature, or details of how to grow cannabis, or videos of people being killed, the actual act of my clicking hasn't harmed anyone.

Production of the material may still be illegal, following the advice in the material may still be illegal, but the act of clicking and typing shouldn't be.

Abolish Flyering Ban Zones and promoter Taxes

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 23 inserted a section into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  The relevant section of the EPA 1990 is 94B and schedule 3A – To give the power to local authorities to fine promoters for littering.

Whether they actually are in the habit of dropping litter or not!

Note that this is not Primary Legislation.  Yet as soon as this became law it was ruthlessly enforced.  As local promoters went under or bust the local authorities involved went into promotion themselves. 

Firstly in the most out of the way places like Sheffield and Newquay where people didn't realise that this wasn't normal in the promotional industries and then in local authority after local authority until eventually the legislation reached Brighton and then finally the
London Comedy Circuit
 

Many promoters now have to pay what are needless TAXes to their local authority to clear up the litter they allegedly create when it should be perfectly possible to identify litter-creating promoters from their own promotional literature.

This legislation was never VOTED for in any MANIFESTO by anyone – it was appended to one act by another.

It doesn't bring in any substantial income to the local authority, it puts promoters and small businesses out of businesses, it gives councillors a political control over promoting which verges on censorship and it's hugely damaging to the live comedy and music industries and hugely expensive to enforce. 

How can Sheffield Council justify charging even the world's most untidy promoter £45 a day to promote their event? Brighton Council even has the brass nerve to charge more for a licence after 7pm on the grounds that their council workers "may have to work anti social hours" in order to pick up litter that may not even neccessarilly be created.  This is just greed by the local authority and bordering on prejudice against the promotional industries.  I mean, why does Cornwall have a flyering ban?  I can understand someone wanting to regulate Leicester Square even though I dont agree with it … but Cornwall?  Yes, I have gigged there it's not the nightlife center of the world (No, offence Cornwall but you know what I mean.

Please sign the petition and help us kill this piece of legislative nonsense

http://londonisfunny.com/petition?page=4#signatures

 

Why is this idea important?

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 Section 23 inserted a section into the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  The relevant section of the EPA 1990 is 94B and schedule 3A – To give the power to local authorities to fine promoters for littering.

Whether they actually are in the habit of dropping litter or not!

Note that this is not Primary Legislation.  Yet as soon as this became law it was ruthlessly enforced.  As local promoters went under or bust the local authorities involved went into promotion themselves. 

Firstly in the most out of the way places like Sheffield and Newquay where people didn't realise that this wasn't normal in the promotional industries and then in local authority after local authority until eventually the legislation reached Brighton and then finally the
London Comedy Circuit
 

Many promoters now have to pay what are needless TAXes to their local authority to clear up the litter they allegedly create when it should be perfectly possible to identify litter-creating promoters from their own promotional literature.

This legislation was never VOTED for in any MANIFESTO by anyone – it was appended to one act by another.

It doesn't bring in any substantial income to the local authority, it puts promoters and small businesses out of businesses, it gives councillors a political control over promoting which verges on censorship and it's hugely damaging to the live comedy and music industries and hugely expensive to enforce. 

How can Sheffield Council justify charging even the world's most untidy promoter £45 a day to promote their event? Brighton Council even has the brass nerve to charge more for a licence after 7pm on the grounds that their council workers "may have to work anti social hours" in order to pick up litter that may not even neccessarilly be created.  This is just greed by the local authority and bordering on prejudice against the promotional industries.  I mean, why does Cornwall have a flyering ban?  I can understand someone wanting to regulate Leicester Square even though I dont agree with it … but Cornwall?  Yes, I have gigged there it's not the nightlife center of the world (No, offence Cornwall but you know what I mean.

