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."

Comments

OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we going to do with it?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

So, am I understanding it correctly, that a sovereign nation over there in Europe, cannot pass their own law without it also being reported (and I assume approved) by an outside entity??

If so...doesn't that make you a non-sovereign nation then?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Alzheimers]

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.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Alzheimers]

Exploit it in the most outrageous and gratuitous ways possible, thereby giving ammunition to the very forces who want to take it away?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Tanktalus]

+1, Car Analogy.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Kokuyo]

I applaud your use of monster trucks as an allegory to human genitalia ;).

Re:OMG, freedom.

[imamac]

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

Re:OMG, freedom.

[JasterBobaMereel]

They passed a law saying they had to notify the EU in order for a certain new laws to be valid, then failed to do so with another law ...

So in the US if one law conflicts with another both are valid .... strange system you have ?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Xest]

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.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[interkin3tic]

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.

Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a big truck... it's more of a series of tubes.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

If I was a French citizen and I was sitting in jail due to a nullified-UK law, I'd be pissed.

I'd immediately file a case with the Supreme Reichstag (or whatever the EU equivalent of the Supreme Court might be). EU citizens should not be punished by laws that are voided.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

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

Well, at least these days, there is some grassroots movement these days, to try to stop the loss of power/independence in the states...and push back a bit on the federal govt.

I only hope it isn't too little too late.

With the way the current bits of legislation are going, with the feds taking over everything, well, there might be a backlash against it all....maybe the current administration IS what we need to get people to rally for what the US was founded upon.

Maybe.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cheftw]

If I were you, the "Supreme Reichstag" would not be the first place I would go to file a case.

Unless, of course, you usually file your legal cases in the House of Representatives sixty years ago.

If that's what you do then you're fine.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[Sensiblemonkey]

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.

Exactly: it will teach you how to do it THE AWESOME WAY.

But only on Sunday, SUNDAY, SSUUUNNNNNNNDAAAAY~!!!!!

Re:OMG, freedom.

[bbtom]

British movie/game ratings are pretty simple.

There is:

U - Universal - suitable for all

PG - Parental Guidance

12/12A - for videos, nobody under age 12 is allowed to purchase it. for movies shown in a cinema, under twelves can watch it if they are accompanied by an adult.

15 - suitable for 15+

18 - suitable for 18+

R18 - Restricted 18 - basically porn. Can only be shown in specially licensed venues and sold only in licensed sex shops.

'E' is on some videos. It's not actually a rating, but it's just a symbol put on by video producers to specify that the film is exempt from rating. Things like videos of sports matches, musical performances, educational videos don't get rated. Most imported videos

The BBFC also now produce some text that accompanies the rating symbol which broadly gives the reason why the film is rated that way. For instance, it might say "Contains frequent strong bloody violence and very strong language" next to an 18 certificate.

They introduced R18 a few years ago when they realised that hardcore porn was mostly being circulated through the black market and by people distributing copied tapes. Of course, now, we have the new rules on "violent and extreme" pornography which actually makes it a crime to possess pornography that depicts violent scenarios - rape fantasies, that kind of stuff. With one hand, the government make porn a bit more legal, and with the other hand, they've created a new black market that the Internet supplies.

The BBFC is generally, imo, pretty fair - I mean, as fair as a bunch of censoring, free-speech-restricting thugs can be. Perhaps it's just bias living here, but BBFC seem to get it right a lot more often than the MPAA ratings do, and they are a hell of a lot less squeamish about depiction of sex and nudity - they make a distinction for 'natural nudity' where it's non-sexual, so we don't have idiotic philistines sticking big blocky pixels over Dürer woodcuts, Titian paintings and Michaelangelo's David (etc.) because they've got HUR HUR HUR DONGS LOL. There's an interesting set of articles by people who have worked at BBFC, describing exactly what it's like censoring movies and video games for a living.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[cayenne8]

"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?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[DesScorp]

"Don't be a reactionary."

