WHO?
Pattison is the new Director of Mediawatch-UK, an organisation best known for earwigging the number of naughty words used in the British media, and calling for bans of all manner of things it deems offensive.
Vivienne Pattison
It was founded by the late Mary Whitehouse, and it was originally named the National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association, appealing mainly to Christian voyeurs and eavesdroppers. It changed its name to Mediawatch in 2001, the year in which the professional prodnose died aged 91. The ludicrous John Beyer then took over as it head.
Under Beyer’s ineffectual leadership, Mediawatch began a rapid descent into obscurity, but it did continue providing the press with occasional sound-bytes – and anti-censorship types like yours truly with a great many giggles.
It also inspired the launch of the highly-regarded Mediawatchwatch which has the apt slogan: Watching. Pointing. Laughing.
Pattison, previously an Account Director at Midas Public Relations:
Will be building on the work of her predecessors and providing an independent voice for those concerned about taste and decency issues.
One of Pattison’s first tasks, we assume, is to attract more visitors to Mediawatch’s ailing website, which receives around 1,300 visitors a month, down from 1,750 in March 2006. Contrast that with the number of visits the Freethinker blog has been receiving since the beginning of 2009: about 4,600 a DAY!
Julian Brazier MP
Anyway, Pattison managed to get her name in print when she backed Tory MP Julian Brazier, who wants the movie Saw VI banned.
The certificate 18 movie, which, like its predecessors, has grisly scenes of murder and torture, is set for release at Halloween.
However, local authorities are able to block films and Tory MP Julian Brazier has urged them to do so.
He said:
The British Board of Film Classification is passing more and more violent films. But councils do have the power to ban such films and I welcome any taking this tough line.
However Sue Clark of the BBFC sensibly retorted:
We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment.
Pattison got her penny’sworth in the Daily Express over Saw VI:
Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm is it worth the risk?
This prompted the Melonfarmers to point out that it is:
Always worth considering parallels with religion. Studies link exposure to religion with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that religion can cause harm, is it worth the risk?
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
October 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am
The most ridiculous part of this whole story is the statement by the BBFC: "We believe adults should be free to choose their own entertainment"! When I first read this on Melonfarmers the other day I thought (along with many others) that someone was having a laugh!!
October 14th, 2009 at 8:03 am
There's always an extreme case that disproves the statement. Freedom to choose you own entertainment? – Of Course! However there will always be a line to be drawn. The BBFC is already in place to draw that line , they should be allowed to just get on with the job.
I do however particularly enjoy melonfarmers response highlighting the link between religion and violence. Great stuff!
October 14th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Aye – but on the other hand, any film deemed unsuitable for classification by the BBFC automatically tops my must-see list!
This imbecilic malarkey over movies has been going on since cinema was invented FFS.
Look at the banned films in the 80's – they are all available now in HMV! (barring a handful) Some are even 15 rated.
Julian Brazier (apt name for such a tit) is only making himself look a total canute with this latest hissy fit. And if there is ANY scientific study that suggests a noirmal person can suddenly become violent from watching a film – then I have yet to encounter it. Fucking daily mail reading pricks.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:50 am
What if there is the slightest chance that media violence can prevent harm?
October 14th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The picture of Julian Brazier MP looks like an entry in the Python 'upper class twit of the year' contest…
October 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
My point is that the BBFC advises on age categories. Once you're 18 and can fight in a war, vote for government, drink in pubs etc the law accepts you are able to account for your actions. Below that the BBFC advisory funtion is there for a reason.
The obvious extreme is "snuff" (which is the extreme which disproves the statement I was referring to but not wanting to mention) or other which clearly is unacceptable as the line between a story and reality is crossed. If we're dealing with entirely acted scenarios then the age ratings etc are fine by me. I've never had a particularly strong feeling on Banning movies to be honest , I myself used to really enjoy the horror genre but as I got older I found these not so entertaining – I still respect the right of any to have the option though.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Did you know that for a while he NVLA was known as Clean up national television until somebody pointed out to mary Whitehouse what the abreviation of that was.
I find the statement from the BBFC laughable too, I wanted to play manhunt 2 totally uncut and I would have liked to have seen the japanese movie "grotesque" uncut too but those fucknuts have decided for me that I can't.
I always find it ironic and somewhat hypocritical when religious types want anything with violent content banned despite the fact when it all comes down to it the bible is the ultimate gorefest.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
They won't have even seen Saw VI so how does Brazier know that the violence has been increased? Where was his Lord-ban-a-lot outrage during the previous four sequels, (which the public managed to sit through without turning into kidnapping, torturing psychopaths), or didn't he need the publicity then?
I am only sorry that Mediawatch flipper-wagger Dave Turtle wasn't picked as John Beyer's replacement; the puns would never end. Perhaps he didn't stick his neck out enough.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Fortunatelty for us, though, his name does contain those elusive but much sought-after letters!
