On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:16:15 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Doug
 wrote this:-

>Nope, in this case the police were acting as censors.

Indeed. They chose the time of their interventions very carefully,
so that there was not enough time to counter the intervention and
the venues were put in a  difficult position.

However, their censorship did have the effect of making the film far
more well known than it would have been otherwise. One can download
it from <http://www.smashedo.org.uk> and see why the police tried to
ban it.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:19:44 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be BrianW
 wrote this:-

>How on earth can you say it was the police who censored it, when it
>was the film makers who had failed to get a certificate?

If the police were that concerned then they would insist that all
films are classified. However, they don't. One possible conclusion
is that they picked on this film as it doesn't show them in a good
light The other possibility is that they were incompetent in the
past but will insist that all films are classified in the future.
There is no third option and we already know that the second option
is not the case (as they have not done the same thing with other
films).

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/27/ethicalliving.activists>
has a fuller background, from which the following are the relevant
bits:

============================================================================

The saga began on March 17. The film's premiere was due to take
place at the much loved Duke of York's Picturehouse in Brighton at
6.30pm. At around 4pm, a police officer contacted the city council's
licensing department and told them the film was not classified.
Strictly speaking, cinemas are obliged to ensure films have
classifications either from the British Board of Film Classification
(BBFC) or from the local authority. In practice, independent cinemas
often do show community or foreign films without having them
classified.

On this occasion, the council suggested the venue take legal advice
before going ahead with the screening. The cinema felt it had no
choice but to cancel. Being practical people, smashEDO found a local
pub that was prepared to show it and, in two sittings, the premiere
went ahead, anti-war protesters and their friends mingling with St
Patrick's Day revellers.

Embarrassment followed for the police. Initially they said they had
nothing to do with the cancellation. But the city council revealed
that its intervention had been prompted by the force, and Sussex
police then admitted that a "junior officer" had alerted the city
council to the showing. SmashEDO and SchMovies, who worked together
extremely closely on the film, believed this was a little local
difficulty: the film criticises and mocks the force's attempts to
control their protests.

But as they began to tour the country with On the Verge, they
discovered that the local authorities appeared to be waiting for
them. On the day the film was due to be screened at the tiny Art
House community cafe in Southampton, for instance, a police officer
turned up and asked questions about the venue's entertainment
licence. It does not have one - it is a vegetarian restaurant that
occasionally puts on a little music or the odd community film. Jani
Franck, one of the directors of the cafe, says she felt threatened
by the sudden interest. "It was frightening. The police officer
asked me if I knew anything about the smashEDO people. He said they
were leftwing anarchists. I grew up in South Africa and this felt
like the sort of thing the police there would do. It felt like
political policing." But she felt she could not risk showing the
film in the cafe and it was shown in a private room in a pub
instead.

In Bath the film was also due to be shown in a pub, the Bell, on
Tuesday night. But a council licensing officer, Alan Bartlett,
pointed out that the pub only had a licence to show films on
Sundays. Local peace activist John Bampfylde, who had arranged the
screening, says: "I think it's because this film shows how people
doing direct action can take on the establishment. The authorities
don't want people to know that." How did Bartlett get to hear about
the film being shown? He told the Guardian that someone - he could
not recall who - had sent him an email drawing his attention to it.
The screening was switched to the Friends Meeting House.

Last night (Wednesday), the film was due to be shown at the Three
Barrels pub in Hereford. Licensee Peter Amor says that he received a
visit from a police licensing officer.

Amor says the officer told him he had been asked by "someone from
above" to have a word about the film, though he did not suggest the
screening be cancelled. "But you get a bit worried when that
happens," says Amor. Rumours had reached the pub that the film
claims that Sussex police were involved in someone's death - it does
no such thing. When the Guardian spoke to Amor at lunchtime
yesterday he was "90% sure" he would show it. "I believe in free
speech - Voltaire and all that." But then came a hand-delivered
letter from the council saying he did not have a licence to show it
and he felt forced to call it off. 

[snip]

However, the saga has deeper implications for the independent film
industry. Cinemas like the Duke of York's will have to start
submitting all films like On the Verge to the local authority for
its approval. The taxpayer will foot the bill. Another concern is
that it could be harder for independent film-makers to get their
work shown. Obtaining certification from the BBFC is too costly for
many small-scale film-makers and if venues do not want the bother of
seeking approval from the local authority, some movies may just
vanish.

Jerry Morgan, of the Groovy Movie Picture House, a solar-powered
cinema, says: "This seems to be an utterly misguided piece of
hysteria. If every film has to be classified, what is going to
happen to independent films that are made for a few hundred pounds?
What's going to happen to film students' work? " Venues are already
being affected. The Art House community cafe in Southampton, for
one, feels it must get an entertainment licence, which will cost
several hundred pounds. 

============================================================================





-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:59:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be BrianW
 wrote this:-

>I have nothing against the makers of the film in question.  They have
>every right to show their film.  However, there is a legal requirement
>in this country that all films shown in licensed cinemas must have a
>BBFC certificate.

Incorrect. As explained in the article, it could instead be
classified by the council.

Bear in mind that this was not being shown in an Odeon or whatever,
it was being shown in small venues, many of them not cinemas at all.

<http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news625.htm> has some more
coverage. I particularly liked:

======================================================================

Classifications for similar independent films are not normally an
issue – especially for private showings where no money changes hands
(and with official BBFC certifications costing up to a grand, it
would kill any local independent no-budget film making). Given that
there is no swearing or nudity in the film, and that the only
violence in the film is at the hands of Sussex police, offences
against public morals are unlikely. But in an unusual bout of
sensitivity towards the public, police decided that although it’s OK
to violently attack protesters, it might disturb members of the
public were they to see it on film.

Steve Bishop of SchMovies told us exclusively “We’re not exactly
surprised by the police action. Yeah, the film doesn’t have a
certificate but since when has this applied to productions with a
budget of under five hundred quid! What next, a PG certificate for
yer wedding video? The only reason they want to ban this is ‘cuz it
shows ‘em in a bad light.”

======================================================================

The following two stories on Schnews 625 are also of interest

Firstly two people stopped, searched and threatened for the "crime"
of their car being near the EDO demonstrations.

Secondly

"The all chat and smiles not-for-profit CHT, an educational group
who peddle a mix of environmental and sustainability information –
were invited to take their library and youth cinema to attend an
Easter Gathering festival to be held at Wentwood Forest. They
thought it would be a good place to follow their not extremely
anti-state mission of encouraging young people to vote and to
understand how important it is to become an active citizen.

"Upon their arrival they were shepherded in to the site by police
usual florescent-jacketed staff and proceeded to set up and their
pitch and began spreading the message – and were pleased to sign up
thirty new volunteers keen to help with their subversive programmes
of tree planting and working with a pensioners gardening
initiative."

If this is the New Britain that the Labour Party is promoting then
they are not doing so in my name.


I did like the letter at
<http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.2139013.0.0.php>

"The film shows Sussex Police in a poor light. We also discover
something of the closeness of the relationship between Sussex Police
and the management of EDO, their solicitors and security personnel.

"None of this came as a surprise to me as I was a protester at some
of the events portrayed in the film. However, any member of the
public who wasn't there and who saw these scenes would have the
scales lifted from their eyes. They could no longer believe that
Sussex Police are neutral peacekeepers and protecters of the right
to peaceful protest in the dispute between the protesters and the
arms manufacturers."





-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54