House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Apr 1993

Mr. Brown : Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's list, I acquit him of the charge of populism and wish him a happy Easter.

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman can do what he likes, but I can tell him that there is widespread support throughout the country for each and every one of the developments to which I have referred. The very fact that he felt it right to intervene with such a comment shows how out of touch the Opposition are with what people want. Even after nearly 14 years in office, it is the Conservative party that is setting the real agenda for political debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising tomorrow, do adjourn until Wednesday 14th April and, at its rising on Friday 30th April, do adjourn until Tuesday 4th May.

Column 564

Television (Violence)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

8.6 pm

Mr. Jim Callaghan (Heywood and Middleton) : It is a great pleasure to raise once again the important subject of violence on television. Last month, the Prime Minister warned of the serious effects on the young of a

"relentless diet of screen violence".

Following his expression of concern, the Home Secretary urged television companies to show greater responsibility by reducing the "diet of violence" on British screens. He said :

"Graphic scenes of brutality and killing have a direct effect on young people and are partly responsible for the upsurge in violence in society I think young people--all of us--become accustomed to watching violence as entertainment."

Last month, the Secretary of State for Health, said at a conference organised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children :

"A television diet of sex and violence can have a pernicious effect on children. There is undoubtedly a role for the Government to regulate what is broadcast, but parents also have a responsibility to establish the limits beyond which their children should not tread." The right hon. Lady urged parents to instill the three Rs--responsibility, respect and right from wrong--in their children. In many debates I find myself in total agreement with Mrs. Bottomley--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must refer to the Secretary of State as "the right hon. Lady", and to other Ministers as "the right hon. Gentleman" or "right hon. Lady".

Mr. Callaghan : I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not mean to be disrespectful in any way--just the reverse : I was praising the right hon. Lady. I beg both her pardon and your pardon. Following the concern about television violence expressed by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health, it was announced that a two-week survey into violence on television would be undertaken by the regulatory body for commercial television, commencing on 24 March 1993. The output of ITV, Channel 4 and Sky will be monitored between 6 pm and midnight during that period. I welcome that survey, even though it is short.

Also reacting to the Prime Minister's warning of the serious effects on the young of screen violence, Mr. Yentob, the newly appointed BBC controller, pledged that the BBC would exercise "more care and scrutiny to ensure that we understand the public sentiment and the public climate."

I welcome his statement. He also said :

"I don't think in the end you can just defer the responsibility entirely on the broadcaster."

I agree with him.

When asked about the problem of children being able to tape programmes screened after the 9 pm adult viewing watershed, he said :

"In the end, you can't avoid parental responsibility".

He said that he was unconvinced of a direct causal link between violence on television and copy-cat crime on the streets.

Column 565

In the same month, March, when Ministers expressed their concern about violence on screen, Sir Anthony Hopkins, the famous British actor and star of the film, "Silence of the Lambs", announced on 5 March 1993 that he may pull out of the film's sequel. He said that he was alarmed at the popularity of the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter, the film's principal character. Sir Anthony is reported as saying : "We are living in an age of such horrors and there are such terrifying films coming out, that I think it may be time to say enough is enough."

I welcome that statement, and I welcome Michael Medred's new book, "Hollywood Vs America". His basic message is that Hollywood the American dream factory has become Hollywood the American nightmare factory. He charges that the Hollywood moguls of popular culture are foisting a torrent of violence and repulsive work on a public who want to cling on to old moral values. Although his book is about America, its implications for this country are self-evident. I have no doubt that the fat cats who are raking in the profits from each more audaciously violent movie, video or recording will continue to do so despite the criticisms in Mr. Medred's book.

The issue of violence on television is not new : it has been raised many times, both inside and outside the House. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), when he was a Minister, replying to a debate on young people and violent crime on 6 December 1985, said :

"Several hon. Members referred to concern about violence on television and its impact. Like so many of those matters, it is not easy to determine what that impact is. Many think--I am one of them--that we are entitled to rely on common sense, and common sense must lead us to suspect that the constant diet of violence, particularly for young and impressionable minds, leads to some desensitisation, and can encourage people to go out and engage in violence. It can create the impression that violence is a normal response to everyday problems in society.