Julian Brazier = Jail Nazi re Rub!
Conjures up all sorts of images (well – if you've been watching certain types of film, I suppose!).
Or if you're name just happens to be Max Mosley!!
October 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Fortunately for us, though, his name does contain those elusive but much sought-after letters!
Julian Brazier = Jail Nazi re Rub!
Conjures up all sorts of images (well – if you've been watching certain types of film, I suppose!).
Or if you're name just happens to be Max Mosley!!
October 14th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I've always been staggered at the level of arrogance of people, like Pattison, who can watch a movie and then tell me I cannot. As an adult, I think I can tell the difference between acceptable and non acceptable behaviour and do not need some patronising twat to tell me otherwise.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Agreed, tony e – and that arrogance is doubled in cases such as Pattison's because you can be sure that she hasn't even troubled to watch the movie before pronouncing it unsuitable for the general public. She knows best, you see.
October 14th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
A serial killer in a Western nation leaves a note for the police.
Is he, statistically, more likely to refer in his note to
a. a horror movie or
b. the Bible?
Wonder if anyone has the numbers on that? I know what I think…
October 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
I do believe violence should be limited in media; however not by the religious but with common human values. I have found the saw series quite disturbing, and unnecessary to exist. In counter point I find it highly disturbing that the west generally does not show it's own violence toward other cultures ; aka war, torture, aid ignorance, environmental destruction…. grotesque dramatized violence among citizens is ok, yet, state sponsered violence is not.
Now in north america, we have sex and nudity limited to a great extent. half the population has the naughty bits, and "almost" the other half want to see em… and nearly everyone want to get off… so why is there no general media here where characters flirt and interact, show some skin or have great sex in the context of an respectful relationship. because the religious nuts are afraid of manifesting the natural desires of the flock. containing natural impulse is the control mechanism for growth and stability of their organization. thus sex and nudity are marginalized with senseless art-violence. It is sick what they have created… they don't care what the people want only what builds the precious church
October 14th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I get the impression that this writer thinks that snuff movies, films of actual murders, really exist. Of course I could be misinterpreting him. Competent investigation has established that snuff movies are as nonexistent as satanist cults.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I'm not a fan of violent movies so I have not seen any of the Saw series. Is there anyone here that has seen both the Saw films and the Mel Gibson Passion film who could tell us how they compare? I have seen clips of the passion film and they were pretty revolting and I find it strange that because it is a religious film these people seem to think that the violence somehow doesn't count. Maybe if you wanted to get a real gorefest past mediawatch, some Old Testament stories might do the trick.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Drawing lines like drawing the line on drawings, such as those that make up the film Urotsukiji, which is missing several minutes despite being a cartoon nobody could even mistake for reality?
Or what about the videogame "Rule of Rose", banned entirely thanks to featuring "loligoth" fashion, which resulted in a screaming outburst of hate from the Daily Mail because "loli" sounds a bit like "lolita", when in fact "loligoth" is just mangled engrish, and the fashion itself involves victorian-to-thirties type clothes. Fitting for a game set in the 30's.
(Note: Poster may only have wanted to buy it because it features Zeppelins, including the R101, reportedly the game itself is cack)
October 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
'Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. '
No, the only study which appeared to, actually doesn't.
A 1970's study contrasted reactions of a group of boys to a violent cartoon and another group who had not.
For about half an hour afterwards the boys exposed to the violent cartoon were more agitated. Longer term comparisons (after a day, a week, a month) found no difference between the groups. Psychological assessment found the boys exposed to the violent cartoon had no more interest in committing violence than before.
The researchers concluded that the immediate agitated behaviour was not due to the film content, but the fast cutting and rapidly moving images. No-one after the 1970s would give funds for activity which might cause psychological or physical damage to kids, so the experiment can't be repeated and we will never know more.
Right wing nutjobs continue to quote the experiment without mentioning the full findings and explanation, because there is simply no other study which finds any correlation between violent film and violent behaviour. Believe me, I once taught this stuff to masters level for the British Council and spent a long time looking!
October 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Funnily enough, Harry, I've always found that it is films like The Sound of Music that have come closest to driving me to commit violence!
October 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I agree with most of what you are saying, guest, apart from the first sentence! As Dr Harwood has pointed out above, we are talking about fictional, or at least dramatized, violence here. Appealing to "common human values" is like entering a minefield!(Someone once said that the problem with "common sense" is that it is neither common nor sense!!) And what about ancient myths and legends, which can be brutal and gory, not to mention fairy tales and (as referred to above, again) Bible stories!
