Timmy elsewhereJanuary 1, 2015 Tim WorstallTimmy Elsewhere14 CommentsAt the ASI. It seems we still have media censorship in the UK. Just different people censoring different things. previousA testable proposition on climate changenextTempora, Mores, now the Italians are more English than the English 14 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere” Surreptitious Evil January 1, 2015 at 12:11 pm Keith doesn’t take a day off, does he. Nor is there a subject on which he isn’t an expert. Ian B January 1, 2015 at 12:42 pm Britain’s ability to maintain censorship by various slightly roundabouty means during the supposedly “permissive” era is striking. We just do it by roundabouty ways. The Hansard report of teh debate on the infamous Video Recordings Act- which maintained us as the most resolutely censored “free world” society- is peppered with MPs of both the Left Party and the Right Party backslapping each other about how they were not imposing “State Censorship” like nasty tyrannies, because they were appointing the BBFC to do it, which is rather like boasting that you don’t beat your wife because you paid your friend to hit her with a hammer. The appointment of “other bodies”- these days under the rubric of OFCOM- is the standard procedure, be it the BBFC, the ASA or the latest nasty shit committee, the barely known ATVOD who were appointed a short while ago over cocktails to destroy the already marginal British internet porn industry by making it illegal to show any of their wares to customers. They wield a big stick of arbitrary fines decided by OFCOM. You can appeal of course. To OFCOM. We are, in this regard, a totally shitty country and our ruling class are determined wallowers in this shit, whether they are of the notional left or right. Back with the VRA debate, only one MP dares even slightly to raise a question of whether it is right to be imposing such absolute censorship- before deciding that it is and Parliament, O joy, has “got the balance right”; that being Matthew Parris. For the past generation or so, the internet has allowed us plebs to do an end run around the censorship, as it caught the shits rather by surprise and they’ve had to wait for the feminists to build up a sufficient head of lies to justify imposing censorship on the internet, but we are now at that stage and the freedom to see some tits, bums or politically incorrect speech- never formally allowed in our supposedly free country- is now coming to an end again. Because we are governed by shits. It is also worth noting that generally censorship is only alleviated from a media form when it is no longer dominant. When books were the primary mass media for plebs, they were censored. Then it was cinema. Then video. Theatre censorship was removed largely because theatre had by that point become an almost entirely middle class pursuit, and those dangerous music halls which had so terrified the ruling class had all shut down. The remnants of music hall lived on in TV variety- working class humour, music etc- before being killed off around 1980 by Ben Elton. But anyway, by 1968 theatre was no longer likely to arouse The Masses either in their underpants or politically, so censorship was allowed to lapse. Nowadays, it’s the internet and lap dancing that equivalently terrify the matrons, and so that is where the bully pulpits and legislation are focussed. And so it will continue, while we continue to be governed by shits. Tim Newman January 1, 2015 at 12:52 pm If people didn’t like what was being shown then they wouldn’t watch it and it would quickly fail and be taken off the air. The fear is that too many people will eat it up with a knife and fork, and not wring their hands in anguish. If they thought this kind of stuff wouldn’t still make people laugh, they’d not worry about banning it. Tim Newman January 1, 2015 at 12:53 pm Nor is there a subject on which he isn’t an expert. I wonder if he’s met PaulB yet? Gamecock January 1, 2015 at 1:13 pm “Because we are governed by shits.” Duly elected by the people. It turns out, people like fascism. The Stigler January 1, 2015 at 1:19 pm Ian B, Pretty much spot on. There’s another thing in there: you could always get away with far more stuff in “art house” cinema than you could in regular cinema. The BBFC took a very dim view of True Romance because of the violence against women, but the Belgian film Man Bites Dog had a gang rape scene. The internet has largely taken pressure off cinema. The BBFC has been forced to change from being a censor to being more of a useful guide for parents about what to show their kids. Thankfully, the internet is very hard to censor. The only thing that works completely is whitelisting, and you’d have a lot of pissed off consumers as the Office For Internet Sites would never be able to keep up with various sites about cats and cheeseburgers. Keith H January 1, 2015 at 1:41 pm Actually my daytime job title is “Polymath”. Ian B January 1, 2015 at 1:47 pm Gamecock- I run a democratic restaurant. There are only two menus available, one is stewed beef with custard and the other is offal in Tizer. Sometimes the majority vote for the beef, and other times the offal. This proves that people like beef in custard and offal in Tizer. Stig- The internet is hard to censor, which is why they’ve been switching a great deal to possession offences. Of course the latest round of Matronly Censorship has ruined a number of British businesses- but nobody cares about pornographers anyway- but the real point is setting the stage for (a) blocking foreign websites that show such terrifying horrors as “face sitting”, “squirting” and anything else on the BBFC hankie flutterer list and (b) prosecuting people who have a facesitty, squirty video on their PC. And this will broadly continue until feminism is thrown on the scrapheap of history along with the rest of the 19th century grand stupid ideologies like race science, eugenics etc. So Much for Subtlety January 1, 2015 at 6:13 pm Ian B – “And this will broadly continue until feminism is thrown on the scrapheap of history along with the rest of the 19th century grand stupid ideologies like race science, eugenics etc.” The British had a tendency to ban, and governments a need to regulate, long before feminism came along. And they will continue to do so long after feminism has gone away. Feminists are just the stalking horse the British Establishment chooses to use since people started laughing every time their previously chosen favourite, the CoE, became so ridiculous everyone laughed when they talked about sex. Race is a scientific fact that is not going to go away. Nor is the logic behind eugenics. We will just do it privately, we are doing it privately, rather than collectively. And openly. dearieme January 1, 2015 at 7:43 pm Eugenics is thriving: look at “amnios”. Ian B January 1, 2015 at 8:45 pm SMFS- Depends what you count as the start of feminism. If you start the clock at the second wave (late 60s) you have a point. If you start the clock with the rise of the matrons, you see the cause and effect more clearly. Start the clock at Hannah More, not Betty Friedan. So Much for Subtlety January 1, 2015 at 11:50 pm dearieme – “Eugenics is thriving: look at “amnios”.” And, quietly, it is government policy. Look at the proposals for “genetic counseling” or whatever they are calling it if your child tests for anything utero. Ian B – “Depends what you count as the start of feminism. If you start the clock at the second wave (late 60s) you have a point. If you start the clock with the rise of the matrons, you see the cause and effect more clearly. Start the clock at Hannah More, not Betty Friedan.” How about pointing out that Shakespeare’s theatre was closed by the same sort of Puritans who went off to America and so enlivened the gaiety of the nation? The British like banning things. Feminism is the excuse, these days, not the cause. History January 2, 2015 at 12:29 am Left a few comments at ASI that are awaiting moderation. Ian B January 2, 2015 at 7:18 am SMFS- Hence my model of three puritan waves- the first one culminated in the Civil War, the second was the VIctorians, the third is this one. The matrons rose to (social and moral) power as part of the rise of the second wave and have held moral dominance in the Anglosphere ever since; Hannah More and the Bluestockings can be seen as a kind of prototype of the haridans who dominated (particularly in the USA) the Progressive Era, and thus of the same dominant cohort in this third puritan wave. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.