Please sign the petition and help us kill this piece of legislative nonsense

http://londonisfunny.com/petition?page=4#signatures

 

Make the BBFC a board of film ‘Classification’

The British Board of Film Classification is a misnomer. Instead of providing a useful advisory service, that enables us to make informed decisions about what we choose to watch, the BBFC acts as a censorship board, cutting, re-editing and rejecting films that are readily available in other countries.

 

This activity is related to the Video Recordings Act (2010) in particular, although my proposal has a wider scope than this piece of legislation alone.

Why is this idea important?

The British Board of Film Classification is a misnomer. Instead of providing a useful advisory service, that enables us to make informed decisions about what we choose to watch, the BBFC acts as a censorship board, cutting, re-editing and rejecting films that are readily available in other countries.

 

This activity is related to the Video Recordings Act (2010) in particular, although my proposal has a wider scope than this piece of legislation alone.

Repeal the Obscene Publications Act of 1959 and 1964

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Why is this idea important?

The Obscene Publications Acts prohibit the production of material likely to "deprave and corrupt" those likely to view it. This is applied to all films being processed by the BBFC, especially pornography.

I would also like to see Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 repealed as it prohibits  'extreme pornography' such as BDSM, bestiality and simulated rape – all of which can be produced with the consent of the participants.

Knowledge should never be illegal

It should never be illegal to own a book such as "The Poor Man's James Bond" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook". The idea that one could be jailed for merely owning "material that could be of use to terrorists" is abhorrent in a free society. Should we criminalise maps because terrorists could use them to plan attrocities? Why then should we criminalise these books? Reading them does not make one a terrorist any more than owning a map of London.

Why is this idea important?

It should never be illegal to own a book such as "The Poor Man's James Bond" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook". The idea that one could be jailed for merely owning "material that could be of use to terrorists" is abhorrent in a free society. Should we criminalise maps because terrorists could use them to plan attrocities? Why then should we criminalise these books? Reading them does not make one a terrorist any more than owning a map of London.

Withdraw government endorsement of the Internet Watch Foundation

ISPs would no longer be required to use the blacklist of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) if they want a government contract as happens now.

Why is this idea important?

ISPs would no longer be required to use the blacklist of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) if they want a government contract as happens now.

Introduce fairer charging by the BBFC for low volume DVD releases

I propose that under the Video Recordings Act sec 4(6) the Secretary of state introduces a special reduced tariff for the classification of 'non-mainstream' DVDs.   Such as for foreign language and world cinema titles where the potential sales may only be a few thousand copies.

The DVD distributor will have to give evidence to the BBFC that the title will sell less than say 5,000 copies in the first year.   And after the first year the distributor will be required to show that the sales have been below this threshold or face a charge for the full cost of classification.

Why is this idea important?

I propose that under the Video Recordings Act sec 4(6) the Secretary of state introduces a special reduced tariff for the classification of 'non-mainstream' DVDs.   Such as for foreign language and world cinema titles where the potential sales may only be a few thousand copies.

The DVD distributor will have to give evidence to the BBFC that the title will sell less than say 5,000 copies in the first year.   And after the first year the distributor will be required to show that the sales have been below this threshold or face a charge for the full cost of classification.

Change publishing laws and prevent sexually provocative pictures appearing in public.

The publishing laws that allow sexually provocative photographs to be on the front of newspapers should be changed to allow them only to be on the inside of the publication.  Newspapers are displayed in many public places without any regard for the civil liberties of the general public walking past.  If pornographic pictures are to be available to buy easily then that's fine; they should just be kept out of view of those children and adults who don't want to see them.

Why is this idea important?

The publishing laws that allow sexually provocative photographs to be on the front of newspapers should be changed to allow them only to be on the inside of the publication.  Newspapers are displayed in many public places without any regard for the civil liberties of the general public walking past.  If pornographic pictures are to be available to buy easily then that's fine; they should just be kept out of view of those children and adults who don't want to see them.

Censorship

I consider freedom of expression to be a basic human right, as such I and indeed everyone should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we personally find offensive, it should not be up to the state or noisy protesters. I suggest the following:

Repeal the obscene publifications act.