Don't be a slave.

In These United States, the Founders set up a Federal division for a good reason... power corrupts, so split it up. And the further the government is from citizens, the less attuned they'll be to those citizens. This is why State and Local governments have been more powerful than their equivalents in Europe. If anything, Federalism and the limits on national government are more important than ever. With over 300 million people, there's simply no way the feds can ever be attuned to local and state concerns, and they'll simply run roughshod over the citizenry, as they've demonstrated increasingly over the decades.

The notion of an all-powerful national government isn't just bad practice. It is well and truly anti-American, and would be opposed vociferously be even the staunchest of the advocates of central government among our founders, save perhaps for Alexander Hamilton. And I'm pretty sure that if someone ever told Washington or Jefferson that some extra-national entity could void US laws, they'd start loading their muskets. Even Lincoln, the father of modern concentrated Presidential power would object to that.

Re:OMG, freedom.

[TheoMurpse]

It worked VERY well for nearly 200 years

You do realize that less than 80 years after the Constitution was drafted there was a war that killed millions of Americans and nearly rent the nation in twain all because of how the Constitution was drafted, right?

Re:OMG, freedom.

[theaveng]

Thousands not millions.

Don't exaggerate. You also make it sound like, after the civil war, the Constitution was no longer in force. Well. It is. The United States is still limited in its power, and the Supreme Law still still reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The primary powers still lie with the 50 Governments, even if Congress does not seem to realize that. For example they want to fine me, personally, $1500 a year because I don't have health insurance (like Massachusetts does with its citizens). Now I've read the U.S. law several times, and I can not lay my hand on any part of the document which gives Congress the right to fine the People, because one of them voluntarily-choose not to buy a product.

We are still better-off having a weak central government, since one size solutions do NOT fit all. It is better to put the power closer to home, just a few miles from the citizens, at the state level. 50 solutions for 50 very different climates/regions. It is also better to have "checks and balances" not just between the three branches of U.S. government, but also between the States and the U.S., so neither grows too powerful.

As power grows, liberty wanes.
Better to keep power in check.

so who will

[acrobg]

be the first to sell pr0n to little kids without any age-rating?

Re:so who will

[Hognoxious]

Mr Patel from the corner shop - he already does.

Re:so who will

[Kokuyo]

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

Hang On

[totallyarb]

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?

Re:Hang On

[jfengel]

IANA(British)L, but here's the gist:

The UK joined the EEC in 1973. Council Directive 83/189/EEC was passed in March 1983. It says that if a country passes "standards" it has to notify other countries.

See, the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about. It makes for a "gotcha" situation: "Hey, you didn't follow the standard, and we're going to prosecute you under our laws, even though you followed all the rules you knew about."

Re:Hang On

[Dr. Hok]

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.

Re:Hang On

[camperdave]

Ah! So if they up their standards they are legally required to tell other countries "Up yours!"

Re:Hang On

[eln]

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.

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

>>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about
>>>

Well that's stupid.

The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.

Aside-

One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.

Re:Hang On

[Dupple]

Except it was the tories that signed the Maastricht treaty under John Major, which gave up more british sovereignty than anything else. Not saying Labour would have been any better, but it was the tories that gave up a lot of our indepenance

Re:Hang On

[commodore64_love]

Therefore all convictions since 1984 should be nullified, since the law itself is voided by the treaty.

This is absurd

[mpeskett]

How exactly do 25 years pass without anyone noticing that a law, that's supposed to be official and in force, hasn't actually been enacted?

It's beyond a joke... although I'm sure there will be plenty of jokes.

Re:This is absurd

[EddyPearson]

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.

Re:This is absurd

[Rayeth]

Oh what a coincidence! I think this is the same strategy the US uses for drug and patent policy. It all makes so much sense now.

Re:This is absurd

[Aladrin]

More importantly ,what about anyone convicted under that act while it wasn't really an act? Do they get their time, money, etc back?

