Sun-watch: More "Lady Mucca".
The Sun's journalists really do feel nothing but contempt for their readers. Victoria Newton, the paper's piss-poor Showbiz editor, along with Henry Austin (who he?) have recruited the creator of the Lover's Guide to help convince them that the book Heather Mills appeared in was pornographic, after she denied that the book was "hardcore porn" and rather a lover's guide.
He said nothing of the sort. What he did say was, mostly plugging his own wares:
Still, perhaps the Sun would like to argue with the British Board of Film Classification's view of sex education material and hardcore material. The BBFC's guidelines are as follows:
It seems very likely that Mills' so-called hardcore material would be suitable at the 18 certificate. Let's not let that get in the way of Rebekah Wade's scoop though, as she has been desperate for them of late, what with the Screws' printing more crap that she was once renowned for getting, and with the Mirror exposing John Prescott, a natural Sun story. The difference is that Mills did this shoot 20 years ago; it was only a few years ago that Wade disgraced herself by publishing child pornography downloaded from a website in comparison with an exhibition by an artist which featured a portrait of her children naked. Rather than "shaming" celebrities with what they did when they were young, Wade would perhaps be better looking over her shoulder and wondering how much longer she has left in the Scum's hot seat.
He said nothing of the sort. What he did say was, mostly plugging his own wares:
“What we do is erotic rather than pornographic. We show people how to do it without showing everything off.Completely unlike the near top shelf exploits of the Sun's third page and its accompanying website, of course. Or the Sun's shameless showing off of its collection of Mills' photographs, of which there are another 7 today. Of those, 5 clearly show Mills' breasts, and one censors what would otherwise show her nether regions. It also censors the man's seeming erection.
“This, on the other hand, does it in a particularly lewd manner.”
“Maybe they do things differently in Germany.
“But I think they’re closer to something you might find in a top shelf magazine, rather than an instruction manual.”
Still, perhaps the Sun would like to argue with the British Board of Film Classification's view of sex education material and hardcore material. The BBFC's guidelines are as follows:
Sex Education at ‘18’
Where sex material genuinely seeks to inform and educate in matters such as human sexuality, safe sex and health, exceptions to the normal constraints on explicit images may be made in the public interest. Such explicit detail must be kept to the minimum necessary to illustrate the educational or instructional points being made.
Sex Works at ‘18’
Sex works are works, normally on video or DVD, whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works containing material which may be simulated are generally passed ‘18’, while sex works containing clear images of real sex are confined to the ‘R18’ category.
It seems very likely that Mills' so-called hardcore material would be suitable at the 18 certificate. Let's not let that get in the way of Rebekah Wade's scoop though, as she has been desperate for them of late, what with the Screws' printing more crap that she was once renowned for getting, and with the Mirror exposing John Prescott, a natural Sun story. The difference is that Mills did this shoot 20 years ago; it was only a few years ago that Wade disgraced herself by publishing child pornography downloaded from a website in comparison with an exhibition by an artist which featured a portrait of her children naked. Rather than "shaming" celebrities with what they did when they were young, Wade would perhaps be better looking over her shoulder and wondering how much longer she has left in the Scum's hot seat.
| Permalink
Post a Comment