Slashdot Mirror


British Video Recordings Act 1984 Invalid

chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that the British Video Recordings Act 1984 is invalid due to a 25 year old legal blunder. The Thatcher government of the day failed to officially "notify" the European Commission about the law, and hence it no longer stands as a legal Act. There will now be a period of around three months before the Act can be passed again, during which time it will be entirely legal to sell any video content without age-rated certifications."

20 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. OMG, freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What are we going to do with it?

    1. Re:OMG, freedom. by Alzheimers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those "no-longer restricted videos" have as much to do with teaching sex as a monster truck rally has to do with teaching you how to drive.

    2. Re:OMG, freedom. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole idea of the European *Union* is that part of the sovereignty is sacrificed for something beneficial, like open borders (good for the economy), and reducing the likelyhood of war between European countries (you can think of the EU as a response to two world wars).

      Not everybody is happy about that, of course, partly because the EU is not as democratic as it should be. In some countries the EU constitution was voted away in a referendum because of that.

    3. Re:OMG, freedom. by imamac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A european country in the EU will eventually end up just as "sovereign" as a state in the US.

    4. Re:OMG, freedom. by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really, because the nation in question - Britain, has signed up to have that as part of the deal.

      If Britain hadn't signed up to this and Europe was still enforcing this you'd have a point, but as it's Britain's choice to only allow laws to be legitimate if reported to Europe then it's still a sovereign nation.

      It can get out of this agreement any time it wants but there's not really any reason to as it's not a big deal. Besides, nowadays Europe does a better job of running Britain than the current Labour government does. Certainly the European court of human rights and the EU itself have done more to protect my human rights and civil liberties as a citizen than my own government which has repeatedly tried to violate them.

      Even if Europe was in control of Britain then and did actively choose not to ratify laws like this it could only be a good thing until unelected Brown and his unelected cronies like Mandelson get kicked out next year.

    5. Re:OMG, freedom. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "That "some grassroots" is thankfully very small and very ignorant of modern governance. Rather than blindly attempting to squash anything Washington is trying to do, how about you join in the debate. Maybe we'd grow an able populace that understands why a strong, central government is the best place for many pieces of legislation and pretty much all forms of regulation. Don't be a reactionary."

      I am far from reactionary, I've held and argued my views for quite some time, as I learned more of how my country, the USA, was set up, I found I agree more and more with the founding fathers and the way the govt is supposed to work. It worked VERY well for nearly 200 years, but, people like you want to fundamentally change it. I respect your views, I'm happy to debate it, but, I don't agree with them, and I'll be happy to fight to keep not only keep the US from moving towards a more centralized govt. but, to go back more to our roots which made the US great to begin with.

      I believe the US federal govt. as originally set up to be weak with limited enumerated powers, it the best way to go, my state govt, city govt. is closer to me, has the same interests and me, and is more responsive to mine and my community's needs.

      I believe I am a citizen of my state first, and a citizen of the United States second.

      What is best for someone in NYC, is often NOT the best thing for someone in New Orleans, Anchorage or Phoenix. Each region has different needs, and all our views and needs are EQUAL within the union.

      Care to specifically elaborate what you think makes an argument for changing more and more to a strong centralized govt. from what the US was originally set up to be? How would a strong central govt. that interferes more with the individual's life have made us a greater country than they way we made our path until recent years?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Hang On by totallyarb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
    1. Re:Hang On by Dr.+Hok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can a British lawyer please tell me at what point notification of the European Commission became a requirement for an Act of Parliament to become legally binding? Surely such a surrender of sovereignty was exactly the sort of thing Thatcher opposed?

      You call that surrender of sovereignty? Think again. The government didn't have to ask for permission to pass this law, it was only supposed to inform the European Commission. In other words: make it public, so their European partner countries know what's happening in their neighborhood. That's just common sense.

      --
      Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
    2. Re:Hang On by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU is designed in part to be a very close union between member states, in order to combat the extreme nationalism that predicated two major ruinous conflicts on the European continent in the 20th century. Every EU nation gives up some measure of sovereignty (although really not that much in the grand scheme of things) in order to promote the greater good.

      Even having said that, though, I would argue that the simple requirement to inform other nations of standards and laws you pass is not really any more of a surrendering of sovereignty than most other provisions in any other treaty between nations.

  3. Hurray?! by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So when society DOESN'T collapse into anarchy, are they going to realize this law was idiotic and unnecessary and not pass it again?

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  4. Just watch... by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the British Video Recordings Act 2009 is passed, it will be more restrictive than the original 1984 verson. I mean, why would any good centre-right, middle-class courting, focus-group driven pack of fear-mongers pass up a perfectly good opportunity for a moral panic? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!?

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Just watch... by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'll admit that I don't follow UK politics very closely. But I thought that draconian censorship was more of a Tory thing.

      No, it's a government thing.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  5. Re:Another implication by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Existing convictions will stand"

    In other words "existing convictions will collapse as soon as they are challenged in court, but let's lie about this and hope that everyone believes us".

  6. Re:Another implication by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If all of the judges in the land believe it is within their power to continue with the lie and refuse to hear appeals based on this, guess what happens?

  7. Re:This is absurd by EddyPearson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thats not how we do it in the UK mate. Here we make as many laws as possible, criminalizing as many people as we can. This so that when we decide we don't like them anymore there's a quick exit waiting. It also makes it easier for the police to root out the bad guys. When everybody has committed at least one crime, gives them leverage.

    This was an embarressing oversight, normal service will be resumed shortly.

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  8. Re:at least they're fixing it by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm glad you've been marked "troll" because you're flat wrong.

    Time-and-time again laws have been declared unconstitutional and the prisoners freed (see my previous post filled with quotes). Just watch Henry Fonda's excellent movie "Gideon" for an example which is about a real man who stood-up against tyranny, and won.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  9. Re:Scandalous by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What are you talking about? Britain doesn't even have a constitution.

    No problemo. They can take ours. We're sure not using it.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  10. Tom Lehre's Smut Lyrics by realsilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Tom Lehre said it best in his song called Smut.

    I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

    Smut!
    Give me smut and nothing but!
    A dirty novel I can't shut,
    If it's uncut,
    and unsubt- le.

    I've never quibbled
    If it was ribald,
    I would devour where others merely nibbled.
    As the judge remarked the day that he
    acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
    "To be smut
    It must be ut-
    Terly without redeeming social importance."

    Por-
    Nographic pictures I adore.
    Indecent magazines galore,
    I like them more
    If they're hard core.

    (Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
    samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
    More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

    Stories of tortures
    Used by debauchers,
    Lurid, licentious, and vile,
    Make me smile.
    Novels that pander
    To my taste for candor
    Give me a pleasure sublime.
    (Let's face it, I love slime.)

    All books can be indecent books
    Though recent books are bolder,
    For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
    the mind of the beholder.
    When correctly viewed,
    Everything is lewd.
    (I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
    And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

    I thrill
    To any book like Fanny Hill,
    And I suppose I always will,
    If it is swill
    And really fil
    thy.

    Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
    I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
    But now they're trying to take it all
    away from us unless
    We take a stand, and hand in hand
    we fight for freedom of the press.
    In other words,

    Smut! (I love it)
    Ah, the adventures of a slut.
    Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
    I don't know what
    Compares with smut.

    Hip hip hooray!
    Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
    Don't let them take it away!

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  11. Re:so who will by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, because this is SUCH an emergency. Kids will turn into goat slaughtering satanist child molesters INSTANTLY because of this, mark my words!

  12. Re:This is absurd by Plunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Moon is a Harsh Mistress