October 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I agree with most of what you are saying, guest, apart from the first sentence! As Dr Harwood has pointed out above, we are talking about fictional, or at least dramatized, violence here. Appealing to "common human values" is like entering a minefield! (Someone once said that the problem with "common sense" is that it is neither common nor sense!!) And what about ancient myths and legends, which can be brutal and gory, not to mention fairy tales and (as referred to above, again) Bible stories!
October 14th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
If they were merely rating films according to age, that would be fine, OpenMind, but they're not! ( I used to be a teacher, so I do realize that most parents, especially amongst the teaching profession itself, aren't qualified to look after a hamster, let alone a child!)
Have you actually read the exchanges on Melon Farmers re the BBFC and their ridiculous and arbitrary rules? "Oh, there were 0.06 seconds too much female ejaculation there to avoid 'offending public decency', in our view. Those groans must be reduced by 0.0035 decibels, or the film is liable to 'deprave or corrupt' the viewer" (I exaggerate a little!). How can people make films without knowing beforehand what the rules are; and what a load of tosh in any case!!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Studies link exposure to film violence with violent behaviour. If there is the slightest chance that media violence can cause harm is it worth the risk?
By all means, then, ban The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre–I mean, The Passion of the Christ.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Unfortunately there are always limits; I can think of a few any respectful healthy community would reject.
As I consider a rebuttal as to how and who to compose and impose limits, you are correct… a mine field indeed.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Wrong Impression,
Apologies for the lack of clarity William. The point is more philosophical in nature. The phrase "A man should be free to chosse his own entertainment" is one I agree with providing it causes no harm to another human or animal. The example of a snuff movie (whether proven to be mythical or not) was chosen as the article refers to BBFC. A more resonable example would be drunken idiots giving someone a good beating "for a laugh", entertaining for them yes but at someone else's expense.
Hmmmmn, plenty of clips on YouTube et al of people getting a good smack. Plenty of incidents where convictions have been achieved through evidence taken from the film clips on people's mobile phones.
So, for clarity
#1 I support the right of people to choose their own entertainment
#2 I don't agree with using other peoples suffering for entertainment.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am
As a parent myself , all I need is an indicator as to the genre, content and recommended minimum age for me to decide whether my kids will be sufficiently mature to handle the material.
I believe classification serves a purpose – whether how they do it is agreeable to all (it never will be btw) or not is by the by. Its purpose should not be to remove material from market but define the recommended market for the material. In general I think this is a cerditable idea.
…although I may be too moderate or apologetic in my views.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The studies they refer to are flawed (I'm asuming they mean the Bobo the Clown test). Also, I've watched lots of violent films (I'm a goth, therefore a horror fan) and I'm a massive Doctor Who fan. I've even seen of an uncut version the episode that Mary Whiteshouse asked to be cut (The Deadly Assassin, where the Doctor is held under water by Chancellor Goth) so by rights I should be a axe-wielding psychopath by now…. Only when I think about Richard Littlejohn.
Anyway, Saw's rubbish. People will only go and see it because these idiots are giving the film more publicity. The Daily Mail are probably receiving payments from the studios.
Bride Wars gave me more thoughts of murder and death than the Saw films ever could.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Indeed there's nothing wrong with them doing age ratings, but note that most cuts demanded by the BBFC are in categories aimed at 18 or R18 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....yce… , http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....yce… ).
I wouldn't mind if an actual snuff film was banned, but note that no such films have ever been found.
A curious point is that now that the Video Recordings Act 1984 was found to have never been enacted, the BBFC no longer have any legal powers. It would now be legal to sell or distribute a film or computer game without a BBFC certificate (either one that was banned, or an "uncut" version, or simply one that the producers didn't want to apply for the costs). However, I don't know if anyone has tried this yet – I suspect part of the problem is that the Government has threatened to enact the law (without any debate, no doubt), and no retailer wants to risk stocking an unclassified film.
Sadly the laws seem to be going the other way – some adult porn is now even illegal to possess (so called "extreme" porn), as of 2009, even if it's staged with consenting adults, and even if it's homemade material made by a couple in their bedroom.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
[Posting anon as OpenID doesn't seem to work]
Indeed there's nothing wrong with them doing age ratings, but note that most cuts demanded by the BBFC are in categories aimed at 18 or R18 ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....yce… , http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....yce… ).
A curious point is that now that the Video Recordings Act 1984 was found to have never been enacted, the BBFC no longer have any legal powers. It would now be legal to sell or distribute a film or computer game without a BBFC certificate (either one that was banned, or an "uncut" version, or simply one that the producers didn't want to apply for the costs). However, I don't know if anyone has tried this yet – I suspect part of the problem is that the Government has threatened to enact the law (without any debate, no doubt), and no retailer wants to risk stocking an unclassified film.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
continued…
Sadly the laws seem to be going the other way – some adult porn is now even illegal to possess (so called "extreme" porn), as of 2009, even if it's staged with consenting adults, and even if it's homemade material made by a couple in their bedroom.