Re:This is absurd

[Xphile101361]

I think by now you've ran out of continents to ship these people off to

Re:This is absurd

[Plunky]

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Scandalous

[RobVB]

FTA:

"Our legal advice is that those previously prosecuted will be unable to overturn their prosecution or receive financial recompense," she said.

So people who were previously prosecuted for breaking a non-law will be unable to overturn their prosecution.

Re:Scandalous

[TaoPhoenix]

Of course not.

"An emergency Injunction was passed until a formal law could be passed."
The Censorship Nazgul don't give up that easily.

Re:Scandalous

[DrJimbo]

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

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

Re:Scandalous

[vain gloria]

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

Claiming that Britain lacks a constitution on the basis that no-one has written it all down in one place is akin to claiming that the USA doesn't have a head of state because Obama doesn't wear a pointy gold hat.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[dintech]

Does this mean that Grotesque has just been given the best publicity ever and no way to prevent it from being sold?

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post! Slashdot really needs a "+1 refers to '1984' somehow" mod option.

Hurray?!

[sqrt(2)]

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

Re:Hurray?!

[Hoplite3]

The Roman Republic lasted some five hundred years without criminal law. From this, you could conclude that the modern notion of criminal justice is unnecessary, even in a large society. But a look inside of Rome might change your mind. Just because the system didn't collapse without this law doesn't mean the law is worthless. It also doesn't mean it's any good, either.

Just watch...

[damburger]

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!?

Re:Just watch...

[Hatta]

Technology has made it irrelevant anyway. Any kid can get any video he wants over the network.

Re:Just watch...

[pete-classic]

Isn't the Labour party in power? Aren't they the good guys? Won't they pass a sensible, populist law?

-Peter

Re:Just watch...

[digitig]

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.

Re:Another implication

[oahazmatt]

Pending prosecutions will be abandoned, but existing convictions will stand.
So, yes, they will just keep them in jail.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Shakrai]

I have a feeling that in a "law and order" country like the US, the law would never actually stop being enforced - law enforcement and judiciary would make up something about the "spirit" of the law or some other legal nonsense.

Got a citation for that or are you just looking to repeat stereotypes about the US? It's interesting that you could condemn the US criminal justice system when we still have our right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination. Tell me, how are those rights faring in the UK? Surely they don't hold it against you if you remain silent or compel you to be a witness against yourself?

Re:Another implication

[badfish99]

"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".

Re:Amazing loss of sovereignty

[Desler]

The point of such a clause is so that every member country in the EU is notified of any regulations you have passed that affect doing commerce in your country so that they know all know about. Seems to be a rather sane idea contrary to the usual knee-jerk anti-EU hysteria that will come about in this thread. Would you like to be sued because you sold something in the UK, for instance, and didn't know they had passed some new regulation that required you to jump through some legal loophole before you could sell your product?

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Cowar]

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?

No, Police will probably pretend law is valid

[rolfwind]

during those 3 months until Parliament can scramble together a Save the Children act.

I heard that the FBI kept on relying on parts of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act long after the Supreme Court overturned those same parts of it. Business as usual, carry on.

Re:Another implication

[Anonymous Cowar]

Only after tea but before supper.

RAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

[fireylord]

mod this +1 funny!

Re:at least they're fixing it

[commodore64_love]

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.

More freedom - no copyright now?!

[chrb]

I added this as a comment to the original submission but it didn't get picked up.

According to The Telegraph this also means that there is now no copyright on DVDs. I'm not sure of the reasoning for this since copyright is supposed to be enforced by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but that's the legal system for you.

So, apparently the UK is now (unwittingly) running the first national experiment in the abolition of copyright and age controls on DVDs. Should be interesting!

A shopping list.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Wikipedia has a List of Video Nasties. If you live in Britain, but have never seen La Maldicion de la Bestai or La Bestia in Calore, you may have a window of opportunity.

