Beyer calls on gov to ban all porn channels

Government research blah blah blah! Porn turns people into rapists
blah blah! Ban it now blah blah blah!

Protect people from “harmful” pornographic material on TV? It may have passed Beyer by but most people who view porn on TV do so voluntarily by subscribing to porn channels. Oh but of course we can’t have that can we? We need to “protect” them by stopping them from looking at it!

From Kent News courtesy of Melon Farmers:

Watchdog calls for ban on TV pornography

A media watchdog has called on the Government to revoke all licenses
to pornographic TV channels.

John Beyer, director of Ashford-based Mediawatch-UK, has written to
television regulator Ofcom after new Government research concluded
that exposure to such material could lead to people developing
deviant sexual tendencies and committing sexual offences.

In a letter to the chairman of Ofcom’s Content Board, Mr Beyer
wrote: “Ofcom has certain statutory obligations to protect members
of the public from harmful material, as set out in by Parliament in
the Communications Act 2003.

“Failure to respond to the new evidence of harm could put Ofcom in
breach of the law if it fails to take proportionate action to remove
pornographic material from the airwaves.”

The research was published in a document produced by the Ministry of
Justice entitled `The evidence of harm to adults relating to
exposure to extreme pornographic material: a rapid evidence
assessment’.

Mr Beyer added: “In line with other recent warnings over swearing
and violence before the watershed, it would be consistent if Ofcom
issued a warning over harmful pornographic content, such as Fanny
Hill on BBC4, The Secret Diary of a Call Girl on ITV2 and
Californication on Five.”
“In line with other recent warnings over swearing and violence
before the watershed, it would be consistent if Ofcom issued a
warning over harmful pornographic content, such as Fanny Hill on
BBC4, The Secret Diary of a Call Girl on ITV2 and Californication on
Five.”
 

But none of these programmes contain “pornographic” content. Oh
sorry Mr Beyer anything with a whiff of sex in it is porn! Right!

Beyer casts his net over what he classes as “pornographic” as wide as possible so it’s little surprise that he includes mainstream TV programmes with mild sexual content alongside hardcore stuff you get on XXX rated subscription channels.

Calls by Beyer and Mediawatch UK to remove the licences of porn
channels has nothing to do with wanting to protect people from harm
and stopping people from commiting sexual offences and everything to
do with his and Mediawatch UK’s own desire to stop people looking at
porn because they don’t like it and find it “dirty”.

Muslim group calls on Channel 4 not to show Britz

The fact that this drama examins many of the injustices, such as
detention without trial, which causes grievances within the Muslim
community seems to have passed the British Muslim Forum by as they are
obviously seeking to be offended.

From The Observer courtesy of the Melon Farmers:

Muslim Forum hits out at suicide bomber film

Nicholas Watt
Sunday October 28, 2007
The Observer

A controversial Channel 4 drama, which depicts a second-generation
British Muslim woman as a suicide bomber, was condemned last night by
the British Muslim Forum.

Khurshid Ahmed, the chairman of the forum, called on Channel 4 not to
air the film, Britz, which is due to be shown in two parts on
Wednesday and Thursday nights.

Britz tells the story of a brother and sister, Sohail and Nasima, as
they are ‘pulled in different directions by their conflicting personal
experiences in post-9/11 Britain’.

Article continues
Sohail, a law student, signs up with MI5. His sister, a medical
student, becomes Britain’s first female suicide bomber. The film’s
award-winning director is Peter Kosminsky, who also made The Project,
about the rise of New Labour.

Khurshid Ahmed said last night: ‘Channel 4 should be working with us
to defeat terrorism and extremism, not sowing hate and division in our
communities, and reinforcing negative stereotypes.’

The Home Office has viewed the film. A government spokesman said:
‘Having seen extracts from the film and heard Mr Kosminsky’s comments,
we can understand the British Muslim Forum’s concerns. Given Channel
4’s remit as a public service broadcaster, they should listen to the
views of moderate Muslims who reject violence and extremism, and they
should air those views alongside this film.’

‘Channel 4 should be working with us to defeat terrorism and
extremism, not sowing hate and division in our communities, and
reinforcing negative stereotypes.’

In other words Channel 4 should be working with Muslims to defeat
terrorism and extremism by pretending everything is rosy in their
communities and not showing Muslims doing anything bad ever!