Stop bleeping and blurring everything moderately offensive on TV, if some overbearing parent finds it offensive that's their problem not mine.

Stop the BBFC from censoring or banning anything they personal don't like (i.e manhunt 2), Their only job should be age ratings.

Why is this idea important?

I consider freedom of expression to be a basic human right, as such I and indeed everyone should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we personally find offensive, it should not be up to the state or noisy protesters. I suggest the following:

Repeal the obscene publifications act.

Stop bleeping and blurring everything moderately offensive on TV, if some overbearing parent finds it offensive that's their problem not mine.

Stop the BBFC from censoring or banning anything they personal don't like (i.e manhunt 2), Their only job should be age ratings.

Repeal the obscene publication act

This supposes that adult public must be protected from material that may  tend to deprave or  corrupt them.  Yet the same material is openly published in many other countries without anyone becoming depraved or corrupted. Offending material has been  available through the internet  and satellite TV for decades, and has not resulted in the mass populous  being depraved  or  corrupted.

Why is this idea important?

This supposes that adult public must be protected from material that may  tend to deprave or  corrupt them.  Yet the same material is openly published in many other countries without anyone becoming depraved or corrupted. Offending material has been  available through the internet  and satellite TV for decades, and has not resulted in the mass populous  being depraved  or  corrupted.

Public photography

The idea that you cannot take a picture in a public place – especially a "postcard" site in London – because you might be doing it for terrorist reasons is absurd. I believe it has been derived from one of the dozens (hundreds?) of "anti-terrorist" laws enacted by the previous government.

Similarly the "child protection" laws have been interpreted to the point where it is theoretically illegal to take a picture in which any child might happen to appear without needing to get signed permission from their parents (for example, as one of the organisers of our annual local village carnival I cannot take a general view picture to use for future publicity in next year's posters etc if there is any child in it – there always are!).

I think these "regulations" are more over-interpretations rather than strictly laws but they derive from a culture of a nanny state and need to be reviewed through common sense glasses!

Why is this idea important?

The idea that you cannot take a picture in a public place – especially a "postcard" site in London – because you might be doing it for terrorist reasons is absurd. I believe it has been derived from one of the dozens (hundreds?) of "anti-terrorist" laws enacted by the previous government.

Similarly the "child protection" laws have been interpreted to the point where it is theoretically illegal to take a picture in which any child might happen to appear without needing to get signed permission from their parents (for example, as one of the organisers of our annual local village carnival I cannot take a general view picture to use for future publicity in next year's posters etc if there is any child in it – there always are!).

I think these "regulations" are more over-interpretations rather than strictly laws but they derive from a culture of a nanny state and need to be reviewed through common sense glasses!

R18 TV: Allow adults to see R18 porn on TV with safety controls

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.

Why is this idea important?

It is perfectly legal for adults in the UK to buy sexually explicit straight and gay DVDs and magazines. This is not to everyones taste and controls exist to stop people being offended by R18 films. This strength material is also easily available on the internet and mobile phones. Mediawatch UK, the ANTI porn campaign group estimates that 75% of adult males access internet porn, and that increasing numbers of women do. Clearly it is an important part of many peoples lives. Yet UK TV regulator Ofcom bans R18 explicit sex on TV, even late at night on clearly labelled lockable channels. This is a waste of Ofcom resources (they recently took 3 months to investigate a TV channel where the presenter was wearing the wrong colour knickers: Asian Babes,Bulletin 160). By banning this material Ofcom encourages people to access totally unregulated websites and foreign TV channels that permit acts not legal even in R18 films. By banning R18 explicit sex on TV Ofcom is contributing to marital tension and increasing the number of households that access material that could put children at risk. Since this material is totally legal in the UK if on DVD, in a magazine or on a UK website Ofcom is acting irrationally and against its own principles. Allow R18 strength explicit sex material on late night TV channels that can be locked out now.