Gibberish and a bit of rehash

Last week, Pandora had posted a link to where we could lodge a complaint to the ATVOD about the new UK restrictions on what can and can't be filmed. I would link you to that blog, but unfortunately, it seems to be down right now. Anyway, I am hoping lots of people bombed them with complaints. I did, and earlier this week, I received this reply. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's a bunch of buck-passing gibberish.

Thank you for sharing your concerns about the AVMS Regulations 2014 which amend the Communications Act 2013.

As a regulator, ATVOD’s role is to enforce rules set by Parliament. ATVOD has no power to repeal legislation, and concerns regarding legislation are best raised with the relevant Government department (the Department for Culture Media and Sport) or with your MP.

In the meantime, I should point out that the new regulations prohibit on a UK VOD service material which would be prohibited on a UK DVD, and require ATVOD to have regard to BBFC guidelines when considering whether that test has been met.  Some of the acts you describe feature in guidance issued by the Crown Prosecution Service in a list of material most commonly prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act and were therefore likely to be unlawful to distribute on a UK VOD service even before the new regulations came into force. Again, the test set out in the Obscene Publications Act is a matter for Parliament rather than ATVOD, and its application is a matter for law enforcement agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service.  As material which is in breach of the Obscene Publications Act (or any other criminal law) would be refused a classification by the BBFC, providing such material on a UK VOD service is now also a breach of the Communications Act. We have worked with providers of UK VOD services to ensure that they understand the new rules and how they are likely to be applied.

I can assure you that when applying those rules for UK VOD services, ATVOD takes an even handed approach. For example, potentially harmful acts of breath restriction are treated the same regardless of the gender or sexuality of participants. We apply the statutory tests in an objective manner and do not make moral judgements about the nature of any consensual sexual activity between adults.

Kind regards,

Xxxxx Xxxxx

Policy & Investigations Officer

No moral judgments? Puh-lease. So what does this mean, exactly? Who are we supposed to contact, then? Freaking Parliament? In case you were wondering, BBFC stands for British Board of Film Classification. Glad I looked that up. I thought it meant Big Bad Fucking Censorship.

I forwarded this to Pandora, who said she received something similar, and she was going to craft a no-nonsense reply. I hope she'll post her follow-up.

So much for the gibberish, now the rehash. Usually at this time of year, I like to craft a spanking parody of a Christmas carol. However, this year, due to various distractions, the creative muse has been elusive. Therefore, for those who haven't seen the previous parodies (or those who have, but would enjoy seeing them again), here are the links to the past three:

2013: Let It Snow

2012: Jingle Bell Rock

2011: O Christmas Tree

And since I haven't been keeping up with my usual holiday bitching, may I just say that if I see any of those damned Target commercials again, I just might throw a brick through my TV screen? To make it even worse, they show them in pairs: one will air, then a couple of other commercials, and then another Target ad airs. And always with some sort of riff on "It's a Marshmallow World." I think someone in their advertising department has a marshmallow brain. I've taken to grabbing the remote and hitting "Mute" whenever they come on.

Just 13 more days of this crap. Bah humbug.

Have a great weekend, y'all.