We must also look at what research tells us. Again, the message is not entirely clear, but there is no doubt that the overall conclusion is that, despite extensive studies, it is not possible to demonstrate that films on television do or do not exercise a socially harmful influence."--[ Official Report , 6 December 1985 ; Vol. 88, c. 585.] The subject is not a new one, and I may be asked why I am once again raising it on the Floor of the House. The comments of Ministers and Sir Anthony Hopkins led me to do so. Having viewed television programmes in various countries, I am convinced that those produced here are the best in the world. When I am abroad, I cannot wait to get back to look at our television. However, that does not mean that our programmes cannot be improved, as I am sure the broadcasting authorities would agree.

I became seriously concerned about violence on television and its effect on the very young when, two or three years ago, the world's press was focused on my constituency because of the alleged satanic abuse of children in the area. It was the word "satanic" that drew the attention of the press. The social services department in the Rochdale district had taken several children into care when they and their teachers in a local school became concerned about the strange behaviour of a disturbed child in the school. The boy was screaming, hiding in cupboards and talking about ghosts. The social workers and teachers

Column 566

were convinced that the child and those with whom he associated had been subjected to satanic abuse, so he was taken into care. It was stated at the subsequent court case that the child, aged about six, had been allowed by his parents to watch horror videos such as "Nightmare on Elm Street" until 1 am. It is no wonder that the child, who was only six, was disturbed and screamed and hid in cupboards. The social workers were criticised in court because they had not followed the procedures laid down in the Butler-Sloss recommendations following the Cleveland case. If the social workers had done so, the case would not have come to court. There are many lessons to be learned about the behaviour of irresponsible parents, videos and codes of practice from that case in my constituency. A Sunday Mirror survey taken in March this year confirms my fears about the use of videos by children, as did the case in my constituency. It found that half the children under the age of 16 had television sets in their bedrooms, and their parents had little idea what they watched or how late they did so, as they lay in bed videoing and replaying what they liked.

I am convinced that we need to tighten our laws on videos, even though the Video Recordings Act 1984 gave powers to control what is shown on screen. Sadly, some video nasties are still available under the counter, and some companies still put out videos that have never been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification, including videos with material that should not be available in any civilised society.

Therefore, I welcome Lord Birkett's Bill in the other place, which aims to tighten up the enforcement laws on videos. It will give trading standards officers power not only to seize illegal videos but to pursue their manufacturers. I hope that the Government will support that amendment. I also welcome the survey commissioned by the British Board of Film Classification a week ago to investigate the viewing habits of juvenile offenders. The survey also has the backing of the BBC, ITV and the Broadcasting Standards Council.

The problem is not new. In the late 1950s, the BBC issued a code on violence in programmes, a code that was periodically reviewed and extended. The Sims committee, chaired by Monica Sims, head of children's programmes, television, and later controller of Radio 4, drew up guidelines in 1979. It included in its recommendations the need to review and revise the guidelines at least every five years. The first review by a committee of programme heads took place in 1983.

In December 1985, the managing director of television asked a Mr. Wyatt, head of documentary features, to chair an internal BBC committee to review the BBC guidelines on the portrayal of violence on television and to consider their effectiveness, although at that time there was no sign that viewers had suddenly become more worried about violence on television. It came about because the BBC had monitored public responses to television.

The committee began by looking at existing guidelines. Those had stood the test of time, although the principles remained constant, the considerations relevant and the dangers well described. Some key issues emerged as the committee went about its work. The first was the complexity of the decisions made and the inadequacy of any simplistic solutions--there can be no simplistic solutions. The second was the concern for the totality of violence on television and its possible cumulative effect,

Column 567

rather than concern about individual incidents. The third was the importance of informing viewers by accurately labelling programmes, and the fourth the need to define the BBC's responsibilities. ITV has a similar code.

The committee then set up a series of seminars for producers to discuss the existing guidelines, to give their views on violence on television and to make suggestions. It asked members of the committee to prepare papers on news, drama and purchased programmes--the sectors that caused most concern. It met the director of the BBFC, looked at the classification system used by cable operators and obtained details of guidelines used by other European broadcasters. The role of the British Broadcasting Standards Council, which came into being in 1988, is to monitor the portrayal of violence and sex and matters of taste and decency, to report on them, to undertake research and to adjudicate on complaints from the public. The BBC's constitution is set out in the royal charter and licence and agreement of 1981. It recognises a duty that, as far as possible, "programmes should not offend against good taste or decency or be likely to encourage crime and disorder or be offensive to public feeling."

