Friday, August 15, 2008

The Dark Knight should attack Keith Vaz for his stupidity

I've only just picked up on this but it deserves comment as it shows the sheer stupidity of Keith Vaz and other docile parents.

Parents who have lodged a record number complaints about violence in The Dark Knight, the latest Batman film, have been supported by several MPs.
...

The complaints have centred on the film's 12A certificate, which means children younger than 12 can see the film if accompanied by an adult.
I haven't seen it but I have seen a couple of trailers and it does look pretty scary, which is why I probably won't go. But I don't know why they are complaining to their MP's, given that its a 12A. And lets face it, there's been so much publicity nobody should be surprised that Heath Ledger plays a very scary joker. I would have certainly thought twice about taking my son when he was under 12.
Their concerns have chimed with MPs from both main parties. Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of the Conservative party, criticised the film after seeing it with his 15-year-old daughter.

Describing it as "relentlessly violent" in a letter to a newspaper, he wrote: "I was astonished that the board could have seen fit to allow anyone under the age of 15 to watch the film.

OK, that's his opinion and he is entitled to it, but if he wants to be the official film censor he should apply for the job. Surely he had some idea about the file before he went?

But this one takes the biscuit
Meanwhile Keith Vaz, a Labour MP and Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said he was so shocked by the film's content that he now plans to haul the BBFC before his committee's hearings on knife crime later this year.

"The BBFC should realise there are scenes of gratuitous violence in The Dark Knight to which I would certainly not take my 11-year-old daughter. It should be a 15 classification," said Mr Vaz.

It's rated 12A for a reason, you twats. That fucking big 12A at the start of the film and on the posters is saying - this is a scary film and you need to take your responsibility as parents seriously and consider whether this film is suiable for YOUR child. It's saying - some children under 12 will be OK with it and we don't want to censor reponsible parents who think their children will enjoy it.

Furthermore, that doesn't mean every over 12 will be OK with it, as a parent your 14 year old is your responsibility and if you don't thinks its suitable, don't let them go. They may not like it but thats what you signed up for when you became a parent, twats.

But did you spot the sleight of mouth from Vaz? The facile way he uses the current story of knife crime to justify his own authoritarianism?
he now plans to haul the BBFC before his committee's hearings on knife crime later this year.
and
I was astonished that the board could have seen fit to allow anyone under the age of 15 to watch the film.
Is he saying that over 15's don't commit knife crime or is he just spoutng off his gob without thinking? No, don't bother to answer that!

I know its wishing my life away but the sooner the GE comes and the likes of Vaz get a good kicking the better.

2 comments:

Umbongo said...

As Vaz should know the BBFC is a non-statutory body. Neither Parliament nor government has any jurisdiction over the BBFC.

The BBFC states on its website that "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."

So if Vaz wants to criticise anyone, it should be local councils. If he tries to get the BBFC in front of his useless committee I just hope the BBFC gives Vaz - and his useless (but expensive) colleagues - the finger.

The Great Simpleton said...

Good point and that has happened in the past.