Tom Lehre's Smut Lyrics

[realsilly]

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!

Re:the comments on these stories always make me la

[4D6963]

What? Hysteria? In my Slashdot? Okay I think I'm going to actually get modded down for this, but seriously, while reactions on Slashdot are often hysteric (i.e. "OMG CCTVs/Internet filtering/copyright laws, futuristic dystopia here we come!"), Slashdot has a dominantly American audience (56.5% according to my stats, +9.1% if you count Canada in), and it's just American hysteria.

Just look at how people react to news in the USA, the healthcare reform is the latest and best example of American hysteria at work (but you have lots of examples since the 20th century). A fairly popular administration wants to fix a messed up healthcare system by adding options, and people go "OMG Nazi fascism they want to kill babies and grandmothers!!!". Sure, FOX News and what's left of the Republican party are helping, but the fact that what they do actually works should reveal something about the American society. Would it work in France, Germany or the Netherlands? Doubt it.

People often talk about how Americans as a whole, as a herd, are stupid. They're not directly stupid, they're just very susceptible to hysteria. I don't know where it's coming from but it's something deeply embedded in the American culture. It certainly had its fair share of participation in bringing about the prohibition, McCarthyism (what witchhunt isn't rooted in hysteria?), all sorts of reactions and attitudes during the Cold War, but more recently, the aftermath of the 9/11 (again a prime example of hysteria, and undoubtedly the main reason for the Iraqi invasion to go domestically mostly unchallenged at the time. Same thing for the boycott of France, that went something like "OMG France if you're not with us you're against us!!!"), and yes, even the global warming and creationism debate (which are practically inexistent in civilised nations that are not satellites of the USA). I cannot stress enough how big a part hysteria plays in America, this is not a new phenomenon at all, and if you're American you may not realise this but this is actually very characteristic, believe it or not but some other societies are more cool headed. Here's the good news though, you're not stupid, just hysteric, to the point of getting into stupid stuff, until a few years after the cause that triggered the hysteria is gone you realise it was stupid.

So yeah, Slashdot, its hysteric reactions and projections of doom and dystopia just reflects that.

Oh that awesome British independence

[Nicolas MONNET]

I thought that "independence" was a French word, but clearly it must have drifted quite a lot in meaning since king William. From New Labour to the Tories and the fucktards at UKIP, it seemed quite compatible with bending over backward to please GWB and begging for more. Now when Brussels asks you to follow simple rules you agreed to and 24 other countries have no problem adhering to, that's an outrage.
What a joke.

Re:Of course, Obligatory

[xaxa]

Friends of mine never had problems importing "banned" films from other countries -- typically using eBay.

("Banned" is really "unrated", but to show a movie in a public cinema or sell it requires it to be given a rating by the BBFC. It's still OK to posses, or view privately, the film).

Re:So they will find something else to charge you

[HomerJ]

In the United States it varies state to state. But I'm in Pennsylvania, and that's how it is here. You get a DUI, they will charge you with both. The state considers them separate offenses.

Re:at least they're fixing it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What you said, specifically, was "so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities." That makes it sound like we have some plague of people who are actually guilty of violent crimes using legal trickery to avoid paying the penalties for their actions. While such cases do happen, the vast majority of the time when a "technicality" gets someone off, it's because it's not at all clear whether or not they actually committed the crime, and/or it is quite clear that the evidence against them is invalid. In short, it's the system working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Those "technicalities" are the only thing standing between us and a police state. Decades of cop show writers have used "off on a technicality" as a convenient plot device to explain why an obvious bad guy is still running around on the street -- which is why people think of them as "technicalities" instead of what they are, which is Constitutional protections of fundamental liberties. This is a serious threat to our freedom.

So that's why the outrage, pretty much.

Great!

[G-Man]

Gordon Brown can finally play those Region 1 DVDs he got from Obama! Oh, happy day.