Anti-arms factory film banned in Brighton

[justuname]

A f

about a longstanding campaign against the EDO arms factory in Brighton that was due to be shown tonight was banned at the last minute by the police. A local pub agreed to show it.

This follows the recent confiscation of cameras from journalists at anti-EDO protesters for filming policing of protests.

Not sure what I expect from urban75 - indignant outrage and calls for action or cynical reminders that this is how things are now.

Hopefully something anyway...

x

 

[justuname]

http://www.picturehouses.co.uk/cinema_home_date.aspx?eventId=x8ajbl@doyb

 

[Dan U]

i read about this on another forum
shocking

is it subject to libel actions?

am gonna go and see it in London i think.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

Someone I once dated came up with this concept.

http://www.tennerfilms.com/tenner/yellow_monster.html

 

[Fullyplumped]

A f

about a longstanding campaign against the EDO arms factory in Brighton that was due to be shown tonight was banned at the last minute by the police...

Not sure what I expect from urban75 - indignant outrage and calls for action or cynical reminders that this is how things are now.

When you say banned - do you mean that someone obtained an injunction? Or that the proprietor agreed to stop the showing at the request of the chief constable? Or that the local authority withdrew consent for public exhibition? Or that some officers entered the cinema and physically removed the film? Or what?

Details, please.



Edted to add - The Indynews website reports that it was a certification issue instigated by the local authority after a police complaint. An amateurish error on the part either of the promoter or the cinema.

Also the film is advertised on the cinema website as 15 certificate - has somebody been making a misrepresentation to either the cinema or the Council or indeed the general public? If so, that might amount to a criminal offence.

 

[laptop]

The Indynews website reports that it was a certification issue instigated by the local authority after a police complaint. An amateurish error on the part either of the promoter or the cinema.

What it actually says:

According to the Duke of York's cinema they received an e-mail at 4.15 p.m today (Mon March 17th) from Martin New, a council environmental health officer. He explained that the police had reported that the film had not been certificated and therefore should not be shown
​

The police explained wrongly. BBFC certificates are merely advisory to local authorities and there are well-reported instances of local authorities deciding to forbid showings despite a certificate, or to allow showing to people younger than the certificate indicates (Spiderman).

Statutory powers on film remain with the local councils, which may overrule any of the Board's decisions, passing films we reject, banning films we have passed, and even waiving cuts, instituting new ones, or altering categories for films exhibited under their own licensing jurisdiction.

http://www.bbfc.org.uk/about/index.php

There is of course a history of police attempting to shut down EDO protest.

Also the film is advertised on the cinema website as 15 certificate - has somebody been making a misrepresentation to either the cinema or the Council or indeed the general public? If so, that might amount to a criminal offence.

You're just taking the piss, aren't you?

 

[Fullyplumped]

You're just taking the piss, aren't you?

Certainly not.

 

[likesfish]

if your advertising a film which you know is going to annoy the local police claiming its got a 15 certificate when it hasn't not a bright move

 

[justuname]

Apparently the film's been banned in Southampton now...

The Art House, a small community run cafe & gallery in Southampton, had
arranged a screening of 'On the Verge' - a documentary film about
protests outside an arms factory in Brighton for tomorrow (Thursday 20th).

This morning, the local licencing officer, John Burke of Southampton
City Council arrived at the cafe, with Sergeant Stewart Chandler,
Licencing Chief for the city..... saying that the Art House were not
allowed to show the film as it had not been certificated.

As a small venue who had only invited people known to them, Art House
staff were not aware that they needed a license or certification to show
this film to about 12 people, free of charge! The governments own White
Paper states that licensing laws were never meant to cover smaller
venues, and this law is currently under review.

The Art House later received a call from Sergeant Stewart Chandler.
He wanted assurance that the Smash EDO campaign group will not be
turning up at The Art House tomorrow - apparently he is very concerned
about "potential disorder in and around the premises" although when
asked to clarify what he meant, he got rather vague, asking if the Art
House was aware of the group's reputation as "left wing anarchists".

Art House staff were given the very clear impression that not only were
they not allowed to show the film, but if the members of smash EDO were
to arrive, it would be a problem.

It was abundantly clear from the conversation that the lack of
certification for the film, and indeed the lack of entertainment
licence, was not the issue. The smash EDO campaign report that this
scene has been repeated at other venues where the film was due to be shown.

It seems that what the British Film Board refer to as a 'grey area' of
certification is being used to prevent the showing of a film which
challenges arms manufacturers and police behaviour at protests. Nice!

The Art House have contacted their MP and local councillors calling for
a full investigation into what is quite clearly censorship by bureaucracy.

 

[scott_forester]

Is it on the Internet? Sounds worth watching.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Is it on the Internet? Sounds worth watching.

I doubt it. The whole theme of their marketing campaign is that it's "that banned film".

 

[justuname]

This was their marketing plan till they started getting banned.

 

[Dhimmi]

Isn't this a documentary? If so it's exempt from classification.

 

[ska invita]

The whole theme of their marketing campaign is that it's "that banned film".

not true - the marketing campaing was just a tour to see the film followed by a Q&A. Its only now (a couple of days ago) its got banned that theyre saying - the film they tried to ban.


