Contact with Met Police Inspector Bedwell, Obscene Publications Unit
Keith, 14 Sep 2005 12:50:19
I'd be very interested in knowing more details of this:
"We had met Inspector
Bedwell earlier this year at two workshops that the Trust had
organised to help further educate the film examiners at the British
Board of Film Classification about BDSM."
Did any changes in the BBFC classification guidelines come about as a result of these meetings? Because therein lies part of the problem. The consultation document effectively suggests that if it ain't in the BBFC guidelines, it's deemed as "obscene", and anyone familiar with those guidelines will know that they are a joke as far as much of our BDSM is concerned.
Keith
----- Original Message -----
: Ian, 14 Sep 2005 12:50:19
To: Backlash@smartgroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:29 PM
Subject: [backlash] Contact with Met Police Inspector Bedwell, Obscene Publications Unit
At the Conway Hall meeting last Friday, John Lovatt, the Spanner
Trust's solicitor trustee, told the attendees that he was going to be
in touch with Met. Police Inspector Chris Bedwell, Obscene
Publications Unit of C O 14 Clubs & Vice Unit. We had met Inspector
Bedwell earlier this year at two workshops that the Trust had
organised to help further educate the film examiners at the British
Board of Film Classification about BDSM.
John told the attendees last Friday that he would report back when he
had heard from Inspector Bedwell. He has now had a reply to his email
to Inspector Bedwell:
>I have received an e-mail from Inspector Bedwell. He says that he
>would welcome our comments and input and will arrange for my letter
>to be forwarded to the Committee for their views with regards to
>members of the SM community taking part in further consultation. He
>says that as and when he hears anything further he will be in touch with me.
Presumably the "Committee" referred to is the one at the Home Office
involved in the Consultation.
regards
Ian Gurnhill
Spanner Trust trustee
www.spannertrust.org
Know the Law, Help Change the Law
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D498
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Ian, 15 Sep 2005 00:53:04
Keith and others
Let me take you back to 2000 when the Spanner Trust made a submission
to BBFC as they revised their guidelines following the enactment of
the human Rights Act 1998. see
http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/bbfcresponse.asp In conclusion we said:
"In summary, your guidelines on violence and sex ignore the very real
difference between consensual and non-consensual sexual activity. In
fact people engaging in SM activity never refer to their activity as
violence. Yet your wording fails to recognise the difference."
The resulting Guidelines are what are in force today with a couple of
minor amendments since. They accepted the portrayal of BDSM provided
it was consensual. see http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ policy and the R18
The 'R18' category is a special and legally restricted classification
primarily for explicit works of consenting sex between adults. Films
may only be shown to adults in specially licensed cinemas, and videos
may be supplied to adults only in licensed sex shops. 'R18' videos
may not be supplied by mail order.
The following content is not acceptable
* any material which is in breach of the criminal law, including
material judged to be obscene under the current interpretation of the
Obscene Publications Act 1959.
* material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest
in sexually abusive activity (eg paedophilia, incest, rape) which may
include adults role-playing as non-adults.
* the portrayal of any sexual activity which involves lack of
consent (whether real or simulated). Any form of physical restraint
which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent.
* the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual
context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual
activity. Penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or
associated with violence.
* any sexual threats, humiliation or abuse which does not form
part of a clearly consenting role-playing game. Strong abuse, even if
consensual, is unlikely to be acceptable.
These guidelines make no distinction between heterosexual and
homosexual activity.
In 2002 the trust was approached by BBFC to provide some education on
BDSM - meanings etc which I provided in conjunction with a female
submissive connected with Skin Two. Also on the panel was a
psychiatrist who was very combative and because of the group of
damaged people who he saw in his practice was very very anti any
BDSM. The BBFC has NOT subsequently used that psychiatrist - a
measure they sometimes employ when making decisions about a film
where they think viewers may be psychologically damaged!!
Earlier this year BBFC again approached the Trust for help with
further education of the current examiners some 70% of whom were
present at my talk 2+ years ago. There were two separate occasions
when we participated with BBFC this year. On the first occasion a
more hands on session was held where examiners could handle tit
clamps, dildos floggers etc and hand demos of flogging [ against a
pillow!!] and a talk and powerpoint presentation of CBT images. On
the second occasion John Lovatt, our solicitor trustee was part of a
panel which included Inspector Bedwell from the Met Police, a Bi
female psychologist involved in BDSM and a NHS psychologist who was
very kink friendly.
John, colleagues involved and I learnt a lot about the BBFC and it's
ways of working. We are told that the knowledge gained by the
examiners from these education sessions had been very insightful and
helpful for the examiners who view films submitted for
classification. Clearly from the discussions which ensued during the
most recent panel education session some examiners are personally
much more knowledgeable and supportive of BDSM though not
surprisingly some are very right wing and unsympathetic. Be assured
though that several examiners view a film and then discuss their
classification and cuts or non- classification with a senior examiner
before a decision if given.
So to briefly answer your question -
>Did any changes in the BBFC classification guidelines come about as
>a result of these meetings?
No. No changes to the guidelines from the education sessions.
As you point out it's the 2000 Guidelines that are restrictive. Until
the 2003 Sexual Offences Act changed the law on gay sex allowing more
than just 2 men to be present the BBFC had to follow the law and
would not classify films showing the presence of more than 2 men
having gay sex together!!
The Spanner / R v Brown decision and the subsequent Wilson
heterosexual married couple case have left the law on SM somewhat
unclear and subject to jury determination. The BBFC guidelines merely
reflect that lack of clarity which is why the Trust believes that the
situation in the Uk re BDSM will not change substantially until the
law is changed.
Ian
At 12:51 14/09/2005, you wrote:
>I'd be very interested in knowing more details of this:
>"We had met Inspector
>Bedwell earlier this year at two workshops that the Trust had
>organised to help further educate the film examiners at the British
>Board of Film Classification about BDSM."
>
>Did any changes in the BBFC classification guidelines come about as
>a result of these meetings? Because therein lies part of the
>problem. The consultation document effectively suggests that if it
>ain't in the BBFC guidelines, it's deemed as "obscene", and anyone
>familiar with those guidelines will know that they are a joke as far
>as much of our BDSM is concerned.
>
>Keith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
om: Ian, 15 Sep 2005 00:53:04
> To: Backlash@smartgroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:29 PM
> Subject: [backlash] Contact with Met Police Inspector Bedwell,
> Obscene Publications Unit
>
>
> At the Conway Hall meeting last Friday, John Lovatt, the Spanner
> Trust's solicitor trustee, told the attendees that he was going to be
> in touch with Met. Police Inspector Chris Bedwell, Obscene
> Publications Unit of C O 14 Clubs & Vice Unit. We had met Inspector
> Bedwell earlier this year at two workshops that the Trust had
> organised to help further educate the film examiners at the British
> Board of Film Classification about BDSM.
>
> John told the attendees last Friday that he would report back when he
> had heard from Inspector Bedwell. He has now had a reply to his email
> to Inspector Bedwell:
>
> >I have received an e-mail from Inspector Bedwell. He says that he
> >would welcome our comments and input and will arrange for my letter
> >to be forwarded to the Committee for their views with regards to
> >members of the SM community taking part in further consultation. He
> >says that as and when he hears anything further he will be in
> touch with me.
>
> Presumably the "Committee" referred to is the one at the Home Office
> involved in the Consultation.
>
> regards
>
> Ian Gurnhill
> Spanner Trust trustee
> www.spannertrust.org
> Know the Law, Help Change the Law
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D498
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
>To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
>Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D499
Ian Gurnhill
Spanner Trust trustee
www.spannertrust.org
Know the Law, Help Change the Law