Despite all those safeguards, mistakes can be, and are, made. I deeply regret the decision made by Channel 4 to screen an interview with Aileen Wuornos, an American serial killer who murdered seven men. I regret the decision of Central TV to screen a programme in which the mass murderer Dennis Nilsen was interviewed. However, no amount of legislation can ever ensure that creative staff will never make mistakes.

Besides keeping to the codes of practice, producers must be sensitive to outside opinion and take part in a dialogue with the audience about what is truthful, honest, necessary and appropriate to show. Television is a powerful and influential medium and any powerful tool needs careful handling. There can be no simple solution to the problem. Television programme makers must regularly re-examine what they are doing and their relationship with the public. They must be questioned, and must question themselves, about what they transmit and when.

Most worrying of all is the argument that television is blunting our sensibilities, that viewers, especially the young, are growing used to a world in which death comes cheaply, and violence is the way to solve problems. That is the "drip, drip" argument. What is at fault may not be the individual programmes, scenes or times but the accumulation of such items. It is prudent for broadcasters to work on the assumption that, to some extent, for some people, for some of the time, television may promote violence. That is not to say that television is a leading cause of violence. It may reflect it, it may exaggerate it, but violence is in people, and there is enough violence in human history for us to know that television's role may be tiny.

Television has much to be proud of, particularly in this country. The response to the Ethiopian appeals, Live Aid, "Children in Need" and "Drugwatch" show that people are sensitive as never before to the hardships and unhappiness of others, especially children. Much of the credit must go to television. Credit must also be given to its role as a provider of information and to the pleasure that it brings in entertainment, particularly to the lonely, the isolated and the sick.

Column 568

Broadcasters must take care about violence, about the overall picture of the world they present, and must ensure that they find a proper place for values other than the aggressive, the cynical and opportunistic. The programme makers' job is to think through their material and respect the audience. They can then seek new ways to exploit television's awesome ability to transmit to millions the humanity of others, to show us something of what it is like to be another human being.

8.27 pm

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on presenting this complex subject in such a straightforward way and on not coming forward with the simple, easy solution in which some people believe--censorship. We want to encourage responsibility both in the media and the family. I agreed with much of what the hon. Gentleman said.

One of the difficulties that we have to face up to is the reluctance of some in the media to accept that there is any relationship between violence and what we see on the screen, be it the big screen at the movie, or its translation into video, which we then see on television, or the original creative work of television. The hon. Gentleman quoted a much-respected figure from television, who has great experience of television--Mr. Alan Yentob. He does not accept, according to the hon. Gentleman, that there is a relationship. In one respect he is right. No one has proved that there is a casual relationship, a point to which I shall return later.

The hon. Gentleman reflects a view that I accepted myself when I worked in television because I wanted the freedom that all producers and interviewers seek when they carry out their responsibilities. Alan Yentob was recently reported as saying :

"I think we have real responsibilities to try to make programmes that reflect the world as it is".

A comment on that was contained in a letter to The Times which said :

"It might be to the benefit of us all if the BBC screened a greater proportion of programmes showing the more civilised aspects of our society and the need to aspire to an improved moral climate." That is an important point. Some of us recognise that there is some relationship between the media and public taste.

On the same day, in another letter in The Times, Mr. Waddington, director of criminal justice studies at the department of sociology at the university of Reading, referred to the question whether the impact of media violence on crime is as serious as some people make out. He concluded :

"If a link is not established, then mere entertainment might be needlessly restricted. If, on the other hand, there is a link which the ingenuity of researchers has yet to establish, the consequences of brutalisation might be calamitous. Given this asymmetry, prudence surely demands that the diet of media violence should be curtailed." The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton quoted reports which appeared in The Sunday Times by Michael Medved, who made a brilliant, cruel analysis of some of the products of Hollywood in recent times. Who can deny that in recent years we have seen an increasing diet of media violence?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a quote concerning Sir Anthony Hopkins, who, in 1991, was one of those nominated best actor of the year. Mr. Medved said that, of the five men nominated for the best actor award, three

Column 569

played deranged and sadistic killers--Sir Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs", Warren Beatty in "Bugsy" and Robert de Niro in "Cape Fear". Shortly before the release of "Bugsy", the screen writer James Toback said :

"It is a portrait of a tremendously charming sex and violence obsessed quasi-madman who is infatuated with creation and death. People are going to be astounded by Warren Beatty. He is a complete psycho."

Those are extreme cases, but they are role models for others that we have seen in movies which have come on to the screen through the video. We have seen other cheaper, not quite so tawdry, but pretty tawdry, imitations on the box.

My interest in the matter stems not from my involvement in the BBC or from having been a director of a commercial television company ; it goes further back to a time when I sat on a committee which considered violence on television. It goes back some 15 years when I was a member of a working party of the IBA which considered the current code on violence. We came to the conclusion that, in general, it was a useful guide to producers. Since then, various changes have been made by the BBC and the IBA.

We thought that the code on violence recognised the need for some form of introduction which would stress that, while evidence of a connection between televised and social violence is conflicting, the possibility of such a connection must remain an area of continuing concern for all broadcasters.

We made other comments about certain modes of behaviour as portrayed on television as admirable, but we noted that, even in those days in 1978, there had been an escalation in the degree of violent realism employed, the difference being that the realism of television is far greater than that of Shakespeare and the classic Greek dramas where much of the violent action is off stage. In any case, I shall be deliberately elitist and say that the thinking behind such productions is of a somewhat higher standard, not to mention the language.

On television we have increasingly seen the use of the hand-held camera, tape and the light, easy-to-handle mobile camera which allows the depiction of fictional scenes in horrific realistic terms and that has an effect.

When we considered the code in 1978 we said that there was no evidence that the portrayal of violence for good or legitimate ends was likely to be less harmful to the individual or society than the portrayal of violence for evil ends. We thought that there was no evidence that sanitised or conventional violence, in which the consequences are concealed, minimised or presented in a ritualistic way is innocuous. We also recognised that dramatic truth may occasionally demand the portrayal of a sadistic character. However, we strongly objected to ingenious and unfamiliar methods of inflicting pain or injury, particularly if capable of easy imitation. We thought that if such portrayals were to be shown they should first have the most careful consideration. We discussed and made recommendations on other matters such as children's cartoons, and so on, and we did not think that, on balance, they did much harm.

However, we were to some extent influenced, and as time has gone by I have become more influenced, by research by Dr. William A. Belson published in a book

Column 570

entitled "Television Violence and the Adolescent Boy" in late 1978. I do not know what Dr. Belson is now, but he was then a reader in research methods at North East London polytechnic, a consultant in the techniques of social and business research and a fellow of the British Psychological Society. This research was funded by the Columbia Broadcasting System.

We considered some of Dr. Belson's evidence, but, since then, I have studied it a little more carefully. His most noteworthy conclusions were that

"high exposure to television violence increases the degree to which boys"--

he is specifically referring to boys in the East End who were his subjects- -

"engage in serious violence".

On the evidence of the inquiry he adumbrated five types of television violence which appeared to be the more potent in releasing serious violence by boys. It is important that he concentrated on boys because on the whole, though not exclusively because there is an increasing trend towards violence among young girls, it is the young man who is the most violent member of the human race in modern society.

Mr. Belson said that the more potent types of television violence in releasing serious violence by boys were :

"(a) plays or films in which violence occurs in the context of close personal relations ;

(b) violent programmes in which the violence appears to have been just thrown in for its own sake'

(d) programmes in which the violence is presented as being in a good cause ;

(e) Westerns of the violent kind."

He added :

"By contrast, there was but little or no support for the hypotheses that exposure to the following kinds of programme output increases serious violence by boys.

(a) sporting programmes presenting violent beha-viour

(b) violent cartoons including Tom and Jerry ;

(d) slapstick comedy presenting violence or verbal abuse." Looking at the book afresh, that appears to me to amount to a lot of common sense. Mr. Belson wondered what could be done about such violence and that is the problem that we face ; it certainly is for me because, as I said earlier, I do not advocate censorship, unless we are talking about video nasties, on which we have already had legislation. It may be that the tightening of the controls will be enough. As the hon. Gentleman said, such legislation has been debated in the other place. If one reads between the lines of a recent article in the Daily Mail by James Furman, director of the British Board of Film Classification, and of an interview that he gave to another newspaper, I would not be surprised if he would not have to buy and willingly buy a system of video nasties censorship. If I am wrong, and if I have maligned Mr. Furman, I regret it--and I am sure that he will find an opportunity to correct any false impression that I may have given.

We must accept, both in movies that are shown on television and in some television programmes, that there is a cheapening of human values. There is a nasty kind of violence. I take that seriously and Mr. Belson's research is still important and significant. He believes that we should cut the violence presented on television. He states that the necessary reduction in the amount of violence is many important matters, plots and stories depend on violence. He added : "As far as serious violence in concerned, there is a well-supported case for a major reduction in the total amount of violence shown on television.

At the same time the cut-back in television violence does not have necessarily to be complete, for the increase in serious violence by boys does not appear to occur until the accumulated input has gone beyond a certain level. In other words, there appears to be scope for the presentation of a certain amount of violence without the production of serious violence in boy viewers.

However, if we are interested in reducing the degree to which television stimulates the relatively non-serious forms of violence in boys, then the cut-back in television violence would have to be very drastic indeed".

I guess that would go too far for most of us.

As to the kind of violence most necessary to eliminate, he remarked

"If the amount of television violence is to be reduced, then one has to decide upon criteria for reducing it. At a purely commonsense level, this should not be difficult once production staff accept television violence first and foremost as potentially damaging rather than regarding it principally as potential entertainment." I agree with that.

8.42 pm

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on choosing to raise a matter of particular interest to, and within the personal experience of, most of our constituents.

I spent the greater part of my professional career working in the mechanical media--as a sound broadcaster, radio producer, and television producer and director. It is a sad fact that over the years that I have been associated with the industry, I have watched and heard standards-- particularly of language--decline. Many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House are concerned about bad language, explicit sex and, above all, explicit violence on television and video and, to a lesser extent, on radio.

My personal concern is not individual programmes but the cumulative effect of a saturation assault on the senses of the audience. Some will argue that for a normal viewer--whatever or whoever that may be--exposure to a nightly diet of verbal and visual abuse that is the stuff of current programming has little or no long-term adverse effect. I cannot accept that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), I cannot believe that advertisers pay hundreds of thousands of pounds annually creating and broadcasting advertisements for the specific and powerful purpose of altering people's purchasing habits, and that right hon. and hon. Members vie for air time to alter the public's political thinking, but that what is seen on news programmes, in documentaries and in drama does not have a similar, brain-washing and perhaps brain-curdling effect. Can any right hon. or hon. Member put hand on heart and say that reports of IRA atrocities in Northern Ireland or closer to home, on the mainland, and even such terrible events as the Warrington bombing and the sad and grim funerals that followed still have the same impact as those first reported far too many murdering years ago? Is it not a fact that all our senses, not just those of the young and still innocent, are dulled by the grim repetition of death universally that we see reported night after night

Column 572

from the four corners of the earth? Do reports of war or famine in Somalia or Bosnia tear at the heart strings and purse strings in the way that Jonathan Dimbleby's first reports from Ethiopia did many years ago?

If the answer to those questions is no, is that because the human mind can only take so much of a battering of violence and that, as a result of relentless repetition, even the most sensitive and responsive have become inured to human suffering?

I have dealt so far only with events that one would expect to see on our screens, hear about on our radios, and read about in our newspapers. We must acknowledge, however, that modern technology has made the graphic reporting of war, pestilence and death more immediate and has brought them into the heart of our homes in a way that was not possible only a few years ago. For good or ill, that progress is irreversible. Today's children are subjected to far more scenes of death and violence on television than anything that most of us experienced in our own childhood.

We are compounding that quota of grim viewing by adding, under the guise of entertainment, still more scenes of violence and death. My wife and I try hard to monitor our 12-year-old son's viewing and to ensure that the programmes that he watches are suited to the capacities, sensitivities and tolerances of a young, active, inquiring and impressionable mind. However, all too frequently we discover that well before the much-vaunted threshold, material is broadcast that at least I find unacceptable because of its language and violent content.

There is no denying that my son and his young friends like blood-and- thunder films or that they revel in the more brutal action crime series, and the like. It is often argued, with some justification, that children are bloodthirsty little people by nature and that they have always been so. After all, the Punch and Judy shows that many of us enjoyed in the past are not the most peaceful of theatricals. There is, however, a world of difference between the Punch and Judy professor and the fictional and fantasy warmongers of, for example, "Dr. Who" and the much more realistic and foul-mouthed villains of today's television series and dramas.

I will not rehearse a litany of titles. Suffice it to say that on any given evening a family household is unlikely to be deprived of the dubious pleasure of finding on one channel or another, usually well within peak viewing time, something to satisfy any likely craving for televisual aggression. Were too peaceful an evening to occur, the video shop that is seemingly just around every corner is open all hours to offer lurid titles of extremely dubious pedigree. We have supplemented the available domestic television services with a growing number of satellite channels. I make it clear immediately that I support the development of satellite and cable services and that I see great potential in the future of transfrontier broadcasting. We must, however, recognise that, as with any new technology, there is potential for good and for ill. We have seen the potential for good in satellite news services and in sports and children's channels that are capable of delivering a variety of information, enjoyment and entertainment from Europe and the rest of the world. Few would deny that satellite coverage of the Olympics or, sparing recent performances, of Test cricket from halfway around the globe has not brought pleasure to millions of sports fans.

Column 573

Nor can there be much doubt that coverage of famine in Somalia, war in the Gulf, or privation in the former Yugoslavia-- however gruelling--has brought home the plight of human souls in other parts of the world with a vivid immediacy that has had a profound effect on international political response to those needs.

The potential for exchanges of culture--music, films, theatre and education --are immense. The sheer capacity of satellite transmission makes it possible to devote whole channels to, for example, religion, education or sport--or to hard-core pornography : that is the darker side of this most powerful of media. The launch of the Red Hot television service has, at least temporarily, driven a coach and horses through our domestic regulatory framework.

I am not one of the world's natural censors. In my time as a programme maker I pushed at the frontiers of some people's taste and, as a result, found myself answerable to the regulatory authorities. I do not want to curtail the creative and genuinely artistic expression of young producers and directors, even if they sometimes make what we may regard as errors of judgment. However, I defy any but the most brutalised to find any creative merit in a wall-to-wall diet of hard-core pornography of the kind that provides the sole format of the Red Hot service. I shall spare the House a blow-by-blow account of the channel's output ; suffice it to say that the scripts are not the most inventive that I have had the dubious privilege of experiencing.

I concede that such material is available for open-channel daytime viewing in many hotels throughout mainland Europe ; it is also true that hard-core pornography is broadcast by some European services--Canal Plus in France, for example--as part of a balanced programme. As far as I am aware, however, Red Hot is the only channel in the European Community that is dedicated exclusively to the transmission of hard-core explicit sexual activity. Let me make it clear that I am not talking about the television equivalent of top-shelf girlie magazines ; the channel portrays much more than natural explicit sex. At least one of the three clips that I saw had heavy overtones of sado-masochism.

I think it inevitable that, if such a service is allowed to continue, its client audience will demand ever more extreme and revolting material. Should that be in any doubt, as one of those who visited and were sickened by the exhibition mounted in the House by the obscene publications squad, I am in a position to say that films featuring extreme sexual violence and paedophilia are all too readily available. The latter is now being transmitted not only through the post in the form of still pictures and on videotape, but by computer link--in which form it appears to be outside the law.

We are told that the Red Hot films are shown only to consenting subscribers who have bought the necessary decoding equipment, and that they are only shown late at night. I concede that that is correct. If transmitted within the United Kingdom, however, the channel would not receive a broadcast licence ; and its films, if seized by customs on their entry into the United Kingdom on videotape, would without doubt lead to prosecution. One need not be a genius to work out that, given the ease with

Next Section

Home Page