Dhimmi, are you sure documentaries are unclassifiable? Im pretty sure
some Nick Broomfield ones were 18 - I think the S&M one was 18.

You would have thought after McLibel the powers that be would know that the best tactic is to let it lie. Oh well, their loss.

 

[Dhimmi]

Dhimmi, are you sure documentaries are unclassifiable? Im pretty sure
some Nick Broomfield ones were 18 - I think the S&M one was 18.

Well most docos fall into the "no need for certification" category and carry the "E" for exemption. Admittedly the ones I have which carry this are spoddy ones typically history, or music.

Certain doco's would need classification;
from: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/policy/index.php
iii. The BBFC classifies videos, DVDs and some digital works under the Video Recordings Act 1984. (The digital works covered by the VRA are those whose exemption is forfeited under section 2(2) because they depict human sexual activity, gross violence or other matters of concern.)

That section of the VRA 1984, the game exemption has since been changed, but the others stand AFAIK;
Exempted works
2.--(1) Subject to subsection (2) [94+ or (3) +94] below, a video work is for the purposes of this Act an exempted work if, taken as a whole--
(a) it is designed to inform, educate or instruct;
(b) it is concerned with sport, religion or music; or
(c) it is a video game.
(2) A video work is not an exempted work for those purposes if, to any significant extent, it depicts--
(a) human sexual activity of acts of force or restraint associated with such activity;
(b) mutilation or torture of, or other acts of gross violence towards, humans or animals;
(c) human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions;
(d) techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences;

I'm not sure how this one might fall under the last bit unless it shows criminal activity, encourages it, or shows activity currently going through the courts.

There have been some problems with independent short film competitions of a similar nature though, the films are made to be shown to small typically arthouse audiences, but without a cert they verge on the illegal when it comes to public performance. But there's usually nothing contentious involved, nor do they irritate sizeable corporations, so a blind eye is usually turned.

From the trailer it does look like a film worth watching, having such a heartfelt point and decent production values. Maybe the makers should consider other ways of getting it spread around.

 

[scott_forester]

Is this the factory where a Judge found the Police and the company had been colluding to slap injunctions and all and sundry?

 

[winjer]

Yes, the same one.

 

[scott_forester]

Yes, the same one.

Saw that in the 'taking liberties' documentary, gave me minutes of fun when that guy served a copper who proceeded to chase him down the road.

 

[justuname]

The Guardian has a feature about this today. Apparently tiny venues are being lent on by police across the country to stop this film.

 

[nosos]

Apparantly they've not had problems at universities so far. We're trying to arrange their coming here to show the film next month.

 

[winjer]

There's a screening at the Foundry tomorrow from 6:30pm

It's at 86 Great Eastern Street London EC2A 3JL
Old Street tube (exit3)

 

[bluestreak]

I wonder where else we could get it shown...

 

[Dan U]

There's a screening at the Foundry tomorrow from 6:30pm

It's at 86 Great Eastern Street London EC2A 3JL
Old Street tube (exit3)

am going

 

[nosos]

;I wonder where else we could get it shown...

I think it's at a point now where shit loads of trendy alternative arty venues are going to be up for showing this. As well as the film, they're also touring with it to talk about their experiences making it, the harassment etc. Definitely worth people trying to get this done as widely as possible, although from the sounds of it they're getting inundanted with invitations to show the film and speak.

 

[Fullyplumped]

The whole theme of their marketing campaign is that it's "that banned film".

And it's all going very well!

 

[nosos]

Your point is?

 

[TAE]

The whole theme of their marketing campaign is that it's "that banned film".

Well it should be, shouldn't it?

I mean if the arm of the state tries to ban a film, why should it NOT be described as "that banned film"?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well it should be, shouldn't it? I mean if the arm of the state tries to ban a film, why should it NOT be described as "that banned film"?

I don't disagree!

I am merely saying that the hoo-ha about "banning" the film has served to create a media buzz that would never have existed otherwise.

I originally concluded that the original turn of events that persuaded the cinema in Brighton to withdraw the first showing was due to naivete and incompetence, but I admit that I may have underestimated the people running it. They were either planning this the whole time, or, more likely, somebody had the wit to turn a problem into a huge opportunity. That person has a promising career in PR waiting for him or her in the coming years.

Me, cynical? Never!

But you are all free to believe in a wicked conspiracy between the nation's police and environmental health officers to thwart a £500 video being shown to small groups of people in university common rooms if you like.

 

[Dan U]

I went to see this last night, i thoroughly recommend people view it.

Particularly cynic's like Fullyplumped. It was just one tactic in a long line of tactics used by EDO and Sussex Police.

So far screenings in Bath, Southampton, Oxford and Chichester have been visited and leaned on to not show the film. Last nights screening was the first one not to have a police presecence at.

Coincidence? i think not.

The police have handed a spectacular bit of PR to a film which would have been viewed lots less if they hadn't been so heavy handed. GO SUSSEX POLICE.

 

[Biddlybee]

Is there another London showing?