Quote: LONDON (Reuters) – Retailers who sell children violent or pornographic videos will be immune from prosecution for the next three months after the discovery of a government blunder 25 years ago.
Britain should have notified the European Commission of the existence of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) -- which regulated the industry -- but failed to do so.
"Unfortunately, the discovery of this omission means that, a quarter of a century later, the VRA is no longer enforceable against individuals in United Kingdom courts," said Barbara Follett, Minister for Culture and Tourism.
Follett said people currently being prosecuted under the act would not be convicted until a new act can take legal effect in three months, the period required for consultation with other EU member states.
In the interim, people will be able to sell pornographic and violent videos to children under the age of 18 without fear of prosecution.
Think of the tourist trade! I can just see kids being asked by their parents, "So, Little Johnny, where do you want to go for your holidays? Disneyland? Six Flags?"
"Can we go to England instead?"
"Of course, that would give you a great education!"
OA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 25113 posts, RR: 60 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): In the interim, people will be able to sell pornographic and violent videos to children under the age of 18 without fear of prosecution.
Well I doubt there will be a big rush of retailers in selling all this porn to kids unless they are sick in the head.
OLYMPIC AIR - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΗ "Η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΨΗΛΑ" "GREECE FLYING HIGH"
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3045 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2735 times:
The thing that really gets to me is that our government is so subservient to the EU that they will allow the sale of violent/pornographic films to children, due to an error 25 years ago.
We should be strong enough to ignore the EU on this matter. The voters of the UK have never agreed to the EU having such powers over us. The only vote on the matter was over 30 years ago, for what was then referred to as "the common market"
It is time to reign back on federalism and get back to what was originally intended. Individual US states have more freedom than the Countries in the EU.
Fr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4344 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2500 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 4): The thing that really gets to me is that our government is so subservient to the EU that they will allow the sale of violent/pornographic films to children, due to an error 25 years ago.
I think this is the bigger issue. Has the UK, and other member nations, given up their sovereignty to the EU? Are laws unenforceable within your own borders because the EU hasn't been consulted?
You'll get the EU cheerleaders on here saying no, but the reality is yes. Where there is any conflict between national law and EU law, EU law prevails. What is particularly worrying is that even as far back as 1984 when this law was written, the UK was required to inform the EC of it. Why the hell the UK would agree to such a thing is a mystery. However, it goes back much further, to the original arguements before Britain joined the EEC in 1973, and the fact that when Britain held a referendum on EEC membership it was supposed to be all about free trade. Britian voted to join a trading bloc, end of. However, government papers released under the 30 year rule recently made it very evident that the true nature of where the EEC/EC/EU was headed was kept hidden from the British people by the Heath government. Seemingly the Germans and everybody else were clearly aware from the start, but the not the general populace in the UK.
To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3045 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2445 times:
Going by the usual performances of our Prime Minister, we may get a reaction from him in about three months, when the problem has been solved. Surely there has never been a leading politician so reticent to publicly give their views on important matters of the day.
he can find time to instantly send letters of congratulation to sports stars and minor tv celebrities, but release a terrorist and it takes him a week to say anything.
IH8BY From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1119 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 9): he can find time to instantly send letters of congratulation to sports stars and minor tv celebrities, but release a terrorist and it takes him a week to say anything.
Possibly something to do with the facts that:
a. he can tell a secretary to send off the standard letter to a celebrity in about two seconds and try feebly to pretend he's in touch with popular culture (I'd rather he didn't bother); and,
b. a letter of congratulation, unlike the PA103 situation, is hardly likely to put him in the middle of a diplomatic row (that ostensibly has little to do with him - if there's more to it than that then the silence from Downing Street is not entirely surprising!) which requires a rather larger period in which to summon a response.
Have you ever felt like you could float into the sky / like the laws of physics simply don't apply?
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1847 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2375 times:
Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 7): Has the UK, and other member nations, given up their sovereignty to the EU? Are laws unenforceable within your own borders because the EU hasn't been consulted?
It's pretty simple really. The EU is a single market. That means, in principle there should be no market barriers. The simple rule is: what may be sold in one country may also be sold in another. Of course, countries can restrict the market in some ways, for instance to protect children or for general health. They may not, however, target these restrictions towards foreign products, in order to protect domestic producers. Classic example: Denmark may put high taxes on wine, claiming to protect people from alcoholism, but not on beer. Clearly they want to protect their home breweries from competition from abroad, since in Denmark, very little wine is produced. This will likely be against single-market law.
The EU institutions have the obligation to check on the functioning of the internal market. Thus obviously, they need to be informed of any law affecting market access - the Video Recordings Act falls under which.
Of course, the easier solution would be to pass all-EU legislation banning the sales of pornography to children. No further action required. But guess what - then people pipe up claiming that "sovereignty is infringed" and suchlike..
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7881 posts, 
From Serbia, joined May 2009, 563 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 25113 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3045 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1847 posts, 
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11951 posts, 
From Finland, joined Dec 2004, 3962 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
