Tee hee

We\’re ruled by incompetents:

People selling adult videos, including pornography, to children are to escape prosecution after the discovery of a Whitehall blunder that means that the 1984 law regulating the video industry was never enacted.

The disclosure that for 25 years the Act governing the classification and sale of videos, video games and now DVDs was never brought into force is a big embarrassment to both Conservative and Labour governments.

One very important question though:

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said that it had received legal advice that people who had previously been prosecuted and convicted would be unable to overturn their convictions or seek compensation.

Why?

If the law was not in effect then such prosecutions were illegal. Of course convictions must be overturned and compensation paid.

Sure, proffering money to people who sold hard core porn to little kiddies sticks in the throat but it\’s nowhere near as shaming as punishing the innocent.

Precisely because we do have rulers who are incompetent we have to insist upon the rule of law.

10 thoughts on “Tee hee”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    They f**k up too often for them to be able to pay out everyone’s costs. So much better to change the legal system to one where they can say “do what we mean, not what we tell you”.

  2. This was a nasty, nasty little law, inspired by Mary Whitehouse and her fellow puritans, and typical of our useless, miserable parliament. I read through the Hansard “debate” on its introduction, a while ago, and it’s the usual crapola of MPs circle jerking about how jolly respectable they are, with sad little Graham Bright saying how he once saw a porn video by accident and how it made him throw up a little in his mouth and- most typical of how we do things here- “It’s not state censorship because we’ve contracted it out to the BBFC”.

    This vile and stupid law should never have got on the books in the first place.

  3. When this law is re-enacted, what’s the betting that it will be retroactive? Accordingly, there’ll be no compensation for the innocent since they’ll be “retroactively” guilty.

  4. Notice the reason that the Act was never officially enacted; the Home Office failed to tell the EC about it, and was thus in contravention of a EU directive. (“Directive” in this context means “arbitrary ruling imposed by unelected crooks somewhere in Belgium, untouched by any vaguely democratic process”.)

  5. Also, note the biased presentation of the article-

    People selling adult videos, including pornography, to children are to escape prosecution

    -presenting this law as *sigh* protecting the children, think of the children, oh lord, who will think of the children?!

    The purpose of the Video Recordings Act was to introduce a comprehensive, extremely restrictive censorship regime, to prevent adults watching what they wished to watch; there was general despair among the Ruling Class that ordinary folks were renting lots of horror and porn videos when this new technology had, for a brief moment, let the sunlight of free choice slip through a break in the clouds of censorship.

    Honestly, I’m sick to death of the children. To hell with the goddamned children. What about the grownups, for once? Oh lord, who will think of the adults?

  6. arbitrary ruling imposed by unelected crooks somewhere in Belgium, untouched by any vaguely democratic process

    Unelected crooks nominated by Europe’s elected heads of government, proposing legislation that has to be approved both by an elected parliament and by Europe’s heads of government?

    While I’d rather the EU parliament had more power at the Commission’s expense, suggesting ‘untouched by virtually any vaguely democratic process’ is just otiose.

    BTW, the reason why this law (unlike most laws) requires the EU to be notified is because it’s a technical standard affecting which goods can be imported into and sold in the UK. In other words, it’s a ‘single market’ thing, not a ‘superstate thing’.

    When this law is re-enacted, what’s the betting that it will be retroactive?

    None. Doesn’t happen under English law.

    there was general despair among the Ruling Class that ordinary folks were renting lots of horror and porn videos

    Not quite: ordinary folks weren’t renting lots of horror or porn; and there wasn’t much despair among the ruling class.

    Rather, there was a random Tabloid Moral Panic, which inevitably succeeded, as you’re never going to get a sizeable array of prominent and respectable public figures standing up for the rights of porn-viewers, pirates and slasher-fans (see also: alleged terrorists; paedophiles).

  7. Pingback: A bunch of stuff « Entitled to an Opinion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *