You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘censorship’ category.

As part of the ongoing One & Other plinth project in Trafalgar Square, Justin Holwell, a random member of the public, stood up on the now famous fourth plinth today and undressed himself.

Standing nearby was self-styled saviour of the children, Mark Williams-Thomas, a so-called  “media police advisor and experts (sic) in crime” who, accompanied by his wife and children, decided that the naked human form, that form which his own children were born in, is offensive and disgusting.

Claiming that he and his family were “annoyed and upset” by the spectacle of a naked man just standing there, he ratted on Holwell to nearby policemen, claiming (perhaps for the first time in police history) that “common law” had been broken. Common law is, of course, the fist damn thing thrown out of the window when squatters are evicted by the likes of Mr Williams-Thomas.

What, exactly, is so offensive about a human being, Mark? It´s not like Holwell was furiously masturbating himself to a protesting public, while they covered their eyes like dazzled onlookers to a surprise solar eclipse.

You´re worries about the kids? Why? Not only did they begin life naked (I am suddenly reminded of Brass Eye´s sketch where children are made to be born clothed because of obscenity laws), they probably spend a great deal of their time like normal kids do, naked running around having a laugh.

Or do you tell them to cover up?  “SHAME BE THAT! Hide your dirty body. It´s something to fear!” Funny, I didn´t see you railing against the naked deformed pregnant sculpture on the 4th plinth a few years ago.

Oh don´t worry. It´s only a disabled woman, they´re not real people

"Oh don´t worry. It´s only a disabled woman, they´re not real people"

Mr Williams-Thomas is, unfortunately for himself and his utterly Victorian cause, eminently googleable, having appeared in numerous dubious and undermining shows, such as “Child Protection Gone Mad” – in which (no I´m not making this up) two child actors are put in a shopping centre and told to act distressed, to see if anyone reacts. The resulting inaction by random shoppers is wonderfully blamed square on the public, presumably by a Mr Thomas-Williams bawling the word “SHAME” yet again.

In fact, looking down his list of TV credentials is very much like reading the plot of CSI Miami if it were all about children.He´s even on Twitter, blabbing about the Garrido case (although he misspells his name as “Gurido”, well done that man. Trust him, he´s an ADVISOR.”)

Given that he hammers on about child rape and abduction all the time, and in every possible medium, it´s perhaps no surprise that he reacted in such a prudish, overwrought and tell-tale way, calling up The Met and wasting precious time that should be spent on solving real crimes with actual victims. Nice one Mark, way to waste the resources of which you claim to be a part.

And if your kids, aged between 8 and 13, are embarrassed by nudity, well, whose fault is that? Not all yours I suspect, given that you are suffering from the same delusion as they are. Your brain´s been warped. Probably by GURIDO!

There is nothing dirty about the human form. It´s how we are. Or do you shower fully clothed?

Whilst crying at the thought of nudity?

There is something horribly dirty, however, about your reaction and instinctive call on police powers to suppress a man simply shedding his clothes.

For a man who has built a questionable but profitable career on the prurient curiosity imbued by child-based tragedy, you appear to be woefully inadequate in judging the morals you claim to defend.


logowas a dream come true for the world at large. A site in gorgeous flash encoding, that served up Heroes, Prison Break, The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, American Heroes, Prison Dad, and Family Break, as well as thousands of old films (and even the entire Doogie Howser back-catalogue if you’re that way inclined) for one and all to watch in streaming HD. No clogged up harddrives or waiting times. Touch my face and call me Susan, it’s an internet miracle.

And the only restriction, it seemed, was the week or so delay between Terrestrial broadcast and netcast required to make the licensing between the Big Media companies who owned the shows and Hulu, their own joint venture, hold up in the stiff breeze of desperately needed TV Ad revenue streams (come on, a mixed weather metaphor is pretty sweet.)

Hulu is configured to recognise your IP address and boot you out of the site with not so much as a flicker of Jack Bauer’s tradesmile to send you on your way back to your own shitty, unilluminated life if you’re not in the US (read either “Not from round here, boy” or even “Unamerican”.)

WHAT? Watching 24 outside the US? That's Terrorism sir...

WHAT? Watching 24 outside the US? That's Terrorism sir...

But gladly a nice free unobtrusive IP Anonymizer application called Hotspotshield allowed you to dodge that Entertainment Bullet by making your connection seem like it was in the US via a huge free VPN circuit you can simply tag into. And the cost? Nothing, HSS automatically sends banner ads your way, so you can buy a mail-order bride whilst Wahey for free US TV again!

Well you can go fuck yourself if you think THAT wasn’t going to change. Hulu caught wise to this little trick (presumably after some complete Sweaty Park Cock ratted on the rest of teh interwebz and told a technician at Hulu, or maybe they worked it out for themselves – less exciting, that one,) and has blocked HSS IP addresses, so now all of the world that isn’t Manifest Destiny has to get its fun from this sexy little image:

Yeah baby, I could look at this for hours

Yeah baby, I could look at this for hours

Already the tech bloggers are squawking angrily about “Hulu’s decision to geoblock its content” – which is half-fair, because really it’s Fox, NBC etc who are making that rule up, and Hulu has to take the flak for being contractually obliged to enforce it and thereby NOT going to prison for eight billion years and pay infinity plus $8 in fines. And read Chaucer (a less well-known but equally gruesome pubnishment for piracy these days. Look it up. DO IT.)

Of course the internet is a big angry Hydra; cut off one path and eight new ones appear in its place. Not only is the staff of HSS running around, seven dusty servers in each arm, looking for an abandoned warehouse to plug their gadgets into (and probably ironically looking for an anonymiser program of their own), but there’s already talk of other anonymising programs that might still do the trick. You won’t find the list here because reading about it online is probably one of the reasons why the bastards found out and aren’t rotting in jail. TRAITORS.

So it’s back to torrents and other even more illegal behaviours for most of the world who simply can’t be bothered to wait the 84 inexplicable months between release dates in the US and everywhere else.

Still, we DO have the BBC iPlayer in the UK, so I’m alright Jack. Which is on tonight…

There’s a circular discussion going on talk pages of Wikipedia at the moment. It goes something like this (represented in BASIC computer code for a laugh:)

10 “By publishing the hand drawn images of our Prophet on Wikipedia, you are humiliating 1.7 Billion Muslims in the world.” – Idiot on Wikipedia

20 “No, by complaining about an Islamic illuminated text offending you, YOU are humiliating the world’s Muslims. Except most of them have better things to do than read the talk pages of Wikipedia, you child.” – Everyone else.


Apparently, according to the braying ‘representatives’ of the Muslim community, once again the whole world has to censor images of real human being Muhammad. And it is argued that Wikipedia’s article, which contains images of Muhammad that stem from Islamic texts is transgressing the borders of decent Islam. Needless to say this is utter cack, and the repression of images of Muhammad stems mostly from the 20th Century.

And if you take offense to those Images of Muhammad on Wikipedia, maybe you should ask yourself why you’re a Muslim. After all, those are beautiful Islamic illuminated manuscripts you’re complaining about.

I have heard of people who take offense to images of Muhammad, and don’t want their texts displayed, andwant to censor the islamic religion – they’re callled fascists. And I never thought it would be people calling themselves Muslims who would be helping to stamp out accurate Islamic historical representationon the pages of an Encyclopedia.

If anything, The Q’uran, as well as the Bible and the Torah could do with some damn pictures.

Hope someone comes to protest the following images of Muhammad (courtesy of Google Images, Infidel Zionist creation)

Muhammad muhammad-sp.jpgMuhammad - AGAIN!

CensoredMuhammad Bestrides The GlobeMuhammad

View My Portfolio

Make Money on Fotolia – Sell your photos


My links are better than yours

View My Portfolio