The British Muslim Forum come across as illinformed twerps! The
programme does not seek to inforce negative stereotypes but examins
many of the issues (such as Western foriegn policy) which drives some
Muslims to terrorism and extremism and questions whether unjust laws
bought in by our government are stopping terrorism or just fanning the
flames of division and resentment amongst Muslims.
This group should WATCH the programme before they pass judgement and
accuse Channel 4 of reinforcing stereotypes and showing hate and division!

Manchester Cathedral forgives Sony….We’ll scratch your back if you scratch ours

Ok, now let’s hope this an end to the row because it’s boring!

From the Melon Farmers:

Update: Forgiving Sony their Trespasses…
Besides, the publicity helped the cathedral
From the BBC see full article

Nutters at Manchester Cathedral have “forgiven” Sony for not asking
permission to use images of the building in a violent video game.

Sony’s PlayStation game Resistance: Fall of Man, uses the historic
church as a backdrop to a violent gunfight.

The game was nominated, but failed, to win an award at the British
Academy Video Games Awards on Tuesday evening.

After it was announced that the game had not won an award, the Dean
of Manchester Cathedral, the Very Reverend Rogers Govender said: I
think some important lessons have been learnt. So we do forgive Sony
for what they have done, even though they still believe they have
done nothing wrong. In an industry that is breaking new frontiers,
it is important that long held traditions of film and television are
maintained. These traditions include having courtesy, respecting the
dignity of your subject, and admitting when mistakes have been made.
In so many ways Sony have failed to live up to these standards by
disrespecting people of faith and the victims of gun crime here in
Manchester.

He said however due to the row over the video game the cathedral had
seen an increase in visits from young people and tourists.

“In so many ways Sony have failed to live up to these standards by
disrespecting people of faith and the victims of gun crime here in
Manchester.”

Are the victims of gun crime in Manchester aliens trying to take
over the world then? If so Sony has truley disrespected them.

“He said however due to the row over the video game the cathedral
had seen an increase in visits from young people and tourists.”

And the row also boosted sales of the game so in the end both sides
get something out of it. Although Manchester Cathedral probably are
miffed that their campaign against Sony proably boosted the game’s
sales.

High jink Princes drama outrages Beyer

Oh yes showing young Royals as just like any other normal youngsters is out of the question. They must be shown as pure pargons of virtue always.

From Mediawatch UK:

Tale of Princes Misbehaving Provokes Royal Rumpus

Two young princes knock back tequilas in a West End nightclub.  The elder will one day be king while his brother revels in his image as a playboy.  Both have had to endure the loss of a parent.  It may sound familiar, but it is in fact the plot of a new “fictitious” television drama.  ITV has been accused of “cashing in” and “exploiting” the Royal Family with its eight-part series The Palace, which tells the story of two high-spirited princes. 

John Beyer, director of mediawatch-uk described the drama as a “tawdry and offensive” affair.  “People are bound to draw parallels between the characters in this programme and existing members of the Royal Family and I think there is a real danger a programme like this can undermine support for the family” he said.  “I don’t think the public want a drama which casts aspersions on the Royal Family in this way.  People have a great deal of affection for the Queen in particular, and any drama that intimates, rightly or wrongly, that it knows what is going on behind the scenes is going to cause offence”.

Tom Greaves, the creator and writer of the ITV show, last night denied that The Palace was based on actual events or people.

Sunday Telegraph 21/10/2007
“I don’t think the public want a drama which casts aspersions on the Royal Family in this way.”

But it’s fictional so it doesn’t cast aspersions on anyone.

“People have a great deal of affection for the Queen in particular, and any drama that intimates, rightly or wrongly, that it knows what is going on behind the scenes is going to cause offence”.

But it doesn’t…..“Tom Greaves, the creator and writer of the ITV show, last night denied that The Palace was based on actual events or people.”

Beyer’s inistance to judge programmes before they’ve even been aired is making him look ever more illinformed and ever more foolish.

We suspect he would prefer programmes to show Royalty as nothing but perfect.

BBFC “a law unto themselves” declares Beyer as violent Cronenberg movie is passed uncut

Oh yes! For daring to pass films that Beyer and Mediawatch UK object
to! Such a law unto themselves!

The Daily Mail have wheeled out Beyer to try and engineer a campaign
of moral outrage of the passing of the new David Cronenberg movie
Eastern Promises uncut and to whip middle England up into more
uproar against the BBFC.
Of course they would have the film banned completly!

From the Daily Mail:

Censors admit they no longer cut the violence out of movies

By CLEMMIE MOODIE – More by this author »

Film censors were accused last night of being “completely out of
touch” after they admitted they no longer cut violent scenes from 18-
rated movies.

Critics said the British Board of Film Classification’s members had
adopted a policy of “anything goes” and were a “law unto
themselves”.

The controversy was triggered by the board’s decision to approve the
ultra-violent film Eastern Promises without any cuts.

The 18-certificate movie, which is released this week, includes
graphic scenes of throatslitting, child prostitution and a man
having an eye gouged out.

A spokesman for the board said it was up to adults to decide what
they wanted to watch and that movie-goers were free to look away
from the screen.

But John Beyer, of pressure group Media watch UK, said the board
should be sacked for failing to show leadership at a time when
street violence is spiralling.

“The BBFC has become increasingly lax and ineffective and is
completely out of touch with public opinion,” he told the Mail.

“It needs to be replaced with another body which will show more
responsibility on the issue of violence.

“Despite the latest statistics in gun and knife crime showing that
the problems of violence are at an all-time high, the BBFC refuses
to take action.

“This culture of violence that the BBFC has engendered has got to
come to an end.

“There is no question that the BBFC has set about changing and
lowering standards over time with more violence and sexual content
being put out for an ever younger audience.”

He claimed that in the past three years board members had become “a
law unto themselves”.

Andreas Whittam Smith, president of the board from 1998 to 2002,
said he believed it had been taking a more relaxed approach toward
violence.

Referring to the eye-gouging scene in Eastern Promises, he said: “If
I thought this was the type of film that was likely to make people
leave the cinema, or even make them have to look away for quite a
while, then I would question why the scene should be left in.”

The film, directed by David Cronenberg and starring English-born
actress Naomi Watts, centres on the activities of the Russian Mafia
in London.

Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have accused the entertainment
industry of glamourising violence.

The Prime Minister has admitted to fears over video games while the
Tory leader says the products” makers have a duty not to
promote “casual violence, gang culture and the degradation of
women”.

Only 3 per cent of the films that went before the board last year
had to make cuts to achieve the rating they had requested.

This year the figure is running at 1 per cent. In the 1970s, the
figure was 25 per cent.

The board’s spokesman said: “For adult films, we only intervene if a
movie promotes harmful or dangerous activity which might encourage
copycat behaviour or encourages people to do stupid, harmful things.

“Not everyone will like Eastern Promises and some of the images,
such as the eye-gouging scene, might upset.

“It is not one for the squeamish and if you are of a wobbly nature,
then you can simply look away.

“The BBFC provides clear consumer advice. If the board went about
cutting out every scene liable to offend then we would be leaving
adults without any choice. Who’s to decide what adults can or can’t
watch?”

The board was set up in 1912 to protect “vulnerable viewers” from
harmful or unsuitable images.

Martin Scorsese’s controversial The Last Temptation of Christ and
Cronenberg’s Crash, about warped sexual fetishes, was cleared
without cuts as was 9 Songs, which featured real sex.

All three were refused screening space by some councils.

“But John Beyer, of pressure group Media watch UK, said the board
should be sacked for failing to show leadership at a time when
street violence is spiralling.”

John Beyer is actually saying that the board should be sacked for
not making the movie industry take responsbility for street violence!

“The BBFC has become increasingly lax and ineffective and is
completely out of touch with public opinion,”

Out of touch only with the “public opinion” of Daily Mail reading
middle England and pressure groups like Mediawatch UK who want the
kind of sweeping censorship and bannings that the majority of the
public certainly DON’T want!

“Despite the latest statistics in gun and knife crime showing that
the problems of violence are at an all-time high, the BBFC refuses
to take action.”

Then isn’t it patently obvious to Beyer that the BBFC DO NOT share
his view and the view of Mediawatch UK that the reason the problems
of violence are at “an all time high” is because of movie’s showing
violence?

But maybe it is……..

“It needs to be replaced with another body which will show more
responsibility on the issue of violence.”

In other words replaced with a body which takes Beyer and Mediawatch
UK’s view that violence in our society is largelly caused by
violence on screen and will do what he and Mediawatch UK want by
censoring and banning any film which it consideres “corrupting” and
which it believes will turn viewers into psycopathic killers.

“There is no question that the BBFC has set about changing and
lowering standards over time with more violence and sexual content
being put out for an ever younger audience.”

Yes yes the BBFC is allowing kids to see explicit and violence and
sexual content. The usual mantra pushed by groups like Mediawatch UK
with no evidence to support it.
But as all know their crusade isn’t about protecting children but
about imposing their views on the rest of society by lobbying for
films they dissaprove of to be banned.

Beyer and Mediawatch UK want a BBFC that will act to impose his and
their view that on screen violence is the cause of real life
violence on the film industry and film audiences.
They want a BBFC which dictates what is and isn’t good for adults
(not just children) to see.
But most of all they want a BBFC which holds the film industry
responsible for violence in our society.
And they won’t stop stamping their feet and whining until they get
that!
The passing of this film is just another stick they can beat the
BBFC with for “corrupting the nation’s youth” and “destroying the
fabric of our society”.

Manhunt 2 ban: Thousands are downloading it!

Just goes to show how pointless and unworkable such bans are!

From the Melon Famrers:

Update: Shock Horror!…

“Thousands download illegal ultra-violent game”

The tabloid press are gunning for Manhunt 2

From Sky News see full article

Manhunt 2 is a video game so violent it was the first in a decade to
be banned in Britain. But a Sky News investigation has discovered
that anyone, including young children, can still get hold of the
game.

Thousands of gamers are using the internet to get their hands on a
video game banned because of its graphic scenes of torture and
murder.

Manhunt 2, which features a character who goes on a gruesome killing
spree in a mental institution, is the only game to have been banned
by British censors in the past 10 years.

The BBFC refused to allow it to go on sale because of
its “relentless violence” and “casual sadism”.

But the game was leaked onto the web – and anyone with a little
technical knowledge [of Google and the word 'BitTorrent'] can
download it and play it on a modified games console.

No-one of any age is allowed to play the game, and yet our
investigation found thousands of people downloading it.

Gaming expert and journalist Rob Fahey told Sky News: What’s
disturbing about the game is you play a killer. There’s no victim to
sympathise with, there’s no particularly complex storyline; you
simply go around killing people in extraordinarily violent ways…
there’s no moral framework around it.

We sense the tabloid press kicking up a stink and calling for
a “crackdown” on gamers downloading “this evil corrupting filth”.

So what can be done about it? Is it really worth doing anything? No!

Oz religious loons lobby to get Californication taken off air

Down under religious groups keep up the world wide religious groups’
traidtion of trying to get TV programmes they don’t like taken off
air.

From the Melon Farmers:

Update: Californication Beyond the Pale…

Australian authority to investigate nutter complaints

Based on an article from News.com.au see full article

The satirical show, Californication, featuring David Duchovny made
an impat in Australia with four sex scenes when it first went to air
in August.

Its opening sequence depicted Duchovny’s character Hank Moody praying
to Jesus in front of a giant crucifix while a nun performed oral sex
on him.

Parent and Christian groups say the US show is inappropriate for
Australian screens, even in its late-night broadcast slot of 9.30pm.

The heated response to the show included complaints from more than 40
companies, including Holden, Arnotts, Nestle and Woolworths who
pulled their advertisements.

The media authority, ACMA, has now confirmed an investigation would
be launched.

The letter, signed by Andrew Power, the authority’s assistant manager
of assessment content, said the inquiry could take several months.

Festival of Light nutter spokeswoman Roslyn Phillips said: There is
still a long way to go. We made our complaint in writing, and Channel
Ten responded to the complaint, but ACMA will launch an
investigation. We are happy with this move but not happy with the
show. We don’t like the way the Catholic Church is treated, it’s
beyond the pale. The show can’t be shown late, it has to be pulled.
The way it’s treating religion and sex is just harmful.

Network Ten said the show was a ratings winner, consistently
attracting close to one million viewers. A network spokeswoman said
the show abided by all codes and practices.

Strewth Sheila put another shrimp on the barbie we can’t just reach
for our remote controls and turn it over we gotta get it banned so
that nobody else can watch it!

Network 10 says the show was a rating winner so it’s hardly likely
that they will take it off air because a bunch of self appointed
moral guardians say they should!

This follows a bunch of religious loons holding a candlelit vigil
outside the Network 10 studios protesting against the programme. It
seems that Australian religious groups have been taking tips from US
groups and have started harrasing advertisers to stop sponsoring
programmes they object to.

Also from the Melon Farmers:

Californication…

Australian nutters watch by candlelight

Based on an article from News.com.au see full article

Australian TV advertisers have supported Channel 10’s new program
Californication despite religious groups yesterday calling for a
boycott of the show.

Ten maintained that advertisers had not complained about explicit
sexual, drug and moral references.

The Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director Jim Wallace had
called for advertisers to be “held accountable” for their support of
the show: There will be calls to boycott sponsors of the show. And
I’ll be leading the calls. (If they are concerned about standards)
they should not be sponsoring this show. He said that he had
organised someone to record last night’s episode in order to identify
all advertisers.

The show, starring David Duchovny as a sex-addicted novelist and
father suffering a mid-life crisis, features nudity and the opening
scene saw a nun performing a sex act during a dream sequence.

Catholic priest Father John Fongemie led a candlelight vigil with 40
parishioners outside Ten’s Sydney studio during Monday’s episode.

Moral guardians up in arms over “disgusting” BBC safe sex video

Maybe we should be going back to adverts showing exploding volcanos and tombstones to get the ”safe sex” message across.

  

From the Metro:  

  

BBC’s sex video is branded filthy

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

BBC HIV ad underfire

An HIV awareness video from the BBC was branded ‘disgusting’ and ‘degrading’ by parent and media groups.

The video – starring GI Jonny and Captain Bareback – is animated with action hero figures and features explicit references to unusual sexual practices along with the need for safe sex.

The row over the contents of the video came on the day that the BBC was reported to be considering axing 2,800 – 12 per cent – of its staff.

RELATED ITEMS

• VIDEO: Latest news bulletin
• Today’s top news headlines
• BBC HIV safe sex video

It is part of an interactive online campaign aimed at 16- to 24-year-olds created by BBC Learning with the help of sexual health charity Terrence Higgins Trust. The BBC says the viral advert is aimed at the over-18’s, although it carries no warning.

 

Complaints have been made about the advert

National Confederation of Parent Teachers Associations Margaret Morrissey said: ‘I’m no Mary Whitehouse but this is just disgusting. I think the BBC needs to have a long hard look at itself if it thinks this is the best education it can provide for our teenagers with licence payers’ money.’

National spokesman of campaign group Media Watch UK David Turtle said: ‘This film is degrading to women and encourages casual sex and normalises certain kinds of sexual behaviour.

There is no hint of a loving relationship in this film. It is highly irresponsible of the BBC.’

 

We’re not sure what this is, but it’s probably rude

Defending the film, Terrence Higgins Trust spokeswoman Genevieve Clark said: ‘It’s clear that we need new ways of getting those safer sex messages out to young people – one in nine of whom has chlamydia.

‘We know that light-hearted virals like this can be really effective at getting more serious messages across.’ A BBC spokeswoman said: ‘GI

Jonny is an interactive online campaign designed to target young heterosexuals who are at increased risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, yet display high levels of complacency towards the diseases.’

The BBC refused to comment on how much GI Jonny cost to make.

 

Whether this is the most sensislbe way to get the safe sex message across is debatable but as ususal groups like Mediawatch UK sniff a chance to exploit it for their own ends.

David Turtle winges that the video is “encouraging” casual sex. Come on it’s hardly gonna have teenagers bonking each other left, right and centre!

 

 

Ban sad endings in kids books???

Mediasnoops smells a hox. There is a group called the Happy Ending Foundation but most people believe them to be a fake.  

  

Campaigning parents plan to burn children’s books with grisly endings

By ANDREW LEVY – More by this author » Last updated at 20:51pm on 4th October 2007 Comments (37)

Ban it: Jim Carey as Lemony Snicket, a character that is seen as too miserable for children

Children’s books that don’t have happy endings should be banned, it was claimed yesterday.Youngsters are already exposed to enough misery in their lives and should be protected from such stories, says a parents’ group.

The Happy Ending Foundation is planning a series of Bad Book Bonfires for later this month, when parents will be encouraged to burn novels with negative endings.

The foundation has also written to school librarians across the country to coincide with Children’s Book Week, which began on Monday, urging them to take ‘ controversial’ books off shelves.

Last night critics of the group said children needed a healthy balance in their reading.

Others said the book burnings were a sinister reminder of similar events in Nazi Germany.

Among the stories on the foundation’s blacklist are best-sellers such as A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket and Marcus Pfister’s Milo and the Magical Stones.

Works that make the approved list include Raymond

Brigg’s The Snowman and Enid Blyton’s Famous Five series.

The Snowman appears to have a sad ending because he melts, leaving the boy he has befriended alone. But the foundation claims it ends positively because the boy is contented, having the snowman’s scarf to remember him by.

Adrienne Small founded the

organisation when her ten-year-old daughter became depressed and withdrawn after reading the first book in the Lemony Snicket series.

She said: “I talked to other mothers and friends and we decided to do something positive with books that were more upbeat.

“I’m not trying to say the world should be viewed with rose-tinted glasses but you have got to do your best to protect your children.”

Mrs Small, 47, who is married with two teenage children, founded the organisation in 2000 and there are now 11 groups across the country, including London, Bristol, Manchester and Glasgow.

Scroll down for more…

Hans Christian Anderson’s classic The Little Mermaid, illustrated in Disney’s version of the film, has also been targeted by the campaign

Clare Hughes, head of the foundation’s East of England Cheering Committee, said: “I’ve seen the way my children respond to real life, whether that be the disappearance of a child, like Madeleine McCann, or bombings, and that gives them enough nightmares.

“Books should let them be assured that the goodies-will come out on top.”

But children’s charity Kidscape condemned a campaign which would lead to young people ‘missing out on the magic of literature’.

Director Michele Elliott said: “There is a distance between you and a book which allows you to experience emotions and think about what’s happening – but it’s not happening to you. That’s incredibly healthy.

“There has to be a balance. I would not feed children a complete diet of morbid books.”

Award-winning children’s author Kevin Brooks, whose books have a reputation for emotional rollercoasters and disturbing cliffhangers, said the proposed burnings were reminiscent of the Nazi regime.

“Controversy and bad stuff is everywhere,” he said. “It is far better to find out about it in books where it is written with some feeling and poetry and power.”

Speeking today John Beyer director of the media morals watchdog
Mediawatch-uk said that he fully supports banning children’s story
books that have sad endings. “Showing life through rose tinted
glasses is the only thing we think is acceptable for the entire
entertainments industry to do and that should include children’s
story books too.” However he added that such proposals to ban
children’s books with sad endings do not go far enough and they
should be extended to include adult books too.
“We do not believe there is any justification for anyone to be in
possesion of books with sad endings. There is plenty of evidence to
show that books with sad endings causes marital breakdown as people
get depressed and end up fighting like cats and dogs. There is also
evidence that such books turn people into manic depressives who want
to go out and kill the first person that bumps into them in the
street. Is it any wonder that violent crime is on the rise when
people are reading books where the characters end up dying at the
end?”
Mr Beyer said Mediawatch UK would be launching a petition to be sent
to 10 Downing Street urging the Prime Minister to make all books with
sad endings illegal and possesion of such books to carry a three year
prison sentances. “Books with sad endings are as bad as porn!” He
concluded.

Manhunt 2 banned again

The BBFC have rejected the toned down version. Presuambly in fear of
incuring the wrath of the moral guardians.

From the Melon Farmers:

Update: Banhunt 2…

BBFC ban toned down version of Manhunt 2

From the BBFC

The censors have just banned the tones down version of Manhunt 2
which is presumably the M rated version to be released in the US.

The BBFC have issued the following press release:

The BBFC has rejected a revised version of the video game Manhunt 2.
This follows the rejection of the original version of the game in
June. The distributor had set in motion an appeal to the Video
Appeals Committee against that decision, and this was suspended while
the revised version was considered for classification.

David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said:
We recognise that the distributor has made changes to the game, but
we do not consider that these go far enough to address our concerns
about the original version. The impact of the revisions on the
bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the
gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the
visual detail in some of the `execution kills’, but in others they
retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature.

We did make suggestions for further changes to the game, but the
distributor has chosen not to make them, and as a result we have
rejected the game on both platforms. The decision on whether or not
an appeal goes ahead lies with the distributor

Kieth Vaz and co will be popping the champagne again then!